Cable calls for "greatly expanded" spending funded through borrowing, not cuts

1246

Comments

  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    why not let the private sector builders build the homes.

    if private sector builders want to build more homes, they should be allowed to do that. i don't like all this regulation and restrictions on house building.
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    if private sector builders want to build more homes, they should be allowed to do that. i don't like all this regulation and restrictions on house building.

    Until your new house falls down/burns down/ poisons you etc
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Auld Snody wrote: »
    Until your new house falls down/burns down/ poisons you etc

    why would i buy a home that is prone to collapse ? :D
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    why would i buy a home that is prone to collapse ? :D

    How would you know if there were no regulations, building control etc .
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Auld Snody wrote: »
    How would you know if there were no regulations, building control etc .

    do you buy a car without checking the engine, bodywork etc ?
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    do you buy a car without checking the engine, bodywork etc ?

    I also assume that it has been built to a standard, one that is regulated. Unless of course you buy your cars from fly by night unregulated sellers and builders:D
  • MajlisMajlis Posts: 31,362
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Auld Snody wrote: »
    I also assume that it has been built to a standard, one that is regulated. Unless of course you buy your cars from fly by night unregulated sellers and builders:D

    I'll bet you are very welcome in car dealers...:D
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Majlis wrote: »
    I'll bet you are very welcome in car dealers...:D

    I only use regulated ones:D
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Auld Snody wrote: »
    I also assume that it has been built to a standard, one that is regulated. Unless of course you buy your cars from fly by night unregulated sellers and builders:D

    so before you buy a car you check everything is in working order or get a professional to do the necessary checks for you ? why can't you do the same before buying a home ?
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    so before you buy a car you check everything is in working order or get a professional to do the necessary checks for you ? why can't you do the same before buying a home ?

    That is what the regulations are in place for, what do you think they are for?
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Auld Snody wrote: »
    That is what the regulations are in place for, what do you think they are for?

    the regulations are there, but they shouldn't be.
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    the regulations are there, but they shouldn't be.

    See post #78
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    the regulations are there, but they shouldn't be.

    Without Building Regulations, this island would be one giant shanty town.
  • john176bramleyjohn176bramley Posts: 25,049
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    so before you buy a car you check everything is in working order or get a professional to do the necessary checks for you ? why can't you do the same before buying a home ?

    The only way you can check certain aspects of a building are up to scratch is to do so when it is being built, the foundations for example.
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allaorta wrote: »
    Without Building Regulations, this island would be one giant shanty town.

    why should people be prevented from purchasing land and building a house made of basic materials on it ?
  • Auld SnodyAuld Snody Posts: 15,171
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    why should people be prevented from purchasing land and building a house made of basic materials on it ?

    See post #78 :rolleyes:
  • allaortaallaorta Posts: 19,050
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    why should people be prevented from purchasing land and building a house made of basic materials on it ?

    Because it's sensible, it's civilised and you wouldn't be able to insure it for structural reasons and you wouldn't have public liability insurance if the roof blew of and caused carnage. You really have no idea on this, do you?
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Try looking at what Ken Clarke said in his last budget. The Public Sector Borrowing Requirement was due to go negative in 2000 (which it did). The Tories reduced borrowing after both recessions that occured during the Thatcher/Major years.

    I was thinking of Lawson's tax cuts before his boom came to an end.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    'Give away' - that would imply that it was his to give away in the first place. Brown was the same - seemed to think that the money people earned was his to do with as he wishes and it was really nice of him to let us keep 60% of it.

    Yeah well some have a different outlook. Sweden by many accounts is a nice place to live with very high tax levels and a fine standard of living, and it has a stronger economy than this one that's heading for Emerging Country status.
  • thomas painthomas pain Posts: 2,318
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    allaorta wrote: »
    Because it's sensible, it's civilised

    it is cool to wear a suit and tie, should everyone be forced to wear a suit and tie ?
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AS the hare and the tortoise story shows us 'slow and steady wins the race' So cutting hard and fast may not be such a good idea. Maybe politicians could look at how we rebuilt this country after the second world war when we had a deficit much the same as we have now.
  • paulschapmanpaulschapman Posts: 35,536
    Forum Member
    I was thinking of Lawson's tax cuts before his boom came to an end.

    Which if you look at the level of borrowing you will notice that it had been going down - the same thing happened during John Major's period as PM.

    This is a classic Keynesian cycle - you borrow in times of recession and pay back borrowing during the growth periods.

    Look at the Brown years (remembering that he inherited a growing economy) the only time he reduced borrowing was during the first three years, having previously promised to keep to Conservative spending limits. For the next 10 years borrowing increased even though growth remained for a more than another 7 years.

    Yeah well some have a different outlook. Sweden by many accounts is a nice place to live with very high tax levels and a fine standard of living, and it has a stronger economy than this one that's heading for Emerging Country status.

    But even in Sweden what a man earns is his not the government's. It is not the business of the government to take all he can from those who live under them - but to only take what they need.
  • gummy mummygummy mummy Posts: 26,600
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    According to the LSE the UK’s growth of GDP per capita – 1.42% a year between 1997 and 2010 – was better than in any of the other “G6” countries:
    The big picture – strong GDP per capita growth after 1997

    The UK’s growth of GDP per capita – 1.42% a year between 1997 and 2010 – was better than in any of the other “G6” countries: Germany (1.26%), the US (1.22%), France (1.04%), Japan (0.52%) and Italy (0.22%). Figure 1 shows GDP per capita (now defined as “adults” to control for demographic shifts) in four countries relative to 1997. The height of the line indicates the cumulative growth: in 2010, the UK had a level of GDP per capita 17% higher than in 1997; over the same period US GDP per capita had grown by 14%.


    http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/archives/17297
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Which if you look at the level of borrowing you will notice that it had been going down - the same thing happened during John Major's period as PM.

    This is a classic Keynesian cycle - you borrow in times of recession and pay back borrowing during the growth periods.

    Look at the Brown years (remembering that he inherited a growing economy) the only time he reduced borrowing was during the first three years, having previously promised to keep to Conservative spending limits. For the next 10 years borrowing increased even though growth remained for a more than another 7 years.




    But even in Sweden what a man earns is his not the government's. It is not the business of the government to take all he can from those who live under them - but to only take what they need.

    Well whatever you think about the matter taxation is high in Sweden. And they've got some excellent companies.

    On the Lawson boom. It led to a bust of course. Obviously tax revenues then will have dropped off greatly as they do in a recession. Lamont would have had greater leeway if Lawson hadn't reduced his surplus in a boom by tax cutting.

    And some say he was daft to cut the taxes for another reason - it led to the unsustainable boom.

    I had a quick look at the Barber boom as it's before my time. Sure enougn Tory chancellor Tony Barber cut income tax and VAT in the middle of his boom. He did just what you know-all Tories have learned to parrot should not be done. Barber didn't store up the money for a rainy day.

    For economic incompetence Tories Barber and Lawson are right up there. You'll probably defend them but neither of them I think are exactly Tory icons these days.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 3,180
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    AS the hare and the tortoise story shows us 'slow and steady wins the race' So cutting hard and fast may not be such a good idea. Maybe politicians could look at how we rebuilt this country after the second world war when we had a deficit much the same as we have now.

    It is a good idea to the Tories when they are waging a war on the poor though. They probably love the fact that wages have dropped 3.2 % over the past two years... Osborne was smiling in the last picture I saw anyway.

    We keep learning it's not good for the economy, but they don't change things. When commentators are asked why are this government doing it if it isn't working, they can only stare blankly or say that is a good question. They shouldn't get away with it, but they do.

    Anyway, Caroline Lucas is also calling for more spending and investment along with Vince Cable. She gave a speech about it yesterday...

    "We must spend and invest, not slash and burn, our way out of economic crisis"

    http://greenparty.org.uk/news/2013/03/05/we-must-spend-and-invest,-not-slash-and-burn,-our-way-out-of-economic-crisis/
Sign In or Register to comment.