[Archived] Election

[LeChuck]

Your use of the word "socialist" in this context is rather strange, given that major economies that are "centre-right" or even further to the "right" are using this tactic in an attempt to sort out their respective problems.

Unless I have misunderstood Bucky's post (wouldn't be the first time), wasn't that his point? i.e. that Jim is championing a tactic of the right? I think his use of "socialist" is smothered in irony.

[jim mk2]

Printing money to stimulate growth is an economic tool not a political philosophy. More reports today of weakness in the economy with declining bank lending to business and house purchases. Osborne will have his fingers and toes crossed that his forthcoming cuts do not plunge the economy into another recession.

[BuckyRover]

Unless I have misunderstood Bucky's post (wouldn't be the first time), wasn't that his point? i.e. that Jim is championing a tactic of the right? I think his use of "socialist" is smothered in irony.

Much obliged.

I should have said "socialist", to indicate irony.

[RovertheHill]

And I said that one of the world's biggest economies (actually two) are doing exactly what jim said. So it's actually more than "one bloke". I think I'll take the side of the Treasury in Japan and the US.

As anyone would know, QE is generally one of the situations you use when you can't use interest rates to help you out.

And Canada followed a draconian policy of cutting their deficit in the 90's and it was successful. QE has its place but, and it's a big but, it doesn't make the debt go away. It's a measure for stimulating economies by increasing liquidity. The debt remains and must still be paid off. And at present we spend more than we earn. So what do you do?

[jim mk2]

And Canada followed a draconian policy of cutting their deficit in the 90's and it was successful. QE has its place but, and it's a big but, it doesn't make the debt go away. It's a measure for stimulating economies by increasing liquidity. The debt remains and must still be paid off. And at present we spend more than we earn. So what do you do?

Canada was successful as it admits only because the world economy was buoyant at that time.

IMF has now backtracked and admitted that cuts will hit growth.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fdc3948e-cca9-11df-a1eb-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=rss

[RovertheHill]

We've had many, many years of excellent growth and still ended up with a record deficit so this idea that stimulating the economy is the answer just doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day we cannot continue spending more than we earn. It's unsustainable. Either we spend less (cuts) or we earn more (taxes) or both. I'm surprised at people who think we can carry on this way especially as the interest payments alone could fund god-knows how many new schools/hospitals/roads

[jim mk2]

We've had many, many years of excellent growth and still ended up with a record deficit so this idea that stimulating the economy is the answer just doesn't add up to me. At the end of the day we cannot continue spending more than we earn. It's unsustainable. Either we spend less (cuts) or we earn more (taxes) or both. I'm surprised at people who think we can carry on this way especially as the interest payments alone could fund god-knows how many new schools/hospitals/roads

The record deficit was caused by a collapse in tax receipts as a result of the worldwide recession and the cost of bailing out the banks. The years of growth under Labour and the deficit are not connected. All parties acknowledge the need for cuts but the big debate is the scale of the cuts and the speed with which they are being implemented. Labour say the cuts are too draconian and will damage the economy and send it back into recession - a point of view backed up by apparent recent weakness in most sectorsof the economy. Hence the turnabout by the IMF and the call by many for QE2.

If you get the chance read Martin Wolf in today's FT.

.

[RovertheHill]

Well I'm not sure how true that is Jim. Prior to the banking crisis the UK deficit was still one of the highest in Europe and certainly higher than the OECD average, and growing. Whilst growth was good we were still spending more than we earn. And I don't think we can disassociate Labour from the bank problems and general debt problems the country faces because of the policies Gordon Brown pursued

[Paul]

Close the libraries and then put a university education out of reach for the poor ,should go a long way to solving the problems created by the lower classes...........just a couple of generations and they'll have forgotten how to think for themselves and can go back to voting for the party best suited to the mill owner.

At least it's only a recommendation.

[Yorick]

Close the libraries and then put a university education out of reach for the poor ,should go a long way to solving the problems created by the lower classes...........just a couple of generations and they'll have forgotten how to think for themselves and can go back to voting for the party best suited to the mill owner.

At least it's only a recommendation.

Good post. Whats a mill though?

The way forward is to cut students by cutting pointless university courses and a few universities into the bargain. Apart from the professions and more academic degrees how many students use their degree in adult life? Going to Uni is too often a lifestyle issue and a huge waste of money and resources.

[MarkBRFC71]

Good post. Whats a mill though?

The way forward is to cut students by cutting pointless university courses and a few universities into the bargain. Apart from the professions and more academic degrees how many students use their degree in adult life? Going to Uni is too often a lifestyle issue and a huge waste of money and resources.

Far too many people have degrees these days - blame the PC-brigade who think that young adults will see themselves as failures if not every one of them has a degree, and successive governments that have gradually made GCSE's, A-levels and degrees easier to attain. Of course that also has the welcome side-effect of making their education policies look like a booming success when grades and pass rates increase every year.

Due to my company having a graduate scheme, I see quite a few in a year as they move round the business, and the slip in standards in the last 20 years has been huge to be honest. When I was at school/college a degree was seen as a real achievement, and a way by prospective employers to identify the top percentile of students. Now everyone has one it seems. My wife recently advertised for an admin assistant, on a lowish wage (£10k) aiming at someone fresh from their A-levels, with preferably a little office experience. She got over 150 responses, of which probably just under half had degrees, and not in relevant subjects - we're talking stuff like genetics, psychology, mathematics, chemistry, geology. Of course the majority were discarded for the role as they are over-qualified. The shame is young adults are hoodwinked into believing if they get a degree then the world's their oyster, when in reality there are way, way too many graduates and nowhere near enough roles for them.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Far too many people have degrees these days - blame the PC-brigade who think that young adults will see themselves as failures if not every one of them has a degree, and successive governments that have gradually made GCSE's, A-levels and degrees easier to attain. Of course that also has the welcome side-effect of making their education policies look like a booming success when grades and pass rates increase every year.

Due to my company having a graduate scheme, I see quite a few in a year as they move round the business, and the slip in standards in the last 20 years has been huge to be honest. When I was at school/college a degree was seen as a real achievement, and a way by prospective employers to identify the top percentile of students. Now everyone has one it seems. My wife recently advertised for an admin assistant, on a lowish wage (£10k) aiming at someone fresh from their A-levels, with preferably a little office experience. She got over 150 responses, of which probably just under half had degrees, and not in relevant subjects - we're talking stuff like genetics, psychology, mathematics, chemistry, geology. Of course the majority were discarded for the role as they are over-qualified. The shame is young adults are hoodwinked into believing if they get a degree then the world's their oyster, when in reality there are way, way too many graduates and nowhere near enough roles for them.

When the Cameron's and Clegg's of this world stop moving heaven and earth to get their kids into universities I may agree with you.

[thenodrog]

When the Cameron's and Clegg's of this world stop moving heaven and earth to get their kids into universities I may agree with you.

Done.

http://news.aol.co.uk/main-news/story/high-taxpayers-in-child-benefit-cut/1309240

So can I take it that you are in agreement now Tyrone?

"Mr Osborne told BBC1's Breakfast: "It is very difficult to justify taxing people on much lower incomes in order to pay the child benefit to some of the better-off in our society."

I must say I'm livid about this. I'd cut out child benefit completely. That is the fairest way of all. I am a parent but why on earth should people with no kids subsidise those with them? How fair is that? I'm suprised the homosexuals aren't lobbying for exemption on grounds of discrimination.

This move is simply accelerating the already dire situation we are in in the UK of breeding future generations from the wrong stock.

[BuckyRover]

I did a degree and got a good job out of it.

It's wrong to be so dismissive. What did you do yours in Mark?

Seen that the evil Tories are hammering those earning above £44k with the removal of child benefit. I'm awaiting jims explanation as to how this hits the poor hardest.

.

[Mattyblue]

There should be no child benefit apart from certain exceptions.

If someone has a child and cannot support it, a compassionate state should help out, anyone can make a mistake, but those that have several should not have the same privilige, government should not be paying people to have children.

It is a personal choice, if I want a house but can't afford it- it's tough. If I want a family but can't afford it- tough. I wouldn't be expecting govenrment handouts to aid me.

Of course, the jimmk2s who have completely lost sight of what a 'Labour' party should stand for will support this horrendous status quo, that binds people into a life of hopelessness and welfare dependency.

[LeChuck]

Definitely along the right lines, it's ridiculous that we even have child tax credit any more, it was invented to encourage people to breed after the war.

I see Osbourne has still managed to screw it up though.

Firstly, why wait until 2013?

Secondly, why is it based on tax bands and not joint income? Under the proposed system, a family with both parents earning £40k a year will be entitled, whereas a family with a single earner of £45k won't.

It really should have been a more severe cut. Families earning £30+ shouldn't be getting money for having children.

[MarkBRFC71]

I did a degree and got a good job out of it.

It's wrong to be so dismissive. What did you do yours in Mark?

Seen that the evil Tories are hammering those earning above £44k with the removal of child benefit. I'm awaiting jims explanation as to how this hits the poor hardest.

.

Good for you. I'm not saying that universities no longer produce excellent people, it's just harder to pick the wheat from the chaff these days as the onus is on getting everyone a degree rather than it being a tool to identify the most intelligent and highest performing people. Again, I'm not blaming the students - they can only attempt to pass what's in front of them - but the system.

Another good move by the coalition wrt child benefit. Now they need to start undoing the damage Labour did in making it a viable career option to live off benefits rather than working.

[Biddy]

Another good move by the coalition wrt child benefit. Now they need to start undoing the damage Labour did in making it a viable career option to live off benefits rather than working.

Surely thats the problem. The government are now hammering families that are doing their bit and earning. Most probably have houses bought in the last few years in the boom and can't afford to lose the extra income. Of course, as pointed out those on split incomes of £43K and £43K are laughing.

Ridiculous when they haven't even sorted out the breed for income issues we seem to have in this country with some.

[BuckyRover]

Definitely along the right lines, it's ridiculous that we even have child tax credit any more, it was invented to encourage people to breed after the war.

I see Osbourne has still managed to screw it up though.

Firstly, why wait until 2013?

Secondly, why is it based on tax bands and not joint income? Under the proposed system, a family with both parents earning £40k a year will be entitled, whereas a family with a single earner of £45k won't.

It really should have been a more severe cut. Families earning £30+ shouldn't be getting money for having children.

I would hazard a guess it's because the system is not fit for purpose. The extra implementation cost must make the saving less.

Good for you. I'm not saying that universities no longer produce excellent people, it's just harder to pick the wheat from the chaff these days as the onus is on getting everyone a degree rather than it being a tool to identify the most intelligent and highest performing people. Again, I'm not blaming the students - they can only attempt to pass what's in front of them - but the system.

Another good move by the coalition wrt child benefit. Now they need to start undoing the damage Labour did in making it a viable career option to live off benefits rather than working.

At the moment it's about 4/10 school leavers. The 50% target has been scrapped iirc.

[jim mk2]

I find it repulsive that Tories are debating cutting benefits for the poorest and the weakest when their friends in the City, the rich and greedy who caused this economic crisis and black hole in the public finaces, continue to reward themselves with grotesque bonuses.

New figures published today by the Centre for Economics and Business Research (CEBR) revealed pre-tax City bonuses are continuing to recover to pre-credit crunch levels, with almost £ 7 billion - similar to last year - finding its way into their pockets, although thankfully the taxman will take home more of this year's bonus pot after the new tax rate of 50% on incomes over £150,000 quite rightly introduced by the Labour government comes into force.

City workers - staff in investment banking, equities and bonds, derivatives, corporate finance and fund management - will take home around £3.2 billion after paying national insurance and income tax, CEBR said. And looking further ahead, it has forecast total cash bonuses close to the £10 billion mark, as the financial sector recovers and the number of City workers increases.

Perhaps ConDem ministers will explain to the Tory conference how they are going to claw back these bonuses with further tax increases and rein in the excesses of the City instead of gleefully detailing their latest plan to hit the poor. But with the Nasty Party in power I'm not holding my breath.

[BuckyRover]

You are amazing.

The Tories have limited family benefit to £26k per annum (tax free) and you say they are taking money from the poor.

At the moment you can earn more than the average wage by being unemployed.

Embarrassing. Didn't ever get around to reforming Welfare did they? (I think it was in the 97 manifesto, like AV)

[Mattyblue]

You are amazing.

The Tories have limited family benefit to £26k per annum (tax free) and you say they are taking money from the poor.

At the moment you can earn more than the average wage by being unemployed.

Embarrassing. Didn't ever get around to reforming Welfare did they? (I think it was in the 97 manifesto, like AV)

He really is your typical Labour supporting hack.

So, why did Labour do NOTHING to reform the City and the bankers in 13 years?

Do NOTHING to reform welfare

Why did they run up a horrendous budget deficit and an overall national debt pushing a trillion pounds? yes that is a TRILLION POUNDS.

Face it jim, Labour have crippled this nation and should never ever be allowed near the levers of power again.

[den]

Why did they run up a horrendous budget deficit and an overall national debt pushing a trillion pounds? yes that is a TRILLION POUNDS.

Do you honestly not know Matty?

[jim mk2]

Face it jim, Labour have crippled this nation and should never ever be allowed near the levers of power again.

Wrong. As I stated previously the budget deficit was caused by the collapse in tax receipts as a result of the worldwide recession (itself caused by poor global banking practices). Simple basic economics.

[Mattyblue]

Simple as that ay jim? Worldwide recession and the bankers.

Nothing to do with the government of 13 years (the one that had conquered the perils of boom and bust remember). Nothing to do with Brown completely abandoning his economic rules to fund unaffordable public spending projects.