Print Story I've been neglecting you
Diary
By Breaker (Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:06:17 PM EST) (all tags)
Dearest leftists.


Now then, remember all those conversations we had about deficit, debt, and how you'd delight in shouting me down and countermodding?

Real life example for you right now.

Bond vigilantes picking on UK gilts in February - did they then turn their ire on Greece?

Greece, whose government has been seen doing too little and too slowly, to deal with their deficit.  IMF called in for 20bn, no 35 bn no, €45 billion bailout..

Shackled to the Euro, they couldn't devalue their currency enough to alleviate the crushing debt, although this just dampens the debt spiral. 

This is bringing the rest of the Eurozone down, and the Chermans are not happy.

S&P cuts Greece gilts to junk bond status, 2 year Greek gilts now at over 13%, from ~3% at the start of 2010.  How the hell Greece expects to climb into debt reduction is beyond me, imagine what it'd be like if your mortgage went from 5% to 13% overnight?

So there we have it dearest leftists, a real world example in a modern setting and every single facet of it within Breakermatic diaries passim.  Out of control debt, astronomic deficit, bond market activism, IMF called in, gilt markets through the roof.  The only difference is we've been able to destroy our currencies' worth by ~25% and as the Government owns the banks, the Quantative Easing can go on a little longer than simply printing money.

But it is clear that UKia must begin to live within its means, and soon.  You don't want your borrowing shooting up from 5%->15% just in time for your 2 year gilts to roll, or servicing that debt becomes a millstone.  Deficit as % of GDP, not looking too good for UKia.

The problem is, not one single bastard mainstream party in UKia either has any clue how to deal with it, or the balls to be honest (link to most interesting report) about what's needed to bring our deficit down.  Don't frighten the horses.

None of the parties are really being straight with us - from those IFS reports, Conservatives have a £52.5bn blank of unspecified cuts, Labour ~ £45bn, and the LibDems ~£34bn.  In short, the media is failing to highlight this and the populace is either too stupid or apathetic to care.

We're fucked; a populace that can't handle the truth that we need to cut our spending, soonest, and politicians who don't have the integrity or spine to level with us when the message they have is not "jam tomorrow".

It's going to have to go bang for the UKian Treasury before people will clamour for Something To Be Done, which is all the more galling as we can avoid detonating by taking action now.

Update [2010-4-29 11:15:40 by Breaker]: Overseas bandwidth limit reached, off line until tommorrow. Of course, if I paid less tax, I'd have more money in my pocket to spend on internet access.

< Struwwelpeter | I had a dream 2010 04 27 >
I've been neglecting you | 133 comments (133 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
but taking action is hard! by garlic (4.00 / 1) #1 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:13:38 PM EST
I don't know how impending it is, but we have a similar debt issue in the US.


However by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #2 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:17:10 PM EST
You also have the stabilising effect of being global reserve currency though.  That's a +20 roll on the d20 of economics.


[ Parent ]
i'm a "lefty" or "southpaw" by StackyMcRacky (4.00 / 1) #3 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 06:52:44 PM EST
at least, that's what people usually call somebody left-handed.

Sinestro. by ammoniacal (2.00 / 0) #4 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:32:11 PM EST
Satan's handmaiden.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Leftist by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #5 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 07:32:39 PM EST
Politically speaking.


[ Parent ]
You just aren't smart enough by chuckles (4.00 / 1) #6 Tue Apr 27, 2010 at 09:16:48 PM EST
to understand the power of inflation quantitative easing. It's like magic! Soon all that debt will be but a small fraction of the money supply.

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin [...] would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities"
If I'm cynical by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #13 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:53:51 AM EST
Labour's plan is to max it out, get to the point of teetering on the precipice then force creditors to take a haircut.  Which they'll do, being largely state owned.  Inflation is not really an option - our gilts are for the most part, index linked.

And it's only the eeevil banks taking the hit, isn't it?


[ Parent ]
Am I missing something? by dmg (2.00 / 0) #130 Mon May 24, 2010 at 09:01:38 PM EST
How is QE not going to cause inflation? Is there some sort of sleight of hand going on? I read about 'sterilization' of bond purchases and I don't really understand it. It seems to me (simplistic perhaps) that if you increase the money supply, inflation will be the inevitable result. 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
I meant by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #131 Tue May 25, 2010 at 05:22:03 AM EST
Inflating the debt away, which according to one economist is "the most bastard trick any government can play on investors and prudent savers".


[ Parent ]
Oh. by dmg (2.00 / 0) #132 Tue May 25, 2010 at 09:36:59 AM EST
Well in that case, be under no illusions. That is EXACTLY what they plan to do... 
--
dmg - HuSi's most dimwitted overprivileged user.
[ Parent ]
They can try by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #133 Tue May 25, 2010 at 03:12:58 PM EST
But those index linked gilts just keep tracking inflation and retain value.

There are some out there that don't track, so a dose of inflation will lessen them.


[ Parent ]
Why not use Ireland as an example? by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #7 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:37:49 AM EST
Oh yeah, because their government has made enough cuts to adequately satisfy the markets. Markets that don't seem to be too worried about the UK.

Yeah, that'd be why by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #26 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:19:39 AM EST
I'm not using Ireland as an example - they took the hard choices to avoid a visit from the IMF.

I give it 50-60 days after the GE before UK Plc has to put up some credible cutting plans or face the wrath of the markets.


[ Parent ]
Well... by lolwhat (4.00 / 1) #28 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:26:00 AM EST
CDS on some Irish firms are widening considerably today. They're probably exposed to Greek bonds; if so, they'd have to take massive writedowns if Greece defaults on them.

http://www.cmavision.com/market-data


--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.

[ Parent ]
Along with everyone else by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #35 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:49:37 AM EST
With Greek & Portuguese holdings.


[ Parent ]
It's just that the UK's got an electorate that's by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #31 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:39:15 AM EST
a whole lot more mature about these kind of things than the Greeks. Very similar to the Irish, who, prior to their cuts, were in a whole lot worse of a situation than the UK is.

[ Parent ]
Not sure what you mean by "mature" by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #50 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:19:59 AM EST
Mature about debt?

The Irish were screwed because they don't have their own printing press, being chained to the Euro and all.  They weren't able to debauch their currency, nor affect their own interest rates.

We do, and whilst these actions (QE, debauch currency, drop interest rates) will hold off collapse, they won't hold it off forever.


[ Parent ]
Mature about realising by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #58 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:30:38 AM EST
that the government doesn't owe them a living. I probably talk to more Greeks than you do.

[ Parent ]
You probably do. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #70 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:53:42 AM EST
But surely a generous pension is one of those great socialist ideals?

Are you saying it's not possible or advisable to generously fund our elders in the twilight of their lives? 

Or perhaps are you saying there's limits to how far that provision can extend?


[ Parent ]
The latter. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #73 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:00:17 PM EST
Well done for presenting an option that's not a reducto ad absurdum, though. That's quite something for you.

[ Parent ]
Well done for ducking the first question. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #75 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:19:48 PM EST
And being patronising.


[ Parent ]
Socialist ideals? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #76 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:27:31 PM EST
When did I say I had socialist ideals?

[ Parent ]
You didn't by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #80 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:50:26 PM EST
And neither did I.  I asked "surely a generous pension is one of those great socialist ideals?"


[ Parent ]
Oh, in that case there's no question to duck. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #82 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:58:28 PM EST
Yes.

[ Parent ]
And yet by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #85 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:19:08 PM EST
You then say it's unrealistic to expect a generous pension from the state.

How should I take that, then?  Are you anti-socialist, or what?


[ Parent ]
From A doesn't follow B by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #92 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:08:21 PM EST
  1. It is a socialist ideal that everybody (fsvo "everybody") should receive a pension.
  2. Given current demographics, 1) is not realistic.
These two statements are not conflicting.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
As night doesn't follow day by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #100 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:50:06 AM EST
As brokkr follows the plot.

The premise is that giving everyone a massively generous pension is not viable.

Once you've accepted that, everything else is just a matter of degree.


[ Parent ]
I'm not anti-socialist or socialist. by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #95 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:53:19 PM EST
You asked me if it was a socialist ideal to expected a generous pension from the state. I said it was. I don't get what point you were trying to make.

I think it's unrealistic, and indeed greedy, to expect pensions at levels offered to the Greek public sector. I think that public sector pensions in the UK are a good deal, but still proportionate to the salaries earned and the work done.

Given that public sector productivity in Greece is dire and that pension costs are disturbingly high in proportion to wage costs, I think I've made the point that pensions in the UK aren't comparable with Greek ones.

[ Parent ]
Yep. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #99 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:48:19 AM EST
That's how I started.

Wait until you begin to earn decent money, and that'll be the beginning of ambrosenmatic diaries.


[ Parent ]
Erm, not necessarily by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #102 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:04:38 AM EST
I have made decent money (over 50th percentile for my age group) since leaving university at 27, and don't mind paying high taxes. (Of course, I'm barely paying any now, but that wasn't the primary reason I took this job.)

I would, however, like a simplified tax system - when people with university degrees can't calculate their tax, something's not done right.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Good for you. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #108 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:32:00 AM EST
Are you supporting a mortgage, a wife and a child?

If not, then why not take the balance out of your account at the end of each month and donate it to the government?

Totally with you on the tax code.  Not only does it make it hard to administer, it also means that loopholes are more likely to be created inadvertently for those that have the time or money to find them.


[ Parent ]
No kids by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #119 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:02:02 AM EST
... but a mortgage, a rental apartment and my wife. (And due to legislation protecting tenants I am not allowed to demand as much rent for my apartment back in Denmark as I pay for the mortgage. This sucks, but I also appreciate that tenants are to be protected.)

I'm paying all the taxes I'm supposed to. Finding taxes fair does not equate to "I should give the government all my excess money" or "I can think of nothing else to do with this".

And after living for a year with having to pay 20 % of non-emergency healthcare out of my own pocket (which apparently passes for a "great health insurance" according to my colleagues), I appreciate how important it is for the general population to be able to go to the doctor without worrying about what it's going to cost.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Fair taxes from your point of view. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #121 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:17:30 PM EST
But not from mine.

That 20%, is it 20% of your salary?  And hey, it was a year only, not a lifetime commitment.

That's not an endorsement on my part to disenfranchise the impoverished of healthcare, BTW.  I'm fully behind that, just differing on the method that free healthcare for all is delivered.


[ Parent ]
Twenty percent by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #127 Sat May 01, 2010 at 12:29:16 PM EST
of the bill for all non-emergency healthcare.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
So we agree that the by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #103 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:21:11 AM EST
UK public sector liabilities are different to the Greek ones? And with the BBC. Great. Let it never be said arguing on the internet's not productive.

I've earned decent money before (>mean IT salary), and I was still perfectly happy to pay my taxes. And I only lived a couple of blocks from Britain's richest woman, who's also quite content to pay her taxes.

[ Parent ]
Oh they're different by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #107 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:29:24 AM EST
But not necessarily less dangerous.

That BBC article pretty much lost me at "Foreign Secretary David Miliband dismissing Conservative comparisons between the two as "economic illiteracy"."

Banaboy Milliband, lollerskates. 

But thankyou for providing me with the link.

Problem there is there is no mention if the UK figures include PFI, which is a construct originally by the baby eaters (PPP), perfected by Gordon "bigotted" Brown.  Designed to appear off the headline figures of the nations books, PFI deals still need paying off.


[ Parent ]
But wait - there's more by Phage (4.00 / 1) #8 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:06:20 AM EST
If this is the Greek debt.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GGGB2YR%3AIND
It doesn't look good for the Portugese either.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/quote?ticker=GSPT2YR%3AIND

Portugal downgraded by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #16 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:01:22 AM EST
2 credit ratings, too.


[ Parent ]
And Ireland? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #21 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:12:45 AM EST


[ Parent ]
See above. by lolwhat (2.00 / 0) #29 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:26:53 AM EST

--
If cigarette packs are required to have pictures of diseased lungs, college brochures should be required to have photos of grads working at Starbucks.
[ Parent ]
Tsk. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #30 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:34:08 AM EST
Your Personal Googler found these helpful links.  Ireland lost AAA rating in 2009.


[ Parent ]
Right. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #33 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:42:10 AM EST
Before much of the government cutbacks. So it looks once again as if the UK's not in as parlous a state as you implied.

[ Parent ]
Aren't we? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #43 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:08:53 AM EST
I hope you're right.

Now, we make cuts now and keep our AAA rating.  Or we lose our triple rating and then make cuts later.

Which do you think is the best course of action?


[ Parent ]
Quite. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #46 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:10:40 AM EST
It's still the same old Chicken Little act to be comparing the UK with Greece. We're miles off.

[ Parent ]
To your mind, perhaps we are. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #49 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:16:19 AM EST
But Greece's situation blew up damned fast, didn't it?  Look at that gilts graph on the bloomberg link in the main body.  It has quite the velocity upwards, in a very short timeframe.

And every day we do nothing, we get closer to that day.


[ Parent ]
We don't have a sclerotic public sector by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #54 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:25:44 AM EST
nor does it have absurdly onerous pension liabilities. So in that sense, I think the markets will be trusting that the UK's public deficit is at least being better spent.

[ Parent ]
LOL. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #61 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:35:58 AM EST
I refuse to be trolled in my own diary. 

Go and look up our unfunded pension liabilities, go and look up PFI and go and look up productivity of the public sector in the last 13 years.


[ Parent ]
80% of final salary by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #64 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:39:04 AM EST
available at age 55?

No, I don't think that's the UK.

You can't say the UK's worse than Greece just because the UK is bad.

[ Parent ]
Nope by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #69 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:51:07 AM EST
Final salary pension scheme available before they reach 50.

Even if you fucked up you can claim a guaranteed pension of more than £110,000 a year, or a £520,000 lump sum and about £85,000 a year.  Aged 49.

So yeah, retirement before 50 never happens in the UK, does it.


[ Parent ]
Still doesn't undermine my point. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #72 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:59:18 AM EST
That public sector pensions in Greece are absurdly generous. In the UK they're just a good deal.

[ Parent ]
Uhhhh by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #86 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:21:29 PM EST
You're calling 110K a year from age 49 merely "a good deal"?

I know bankers that'd bite your arm off for that kind of parsimony.


[ Parent ]
No, of course not. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #91 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:03:55 PM EST
But that particular figure's an outlier.

[ Parent ]
Of course. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #101 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:53:44 AM EST
I'm sure the TPA / BOM will bear that out.


[ Parent ]
(Comment Deleted) by xth (4.00 / 3) #9 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:11:46 AM EST

This comment has been deleted by xth



The point was a good deal more subtle than that. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #34 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:46:09 AM EST
But I think it boils down to:

"I'm the only person who posts here who thinks for myself and the rest of you are all sheeple."

[ Parent ]
I agree by Dr H0ffm4n (2.00 / 0) #129 Wed May 05, 2010 at 11:54:29 AM EST


[ Parent ]
Oh hi by codemonkey uk (4.00 / 4) #10 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:23:27 AM EST
It's time for a positive change.  We all know we can't go one like this (with suspicious minds).  It's obvious, except of course, it's not obvious at all to the average voter, who - thanks to Loss Aversion - is much more concerned about what services they will lose than with abstract concepts like balancing the books.  Christ on a bike, forget goverment debt, for a moment and look at consumer debt.  If individuals can't balance their accounts, how do you expect them to understand the importance of govermental fiscal responsibility?

It is a problem.  A huge problem.  And it's not even as if you can really blame the political parties - every time any one of them tries to tighten their belt, the other two jump on them try to use the cuts to make them look bad.

It is easy to understand this as a classic tragedy of the commons (spending makes a party look good, because the public doesn't understand the impact of debt) / prisoners dilemma (as long as they all play nice on debt the public has no choice - as soon as one of them promises more spending on services, the others are forced to do the same).

And everyone here knows this.

So what is the solution?

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.

Solution? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #14 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:56:35 AM EST
UKIP, or emigration.


[ Parent ]
UKIP? by hulver (2.00 / 0) #23 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:50:06 AM EST
Ha ha ha ha ha.

But, seriously.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
Aside from Lord Pearson by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #36 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:53:34 AM EST
What's not to like?

- Save up to £120bn a year by leaving the EU.
· Take tax off the minimum wage by raising the tax threshold to £11,500
· Reduce everyone’s taxes with a 31% flat tax
· Abolish the ‘tax on jobs’: phase out employers’ NI contributions over five years
· Axe Britain’s gigantic quango mountain and public sector non-jobs to reduce UK national debt
· Release businesses from 120,000 EU laws
· Replace VAT with a ‘Local Sales Tax’ to help councils and local businesses

· Create one million new skilled jobs with public and private investment in a five-point public works programme to provide defence equipment, nuclear power stations, flood and coastal protection, transport infrastructure including high-speed rail lines, and new prisons
· Abolish costly EU schemes such as carbon capping, emissions trading, and landfill taxes
· Amend the UK Takeover Code to prevent foreign interests from gaining control of strategic British companies
· Regain control of Britain’s borders to stop foreign criminals from entering our country
· Introduce a strict new points-based visa system and time-limited work permits
· Triple the number of UK Borders Agency staff engaged in controlling immigration (to 30,000)
· Enable voters to set policing priorities through locally-elected County Police Boards
· Demand zero tolerance on crime and double prison places to assure this
· Make sentences mean what they say: life must mean life
· Scrap the Human Rights Act that benefits criminals and not their victims. No votes for prisoners
· Introduce a ‘Three Strikes and You’re Out’ law to lock up career criminals for good
· Boost the military budget by 40% so our armed forces are properly equipped
· Demand one clear achievable mission for Afghanistan or seek a negotiated exit
· Keep Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent strong
· Look after our service heroes with better pay and conditions
· Expand the Army by 25% and double the TA
· Provide more RAF helicopters and aircraft
· Expand the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength, guaranteeing the future of Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth ports
· Keep the NHS free at the point of delivery and make no cuts to frontline services
· Replace overlapping tiers of NHS bureaucracy (SHAs/PCTs) with locally-elected County Health Boards
· Introduce private sector ‘franchise partnerships’ to run NHS healthcare services better, while assets remain in public hands
· Introduce ‘Health Credit Vouchers’ to allow people to opt out of the NHS if they wish
· Restore free NHS dental check-ups and eye tests
· Bring back the ‘three Rs’ and teach reading with phonics to provide a proper educational foundation
· Encourage the creation of new grammar schools, but make the 11-plus vocational as well as academic
· Give parents ‘School Vouchers’ so they can choose between schools - state or private
· Raise standards by franchising state schools to private organisations, such as charitable trusts
· Re-introduce student grants (‘Student Vouchers’ and ‘Training Vouchers’)
· Re-examine the policy of ‘inclusion’ and support special schools for children with learning disabilities
· Roll all existing state pensions and benefits into a non means-tested minimum £130pw ‘Citizen’s Pension’
· Reinstate dividend tax credit at 20%
· Reduce the annual limit for tax-relievable pension contributions to £10,000, from £255,000
· Bring public sector final salary pensions back into line with typical private pension provision
· By leaving the EU, avoid having to pay for unfunded EU pensions
· Reform the ridiculously complicated welfare system (currently more than 70 different benefits)
· Help families by rolling childcare benefits and credits into one enhanced benefit
· Allow part-time workers to continue claiming ‘Basic Cash Benefit’ until their wages reach £11,500
· Introduce council-run ‘Workfare’ projects to improve local communities
· Ensure UK benefits are only available to those who have lived here for at least five years
· Leave the EU and continue in free trade with the other European countries. No jobs will be lost
· Establish a Commonwealth Free Trade Area with the other member countries
· Regain Britain’s currently dormant seat at the World Trade Organisation
· Promote democracy, genuine human rights and free determination around the world
· Invest in nuclear power and clean coal to avert Britain’s impending energy crisis
· Oppose wind farms in general and require them to be funded by the market
· Establish a Royal Commission to determine the truth about man-made global warming
· Incentivise the reduction of waste and effective methods of recycling and incineration
· Encourage use of electric road vehicles and more electrified rail
· Invest an extra £3bn p.a. in the UK’s road and railway systems
· Introduce three new high-speed rail lines, and re-open some lines closed by Beeching
· Shelve plans for the sixth Heathrow terminal and third runway in favour of a Thames Estuary airport
· Make foreign lorries pay to use British roads with a ‘Britdisc’ and ban the EU’s ‘superlorries’
· Subject parking charges and revenue-raising devices, e.g. speed cameras to greater democratic control
· Build more social housing and encourage the use of 800,000 empty homes
· Scrap the pointless Home Information Packs (HIPs)
· Introduce binding local planning referenda for major developments, except when there is overriding  national interest
· End undemocratic regional planning in favour of county-based decision making
· Introduce conservators to help preserve green belt land
· Give the British public a right to binding local and national referenda on major issues
· Introduce proportional representation into national and local elections. UKIP favours the Alternative Vote Plus system
· Abolish layers of regional government
· Give voters a right of recall over corrupt MPs, enabling them to force by-elections
· Be fair to England by introducing an ‘English Parliament’, ending the discriminatory Barnett Formula and making St George’s Day a national holiday in England
· Support the new supermarket Ombudsman to ensure farmers receive a fair price from supermarket chains
· Introduce labelling schemes to support British farmers and high animal welfare standards
· Support GM foods research but continue to oppose GM food production and listen to evolving scientific research
· Guarantee farmers no sudden loss of CAP payments on leaving the EU
· Allow county referenda to reverse the hunting ban at local level
· Legalise more producer co-operatives to put food producers on a more equal footing with supermarket buyers
· Immediately withdraw from the Common Fisheries Policy and take back control of British waters up to 200 nautical miles from the UK
· Return £2.5bn p.a. in fish sales to the UK economy
· Ban shameful discarding of fish and abandon all EU quotas


[ Parent ]
So, cut taxes and increase spending, then? by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #40 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:02:28 AM EST
Did I read those points correctly?

[ Parent ]
I don't know by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #41 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:06:26 AM EST
Did you?

Cut taxes, cut red tape and useless state activity, and channel those savings into stuff we really need - like the £11.5K allowance, schools, hospitals and so on.


[ Parent ]
Right. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #44 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:09:07 AM EST
The numbers don't seem to add up to me.

[ Parent ]
Neither do any of the other 3 main parties by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #48 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:13:24 AM EST
As you'd see if you'd read the diary.

In the absence of the IFS costing out their plans, I don't think we'll see the answer to how the UKIP numbers stack in this diary.

Do you disagree with any of the points in the manifesto though?


[ Parent ]
I did read the diary. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #51 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:22:00 AM EST
But the fact is that UKIP's plans are to theirs as Portsmouth FC's debt is to the average person's credit card bill.

And there's lots on the manifesto I disagree with. And plenty of contradictory stuff, like abolishing PCTs and SHAs, yet increasing the healthcare commissioning workload, just to mention the field I work in.

[ Parent ]
Do you have any idea by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #59 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:33:10 AM EST
How much we spend a year on quangos, alone?  I'm sure a little time with google will enlighten you.  You are unwilling to even remotely look at the costings, and I don't have the bandwidth to do your googling for you.

So we'll leave it as one unsupported argument each then.


[ Parent ]
And that's relevant to UKIP's promises how? by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #62 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:37:23 AM EST
Because from what I see, all they're promising is more spending on everything, a small amount of local delegation, and tax cuts all round.

[ Parent ]
"More spending on everything" by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #74 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:00:23 PM EST
Not exactly.
Axe Britain’s gigantic quango mountain and public sector non-jobs /
/Abolish costly EU schemes such as carbon capping, emissions trading, and landfill taxes

By leaving the EU, avoid having to pay for unfunded EU pensions
Rationalising and simplifying many parts of revenue collection and welfare distribution to reduce admin costs
Make foreign lorries pay to use British roads with a ‘Britdisc’
Abolish layers of regional government
ending the discriminatory Barnett Formula

Are you saying that none of these look like spending cuts?


[ Parent ]
What's not to like? by hulver (2.00 / 0) #71 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:57:50 AM EST
Quite a lot of that really.

Ban shameful discarding of fish and abandon all EU quotas - Fish everything to extinction then?
Support GM foods research but continue to oppose GM food production and listen to evolving scientific research - Listen to scientific research? Unless you don't agree with what the scientific community says and set up a "Royal Commission" instead.
Establish a Royal Commission to determine the truth about man-made global warming - Ok. Why not set up a Royal Commission to get the truth (rather than these stupid unproved "theories") about Gravity instead.
Abolish costly EU schemes such as carbon capping, emissions trading, and landfill taxes - Right, because if you don't believe in climate change you can just ignore it.
Demand zero tolerance on crime and double prison places to assure this
Subject parking charges and revenue-raising devices, e.g. speed cameras to greater democratic control - So breaking the laws of the road won't be subject to zero tolerance then?
Scrap the Human Rights Act that benefits criminals and not their victims. No votes for prisoners - So you support carers straping old women into wheelchairs to stop them wandering off, or letting the mentally ill sit in their own shit because it's too much work to keep changing them? All practises that have been stopped due to use of the human rights act.
Reinstate dividend tax credit at 20% - Huh? Why? At what cost?

There are many, many more in there that are just bad ideas, and a lot of ignorant Daily Mail type twaddle.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock

[ Parent ]
Well then. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #84 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:17:04 PM EST
Fish everything to extinction then?
I don’t think that was what they were implying; rather the opposite.  How much of UKian waters’ EU quotas are given to other EU states, again?  By “banning the shameful discarding of fish” means we’d make better use of our resources, no?

Listen to scientific research?
That’s what they stated, yes.

Unless you don't agree with what the scientific community says and set up a "Royal Commission" instead.
I believe that’s a trick of our current government, isn’t it?  Why do you think UKIP would be the same?

Why not set up a Royal Commission to get the truth (rather than these stupid unproved "theories") about Gravity instead.
You can’t tell me the science around AGW isn’t a little tainted, at best.

because if you don't believe in climate change you can just ignore it.
If you can prove (scientifically, not this fetishist “belief”) it does then you can ignore it.  But if the science proves AGW, then there are much better ways to deal with it than carbon caps and allowance trading.  Who do you think is going to run the emissions allowance trading anyway?  I’ll give you an idea: those that already have trading systems in place to deal with pricing, transactions and reconciliations.  Sounds a bit like the eeeevil banks, to me.

So breaking the laws of the road won't be subject to zero tolerance then?
I took that to mean that people could have speed cameras installed where they thought they’d do most harm prevention, rather than simply milking the motorist for fines.

So you support carers straping old women into wheelchairs to stop them wandering off, or letting the mentally ill sit in their own shit because it's too much work to keep changing them? All practises that have been stopped due to use of the human rights act.
I’m fairly sure that can be accommodated without the HRA, really, can’t it?

At what cost? (dividend tax credit)
Because if you’re in the private sector, this is hammering your pension.

Note - the above is from the mini manifesto.  I'm sure if you go into the complete manifesto then the policies are explained in more detail, to prevent misunderstandings like those you've worked so hard to achieve in the above.


[ Parent ]
Worked hard? by hulver (4.00 / 1) #88 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 02:30:30 PM EST
I'm nice and quick at jumping to conclusions actually.
--
Cheese is not a hat. - clock
[ Parent ]
"Who do you think is going to run the emissio by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #93 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:16:34 PM EST
ns allowance trading anyway?"

I am.

About the "leaving EU" thing - yes, please do. And take Denmark with you. I'm sick of these "we're in but we don't want to participate and anyway THAT guy aren't allowed in" types - something's gotta give, people!
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
You know by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #106 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:24:06 AM EST
If we had a referendum of say - in, out, in for trade only, and the result went to the "in" contingent, I'd STFU.

The fact we've been denied it, by the worst sort of chicanery possible, that's what sticks in the craw.


[ Parent ]
"in for trade only"? by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #118 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 09:56:24 AM EST
Fuck, no. You're in or you're out.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Why? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #122 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:21:55 PM EST
Free trade, common standards for commerce; these are all laudable aims.  Can't argue against them.

Don't forget - the onlly referendum us UKians got was on the EEC. 

Not the EU.

For starters, compare the Napoleonic legal system to the UKian one.

Somethings got to give, and I rather think the UKian system has more to offer.


[ Parent ]
EEC vs EU by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #128 Sat May 01, 2010 at 12:31:21 PM EST
I realize that, but there's no "for trade only" any longer. The rest of Europe has moved on. If you think you're better off outside the EU, go right ahead, but I can't stand the on-the-fence approach of the UK, Denmark and Sweden.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
You seem to have changed your mind on a few things by TheophileEscargot (4.00 / 2) #89 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 03:18:32 PM EST
Previously I seem to recall that you wanted to cut down on the number of public sector jobs and non-jobs. Now you want to "Create one million new skilled jobs with public and private investment in a five-point public works programme". Isn't this just going to cannibilize existing private sector jobs?

A lot of those projects seems expensive too. After some rough calculations.

£20bn per year for the skilled job creation scheme (Say £20k each)
£23bn per year for the pension increase
£14bn per year to increase the defence budget
£9bn per year assuming ministry of justice spending doubles along with prison places.
£6bn per year to make student loans back into grants
£3bn to bring private dentistry back to the NHS.

That makes £75bn per year.Total government spending is £586bn at present, so you're increasing public spending by about 13%. I'm sure you used to want to decrease spending.

Now on taxes, income tax currently raises £153bn. I don't know the exact distribution, but for simplicity let's forget about the raising of the threshold, and assume your 9% top-rate cut applies to all of it. That means you're losing another £14bn in revenue.

You used to want to cut the debt drastically. Now with these tax cuts and spending increases it looks to me like you want to borrow a extra £89bn per year.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Well done. by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #97 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:34:28 PM EST
I'm pretty impressed you did the numbers.

[ Parent ]
If you want to do it properly by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #105 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:23:21 AM EST
Then include the cuts, would you please?  Otherwise you look completely partisan.

Cost of EU membership - 118bn / year.

So if your numbers are correct, we're 29Bn a year better off.  And that's not even including the quangos.


[ Parent ]
Nope by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #112 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:55:31 AM EST
The net cost is more like £4.7bn.

Those costs you linked to are a (wild over-) estimate of the "cost to Britain" i.e. the alleged costs to all British businesses and institutions. Even if true, reducing those doesn't mean the Treasury  has any more money to spend.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Nope. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #113 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:08:08 AM EST
You link to net contribution, not net cost
Factor in the extra regulation et al.
Looking at their source data linked from your link,  they don't either.

Oh and don't forget the fines.


[ Parent ]
Whether or not these costs of regulation exist by TheophileEscargot (2.00 / 0) #115 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:18:36 AM EST
Abolishing them doesn't mean the Treasury suddenly has more money to spend, because it's not the Treasury that's subject to them; but individuals, businesses and institutions.

So it doesn't help you with your plans for a massive Leftie increase in State spending, and million-strong public sector job increase.
--
It is unlikely that the good of a snail should reside in its shell: so is it likely that the good of a man should?

[ Parent ]
Well look at that. by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #126 Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 09:00:01 AM EST
Turns out I'm a leftie in denial!


[ Parent ]
Apart from all the other idiocies above by brokkr (4.00 / 1) #94 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:27:45 PM EST
there's this:

- Abolish costly EU schemes such as carbon capping, emissions trading, and landfill taxes

That one's quite funny.

  1. Emissons trading was premièred by the UK. Of course you can be against it, but it's always funny when people rail against "evil EU legislation" that originates from their own country.
  2. Landfill taxes are not EU mandated, but the then-Conservative UK government's brilliant plan for implementing the Landfill Directive (1999/31/EC). The methods aren't specified by the EU, only the targets.

--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Yep, by ambrosen (4.00 / 2) #96 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 06:55:03 PM EST
emissions trading is of course a market based solution.

And I like it how removal of landfill taxes is somehow being put forward as a spending cut rather than a tax cut.

[ Parent ]
Not really. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #109 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:34:04 AM EST
Government creates a artificial scarcity (emissions), then everything done on top of that is a derivative.


[ Parent ]
On point 1 by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #111 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:36:10 AM EST
Let me be clear I'm no fan of the Tories either.

So point 2 is EU mandated, however.


[ Parent ]
No it's not by brokkr (2.00 / 0) #120 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 10:09:31 AM EST
The EU Landfill Directive mandates:
  • To reduce biodegradable waste going to landfill to 75% of 1995 figures by 2010 and to 35% by 2020.
  • Co-disposal of hazardous and non-hazardous waste is banned. Three separate landfill types are required for hazardous, non-hazardous and inert wastes.
  • The requirement to treat most wastes before they are landfilled.
  • Disposal of whole tyres and tyre granules are not permitted in landfills.
  • Ban on landfilling of liquid wastes, certain clinical waste and certain hazardous wastes.
  • Increased the level of control, monitoring and reporting at landfill sites.
The Conservative government introduced the Landfill Tax to somehow facilitate compliance with the first bullet above. I can't figure out how.
--
Deyr fé, deyja frændr, deyr sjalfr it sama,
ek veit einn, at aldrei deyr: dómr um dau∂an hvern.

[ Parent ]
Hi there. by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #98 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 04:16:41 AM EST
Just wanted to take a minute to point out how terribad shit will be when you cross the streams of "more armed, jack-booted government thugs employees" and "really shitty Orwellian laws lacking meaningful oversight."

Thank you.

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
Locally elected police chiefs by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #110 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:35:07 AM EST
Right to recall MPs.

If they start misbehaving we can vote them out.

In any case, it can't be worse than we have currently.


[ Parent ]
If only there was a way . . . by ammoniacal (4.00 / 2) #114 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:15:37 AM EST
a way to dispose of shitty laws . . . perhaps a third element of government. It could review badly-written laws and bin them? Oh, it's but a pipe dream, innit?

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
I think you should try by nebbish (4.00 / 1) #25 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:01:04 AM EST
The Independent Conservatives

"My name is Roland and I am fifty three and half years old"

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
lolwhat by codemonkey uk (2.00 / 0) #27 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:24:58 AM EST
IHBT

--- Thad ---
Almost as Smart As you.
[ Parent ]
Why do you misspell 'German'? by ambrosen (4.00 / 1) #11 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 05:53:19 AM EST
I don't really get the point of that affectation.

Ever spent much time over there? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #12 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 07:48:27 AM EST
I have, and a lot of the locals pronounce it "Chermany".  I have no doubt that my English accent when speaking their language is even more comical, probably running into intelligible at times.

Don't think of it as a sign of affectation, consider it a sign of affection.


[ Parent ]
Making up your own words is an affectation. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #20 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:10:08 AM EST
Especially if it's not germane to the topic at hand.

[ Parent ]
it always seems like it's intended by garlic (2.00 / 0) #24 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:53:16 AM EST
as some sort of insult that I don't understand.


[ Parent ]
Well, I like it. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #38 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:01:24 AM EST
Last I checked that's my nick at the top of this diary.  Do you go to other people's houses and complain that they have flying ducks on the walls?

And I believe that what's going on in Chermany|Germany is indeed perfectly germane.  The two countries are linked via the Euro, and Merkel's got an important election coming up soon which if her party loses, they lose primacy over their parliament. 


[ Parent ]
The flying ducks are on hulver's wall. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #42 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:08:12 AM EST
It's perfectly relevant to mention Germany, for more reasons than you mention. Using silly names for it, that's the point under debate.

[ Parent ]
Why does a little playfulness by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #45 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:10:13 AM EST
With words anger you so?


[ Parent ]
It doesn't really. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #47 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:11:19 AM EST
I'm just calling you on the fact that you're being rude.

[ Parent ]
Rude? by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #53 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:25:15 AM EST
Where the hell did you get that from?

See comment above where I explicitly said it was done in affection.

You never call anyone by a nickname as a sign of friendship?


[ Parent ]
Not rude to the Germans. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #56 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:26:48 AM EST
Rude to your audience, who are supposed to make accommodations to the fact that you're making up words.

[ Parent ]
How much of an accomodation is that by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #63 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:38:23 AM EST
Exactly?

I'll bet you hated Carroll's Jabberwocky.


[ Parent ]
You mean Dodgson's? (nt) by Driusan (2.00 / 0) #66 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:42:27 AM EST


--
Vive le Montréal libre.
[ Parent ]
It's not how much, by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #67 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:44:42 AM EST
it's the fact that your audience is expected to do it for no purpose at all. Except to give you a tiny little chance to assert yourself, so I'm calling you on it. And don't think I enjoy discussing discourse pragmatics any less than I enjoy discussing politics, anyway.

There was a purpose to Jabberwocky, of course.

[ Parent ]
You're calling me on it! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #77 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:31:23 PM EST
Oh noes!

So, a minor idiosyncracy on my part (in my diary I might add) offends you.  I've already said it gives me some pleasure as I like playing with words, and it's meant in a positive sense.

Given the rest of the diary this is a pretty trivial point to pick up on, or "call me on!".  That sounds like you're trying a little too hard to assert yourself, or maybe you're just in need of a nice cup of tea and a sit down.


[ Parent ]
It doesn't offend me. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #78 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:35:12 PM EST
It niggles me.

What I'm interested in is understanding why I find it rude, not particularly in stopping you doing it or anything.

[ Parent ]
So, wait here. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #81 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:57:46 PM EST
First you call it an affectation on my part, then you call it rude, then you claim I'm demanding unnecessary accommodations (implying I shouldn't do it), then finally you claim it's so I can assert myself. 

Now it turns out all along I am supposed to help you with your own journey of self discovery?

Has this thread helped you any?


[ Parent ]
Not self-discovery. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #83 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:59:19 PM EST
Discourse linguistics.

Yep, it's been great.

[ Parent ]
Glad by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #87 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 01:21:57 PM EST
To have been of service.


[ Parent ]
Why is it rude ? by Phage (4.00 / 1) #55 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:26:34 AM EST
Are you German ?

[ Parent ]
I didn't mean it like that. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #57 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:29:32 AM EST
It's rude from a discourse point of view to not be using the same word for things as everybody else is. I don't know if a German would be offended by it. I think I'd find it at least as annoying if I were as I do now.

And given that there's no reason not to say German, then the politest thing would be to use the same word everyone else uses.

[ Parent ]
Oh dear by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #65 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:40:34 AM EST
Color, initialize, gray.


[ Parent ]
Nice analogy. by ambrosen (2.00 / 0) #68 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:47:19 AM EST
If your prose is a Citroën Saxo, using "Cherman" is the tinted rear lights.

Far more tasteful to have a metallic charcoal Audi.

[ Parent ]
I like tinted rear headlights. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #79 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 12:47:42 PM EST
And gofaster stripes.

You clearly don't.  Does that make you a snob?


[ Parent ]
What cufrmubliness! by Scrymarch (2.00 / 0) #117 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:11:15 AM EST


Iambic Web Certified

[ Parent ]
Yes by nebbish (4.00 / 2) #15 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:00:36 AM EST
All caused by a failure of capitalism, if you remember.

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

Nope by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #17 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:02:49 AM EST
Caused by regulatory failure of capitalism, allied to a government that didn't want to stop the party.


[ Parent ]
And in your parlance by nebbish (4.00 / 3) #18 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:06:08 AM EST
Where anyone left of Ayn Rand is a communist, regulating the markets would be..?

--------
It's political correctness gone mad!

[ Parent ]
Oooh like a TPD tie-break! by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #39 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:02:17 AM EST
regulating the markets would be done properly and without favour.


[ Parent ]
please define properly and favour by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #52 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:23:01 AM EST
Otherwise it's vague enough to mean nothing.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
Now that by Breaker (4.00 / 1) #60 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 11:33:43 AM EST
Will take an entire Breakermatic diary.


[ Parent ]
Yep, we need to clear the debt by priestess (4.00 / 4) #19 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:07:11 AM EST
I'd proscribe lots of new taxes, especially on the wealthy :)

Pre..........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

And pay freezes for the public sector by jump the ladder (4.00 / 1) #22 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 08:34:41 AM EST
And the over-generous pensions need sorting out too.

[ Parent ]
but you don't understand by infinitera (2.00 / 0) #32 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 09:40:31 AM EST
Capitalists and immigrants destroyed UK capitalism.

Only capitalists can bring it back, and only if they throw out all the immigrants.

[…] a professional layabout. Which I aspire to be, but am not yet. — CheeseburgerBrown

[ Parent ]
Ah the blight of socialists and marxists alike by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #37 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 10:54:39 AM EST
Someone else pays.


[ Parent ]
Well yeah by priestess (2.00 / 0) #90 Wed Apr 28, 2010 at 04:23:48 PM EST
Those that can afford it pay. That's the rule. Crazy asking those that can't afford it to pay. That's no way to get rid of a debt.

Pre..........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Why do socialists by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #104 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 05:23:04 AM EST
Always assume that the rich haven't got something better to do with their money than give it to the socialists to piss up the wall?


[ Parent ]
Something better than saving us from bankrupcy? by priestess (2.00 / 0) #116 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 06:21:28 AM EST
Better than feeding starving pensioners?
Better than educating the people of the country?
Better than maintaining the infrastructure that helped make 'em rich in the first place?

Expect they need a yacht or something huh?

Pre...........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
I've alerady paid for that. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #123 Thu Apr 29, 2010 at 08:41:04 PM EST
But, hey, do we need Smoking Cessation officers, Diversity * etc?

You're paying for that, not just "the rich£"

And how do you define " the rich", anyway?

People that earn more than you?


[ Parent ]
Who's rich by priestess (2.00 / 0) #124 Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 06:08:53 AM EST
Likely everyone over average wage needs a tax increase, including me, paying off that debt is pretty important.

Certainly there's stuff that needs cutting, but this FT application shows the scale of the problem, cutting enough to afford even the interest on that debt means cutting a lot more than just diversity programs and smoking police.

Doesn't look tractable to me, just cutting ID cards and ending the war on drugs won't cover it. Tax increases are gonna be needed.

Pre..........
---------
Chat to the virtual me...

[ Parent ]
Uhhhh. by Breaker (2.00 / 0) #125 Fri Apr 30, 2010 at 08:58:53 AM EST
Your link is the same as in the diary post...

For the rest - I agree. 


[ Parent ]
I've been neglecting you | 133 comments (133 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback