Support NeoGAF

[zomgbbqftw]

Andrew Lansley faces questions after leaked emails reveal at least 25 senior staff have salaries paid to companies

I wish it would get him fired, but sadly it won't. These kinds of deals are commonplace to circumvent the limit placed on civil service earnings above the Prime Minsters £175k. There was one case in BIS as well, and a few in Energy.

 

[Wes]

It's just.... urgh. I can't think of story from this government that has left me feeling any kind of positivity about it for a while.

 

[milanbaros]

Absolute bollocks. We have moved to a more moderate programme of cuts already and the fiscal stimulus did get larger, what happened? We got put on negative watch.

What is your reasoning behind thinking this? Right now the number of people employed in the public sector is 5.99m, how do you think it would help if that figure was slightly higher. What fiscal stimulus would you go for, Obama 1 or Obama 2, the first was basically building roads to nowhere and bridges across rivers no one crossed and the second was basically a massive tax cut for big business. The first didn't work, the second may yet work, though we need to see what happens when the stimulus is turned off and if the employment gains are sustained without the helpful tax environment.

Seriously, Britain has very little room to manoeuvre, the deficit was so very, very high and the government finances in such bad shape that investor confidence was wavering. In 2009/10 we paid an average interest rate of 3.8% for 10y Gilts, in 2011/12 the average has been about 2.4% all because we have some kind of plan. The other terrible mess left behind by the previous government was the move from production to consumption, in their 13 years of government we moved from having a mostly balanced economy where we produced and exported almost as much as we consumed and imported, by the end of their 13 years we had a huge current account deficit and a massively negative balance of trade.

That kind of structural failing doesn't get fixed overnight, it takes years of the right kind of tax incentives and years of patience to fix that kind of damage. If the current lot continue to make the right moves on this we think they can get back to a decent current account surplus by the end of 2017/18, a mere 7 years after they began the programme. That's actually pretty fast as well.

Anyway, you might be a Labour spouting propogandist, I don't know. You certainly have all of their lines parroted pretty well, but I hope you read something other than the Morning Star from now on...

Can you expand on the current account? I've calculated an average of -2.1% of GDP for 1998-2010 and -1.9% for the 13 years up to 1997. That doesn't seem balanced to massively negative. Can you also explain what's so bad about a trade deficit of that magnitude with a free exchange rate or why we should be hoping for a trade surplus? I can see one possible way to get a trade surplus and that's if UK import demand collapses from a recession. What is so healthy about that?

How much do you believe QE has been responsible for the lowering of UK Gilts? The BoE has been hoovering them up for months. Ratings agencies don't seem to be dictating market prices for bonds atm. I completely agree that unless we are prepared to use seigniorage to fund our deficit then we need to cut it fiscally. How certain are you that slower cuts won't have proved to be more successful in cutting the national debt, or cutting it in the welfare optimising way?

Sorry if it sounds confrontational, its not meant to be.

 

[phisheep]

Andrew Lansley faces questions after leaked emails reveal at least 25 senior staff have salaries paid to companies

Oh dear oh dear. Has nobody learned anything from the John Birt scandal in 1992? This is outright appalling, and I imagine it's just the tip of the iceberg too.

Hardly Lansley's fault though.

 

[phisheep]

I wish it would get him fired, but sadly it won't. These kinds of deals are commonplace to circumvent the limit placed on civil service earnings above the Prime Minsters £175k. There was one case in BIS as well, and a few in Energy.

I do wish people (largely the press and politicians I think) would stop banging on about the Prime Minister's salary as a measure of all things. First of all, the Prime Minister doesn't only get £175k - he gets £175k and a rather fancy apartment in central London and significant prestige, influence and access to people who will give him a swanky job afterwards and significant earning potential from speaking/writing/consulting in later life.

Second, it isn't like the PM has the hardest or biggest job around anyway.

 

[Wiseblade]

So I just watched 10 O'clock Live and caught George Galloway embarrassing himself on Channel 4 again, this time over the Falklands. Excuse my ignorance on this situation, but do Argentina have any real claim to the islands?

As far as I can tell, Settlers have been on the islands longer than Argentina has been a country and those guys are still bitter about all the land mines the Argentinian army left in their back garden a few years ago. The proximity argument seems as crazy to me as when people would joke about the USA taking over Canada. Is there something I'm missing?

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Can you expand on the current account? I've calculated an average of -2.1% of GDP for 1998-2010 and -1.9% for the 13 years up to 1997. That doesn't seem balanced to massively negative. Can you also explain what's so bad about a trade deficit of that magnitude with a free exchange rate or why we should be hoping for a trade surplus? I can see one possible way to get a trade surplus and that's if UK import demand collapses from a recession. What is so healthy about that?

Before about 2000 our current account deficit was relatively balanced, we had a small trade deficit in goods and a balanced trade in services. In the financial boom between 2000 and 2008 we ran up a massive structural trade deficit in goods and a massive structural surplus in services, so the figures are still the same, but now we have a massive structural trade deficit in goods. That is not good as we are now importing more machined, high value goods and exporting financial services, I wonder which is better economic foundation, I say this as someone who works in the financial services sector.

How much do you believe QE has been responsible for the lowering of UK Gilts? The BoE has been hoovering them up for months. Ratings agencies don't seem to be dictating market prices for bonds atm. I completely agree that unless we are prepared to use seigniorage to fund our deficit then we need to cut it fiscally. How certain are you that slower cuts won't have proved to be more successful in cutting the national debt, or cutting it in the welfare optimising way?

Sorry if it sounds confrontational, its not meant to be.

The way QE works here is the BoE buys Gilts on the secondary markets and then when the issue of new debt is made those higher prices will feed through in the auction. If the price that the Bank has pushed is too high the debt sale will fail, it nearly happened at the end of last year where interest was low and the prices too high so the bid/cover was around 1.4 compared to around 1.8-2.4 for a normal auction. So yes, I do believe that QE has lowered debt yields, I have never doubted that, but that we continue to sell new debt at the prices set by the Bank means there is still underlying belief that the UK economy is in decent enough shape. If the banks/pension/bond funds weren't interest the Bank would have to sell some of their holdings to lower prices to attract buyers back into auctions, but that hasn't happened yet.

Anyway, looking at the forwards net cash requirement this year the government is going to borrow £170bn worth of newly issued debt (possibly taking advantage of super low yields) meaning that next year and the year after our net cash requirement is below the stated deficit. Labour did the same in 2009 when they issued £199bn worth of new debt so that the UK wouldn't have any chance of a failed debt auction in an election year, it was a good move by Darling because 2010 was a very unstable year.

 

[killer_clank]

So, all this quantitative easing lark gave me an idea.

It's essentially printing money right? So instead of buying up government bonds with it can't they just give everyone in the country some money? Say £1000? People would either spend it, save it or pay back debts?

Seems to me it's win win, it would allow a boost in retail, manufacturing, construction, and for the people that don't spend it on goods it could help reduce any debt burdens they have.

 

[War Peaceman]

So I just watched 10 O'clock Live and caught George Galloway embarrassing himself on Channel 4 again, this time over the Falklands. Excuse my ignorance on this situation, but do Argentina have any real claim to the islands?

As far as I can tell, Settlers have been on the islands longer than Argentina has been a country and those guys are still bitter about all the land mines the Argentinian army left in their back garden a few years ago. The proximity argument seems as crazy to me as when people would joke about the USA taking over Canada. Is there something I'm missing?

Nope they have no claim, it is just patriotism to distract from domestic economic problems.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

So, all this quantitative easing lark gave me an idea.

It's essentially printing money right? So instead of buying up government bonds with it can't they just give everyone in the country some money? Say £1000? People would either spend it, save it or pay back debts?

Seems to me it's win win, it would allow a boost in retail, manufacturing, construction, and for the people that don't spend it on goods it could help reduce any debt burdens they have.

Inflation. Lots of it. That kind of action would destroy people's savings and cause lots of social tension. Take a look at the Weimar Republic. QE is a better way of getting money into the economy without ramping inflation up too high and destroying people's savings.

The way it is done is that the bank creates the new money, buys up bonds on the secondary market which are sold by banks, these banks then recycle the cash either lending out to businesses, buying up Gilts or building up their reserves. The first major round of QE saw banks basically hoard the cash and repair their balance sheets, the second round the money was all recycled back into Gilts, but the third round saw about 20% (£10-15bn) of the money go out to businesses in new lending, that is why inflation spiked so high towards the end of last year. Now imagine if the Bank printed £60,000,000,000 and gave each man, woman and child £1,000. We had CPI inflation hit 5.1% when just £10-15bn of new money was recycled into the economy, imagine how high that would go if suddenly the supply of cash went up by £60bn, inflation would fast hit 20-30% and people would lose up to a third of their savings in one year.

Giving people printed money is a truly terrible idea and we've seen the consequences of that time and time again. The Weimar Republic should be a lesson to anyone who wants to go down that path of printing money to hand out to their client state.

 

[killer_clank]

Inflation. Lots of it. That kind of action would destroy people's savings and cause lots of social tension. Take a look at the Weimar Republic. QE is a better way of getting money into the economy without ramping inflation up too high and destroying people's savings.

The way it is done is that the bank creates the new money, buys up bonds on the secondary market which are sold by banks, these banks then recycle the cash either lending out to businesses, buying up Gilts or building up their reserves. The first major round of QE saw banks basically hoard the cash and repair their balance sheets, the second round the money was all recycled back into Gilts, but the third round saw about 20% (£10-15bn) of the money go out to businesses in new lending, that is why inflation spiked so high towards the end of last year. Now imagine if the Bank printed £60,000,000,000 and gave each man, woman and child £1,000. We had CPI inflation hit 5.1% when just £10-15bn of new money was recycled into the economy, imagine how high that would go if suddenly the supply of cash went up by £60bn, inflation would fast hit 20-30% and people would lose up to a third of their savings in one year.

Giving people printed money is a truly terrible idea and we've seen the consequences of that time and time again. The Weimar Republic should be a lesson to anyone who wants to go down that path of printing money to hand out to their client state.

I had figured the inflationary effects wouldn't be THAT bad.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15198789

This article says that the total amount of QE so far to be £325Bn, so I figured it might have been doable to give everyone that sort of amount. It's a shame it wouldn't work, it would give people some happiness and stimulate the economy.

 

[milanbaros]

Before about 2000 our current account deficit was relatively balanced, we had a small trade deficit in goods and a balanced trade in services. In the financial boom between 2000 and 2008 we ran up a massive structural trade deficit in goods and a massive structural surplus in services, so the figures are still the same, but now we have a massive structural trade deficit in goods. That is not good as we are now importing more machined, high value goods and exporting financial services, I wonder which is better economic foundation, I say this as someone who works in the financial services sector.

The way QE works here is the BoE buys Gilts on the secondary markets and then when the issue of new debt is made those higher prices will feed through in the auction. If the price that the Bank has pushed is too high the debt sale will fail, it nearly happened at the end of last year where interest was low and the prices too high so the bid/cover was around 1.4 compared to around 1.8-2.4 for a normal auction. So yes, I do believe that QE has lowered debt yields, I have never doubted that, but that we continue to sell new debt at the prices set by the Bank means there is still underlying belief that the UK economy is in decent enough shape. If the banks/pension/bond funds weren't interest the Bank would have to sell some of their holdings to lower prices to attract buyers back into auctions, but that hasn't happened yet.

Anyway, looking at the forwards net cash requirement this year the government is going to borrow £170bn worth of newly issued debt (possibly taking advantage of super low yields) meaning that next year and the year after our net cash requirement is below the stated deficit. Labour did the same in 2009 when they issued £199bn worth of new debt so that the UK wouldn't have any chance of a failed debt auction in an election year, it was a good move by Darling because 2010 was a very unstable year.

Thanks for the response but you haven't really answered any of my questions or addressed my points about your original post except agreeing QE has lowered gilt yields.

You seem to have changed from saying we had a balanced current account to one massively in deficit to talking about the deficit in goods and services. Also, we have always had a surplus in services except for 1964/5.

You ask me which do I believe to have a sounder economic foundation. I would argue that it is not so clear. How much did manufacturing contract by compared to financial/legal services in the recession? I also believe the services that the UK specialise in are world income elastic whereas goods are probably world income inelastic except for very low incomes. If the world economy is to grow and expand I think financial services would grow at a faster rate.

Edit: I've been reading a lot of the Economic discussion in this thread and rarely post but I felt that zomgwtfbbq was getting away with writing a lot of stuff that is not entirely credible without being called out on it. Working in financial services does certainly not make you an expert in economics. Just above you say that a £60 billion cash injection would raise inflation to 20-30%. I'm sorry but where do you pull these figures from?

 

[dalin80]

Second, it isn't like the PM has the hardest or biggest job around anyway.

On the downside its a job which gets you blamed for *everything*.

 

[el retorno]

So, all this quantitative easing lark gave me an idea.

It's essentially printing money right? So instead of buying up government bonds with it can't they just give everyone in the country some money? Say £1000? People would either spend it, save it or pay back debts?

Seems to me it's win win, it would allow a boost in retail, manufacturing, construction, and for the people that don't spend it on goods it could help reduce any debt burdens they have.

Bush did that in the states. Didn't do anything.

 

[Walshicus]

We had CPI inflation hit 5.1% when just £10-15bn of new money was recycled into the economy

I thought it was pretty universally accepted that QE had no/minimal impact on inflation which has been driven by oil, VAT and other factors.

I also don't think the Weimar Republic is a suitable analogy for actually giving everyone a one-off cash sum.

 

[twobear]

On the downside its a job which gets you blamed for *everything*.

you mean labour and the eurozone

 

[Casp0r]

Anyone else following this total cluster fuck of a dealing with the binge drinking problem?

David Cameron vows to tackle binge drinking 'scandal'

Can't see it mentioned in the last few pages.

But seriously, what the fuck?

Increase the overall price ...

Drunk tanks ...

Alcohol licence cards ...

How is it possible the government will not explore the simplest, cheapest and most effective option.

You fine the shit out of drunk and disorderly people. If they can afford to get wasted every night they can afford to pay a fine for being drunk and disorderly, if they end up in A&E they get a fine. If they raise a hand to police, nursing, doctors staff, they get prison, fines, records.

Secondly you drop the price of alcohol in bar settings, raise it at retail price and club settings. Forcing people into buying drinks at respectable pubs and bars ... where the owners can regulate the morons that want to binge.

Currently I know of no consequences for someone getting drunk, smashing a few windows, starting a fight, getting a free ambulance to hospital where they get free meds and treatment, if they happen to assault any staff at hospital or in the ambulance ... there are no consequences for that either.

Oh but they get:
Hangover? You mean badge of honour.
Scratches and bruises? You mean a funny story to tell next time they decide to get paralytic.
Wake up in a hospital? Hello UV and painkillers, oh what's that you stiched me up and gave me breakfast ... thanks!
Wake up in a police cell? Whoops that doesn't happen, police get blamed if your pathetic ass drowns in your own vomit.

A £100-500 hole in your pocket ...? Yeah ... maybe I'll skip the next round and call it a night early.
A criminal record? Yeah guess I won't be getting that new job after all, since the recruiters realise I'm an unreliable inconsiderate drunk.

It literally drives me insane how the government is not pushing for these measures ...

Edit: also with the wide spread and ease of video recording, all you need is to fit half the cops with a camera. You take a couple minutes footage of the drunks swearing and attacking the police. Bam. Instant evidence they can use immediately in court, no witness accounts, no long drawn out processes. "that you in the video?" "yes your honour" "£250 fine you fucking scum".

 

[Chinner]

ban alcohol. next.

 

[Meadows]

why the fuck would you want to get them involved in the CJS?

Its a social problem, not a criminal problem, and all getting them in prison is going to do is clog up the courts/prisons and further alienate them.

Drunk tanks seem like a good idea to me, at least until we can do something more concrete in terms of dealing with our binge drinking problem.

 

[Casp0r]

why the fuck would you want to get them involved in the CJS?

Because they're fucking criminals?

What part of assault don't you understand?

What part of public vandalism don't you understand?

What part of public disorder don't you understand?

What part of wasting massive amounts of public funds don't you understand?


All of these crimes are wavered purely because the assailants are drunk. They continue to do it because their crimes get wavered.

Its a social problem, not a criminal problem, and all getting them in prison is going to do is clog up the courts/prisons and further alienate them.

What the fuck?

What the fuck?

It's both, it's a social problem emphasised by the lack of criminality. People do it because they get away with it.

Also what the fuck? You don't want to alienate people that assault nurses and doctors, that attack and hurt police officers, that cost the NHS over a £1 billion a year?

How the fuck do you even propose we address this problem if we can't even address the people involved.

Drunk tanks seem like a good idea to me, at least until we can do something more concrete in terms of dealing with our binge drinking problem.

Oh you mean that method which is already highly critisied by the Police as very dangerous.

Yeah give them drunk tanks, then in a couple months you'll be out bitching about the dumb blonde that choked on her own vomit unnoticed while drunk lads had a slapping fights keeping the guards from getting to her.

The few deaths a year aside, which on the record I'm ok with, they could help alleviate the problem however they're dealing with a symptom. Not the cause.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Casp0r, why is every post you make so... "angry"?

 

[Meadows]

Because they're fucking criminals?

What part of assault don't you understand?

What part of public vandalism don't you understand?

What part of public disorder don't you understand?

What part of wasting massive amounts of public funds don't you understand?


All of these crimes are wavered purely because the assailants are drunk. They continue to do it because their crimes get wavered.



What the fuck?

What the fuck?

It's both, it's a social problem emphasised by the lack of criminality. People do it because they get away with it.

Also what the fuck? You don't want to alienate people that assault nurses and doctors, that attack and hurt police officers, that cost the NHS over a £1 billion a year?

How the fuck do you even propose we address this problem if we can't even address the people involved.



Oh you mean that method which is already highly critisied by the Police as very dangerous.

Yeah give them drunk tanks, then in a couple months you'll be out bitching about the dumb blonde that choked on her own vomit unnoticed while drunk lads had a slapping fights keeping the guards from getting to her.

The few deaths a year aside, which on the record I'm ok with, they could help alleviate the problem however they're dealing with a symptom. Not the cause.

are you drunk?

 

[radioheadrule83]

Because they're fucking criminals?
What part of assault don't you understand?
What part of public vandalism don't you understand?
What part of public disorder don't you understand?
What part of wasting massive amounts of public funds don't you understand?

All of these crimes are wavered purely because the assailants are drunk. They continue to do it because their crimes get wavered.

You make it sound like crime is rampant and everyone drinking is doing it. There are far more people pumping money into our cities and behaving in a responsible way than there are idiots beating each other up and damaging things. They are a minority... a costly nuisance deserving of punishment, yes, but not the endemic problem you are trying to portray.

Oh you mean that method which is already highly critisied by the Police as very dangerous.

Yeah give them drunk tanks, then in a couple months you'll be out bitching about the dumb blonde that choked on her own vomit unnoticed while drunk lads had a slapping fights keeping the guards from getting to her.

The few deaths a year aside, which on the record I'm ok with, they could help alleviate the problem however they're dealing with a symptom. Not the cause.

Have you recently had a bad experience or something? Where the hell is this coming from?

 

[Casp0r]

Casp0r, why is every post you make so... "angry"?

Because. Such a painfully simple solution is available, yet Politicians won't even discuss it.

are you drunk?

Nope.

You make it sound like crime is rampant and everyone drinking is doing it.There are far more people pumping money into our cities and behaving in a responsible way than there are idiots beating each other up and damaging things. They are a minority... a costly nuisance deserving of punishment, yes, but not the endemic problem you are trying to portray.

I'm not saying it's endemic? Where have I stated that?

But when this 'minority' problem costs the NHS alone £2.7bn a year ... not to mention the policing costs, the vandalism and public damage etc. While we're in this economic slump where every tiny penny is being cut.

Of course we're not taking into account the effect drunks have on staff, nurses and doctors. We're not taking into account the long term effects of rampant alcohol abuse. We're not taking into account the fact binge drinking is on the rise. etc etc.

It's a serious problem we can't choose to ignore anymore.

Have you recently had a bad experience or something? Where the hell is this coming from?

My hatred and frustration with modern cotton ball politics where no one does anything in a bid to not upset anyone. I just spent like half an hour reading all about the ridiculous measures being proposed that will just cost money and not dent this growing problem. The only times I see mention of fines, is in the comments sections of news articles.

Plus knowing that if I walk into a hospital, vomit on a nurse, damage a bunch of her equipment and then proceed to punch her in the face. I would be charged with assault and most likely end up in prison.

Yet add copious amounts of alcohol into that equation, an act that is purely my choice, that is not forced upon me in anyway, and I'll walk free, no one will bat an eye.

How is that fair? How is that in society we give a free pass to drunks? I just can't comprehend it.

 

[J Tourettes]

Because. Such a painfully simple solution is available, yet Politicians won't even discuss it.



Nope.



I'm not saying it's endemic? Where have I stated that?

But when this 'minority' problem costs the NHS alone £2.7bn a year ... not to mention the policing costs, the vandalism and public damage etc. While we're in this economic slump where every tiny penny is being cut.

Of course we're not taking into account the effect drunks have on staff, nurses and doctors. We're not taking into account the long term effects of rampant alcohol abuse. We're not taking into account the fact binge drinking is on the rise. etc etc.

It's a serious problem we can't choose to ignore anymore.



My hatred and frustration with modern cotton ball politics where no one does anything in a bid to not upset anyone. I just spent like half an hour reading all about the ridiculous measures being proposed that will just cost money and not dent this growing problem. The only times I see mention of fines, is in the comments sections of news articles.

Plus knowing that if I walk into a hospital, vomit on a nurse, damage a bunch of her equipment and then proceed to punch her in the face. I would be charged with assault and most likely end up in prison.

Yet add copious amounts of alcohol into that equation, an act that is purely my choice, that is not forced upon me in anyway, and I'll walk free, no one will bat an eye.

How is that fair? How is that in society we give a free pass to drunks? I just can't comprehend it.

Those drunks help prop up the NHS with all the duty they pay on booze.

 

[Casp0r]

Those drunks help prop up the NHS with all the duty they pay on booze.

Is drinking really so black and white to our generation?

So you propose that we either have the drunks ... or no drunks at all right?

I'll just re-quote Mr radioheadrule83

There are far more people pumping money into our cities and behaving in a responsible way than there are idiots beating each other up and damaging things.

Do you think they're all just going to go teetotal if theres a fine for punching people in the face while intoxicated? No.

It'll just push those 'radicals' to watch their mouth when they leave the club. It'll push those radicals to maybe think about not downing that last set of shots. It'll push those radicals to watch their manners when they're walking home.

 

[radioheadrule83]

Well I can understand where you're coming from... sort of... but still..

You fine the shit out of drunk and disorderly people. If they can afford to get wasted every night they can afford to pay a fine for being drunk and disorderly, if they end up in A&E they get a fine. If they raise a hand to police, nursing, doctors staff, they get prison, fines, records.

Drunk people can end up in A&E through no fault of their own. Obviously fining them arbitrarily for that wouldn't be wise... but certainly if they raise hands to anyone, yeah they should be punished. The thing is, they are. Drunkness doesn't win someone exemption from GBH or ABH, or charges of common assault... in fact, I'm pretty sure being drunk and out of control can aggravate the charges -- particularly for people with a history.

Secondly you drop the price of alcohol in bar settings, raise it at retail price and club settings. Forcing people into buying drinks at respectable pubs and bars ... where the owners can regulate the morons that want to binge.

Price manipulation is an interesting idea.. I think curbing stupidly mad promotions is probably a good idea, limiting spirits deals to so many per customer or something, but outright tampering with the market could be damaging. This kind of leisure does generate a lot of money, and it would be foolish I feel - in times like these - to raise the price of what little pleasure people have in their lives, punishing the innocent alongside the guilty.

Currently I know of no consequences for someone getting drunk, smashing a few windows, starting a fight, getting a free ambulance to hospital where they get free meds and treatment, if they happen to assault any staff at hospital or in the ambulance ... there are no consequences for that either.

There are... its upon the police and the CPS to decide when to bring criminal charges, and for property owners to decide if they want to charge for criminal damage... in a lot of cases, in town centers, I suspect a lot of it is covered by insurance and that sadly, yes, there's maybe a bleak acceptance of such behaviour that makes it easier for them to write things off rather than start proceedings on a regular basis. Assault is serious business, I don't know what cases you're thinking of when you say there's no punishment and no consequence, but assaulting anyone in view of the police - drunk or otherwise - will win you a court date 9 times out of 10. When its a fight or a brief and idiotic drunken skirmish, I can understand that sometimes they just want to stop it before it gets out of hand, throw one half in the back of a van, take some down the station for a nap.. but I've seen first hand police dealing very robustly with serious assaults.

I've no qualms with the "more fines" aspect of your idea. Being assaulted should be grounds for compensation. Drunks committing assault or causing damage should be fined for wasting police time... I'm pretty sure on the spot fines ARE applicable for certain anti social offences. They're certainly in place for drinking on the streets, or pissing in public.

 

[Bleepey]

Inflation. Lots of it. That kind of action would destroy people's savings and cause lots of social tension. Take a look at the Weimar Republic. QE is a better way of getting money into the economy without ramping inflation up too high and destroying people's savings.

The way it is done is that the bank creates the new money, buys up bonds on the secondary market which are sold by banks, these banks then recycle the cash either lending out to businesses, buying up Gilts or building up their reserves. The first major round of QE saw banks basically hoard the cash and repair their balance sheets, the second round the money was all recycled back into Gilts, but the third round saw about 20% (£10-15bn) of the money go out to businesses in new lending, that is why inflation spiked so high towards the end of last year. Now imagine if the Bank printed £60,000,000,000 and gave each man, woman and child £1,000. We had CPI inflation hit 5.1% when just £10-15bn of new money was recycled into the economy, imagine how high that would go if suddenly the supply of cash went up by £60bn, inflation would fast hit 20-30% and people would lose up to a third of their savings in one year.

Giving people printed money is a truly terrible idea and we've seen the consequences of that time and time again. The Weimar Republic should be a lesson to anyone who wants to go down that path of printing money to hand out to their client state.

Don't forget Zimbabwe.

 

[J Tourettes]

Is drinking really so black and white to our generation?

So you propose that we either have the drunks ... or no drunks at all right?

I'll just re-quote Mr radioheadrule83



Do you think they're all just going to go teetotal if theres a fine for punching people in the face while intoxicated? No.

It'll just push those 'radicals' to watch their mouth when they leave the club. It'll push those radicals to maybe think about not downing that last set of shots. It'll push those radicals to watch their manners when they're walking home.

I'd rather the drunks than your fascist state. It seems like you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail.

If you commit a crime whilst drunk, you don't get let off because you were drunk.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

It seems like you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail.

Might actually answer my question.

 

[PJV3]

I'd rather the drunks than your fascist state. It seems like you've been reading too much of the Daily Mail.

If you commit a crime whilst drunk, you don't get let off because you were drunk.

It's a shame there was a backlash against the relaxation of licensing hours, it will take time to change the drinking culture here, and if we only give ideas a couple of years to work they never will.

 

[J Tourettes]

It's a shame there was a backlash against the relaxation of licensing hours, it will take time to change the drinking culture here, and if we only give ideas a couple of years to work they never will.

Indeed, it's far too long term. Successive governments have fostered this culture with the ridiculous drinking laws/

 

[Walshicus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082136
Defend that. Fucking Ed put-down-the-fork Pickles.

 

[phisheep]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17082136
Defend that. Fucking Ed put-down-the-fork Pickles.

I think I defended it already a few pages back.

I don't think this case is quite the good thing that it may appear to be. Far from demonstrating that the courts understand that Church and State must be kept separate (which, by the way, is not a principle recognised in English law - as maybe you'd expect of a country where bishops appointed by the Prime Minister get to sit in the legislature) it was decided on the very narrow ground that the council lacks any statutory power to hold prayers.

And that's a very worrying precedent for anyone (such as me) who is in favour of local democracy and somewhat less in favour of all control being exercised from Westminster.

Because there are all manner of things that could now be challenged using this case as a precedent, some of them trivial and some less so. There is for example, no express statutory power for councils to provide tea and biscuits at meetings, or to hold fireworks displays, or to jointly merge services with neighbouring councils for the good of all - and so on ad infinitum.

It isn't a victory for secularism, it is a victory for centralised statutory control of every tiny thing that happens at the local level. And in my book that is not good news.



Pickles got the main thrust of the argument right though. The Localisation Act should have taken this stuff out of the realm of statutory control - in effect the manner in which a council conducts its business is for the council alone.

But he should probably have focussed in on the Localisation Act (which after all is his pet, and intended to free councils from central interference) rather than trying to defend against secularism.

So, yeah. I'm happy with Pickles' stance on this. People want secular government they ought to be campaigning to disestablish the Church rather than fannying around with local prayer meetings and gumming the courts up with trivia.

 

[daviyoung]

Amen.

 

[PJV3]

The compromise of allowing prayers before official buisness seemed right to me, if it was a socialist council i wouldn't expect tories to sit through a rendition of the Red flag.

BBC Newsreader threw a slight curveball at Pickles, Nice easy questions all the way, Pickles waffles on about it being a Christian country etc. And then the final question just as the interview ends.."are you a Christian" Pickles was stammering and looked like a guilty child.

 

[Meadows]

I'd just like to say that I couldn't give a fuck about any of this.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I don't care either. If I could muster up enough energy to care though, this is probably how I'd feel: (from BBC comments section)

I have no problem with the time for silent prayer/meditation time, but I don't think public workers, should be wasting tax payers money on time spent demonstrating ones faith. If you want to, do it on your own time.

 

[PJV3]

I'd just like to say that I couldn't give a fuck about any of this.

It isn't the most important thing in the world i give you that, but i'd hate to have to sit through prayers at work, so the man from Bideford has my support.

 

[Meadows]

It's just a storm in a teacup, if they want to prayer do it 'before' the meeting starts and keep it off the agenda.

 

[Yen]

My militant atheist friend was telling me he was in full support of it going to the courts as he said if he had to sit through prayers he would be deeply offended and upset. Now I don't think prayers should be said at council meetings but that would be a complete over reaction.

 

[Chinner]

i don't believe in any religion/atheist and honestly just don't give a shit. i mean hey i'm going to be a godfather soon and shit but im not gonna be like excuuuuuuuuuuse me god is not real free your minds and embrace science.

that would be cool though.

 

[killer_clank]

The Labour Party. Wanting a massive program of tax cuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

What in the shit? God, they're totally fucked.

 

[phisheep]

The Labour Party. Wanting a massive program of tax cuts.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17087726

What in the shit? God, they're totally fucked.

That's the Nero approach. Fiddling (with the tax system) while Rome burns. No reason it should work this time round either.

 

[defel]

If the Labour government had delayed spending by 5-6 years then these tax cuts and spending increases would have been possible and all of Ed Balls Keynesian arguments would have traction. Unfortunately they are not. Its the perfect example of where the short term incentives of politicians screw over the long term welfare of the country.

 

[dalin80]

That's the Nero approach. Fiddling (with the tax system) while Rome burns. No reason it should work this time round either.

And I would hope most people would be wise enough to understand at the moment the need for various taxes, its where the money is being spent that needs to be re-organised, for instance cutting overseas aid to countries with nuclear weapons, if you have enough money to buy them you don't need ours.

Of course the tax cuts will appeal to the jeremy kyle types and may increase labours support amongst the weak minded masses.

 

[PJV3]

I'm obviously in a minority as i believe the Austerity programme here and in the EU to be making things worse than they need to be. But i was wondering at what point people who support it (reluctantly) would consider it to be not working.

This isn't about Balls and his tax cut. and i don't want to get into a circular argument with commited tories and Liberals as i'm not saying i'm right/you're wrong.

 

[Bailey 87]

its where the money is being spent that needs to be re-organised, for instance cutting overseas aid to countries with nuclear weapons, if you have enough money to buy them you don't need ours.

LOL

The overseas aid budget is fine. I do agree that money being spent needs to be re-organised. The budget for Trident for example should be scrapped.

 

[pulsemyne]

It's not so much cutting taxes that matter its where you cut the taxes. Cutting VAT would be very good for the economy (the VAT rise was a disaster for growth). Because of lower growth the government has had to borrow more. If you increase the growth now but have less taxes coming into the government for a short while then the benefits outway the negatives.

 

[Meadows]

IMO:

Raise the threshold to £10,000 (this is literally vital for a lot of people I know, it'll save them £600/700 a year, that's about 1.5 months of rent). Do it now.

Mansion tax. I won't pretend to know exactly how it works but I suppose taxing property beyond Stamp duty might actually get rich fuckers to pay their tax (God knows we've tried everything else)

Do something crazy like cut off abut 1/3 of RBS and turn it into a government run enterprise bank that offers low interest micro loans to viable business ideas (£3000 max loans)

Keep VAT at 20%, its easy to calculate. Fuck you 2.5% increments.

Simplify the PAYE system, make it easier to claim money back (not all of this waiting 20304239 years for a company to be arsed to send me a P60, the cunts)