Digital Spy

Search Digital Spy
 

DS Forums

 
 
 

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


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-03-2013, 16:31
WindWalker
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 12,549
I don't. I can see how it would give a minimal boost a local economy but when you're talking about borrowing billions and risking paying higher interest on the trillion plus we're already in debt by there's not a hope in hell it can have the desired effect on a national economy IMO.
It's not about the immediate return on the investment, it's about reducing government outgoing for years to come and taking the burden of high housing costs off the low paid. If they have more money in their pockets because housing costs are not sucking it all out, then how can that be bad?
WindWalker is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 07-03-2013, 16:33
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
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.
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 17:20
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
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
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 17:33
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
Until your new house falls down/burns down/ poisons you etc
why would i buy a home that is prone to collapse ?
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 17:43
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
why would i buy a home that is prone to collapse ?
How would you know if there were no regulations, building control etc .
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 17:56
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
How would you know if there were no regulations, building control etc .
do you buy a car without checking the engine, bodywork etc ?
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:03
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
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
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:11
Majlis
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: The Sandpit
Posts: 17,797
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
I'll bet you are very welcome in car dealers...
Majlis is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:23
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
I'll bet you are very welcome in car dealers...
I only use regulated ones
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:25
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
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
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 ?
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:40
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
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?
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:45
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
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.
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:51
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
the regulations are there, but they shouldn't be.
See post #78
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 18:55
allaorta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,022
the regulations are there, but they shouldn't be.
Without Building Regulations, this island would be one giant shanty town.
allaorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:00
john176bramley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 22,087
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.
john176bramley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:06
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
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 ?
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:16
Auld Snody
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 14,892
why should people be prevented from purchasing land and building a house made of basic materials on it ?
See post #78
Auld Snody is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:21
allaorta
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Posts: 7,022
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?
allaorta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:22
Upnorthviewer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: up north
Posts: 1,545
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.
Upnorthviewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:28
Upnorthviewer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: up north
Posts: 1,545
'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.
Upnorthviewer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:43
thomas pain
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 2,235
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 ?
thomas pain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 19:49
gummy mummy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,837
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.
gummy mummy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 20:02
paulschapman
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 17,856
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.
paulschapman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 20:17
gummy mummy
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 22,837
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
gummy mummy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2013, 20:55
Upnorthviewer
Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: up north
Posts: 1,545
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.
Upnorthviewer is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 20:16.