David Cameron talks sense on a thrifty government
Discussion
BBC said:
Conservative leader David Cameron is to say he plans to "replace Labour's spendaholic government with a new government of thrift".
Mr Cameron will tell his party's spring forum in Gloucestershire later that cutting wasteful spending will not be enough to save the UK's finances.
What is needed is a "complete change of direction" across government and the public sector, he will say.
Mr Cameron is also challenging Gordon Brown to hold a TV debate with him.
The Tory leader made that challenge - something he has done before without success - in an interview with the Sunday Times.
He is using the spring forum, being held at Cheltenham racecourse in Gloucestershire, to set out his priorities for a general election campaign, which could be less than a year away.
'Change of direction'
Responding to the dire state of the public finances revealed in Wednesday's Budget, he will say Britain is entering a "new age of austerity" and there needs to a "complete change of direction" at the top.
He will argue for a "whole new, never-been-done-before approach to the way the country is run".
He will tell delegates: "Cutting out spending we can do without is not going to deliver the scale of change we need.
"Delivering more for less, on a sustained and long-term basis, cannot just be about top-down cuts imposed by ministers. We need a massive culture change at every level of government, so the state is no longer casual, but careful, with public money."
He will list examples of public sector waste and attack what he says is the culture in government that "prizes profligacy over prudence".
"With a Conservative government, if ministers want to impress the boss, they'll have to make their budgets smaller, not bigger.
"On my watch it will be simple: if you do more for less you get promoted; if you do less for more, you get sacked.
"If we'd had this approach over the last 12 years, I don't suppose there'd be a single minister left."
He will say the "culture of thrift" must also apply to the civil service, promising "a new fiduciary responsibility on senior civil servants - a contractual obligation to save the taxpayer money" and a "proper finance director" for every government department.
Full article hereMr Cameron will tell his party's spring forum in Gloucestershire later that cutting wasteful spending will not be enough to save the UK's finances.
What is needed is a "complete change of direction" across government and the public sector, he will say.
Mr Cameron is also challenging Gordon Brown to hold a TV debate with him.
The Tory leader made that challenge - something he has done before without success - in an interview with the Sunday Times.
He is using the spring forum, being held at Cheltenham racecourse in Gloucestershire, to set out his priorities for a general election campaign, which could be less than a year away.
'Change of direction'
Responding to the dire state of the public finances revealed in Wednesday's Budget, he will say Britain is entering a "new age of austerity" and there needs to a "complete change of direction" at the top.
He will argue for a "whole new, never-been-done-before approach to the way the country is run".
He will tell delegates: "Cutting out spending we can do without is not going to deliver the scale of change we need.
"Delivering more for less, on a sustained and long-term basis, cannot just be about top-down cuts imposed by ministers. We need a massive culture change at every level of government, so the state is no longer casual, but careful, with public money."
He will list examples of public sector waste and attack what he says is the culture in government that "prizes profligacy over prudence".
"With a Conservative government, if ministers want to impress the boss, they'll have to make their budgets smaller, not bigger.
"On my watch it will be simple: if you do more for less you get promoted; if you do less for more, you get sacked.
"If we'd had this approach over the last 12 years, I don't suppose there'd be a single minister left."
He will say the "culture of thrift" must also apply to the civil service, promising "a new fiduciary responsibility on senior civil servants - a contractual obligation to save the taxpayer money" and a "proper finance director" for every government department.
All good stuff. Abolishing the "use it or lose it" policy on budgets that the public sector currently has would go a long way towards engendering a culture of not wasting money.
Live TV Debate!!!
Just like the US!!!
Would give the public the chance to actually SEE first hand, who has the competence to lead us out of this whole we're in! No hiding behind spin media, no dodging the question.
An independent mediator to put the questions forward.
How awesome would that be to watch as well!
Just like the US!!!
Would give the public the chance to actually SEE first hand, who has the competence to lead us out of this whole we're in! No hiding behind spin media, no dodging the question.
An independent mediator to put the questions forward.
How awesome would that be to watch as well!
Brilliant, read the full speach below as I have said before the man has a handle on the issues:
Over the next few years, we will have to take some incredibly tough decisions on taxation, spending, borrowing – things that really affect people’s lives. Getting through those difficult decisions will mean sticking together as a country – government and people. That relationship, just as any other, is strengthened by honesty; undermined by dishonesty.
Gordon Brown doesn’t understand how important this is. Despite the gravity of this debt crisis despite the serious consequences of not dealing with it he still can’t stop his politics of spin; smoke and mirrors; treating people as fools.
Remember, two years ago it was the election that never was. He told us he bottled it because he thought he was going to win. This time last year it was the 10p tax con.He taxed the poor for the sake of a headline, claimed that no-one lost out, and then spent billions of pounds compensating them.
Last week it was the U-turn on YouTube.
After telling us to wait for the independent enquiry on MPs’ expenses, he suddenly popped up to announce his own plan. And what was that great new plan? Paying MPs to turn up for their job. No receipts. No questions asked. More taxpayers’ money.Less accountability.
But the most cynical trick yet came in last week’s Budget. Everyone could see through what they were trying to do: “Don’t look at this vast hole in the public finances over there look at this pathetic piece of class war posturing over here.”
When I see Brown and Darling, I’m reminded of those people who come to your door; one pretends to read your gas meter, while the other robs your house. 50p income tax when you have a budget deficit of £175 billion? That’s not responsibility - it’s distraction burglary.
There’s no responsibility left in Labour. They’re already set to have the highest borrowing in the G20. And yet, unbelievably, this Government is planning to spend and borrow even more. They’ve just announced a spending increase - not a cut, but an increase - of £20 billion for next year. They’ve delayed the cuts until after the election. Now I wonder why that could be?
Last week, Labour had their chance to set out their alternative, to show how they would lead us out of this crisis and they completely blew it. And now, I just think people are completely sick of it. Sick of Labour’s cynicism; sick of their incompetence; sick of their irresponsibility...
...So it will fall to this Party to offer the responsible politics the country expects in this age of austerity. But it expects more from us than a hair shirt and a stern lecture...
...Does the age of austerity force us to abandon our ambitions? No. We are not here just to balance the books. There’s more to our mission than coming in like a bunch of flint-faced accountants and sorting out the finances. By the way, I want to make it clear I’ve got nothing against accountants.
The last time I talked about flint-faced accountants I got a letter from the wife of an accountant saying: “Dear David Cameron…my husband isn’t flint-faced – he’s actually very good looking.” The question is: how does government help achieve these wider aims in the age of austerity? And the answer is: by delivering more for less. That in turn means four big changes for government and the role of the state.
First, a return to traditional public spending control. Second, a new culture of thrift in government. Third, curing our big social problems, not just treating them. And fourth, imagination and innovation as we harness the opportunities of technology to transform the way public services are delivered...
...So the first, and most obvious part of delivering more for less is to deliver the ‘less.’ The days of easy money are over, and we have no option but to weed out spending that is not essential.
In opposition that means not making pledges you can’t keep – and we haven’t. It means not signing up to spending plans you can’t afford – and we didn’t.
We’ve made a good start by making sure we won’t arrive in government with a whole bunch of unaffordable commitments. We opposed the £12 billion Labour wasted on the VAT cut. We were against the fiscal stimulus. We said they should reduce their spending plans back in 2008. And now we’re saying they should abandon their irresponsible plan to increase spending in 2010.
Controlling public spending and delivering more for less must start right now. Not next year, not after the election – now. We’ve made it clear that a Conservative government would spend less than Labour.
We’re not frightened of their idiotic ritual chants about “cuts.”
Everybody knows that Labour’s Debt Crisis means public spending cuts. And instead of putting them off, Labour should be making them today. Here’s how they could start – by reversing those extensions of the state that do more harm than good and which Britain would be better off without.
So scrap the ID cards scheme. Cancel the ContactPoint database. And get rid of Regional Assemblies and all that useless regional bureaucracy. Those may be easy choices for Conservatives. But we’ll need to make hard choices too.
It is not easy, or popular, for governments to take money away from people. But when there are still millions of people in this country living in poverty, and when the age of austerity means we must focus on the real priorities can we honestly say it’s right for people earning over £50,000 a year to get state benefits in the form of tax credits?
With a Conservative government, tax credits will be there to help make society fairer, not the state bigger. And we must apply the same discipline throughout government. That means making sure that public sector pay and pensions reflect the realities of the economic situation.
Let me make it clear to everyone who works in the public sector: we will honour existing pay deals, including any three year pay deals. But many of them end next year.
And this is the deal we’ll be offering you then: We will help you by getting rid of the central direction and bureaucracy that undermines your professional autonomy and morale. And in exchange we will ask for your help in solving Labour’s Debt Crisis by keeping the cost of public sector pay only as high as the country can responsibly afford.
Ever since I became leader of this Party in 2005, people have been asking me to tell them, not in general terms but in specific detail what a new Conservative government would do on tax and spending in a Budget in 2010. George and I have resisted that pressure and I believe experience shows we’re right. Detailed plans or shadow budgets would become quickly out of date. But in the weeks and months ahead, the Shadow Cabinet will redouble its efforts to identify wasteful and unnecessary public spending.
Make no mistake: I am very clear about how much more work there is still to be done in order to identify significant future savings. We will carry out this work. We will do so responsibly. And in time, we will set out the hard choices that lie ahead...
...With a Conservative government, if ministers want to impress the boss, they’ll have to make their budgets smaller, not bigger. On my watch it will be simple: if you do more for less you get promoted if you do less for more, you get sacked. If we’d had this approach over the last twelve years, I don’t suppose there’d be a single Labour Minister left.
But this culture of thrift must apply to the civil service too. So we’ll impose a new fiduciary responsibility on senior civil servants – a contractual obligation to save the taxpayer money. And every government department needs a proper finance director.
Some of them today aren’t proper accountants – flint-faced or not. With such huge sums of public money at stake a Conservative government will make sure we have the professional financial controls the taxpayer has a right to expect...
...If a company is failing and new management comes in, transparency is the first thing they demand - opening up the books and seeing how every penny is spent. It’s going to be the same with us.
So today I can announce our ‘People’s Right to Know’ plan – a democratic check on wasteful spending. Every item of government spending over £25,000, nationally and locally, will have to be published online. If you want to see how it could work, look at the Missouri Accountability Portal. It will show you why transparency is such a powerful tool in controlling public spending...
...People have a right to know exactly how much they’re getting. So we’ll publish online all public sector salaries over £150,000. Let’s see which officials have been getting rich at the taxpayer’s expense - and whether they’re worth the money.
Today we’re publishing a list of some we already know about. Ed Richards at OfCom – he earns over £400,000 a year. In fact, if you took the top thirty salaries at Ofcom, the communications watchdog, you could provide the whole of Cheltenham with free broadband access.
And then there’s the British Waterways Board. The salaries of their top four employees – Robin Evans, Nigel Johnson, James Froomberg and Phillip Ridal – add up to £900,000. That’s thirty nurses.
In the age of austerity we’ve got to ask ourselves what we really value in the public sector: and I know what the answer is. It’s not the fat cats but the frontline workers...
...Fifteen years ago, I was in the Treasury as we had to deal with public finances that had got out of control; debt that had got too high. We had to put up taxes, and I hated it. But it was the right thing to do and that lesson has stayed with me. That’s why I’m a fiscal conservative.
That’s why, when it came to that big decision to oppose the VAT cut and the so-called fiscal stimulus, I didn’t consult a focus group or an opinion poll I just knew it was the right thing to do. And there’s something else.
I know that if we win the election, we’ll be judged a successful government if we deal with the debt crisis - and a failure if we don’t. Believe me, I get that.
I think people know by now that I want us to stand up for the poorest in Britain and to show that fiscal responsibility can go hand in hand with a social conscience. And they know I will stand up for the aspiring and the enterprising, kicked in the teeth by a Labour Party reverting to type.
We will show that social responsibility can go hand in hand with personal ambition. But what people also need to know is that I will stand up for responsibility and thrift.Those are values this country needs today.
Labour’s leaders say only they stand for fairness. Fairness? These Labour ministers, saddling future generations with debt? These Labour ministers, making our children pay the price of their incompetence? Their “fairness” is utterly phoney.
So let’s turn our anger into passion ad our passion into action to give Britain the leadership she needs. Yes if we win the election, we may not see the full fruits of our labours in the lifetime of our government. But if we stick together and tackle this crisis our children and grandchildren will thank us for what we did for them and for our country.
Fukk you Labour Blowhards.
Over the next few years, we will have to take some incredibly tough decisions on taxation, spending, borrowing – things that really affect people’s lives. Getting through those difficult decisions will mean sticking together as a country – government and people. That relationship, just as any other, is strengthened by honesty; undermined by dishonesty.
Gordon Brown doesn’t understand how important this is. Despite the gravity of this debt crisis despite the serious consequences of not dealing with it he still can’t stop his politics of spin; smoke and mirrors; treating people as fools.
Remember, two years ago it was the election that never was. He told us he bottled it because he thought he was going to win. This time last year it was the 10p tax con.He taxed the poor for the sake of a headline, claimed that no-one lost out, and then spent billions of pounds compensating them.
Last week it was the U-turn on YouTube.
After telling us to wait for the independent enquiry on MPs’ expenses, he suddenly popped up to announce his own plan. And what was that great new plan? Paying MPs to turn up for their job. No receipts. No questions asked. More taxpayers’ money.Less accountability.
But the most cynical trick yet came in last week’s Budget. Everyone could see through what they were trying to do: “Don’t look at this vast hole in the public finances over there look at this pathetic piece of class war posturing over here.”
When I see Brown and Darling, I’m reminded of those people who come to your door; one pretends to read your gas meter, while the other robs your house. 50p income tax when you have a budget deficit of £175 billion? That’s not responsibility - it’s distraction burglary.
There’s no responsibility left in Labour. They’re already set to have the highest borrowing in the G20. And yet, unbelievably, this Government is planning to spend and borrow even more. They’ve just announced a spending increase - not a cut, but an increase - of £20 billion for next year. They’ve delayed the cuts until after the election. Now I wonder why that could be?
Last week, Labour had their chance to set out their alternative, to show how they would lead us out of this crisis and they completely blew it. And now, I just think people are completely sick of it. Sick of Labour’s cynicism; sick of their incompetence; sick of their irresponsibility...
...So it will fall to this Party to offer the responsible politics the country expects in this age of austerity. But it expects more from us than a hair shirt and a stern lecture...
...Does the age of austerity force us to abandon our ambitions? No. We are not here just to balance the books. There’s more to our mission than coming in like a bunch of flint-faced accountants and sorting out the finances. By the way, I want to make it clear I’ve got nothing against accountants.
The last time I talked about flint-faced accountants I got a letter from the wife of an accountant saying: “Dear David Cameron…my husband isn’t flint-faced – he’s actually very good looking.” The question is: how does government help achieve these wider aims in the age of austerity? And the answer is: by delivering more for less. That in turn means four big changes for government and the role of the state.
First, a return to traditional public spending control. Second, a new culture of thrift in government. Third, curing our big social problems, not just treating them. And fourth, imagination and innovation as we harness the opportunities of technology to transform the way public services are delivered...
...So the first, and most obvious part of delivering more for less is to deliver the ‘less.’ The days of easy money are over, and we have no option but to weed out spending that is not essential.
In opposition that means not making pledges you can’t keep – and we haven’t. It means not signing up to spending plans you can’t afford – and we didn’t.
We’ve made a good start by making sure we won’t arrive in government with a whole bunch of unaffordable commitments. We opposed the £12 billion Labour wasted on the VAT cut. We were against the fiscal stimulus. We said they should reduce their spending plans back in 2008. And now we’re saying they should abandon their irresponsible plan to increase spending in 2010.
Controlling public spending and delivering more for less must start right now. Not next year, not after the election – now. We’ve made it clear that a Conservative government would spend less than Labour.
We’re not frightened of their idiotic ritual chants about “cuts.”
Everybody knows that Labour’s Debt Crisis means public spending cuts. And instead of putting them off, Labour should be making them today. Here’s how they could start – by reversing those extensions of the state that do more harm than good and which Britain would be better off without.
So scrap the ID cards scheme. Cancel the ContactPoint database. And get rid of Regional Assemblies and all that useless regional bureaucracy. Those may be easy choices for Conservatives. But we’ll need to make hard choices too.
It is not easy, or popular, for governments to take money away from people. But when there are still millions of people in this country living in poverty, and when the age of austerity means we must focus on the real priorities can we honestly say it’s right for people earning over £50,000 a year to get state benefits in the form of tax credits?
With a Conservative government, tax credits will be there to help make society fairer, not the state bigger. And we must apply the same discipline throughout government. That means making sure that public sector pay and pensions reflect the realities of the economic situation.
Let me make it clear to everyone who works in the public sector: we will honour existing pay deals, including any three year pay deals. But many of them end next year.
And this is the deal we’ll be offering you then: We will help you by getting rid of the central direction and bureaucracy that undermines your professional autonomy and morale. And in exchange we will ask for your help in solving Labour’s Debt Crisis by keeping the cost of public sector pay only as high as the country can responsibly afford.
Ever since I became leader of this Party in 2005, people have been asking me to tell them, not in general terms but in specific detail what a new Conservative government would do on tax and spending in a Budget in 2010. George and I have resisted that pressure and I believe experience shows we’re right. Detailed plans or shadow budgets would become quickly out of date. But in the weeks and months ahead, the Shadow Cabinet will redouble its efforts to identify wasteful and unnecessary public spending.
Make no mistake: I am very clear about how much more work there is still to be done in order to identify significant future savings. We will carry out this work. We will do so responsibly. And in time, we will set out the hard choices that lie ahead...
...With a Conservative government, if ministers want to impress the boss, they’ll have to make their budgets smaller, not bigger. On my watch it will be simple: if you do more for less you get promoted if you do less for more, you get sacked. If we’d had this approach over the last twelve years, I don’t suppose there’d be a single Labour Minister left.
But this culture of thrift must apply to the civil service too. So we’ll impose a new fiduciary responsibility on senior civil servants – a contractual obligation to save the taxpayer money. And every government department needs a proper finance director.
Some of them today aren’t proper accountants – flint-faced or not. With such huge sums of public money at stake a Conservative government will make sure we have the professional financial controls the taxpayer has a right to expect...
...If a company is failing and new management comes in, transparency is the first thing they demand - opening up the books and seeing how every penny is spent. It’s going to be the same with us.
So today I can announce our ‘People’s Right to Know’ plan – a democratic check on wasteful spending. Every item of government spending over £25,000, nationally and locally, will have to be published online. If you want to see how it could work, look at the Missouri Accountability Portal. It will show you why transparency is such a powerful tool in controlling public spending...
...People have a right to know exactly how much they’re getting. So we’ll publish online all public sector salaries over £150,000. Let’s see which officials have been getting rich at the taxpayer’s expense - and whether they’re worth the money.
Today we’re publishing a list of some we already know about. Ed Richards at OfCom – he earns over £400,000 a year. In fact, if you took the top thirty salaries at Ofcom, the communications watchdog, you could provide the whole of Cheltenham with free broadband access.
And then there’s the British Waterways Board. The salaries of their top four employees – Robin Evans, Nigel Johnson, James Froomberg and Phillip Ridal – add up to £900,000. That’s thirty nurses.
In the age of austerity we’ve got to ask ourselves what we really value in the public sector: and I know what the answer is. It’s not the fat cats but the frontline workers...
...Fifteen years ago, I was in the Treasury as we had to deal with public finances that had got out of control; debt that had got too high. We had to put up taxes, and I hated it. But it was the right thing to do and that lesson has stayed with me. That’s why I’m a fiscal conservative.
That’s why, when it came to that big decision to oppose the VAT cut and the so-called fiscal stimulus, I didn’t consult a focus group or an opinion poll I just knew it was the right thing to do. And there’s something else.
I know that if we win the election, we’ll be judged a successful government if we deal with the debt crisis - and a failure if we don’t. Believe me, I get that.
I think people know by now that I want us to stand up for the poorest in Britain and to show that fiscal responsibility can go hand in hand with a social conscience. And they know I will stand up for the aspiring and the enterprising, kicked in the teeth by a Labour Party reverting to type.
We will show that social responsibility can go hand in hand with personal ambition. But what people also need to know is that I will stand up for responsibility and thrift.Those are values this country needs today.
Labour’s leaders say only they stand for fairness. Fairness? These Labour ministers, saddling future generations with debt? These Labour ministers, making our children pay the price of their incompetence? Their “fairness” is utterly phoney.
So let’s turn our anger into passion ad our passion into action to give Britain the leadership she needs. Yes if we win the election, we may not see the full fruits of our labours in the lifetime of our government. But if we stick together and tackle this crisis our children and grandchildren will thank us for what we did for them and for our country.
Fukk you Labour Blowhards.
Spiritual_Beggar said:
Live TV Debate!!!
Just like the US!!!
Would give the public the chance to actually SEE first hand, who has the competence to lead us out of this whole we're in! No hiding behind spin media, no dodging the question.
An independent mediator to put the questions forward.
How awesome would that be to watch as well!
Winky will never, in a million years, agree. He can't cope away from scripted stats and data to bludgeon us with. Just look at PMQs for proof.Just like the US!!!
Would give the public the chance to actually SEE first hand, who has the competence to lead us out of this whole we're in! No hiding behind spin media, no dodging the question.
An independent mediator to put the questions forward.
How awesome would that be to watch as well!
He knows Cameron would wipe the floor with him.
I'd still love to see it though. I know we don't have a presedential system but it may as well be.
I'm beginning to think Cameron, or possibly Hague or BoJo, is going to have to be the next Thatcher - not for the policies or the indellible stamp on the nation - but for the strikes they're going to have to break.
The Public Sector have the whole country by the short and curlies, and the slightest sign of cuts under a Tory administration will have them all on the picket line.
This is going to get very messy.
Incidentally, I hope the Iron Lady hangs on until the Tories are back in office - at least they'll afford her the state funeral she deserves.
The Public Sector have the whole country by the short and curlies, and the slightest sign of cuts under a Tory administration will have them all on the picket line.
This is going to get very messy.
Incidentally, I hope the Iron Lady hangs on until the Tories are back in office - at least they'll afford her the state funeral she deserves.
Martial Arts Man said:
paddyhasneeds said:
f
k me just take a look at the Missouri Accountability Portal.
Can you really imagine thinking "Hmm I'll just see how much Dr Nahasapeemapetilon has earned so far this year" and being able to go find out?
are you for or against?k me just take a look at the Missouri Accountability Portal.Can you really imagine thinking "Hmm I'll just see how much Dr Nahasapeemapetilon has earned so far this year" and being able to go find out?
If however it goes to the level that you can see what your neighbour, who happens to be a Nurse earns, I can see it meeting resistance.
ETA - looks like they'd only publish those over £150k.
Edited by paddyhasneeds on Sunday 26th April 17:36
paddyhasneeds said:
Martial Arts Man said:
paddyhasneeds said:
fk me just take a look at the Missouri Accountability Portal.
Can you really imagine thinking "Hmm I'll just see how much Dr Nahasapeemapetilon has earned so far this year" and being able to go find out?
are you for or against?k me just take a look at the Missouri Accountability Portal.Can you really imagine thinking "Hmm I'll just see how much Dr Nahasapeemapetilon has earned so far this year" and being able to go find out?
If however it goes to the level that you can see what your neighbour, who happens to be a Nurse earns, I can see it meeting resistance.
ETA - looks like they'd only publish those over £150k.
Edited by paddyhasneeds on Sunday 26th April 17:36
I think all above median pay or something like that is more appropriate.
If the rate stays at that level, it makes me wonder how different this is to Brown's 50p and kill the bankers stunts. I would be surprised if the number of civil servants earning over that amount is great in magnitude. If I am wrong, we really are screwed!
I see nothing wrong in knowing the wages of a nurse either.
I like democracy, American style.
Martial Arts Man said:
If the rate stays at that level, it makes me wonder how different this is to Brown's 50p and kill the bankers stunts. I would be surprised if the number of civil servants earning over that amount is great in magnitude. If I am wrong, we really are screwed!
For me it's about value for money - no problem with someone earning over £150k of public money if the position justifies it, and if they perform accordingly, it's ridiculous that we have nobodies chairing quangos on nothing 1 day a week earning more than the Prime Minister (let's ignore that the Prime Minister isn't providing VFM)Martial Arts Man said:
I see nothing wrong in knowing the wages of a nurse either.
Nor can I, but the unions would have a field day and I don't know how it sits with things like the Data Protection act?Sadly he has said he will protect two departments from cuts.
1. Health
2. Overseas aid!
Overseas aid FFS! Lets give away £10 billion a year when we're bankrupt. Hey India, have a billion pounds. You've just ordered an aircraft carrier, submarines and fighters from Russia, on top of a few billions worth of patrol aircraft from the USA but have the billion as aid.
China..have £500 million. You're the richest country on the planet, but have it on us.
I don't think anyone has a problem with GENUINE aid during a natural disaster, but sending money to line a corrupt African politicians pocket really gets me steamed up.
1. Health
2. Overseas aid!
Overseas aid FFS! Lets give away £10 billion a year when we're bankrupt. Hey India, have a billion pounds. You've just ordered an aircraft carrier, submarines and fighters from Russia, on top of a few billions worth of patrol aircraft from the USA but have the billion as aid.
China..have £500 million. You're the richest country on the planet, but have it on us.
I don't think anyone has a problem with GENUINE aid during a natural disaster, but sending money to line a corrupt African politicians pocket really gets me steamed up.
Unfortunately, I suspect that this is too little, too late. It isn't just a thrifty government we need, it's a thrifty population.
At the end of the war, the UK continued rationing and it wasn’t finally abolished until 1954. Its continuation was used as a tool for economic regeneration.
I have recently been wondering if the reintroduction of rationing may be the most effective solution to our current predicament. It won’t be popular.
The problem isn’t high public spending, it’s spending more than we earn. Unless we live within our earnings, we will never have a surplus with which to repay the debts. This can only be achieved by increasing export earnings, whilst reducing imports.
If we introduce import tariffs and quotas, traditionally other nations introduce similar reciprocal measures against our exports. We would be no better off.
A rationing system in the UK would avoid this because imports could still enter unhindered. What they couldn’t do is find a market beyond the ration. And nobody will import more than they can sell.
British manufacturers will be forced to export more of their production, since the home market will be restricted, increasing overseas earnings.
Many UK citizens have accrued high levels of debt by habitually expanding their expenditure to the limit of their credit. Their perception of need has expanded to keep pace, purchasing things they don’t actually need and can’t afford.
They will be unable to spend wages earned on goods that exceed their ration. For the first time, many will be living within their means. The surplus wages will be available to repay their personal debts. Those who become, or have always been solvent will increase their savings. This leads to fewer debt defaults for the banks and greater levels of deposits.
This in turn improves the position of the banks and reduces the need for state assistance. This also makes capital available to the banks and permits them to lend that capital for entrepreneurial purposes, driving the recovery.
Since individual expenditure will be restricted, the level of state benefits can be tailored to fit the ration.
It would also be necessary to reintroduce currency controls to prevent money leaving the country. This has several benefits to the recovery.
An important one will be the effect upon immigrant workers. They will be prevented from sending money overseas. Those who are economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers, whilst supporting families in foreign countries, will no longer be able to do so by draining our economy.
Some of that money comes from our benefit system. They will find it necessary for them to move to another country in order to drain an economy. The drain on public funds caused by trying to deal with immigration, asylum and associated benefit claims will disappear with them.
Those who have ties to other countries generally may feel that life here isn’t the cushy number that it once was. I am sure some will decide to leave, rather than work hard towards our recovery.
We could even incentivise British workers to go overseas and send earnings back into our economy.
The reduction in UK population will assist in reducing unemployment levels. Benefit payment bills will fall accordingly. It will have many advantages. Many problems would be relieved by lowering the UK population. Less need to build new transport infrastructure. Less energy would need importing and using. Housing problem solved lower NHS and education bills. The list goes on and on.
As we approach full employment, qualifications for benefit eligibility must be reduced to remove the option of benefits as a career choice.
Since people wouldn’t have anything to spend their wages on, they would need less. Gradually wages could be reduced until British labour costs are competitive on an international basis. At that point we can truly repair the nation’s finances. When that is done we can think of phasing out rationing.
This isn’t going to be popular. It affects those who were prudent too. Those who are successful won’t be able to spend the rewards of their labour. But remember, they will be able to reinvest it into further growth. They will reap the rewards later, above the rest.
The currently favoured alternative is for those who are most productive to be highly taxed. Which would you prefer to be highly taxed and never see the money again, or be able to reinvest your earnings for your future?
In the early days, the government is likely to leave tax levels high anyway to speed debt repayment. However, if the wage levels are to go through period of downward readjustment, the tax levels will have to permit this. Government expenditure will have to fall. Just cutting out all the unnecessary political correctness will go a long way. We will still need to have health and education for the future. Pension expenditure would be helped enormously by the fall in wages and cost of living. As people will have been unable to spend, in time they will have more saved towards retirement too.
Remember, it also teaches the population good habits. Compare the attitudes to money and thrift of the generation that came through rationing and the war with the attitudes of those who see benefits as a career choice.
Finally, the mess is ours. Either we clear it up, or our children must. The options are to get on with it and sort it out, ASAP, no matter how hard that is, or to have long term hardship. I don’t fancy rationing much either. But sometimes the best course is to tighten the belt and work hard until the jobs done.
At the end of the war, the UK continued rationing and it wasn’t finally abolished until 1954. Its continuation was used as a tool for economic regeneration.
I have recently been wondering if the reintroduction of rationing may be the most effective solution to our current predicament. It won’t be popular.
The problem isn’t high public spending, it’s spending more than we earn. Unless we live within our earnings, we will never have a surplus with which to repay the debts. This can only be achieved by increasing export earnings, whilst reducing imports.
If we introduce import tariffs and quotas, traditionally other nations introduce similar reciprocal measures against our exports. We would be no better off.
A rationing system in the UK would avoid this because imports could still enter unhindered. What they couldn’t do is find a market beyond the ration. And nobody will import more than they can sell.
British manufacturers will be forced to export more of their production, since the home market will be restricted, increasing overseas earnings.
Many UK citizens have accrued high levels of debt by habitually expanding their expenditure to the limit of their credit. Their perception of need has expanded to keep pace, purchasing things they don’t actually need and can’t afford.
They will be unable to spend wages earned on goods that exceed their ration. For the first time, many will be living within their means. The surplus wages will be available to repay their personal debts. Those who become, or have always been solvent will increase their savings. This leads to fewer debt defaults for the banks and greater levels of deposits.
This in turn improves the position of the banks and reduces the need for state assistance. This also makes capital available to the banks and permits them to lend that capital for entrepreneurial purposes, driving the recovery.
Since individual expenditure will be restricted, the level of state benefits can be tailored to fit the ration.
It would also be necessary to reintroduce currency controls to prevent money leaving the country. This has several benefits to the recovery.
An important one will be the effect upon immigrant workers. They will be prevented from sending money overseas. Those who are economic migrants masquerading as asylum seekers, whilst supporting families in foreign countries, will no longer be able to do so by draining our economy.
Some of that money comes from our benefit system. They will find it necessary for them to move to another country in order to drain an economy. The drain on public funds caused by trying to deal with immigration, asylum and associated benefit claims will disappear with them.
Those who have ties to other countries generally may feel that life here isn’t the cushy number that it once was. I am sure some will decide to leave, rather than work hard towards our recovery.
We could even incentivise British workers to go overseas and send earnings back into our economy.
The reduction in UK population will assist in reducing unemployment levels. Benefit payment bills will fall accordingly. It will have many advantages. Many problems would be relieved by lowering the UK population. Less need to build new transport infrastructure. Less energy would need importing and using. Housing problem solved lower NHS and education bills. The list goes on and on.
As we approach full employment, qualifications for benefit eligibility must be reduced to remove the option of benefits as a career choice.
Since people wouldn’t have anything to spend their wages on, they would need less. Gradually wages could be reduced until British labour costs are competitive on an international basis. At that point we can truly repair the nation’s finances. When that is done we can think of phasing out rationing.
This isn’t going to be popular. It affects those who were prudent too. Those who are successful won’t be able to spend the rewards of their labour. But remember, they will be able to reinvest it into further growth. They will reap the rewards later, above the rest.
The currently favoured alternative is for those who are most productive to be highly taxed. Which would you prefer to be highly taxed and never see the money again, or be able to reinvest your earnings for your future?
In the early days, the government is likely to leave tax levels high anyway to speed debt repayment. However, if the wage levels are to go through period of downward readjustment, the tax levels will have to permit this. Government expenditure will have to fall. Just cutting out all the unnecessary political correctness will go a long way. We will still need to have health and education for the future. Pension expenditure would be helped enormously by the fall in wages and cost of living. As people will have been unable to spend, in time they will have more saved towards retirement too.
Remember, it also teaches the population good habits. Compare the attitudes to money and thrift of the generation that came through rationing and the war with the attitudes of those who see benefits as a career choice.
Finally, the mess is ours. Either we clear it up, or our children must. The options are to get on with it and sort it out, ASAP, no matter how hard that is, or to have long term hardship. I don’t fancy rationing much either. But sometimes the best course is to tighten the belt and work hard until the jobs done.
Rationing won't work for several key reasons:
- It would be political suicide for whoever introduced it. Think Poll Tax Riots
- It would cost too much to implement - recycled paper booklets wouldn't cut it against forgers these days. Plus we are so much more mobile these days. You'd have to have some vast database all the supermarkets and shops could key into. Which leads me to...
- It would almost certainly lead to the National ID card and National Database which brings us back to...
- It would cost too much to implement
JonRB said:
Rationing won't work for several key reasons:
EFA.- It would be political suicide for whoever introduced it. Think Poll Tax Riots
- It would cost too much to implement - recycled paper booklets wouldn't cut it against forgers these days. Plus we are so much more mobile these days. You'd have to have some vast database all the supermarkets and shops could key into. Which leads me to...
- It would almost certainly lead to the National ID card and National Database which brings us to...
- It would be broken 99% of the time, the other 1% would be left on a train.
I suspect you are probably correct.
Successfully implemented rationing potentially offers a way out, but won’t be able to implement it.
Ration books weren’t that tough to forge during the war. A few people were convicted of forging them, but the level wasn’t enough to make the system unworkable. The question of mobility was sorted by you having to register at a specific shop. You could only buy from that shop.
The key difference was that the public realised the consequences of failure to win the war. Nobody liked it, but the overwhelming majority accepted the necessity and cooperated. Today it is unlikely that such sacrifice of self interest will be common.
The situation would have to deteriorate enough to motivate the general population to accept the need, without the situation becoming completely irrecoverable.
It is the need for politicians to be popular that has got us into this mess. Such a policy, in the present climate would be political suicide. It will need for the idea to gain credence outside politics first.
Brown has spent the last decade telling us all that we can have any lifestyle we want. Borrow now, payback on the never-never. Everyone wanted to hear that they could have a better lifestyle, so enough kept voting for Labour.
It would have been political suicide to tell everyone that they couldn’t have it. Well now everyone is waking up and realising what a mistake it was. Many now wish to late that they hadn’t got into debt. Perhaps now they will be more ready to listen to realistic policies, even if they don’t offer the gratification offered by Labour’s past offerings.
We need a leader capable of leading the country through the crisis. Churchill had long experience and was trusted before becoming PM. There is nobody with that kind of status, respect and experience in modern politics.
Things didn’t all go smoothly during the war. The big difference was that the public usually didn’t get to hear of it. The government took powers to deal with the situation and relinquished them at the end.
The trouble is that in recent years, politicians have done a good job of convincing everyone that they can’t be trusted to relinquish powers that they don’t need.
Successfully implemented rationing potentially offers a way out, but won’t be able to implement it.
Ration books weren’t that tough to forge during the war. A few people were convicted of forging them, but the level wasn’t enough to make the system unworkable. The question of mobility was sorted by you having to register at a specific shop. You could only buy from that shop.
The key difference was that the public realised the consequences of failure to win the war. Nobody liked it, but the overwhelming majority accepted the necessity and cooperated. Today it is unlikely that such sacrifice of self interest will be common.
The situation would have to deteriorate enough to motivate the general population to accept the need, without the situation becoming completely irrecoverable.
It is the need for politicians to be popular that has got us into this mess. Such a policy, in the present climate would be political suicide. It will need for the idea to gain credence outside politics first.
Brown has spent the last decade telling us all that we can have any lifestyle we want. Borrow now, payback on the never-never. Everyone wanted to hear that they could have a better lifestyle, so enough kept voting for Labour.
It would have been political suicide to tell everyone that they couldn’t have it. Well now everyone is waking up and realising what a mistake it was. Many now wish to late that they hadn’t got into debt. Perhaps now they will be more ready to listen to realistic policies, even if they don’t offer the gratification offered by Labour’s past offerings.
We need a leader capable of leading the country through the crisis. Churchill had long experience and was trusted before becoming PM. There is nobody with that kind of status, respect and experience in modern politics.
Things didn’t all go smoothly during the war. The big difference was that the public usually didn’t get to hear of it. The government took powers to deal with the situation and relinquished them at the end.
The trouble is that in recent years, politicians have done a good job of convincing everyone that they can’t be trusted to relinquish powers that they don’t need.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff