Plus c'est la même chose?

And let this further sugestion by the Conservative party be an end to all you Journo's regurgitating the labour line that they are a "do nothing party"

Clearly they have had more viable ideas in the last six months than Labour managed in 11 years.

Further more when Brown finally allows us the election we deserve no doubt the Conservative party will have there opportunity to do something.

I own my own house and and am a substantial saver. I await developments with interest. There are 7 times as many savers as borrowers. It's high time our interests were taken into account!

The tories sums don't add up?

That's a bit rich coming from a party that has plunged us nto the worst buget deficit on record and the highest national debt ever.

It took hundreds of years to get the national debt to 500bn pounds and newlabour propose to double it to one trillion pounds in two years.

And you want to say the tories have unfunded plans?

You are having a laugh... just like the newlabour party who are laughing at the electorate as they spend all our money.

Where is all the newlabour spending money coming from? Our pockets....

Newlabour are nothing more than a bunch of cheap pickpockets masquerading as egalitarian do-gooders.

Work hard in this country and your reward is to lose it all in tax; sit on your backside and you are rewarded with a myriad of benefits. This is the greatest newlabour injustice of all.

Call an election.

Christ, you couldn't make it up.

People are concerned about their homes and their jobs.

Young naive Cameron wants to blow the retreat bugle and take everybody back to the thatchers years of the 1980's.

Promising a saving cuts in tax by reducing public spending will only create mass unemployment, absolute poverty for those on minimum earnings.

Less money for schools, hospitals, transport and employment, jeez, no how, no way, should this nation again accept the tory nonsense of elitism.

The tories never learn, as they revert back to Camerons 2005 manifesto of 20Bn cuts in public services.

Is young Cameron locked in a box, does he not realise that the whole world is implementing stimulus plans to ride this world down-turn.

Elections' yes! thats have it on! lets put the tories behind the black ball and bin them for the good of humanity for once and for always.

@2

There may be 7 times as many savers as borrowers.
But there is substantially more borrowed than saved.
The wider economy is served better by taking into account the borrowers needs because without them the savers would get no return.
The Conservative approach to remove tax on savings is a good one that rewards savers without penalising borrowers
Interest rate changes dont have that flexibility.

Nick,
According to your report on Radio 4 this morning the meaningless VAT cut has cost over 12 billion so reversing this measure alone should more than cover the cost and be more popular as well.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick, you miss the point. Had the package proposed by the Tories in 2001 been adopted rather than sneeringly dismissed by an arrogant government, people might have saved more and borrowed less. We would then be in less of a mess.

Now we need a package to encourage saving even more than we did in 2001.

And doesn't it look silly for Alastair Darling to have dismissed a useful and effective plan when he is now wasting over £10 billion on a pointless cut in VAT? Now Mr Darling's sums do add up, but the total is minus one trillion pounds!

#4

Okay Dereckbarber; let's just keep on spending money we don't have -the newlabour answer to everything in life.

Acddicted to debt; addicited to public spending; addicted to a client state; addicted to worn out and failed socialist policies that have left us with a million extra diversity officers and a public sector pensions bill we can't afford.

You go on spending, the rest of us will vote tory or libdem to end this tyranny of debtors' prison hell.

'Young Cameron' or 'Young Clegg' would be infinitely preferable to Busted Flush Gordon Brown and his spendaholic cronies.

Call an election.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

New Labour have forgotten what fiscal control means. It's a case of tax the middle class, give to the undeserving. I never thought I would live in a Britain were the middle classes cannot afford to have children, whereas people on bennefits can!

#2

Ditto... No mortgage now and reasonable savings which I will need to make up for the losses in the value of my personal pension pots if and when I eventually retire. So self evidently every little helps...

Nick,

surely there needs to be atotal review of the tax system. The only solution is to merge income tax with national insurance, abolish the distincti between the two.

Also agree on a figure, say GBP15,000 below which there is no tax to be paid, the rate above that will be a straight 25% and for income over GBP100,000 a straight 50%. However, no tax allowances, none whatsoever.

As for Capital Gains tax that must be totally abolished, everything is income. You buy something for GBP50,000, you sell it for GBP100,000 then you pay the new merged income tax/national insurance rate. It is income.

I have a lot of other ideas, most of which have been on your comments board, but all the politicians seem to eventually get the drift. The major saving would be to get rid of the politicians, they are the ones who cause the problem when they try to get elected, it is called pork barrel politics. Stop trying to buy my vote.

Hope they do it Nick. Sounds sensible to me.

Oh nearly forget, I'd love to see a tax on lying. Gordon and his marry band of woodentops'll keep the whole economy afloat with that policy alone.

derekbarker
"Promising a saving cuts in tax by reducing public spending will only create mass unemployment, absolute poverty for those on minimum earnings."

He's talking about a £2.4bn scheme in £600bn of public expenditure. It's less than 0.5%.

If you want to look at the record of this government, unemployment is now higher than it was in 1997 (a Labour trademark, unemployment after Labour is always greater than unemployment before Labour) and thanks to the 10p tax debacle, over 1 million of the lowest earners are still out of pocket.

So do tell me, which party really creates mass unemployment and absolute poverty?

#9

Crass Robin, you know it!

Stop being so self righteous, GB is doing what every other G8 nation and many more are doing, helping people in their time of need.

Cameron has spent six months to come up with a very old conservative policy of cuts in tax, "GET REAL"

Young Clegg? the man who has no idea of the pension rate and what to do with 20Bn cuts in public srevices?

Your just to weak to fight your case in the private sector, squeaky!

17 Derekbarker:

So Gordon is helping us is he? You must be nuts to believe this.

#16

Why do you lie? tell the truth!

The old conservatives and the thatcher ideals are rife, come on be truthful.

If you want to get a message to Gordon sign this Number 10 petition

We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign due to gross financial incompetence in running the British economy.

https://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Fianance/

Happy New Year,

Unfortunately, it seems nothing much has changed with this blog...

Oh dear, oh dear, oh dear!!!

Please can we have someone impartial to what is the never ending biased so flagrantly shown by the BBC time and time again.

I thought that the new year may bring some decent, political nose bleeding - first day back, same old stuff.

tell me, any news on Mandy and a certain yacht yet?

Cameron may be " young " he may be a novice, but anything is better than the failed policies of this abyssmal Labour party's attempt at government. Like every Labour government since the first world war, it's unsustainable pandering to the idle and workshy and it's entrenched ideological beliefs have led to hardship for the working taxpayer and near bankruptcy for the country. Brown , who claims financial expertise, is lacking in any grasp of reality , intellect or honesty, and is hell bent on attempting to hang on to power whatever the cost to the people of this country. If he had a modicum of integrity he would admit his incompetence and call a general election now.

4. At 11:37am on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:
Christ, you couldn't make it up.

People are concerned about their homes and their jobs.

===

Yes they are, who caused the problem?

Labour!

By the way Derek, Margaret Thatcher hasn't been PM for 18 years, wipe the sleep from your eyes.

One of the biggest problems at the moment is the banks don't have the funds to prop up their balance sheets or to lend.

Anything that helps people to save more, and to keep more of their savings income rather than rely on (taxpayer funded) complicated state handouts has got to be a good thing.

As for cuts in public services, same old NuLabour mantra trotted out. Tell the same lies often enough and some people will begin to believe it.

Are you seriously saying that there is no scope whatsoever to cut costs in the bloated public sector without affecting front line and necessary jobs?

And finally, this sounds an eminently more sensible use of funds than the billions squandered by Badger Darling on his ineffectual VAT cut.

'Labour, of course, will demand to know where the money's coming from.'

Are you taking the psis now?

Nick

Is it true that the Tories don't have access to the figures available to the government from Whitehall?

If so why should they have to give costings before they actually know the state of the public finances?

I also think that rather than second guessing what the Government will say in response you should be asking serious questions of the people with the knowledge and then provide accurate balance.

I do wonder how long it will take Crash and Doddy to pick this up as policy they have been thinking about for some time.

Please ask what interest rates we can expect to encourage people to save.

My apologies for earlier quoting Spike Milligan.

Nice to see yet more sensible policies from the Tories - unfortunately this only reduces the chances of us having an election any time soon!

And Derek, you're clutching at straws as usual. Everyone with an ounce of common sense can see that public spending can be cut quite easily without any noticable impact on services whatsoever.

Any government lacky who pops up to trawl out the standard "Tory sums don't add up" line ought to take a look at their own figures first.

How are the Conservatives expected the price any proposals accurately when finances are so far out of control under Labour?


Gordon doesn't bat an eye when he doubles debt over night, or vastly gets his financial forecasts wrong time after time.


The general sentiment of the Conservatives, however, is correct. We have to get our nations finances under control. Spend, Spend Spend is not an option.


Let the Government and their supporters bang on about the Conservatives 'cutting nurses and teachers'. That won't be the case - but Labour are a one trick pony and refuse to engage with common sense.

#16 derekbarking

derek, clam down, you seem rattled. go and have a lie down in a darkened room and when you wake up it will be 2009, not 1979 as you seem to think.

Are you having a "Life On Mars" moment?

"Your just to weak to fight your case in the private sector, squeaky!"

"Why do you lie? tell the truth!"

Insults, insults, the typical ZaNuLabour response. Smear your opponents.

Is this yet another Tax loophole which will allow overpaid executives to get tax relief on the money they save while those of us on lower pay who do not have the luxury of excess income will be contributing to the Fat Cat's unearned income? Surely we should be closing tax loopholes for the highly paid if, as Cameron insists, he wants a fairer Tax system.

It's very simple. The private sector creates wealth. The public sector consumes wealth.

Let's not forget that savers are saving the money that has already been taxed. The more people who put money aside for their own future, the less long-term expense for the State in the form of means-tested benefits. Therefore, it makes sense to encourage people to save. But when we see inflation running at anything from 4-10% (depending on an individual's spending habits), and savings rates well below this, it is truly obscene that the government then wishes to tax people on the interest they receive.

The only problem is that it doesn't go far enough. Why is there this obsession with basic rate taxpayers? Why not simply cut tax on savings interest across the board?

For all Labour's claims that the Tories are a do-nothing party, it's better to do nothing and plan the correct move than to simply jump on every passing idea in the vain hope it will help. The amount of damage Labour is causing by their "do anything" approach, they'd be better off doing nothing for a while.

#28

Ooops, should have said "calm down", not "clam down"!

Actually, clam may be better after all.

Oh, and derek, at least I correct my spelling mistakes, unlike some ;-)

Hahahahaha! The Tories' sums don't add up? So where did Comrade Brown mysteriously find all these billions to bail out everyone and their dog?

If we cut the useless public sector expansion (how many "5-a-day outreach coordinators" and "diversity consultants" do we actually need?) we could cut taxes across the board, give people more of their own money back, and produce more of a feel-good factor.

When people see rising bills, rising taxes to pay for an unproductive public sector, and job insecurity, they lack confidence in the future.

When people see taxes lowering, more money in their pocket, and their employers feeling more confident keeping them on due to lower corporation taxes, they feel more confident in the future.

People with confidence in the future are more likely to spend now.

With interest rates at zero, the tax take on interest income is also zero, therefore this is not only a nice costless soundbite, but also a suggestion that interest rates are likely to stay there for the foreseeable future.
Unless, on the other hand, they want to start taxing the capital instead of the income on it...as an alternative to printing money so it deflates away instead.

29. At 12:21pm on 05 Jan 2009, billatbasing wrote:

Is this yet another Tax loophole which will allow overpaid executives to get tax relief on the money they save while those of us on lower pay who do not have the luxury of excess income will be contributing to the Fat Cat's unearned income?

===

If you read the above properly you would see it is a proposal to abolish the BASIC rate of tax, not higher rate tax.

And increasing the tax-free allowance for pensioners, are you calling them Fat Cats?



"The paper reported that he was working on a £2.4 billion plan to abolish the basic rate of tax on savings and spending even more to increase the tax-free allowance for pensioners."

33. At 12:27pm on 05 Jan 2009, rahere wrote:

With interest rates at zero,

I presume you are contributing from the USA then?

20 Portcullisgate

Thanks for posting the link to that petition.

I have signed up immediately - in case anyone didn't read it - this is the cause:


"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to resign due to gross financial incompetence in running the British economy."


https://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Fianance/


It is a shame it only runs until 15th Jan - it won't have long enough to collect the huge number of signatories that it deserves.

Surely with rock bottom interest rates, and marginal returns if any on the Stock Exchange, the amount of tax accrued by the Treasury will be negligible anyway. When interest rates were higher about 5 years ago, then we would be talking about the GBP 2.4 bn, but the fact is currently we are already getting just a few millions to the Treasury before you consider any tax cuts to savings.

Another point is that interest rates determine the price of annuities, and just now is a pretty awful time to retire - never mind the poor performance of the Stock markets as well which have hit pension pots. In the market place pensioners contribute a great deal to buying consumables in their increased leisure time.

The difference between Cameron and Brown is that the former applies joined up thinking; the latter is only able to handle one issue at a time. Unfortunately for Brown the UK economy and tax system are both fairly complex and strategic analysis is vital to understand the intended and unintended consequences of any actions. Just think of the VAT reduction of 2.5 pct when most shops from Boxing day have been discounting at 50 pct or more.

Cameron wants to impose a 2.5% cuts in every council and you guys say it wont effect school, hospitals, jobs and so on,
Wow! Knock...Knock.

So from silicon thatcher to fibre optic Cameron, about 5 years to late "DAVE"

A complete blow out from young Dave there
A young man in an old conservative suit.

I now expect a new conservative leader by may, young Dave cant cut the mustard.

#4 derekbarker

There IS going to be less money for schools, hospitals, transport and jobs anyway - unless you, as an individual, continue to borrow and spend at the rate we have over the past 10yrs

Don't you get it, the Labour plan didn't work!

They shifted state spending onto individuals, so instead of the state running up one almighty National Debt and pushing it into the economy, they let the people take on the debt to create the Boom Time..... and it broke!.... now the state has to borrow anyway... and the people will be left to pay their personal debts and the new National Debt!!

There IS no alternative - the Thatcher years of the 80's were a solution to the HUGE problems of the 70's - they weren't brought in as a punishment for a Country that was doing well!!!!! We hear a lot about the closure of the Pits – anyone been short of coal in the last 20yrs?

The solution needed for the 2010's will be equally as unpalatable, Labour are trying to create the impression that the past 10 years were the norm.... and far too many people have fallen for it!


There IS no alternative - the Thatcher years of the 80's were a solution to the HUGE problems of the 70's - they weren't brought in as a punishment for a Country that was doing well!!!!! We hear a lot about the closure of the Pits – anyone been short of coal in the last 20yrs?

The solution needed for the 2010's will be equally as unpalatable, Labour are trying to create the impression that the past 10 years were the norm.... and far too many people have fallen for it!

#5 I'm really not sure why we are reducing mortgage payments across the board.

I didn’t think it was the cost of borrowing that was a problem; I thought it was the quantity available. People have been borrowing like idiots for the past 10 years at the old interest rates, but they are now seen as too high

Many in this country (including civil servants approx 500,000) will be unaffected by the recession and yet (for no reason I can see) they seem to have been made better off by the Government!..... and at a HUGE cost. Should we be targeting the help a little more?

As you indicate far more money than saved in the UK is borrowed - If you are to attract more money into the market wouldn’t a better return, by way of interest, be the solution

@38 Barker

Knock knock yourself

Thats the bailiffs coming to reposess your stuff cos you didnt balance your budget.

If you ask me what the country really needs is a housewife and grocers daughter in charge so that we can run a balanced budget and pay off some of the Labour debt mountain

I see the same old Draperdrones are swarming the blog as usual in a desperate attempt to create the illusion of support for their rotten party. Give it up Dolly and chums, no-one's fooled by your Hoonery.

#39

Dont you listen? Cameron wants to make an immediate cut in 2009 public spending of some 5Bn

He wants to go on and reduce the 2009 spending by another 25Bn in cuts.

Camerons words!

derekbarker, dont suppose you're selling any of those rose tinted specs that make labour stupidity look like competence?

I wish I could have the same viewpoint as you, it would be wonderful to not get stressed by the appaling state of our country, but unfortunately I am not visiting a mental asylum any time soon.

If the conservative proposals affect services so be it, that is the price we will have to pay for your lord and masters incompetence in running our economy.

If you think Dave cant cut the mustard I would be fascinated on your opinion of Crash Gordon's capabilities....

Cutting tax on savings is a welcome idea, but it won't benefit the low paid or save jobs.

Making earnings under 10k tax free for those earning under 20k in total, and all hours of work over 40 tax free as well would do a great deal to help the poorer workers.

In addition, a two year minimum wage 'holiday' would help businesses retain staff rather than make them redundant.

As for cuts in the public sector, that has to happen anyway - the current levels of government debt are unsustainable and will require either massive tax rises and/or reduction in services.

Labour are in no place to accuse anyone of doing their sums wrong, especially given the PBR GDP figure were a blatant lie and the pretty disgusting rewriting of his personal history that Brown has embarked on.

#4. At 11:37am on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:

"Christ, you couldn't make it up.

People are concerned about their homes and their jobs.

Young naive Cameron wants to blow the retreat bugle and take everybody back to the thatchers years of the 1980's."

Come on, derek. (That's not patronising, just an incentive to look at things differently...)

Young, naive Blair led New Labour to power. And wasted a huge opportunity because he had no idea how business worked. Sadly, Brown didn't either.

I was quite happy to see a change of government with a hope - expectation - that "things could only get better".

All I've seen is waste. Waste of prefessional competence in helathcare, education, etc.

I've always been very happy to pay tax to help the genuinely disadvantaged. But I don't like paying tax to support stupid people who have babies right and left, with people they probably don't evn recognise, and no sense of personal responsibility but a "right" to be supported by people who aren't that daft.

Pay taxes to bring up children who have extremely limited insight into history? Why? If you don't analyse and try to understand the past, you have no prospect of delivering a better future. I've had two families. Earlier children had a sense of history. Latest ones were taught almost nothing about the UK or European history. WWI and WWII were a focus. But with a very limited background understanding.

For goodness sake, Brown's supposed to be an historian. (OK, his PhD thesis was about a Scottish Independent Labour Party leader, but that should have provided a basis for more general insight...)

Guess that means I'm way out of line.

Society makes "leaps". More often or not that's down to technological change. Many of them came from the UK. Years ago.

I wasn't too happy about some of the Thatcher objectives. But, had Arthur Scargill taken a little more understanding line, maybe we'd have had a more sensible coal mining environment. Which I happen to think we need. B**ger the global warming arguement - things change (if they didn't, Scotland and even London would be covered by an ice sheet), but we need a source of energy production. We in the UK deliver a miniscule contribution to "global warming", but your children and mine will shiver pretty soon if we can't generate energy.

What's Brown's approach to stopping the destruction by burning of native forests? That creates much more CO2 than we deliver?

Just how many new power plants has Brown invested in, over a decade? He seems to rely on French expertise to invest in UK-based nuclear power. (Starting from 2008.) Big deal.

No more UK-based nuclear power capability.

Was that what you voted for?

I was happy to believe that education would be a priority. Where is it?

Why is a "media" degree more valued than a degree in a hard subject like physics, chemistry or biology?

Economics is a so-so, as it straddles art and science. Economists rely on "facts" that are "modelled". Just who creates the models makes a huge difference. (And those who provide "facts" share responsibilty.) Just take a look at "Global Warming" sites and recognise that some models are complete bunkum. Rediculous. Doesn't mean that climate change won't happen. It always has. But I'm not that happy to see any economy stuff itself up to support doubtful projections.

Climate change is certainly something we could worry about. Making better use of natural resources makes great sense. Having cars that consume less and deliver less damaging output seems quite "normal".

As an ordinary bloke, it was pretty obvious to me that allowing banks/building societies to make outrageous loans would cause a bit of stress.

What did Brown do?

Naff all. But this guy says that "if the world had listened to him" a decade ago, things would have been different. HIS approach allowed a UK environment that permitted banks to do whatever they wanted. Regulation? I quite like that. Some boundaries on what companies can do. Brown set up a framework for incompetence.

That's a normal New Labour attitude.

Sad, really. I've voted all over the place, as I thought some people really believed in what they said.

Believe Brown?

Yeah. I believe the sun will rise in the west.

Nick,

Despite your time off, your head seems to have stayed within the Westminster bubble.

At the time of this present crisis, it isn't about scoring party political points, it's about steering a course towards recovery.

Recovery can only come about when money begins to circulate freely and that means getting money into the system.

Where is that money coming from? Either it can be raised by yet more borrowing - borrowing against present and future tax revenues. Or it can come from attracting investment - savings and deposits - instead of penalising depositors through zero to low interest rates.

It would appear that Brown and Darling have backed the wrong horse. Rather than admit to error, they pour scorn on the alternatives.

I sincerely hope that they are able to swallow their pride and indeed "do more to help savers" in more than just rhetoric.


#4 Barking Derek

I respect your right to express your views, but find your opening sentence unnecessary and offensive. Have you tried asking the one whose name you take in vain so freely for a perspective on these issues?

I do enjoy Mr Barker's rants....I can almost see him in his shell-suit, veins pumping in his forehead, as he tries to defend the only point of view he believes to exist in his reality. Great stuff! keep it up Derek!

Good plan, methinks, from the Tories. More savings, means more capital for the banks to lend, and then they can start paying us back the squillions that GB gave to them on our behalf - plus, the additional benefit that as a big saver I win. Plus the plummeting interest rates on my tracker mortgage means that I can continue the pay the same per month as before and pay it off even earlier by using the additional interest from savings. I'd win again.

GB really hasn't got a clue. As someone said a while ago - (on here probably) - if you're in a boat filling with water you don't drill a hole in the bottom to improve the drainage. Borrowing to get out of debt is simply, well, idiotic IMHO.

# 42 derekbarker

5bn sounds a very reasonable amount to start with.

I never thought I would say that but this government has got us into debt many, many times that.

And you've got to start somewhere....

I am curious at all the Thatcher hate.

For a quarter of a century it was a highly successful model, but as times change, expecting the same model to function in the same way is foolish.

Thatcherism got derailed, and we either need to get it back on track or find a new model.

And anyone thinking increased state control of employment is that model... Well, that's Stalinism and that screws the worker and consumer over - the state tends to keep wages artificially low.

#42 derekbarker

That sounds like a good start! What's next? There's plenty more money to be saved!

@42 dont you understand?

GOOD!!! That is a start, I wish he had announced far greater cuts. The public sector needs to be slashed to the bone, including pensions.

As labour poured billions extra into the public sector for no improvement it stands to reason that we can cut spending drastically with no impact.

If socialist stupidity is a major contributing factor to our woes we hardly need more of the same.

Gordon is a gambler
Who wasted all our cash;
With his massive, bulging nappy
I'm sure he has a rash.

"The sun will rise in the west"

I dont fully understand the draw for Mecca.

Might have something to do with my christian values.

Fibre optic Cameron, Oh Ho Ho, that was a classic fairlyopenmind, did he get some influence from the rising sun on that one?

Yes! Ice age and climate change is not new to this world.

Again no real solutions as to how to tackle
this down-turn from Cameron and co, just a poorly adviced script, you can shoot peas through.

1986 and the thatcher deregulation of the FSA was indeed! the catalyst.

Look, THERE IS NO WAY THIS COUNTRY CAN EVER RETURN TO THE SORT OF CRAZY HOUSE PRICING THAT WAS!

The tories just dont get it! good stuff can happen, it occurs when good people collectively respond to a bad situation.

i can only presume that derekbarker is a pseudonym for some wannabe in the mandelson office.... If he really believes that thatcher is to blame for all our ills perhaps he would like to ask his beloved leader why he did nothing in the past eleven years to remedy her "mistakes".

#45 fairlyopenmind

Wise and well-chosen words as usual, great post.

The government's stance is sounding increasingly weak and reactionary. The Tories have now proposed a string of proactive economic policies, the only response to which has been to bang on about the 1980's followed by sounding out similar proposals a couple of weeks later.

"The sums don't add up" is perhaps the most meaningless and worn-out phrase in modern politics. The problem is for Labour that after 11 years of waste, inaccurate borrowing forecasts and incompetence the public are less inclined to buy it.

No doubt Labour will accuse the tories of planning huge cuts in public services. Trouble is what they don't realise is that's exactly what people want. The public sector has not shown anything like the amount of improvement relative to the huge increases in manpower and spending over the last 11 years. Everyone I know is tired of paying first world levels of tax for third world services. Time to get rid of all those labour voting non- jobs, quangoes and consultants and trim the fat.

Happy New Year folks.

Interesting announcements.

Perhaps before rushing to judgement we ought to wait for comments from the CBI, Institute of Directors, the Retail Federation and the body that represents Small Business.

I doubt the "Save, Save, save" message is what they want to hear at the moment BUT I may be wrong.

As for one of the richest men in the country damning "materialism" may seem a bit rich (no pun intended) but if your massive inherited wealth allows you to have whatever you want whenever you want it, some may say "by your actions be judged" (not your words)

David Cameron's proposals certainly get my vote, to move money from the public sector into the private, to encourage saving instead of debt, is certainly the way forward.

I hope he goes further to address the bloated public sector and addresses the ring fenced pensions they enjoy which are such a burden on the tax payer. Labour will never do this as it is their core voters.

Young he may be but watching D. Cameron this morning gives me much more hope for change than boring old Brown.

how about a joint government for 2009 without an election?
keep every one happy

It's not worth arguing with derekdraper.

No point! He's living in denial.

Just like Gordon Brown and the Liars Party!

We just need an election!

.

Nick,

#42 DB,

Let me see if I understand your arithmetic. Cameron will reduce public spending by 5 billion in 2009. However, total spending in 2009 will be much higher than in 2008 (according to Darling and Brown). So would you not agree that the Conservative spending will actually be a smaller increase than was planned by Labour rather than a cut?

If that particular problem stumps you, consider what a reduction in RPI from say 5% to 3% entails. It is not a cut in prices, it is a lower rate of increase! Do you get it now?

I am also interested in your views about the principle of taxation in general. Do you think it would be a good idea if the government taxed us all at say 80% and then simply handed back what it felt we needed to live in their utopian world? What level of tax do you think would be appropriate?

ATB

#42. At 12:51pm on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:
#39

"Dont you listen? Cameron wants to make an immediate cut in 2009 public spending of some 5Bn

He wants to go on and reduce the 2009 spending by another 25Bn in cuts.

Camerons words!"

Derek, Reducing government tax take simply reduces the burden on companies and individuals.

When Brown decided to abolish the 10p tax-break - mostly affecting the poorer, did you cheer?

Stuffing up a part of the population who really needed that tax-allowance? Which I thought was a really good idea - but always thought it should be limited to people with relatively low incomes - so wouldn't give releif to the rich. So, because he couldn't say he made a mistake, there has still been no "correction". Do you really believe that people should have to grovel to get back money they originally owned, but any government took away?

VAT reduction? Great idea? Nonsense.

Food has no VAT. Nor central or local tax.

Brown says he wanted a change of global monitoring of financial/economic actions. To follow his agendaq. Like an independent central Bank, a really good Financial Services Agency...

Didn't work here. I'd be very happy to see stupid bankers, recognised but not reacted to, by the FSA, get tried for incompetency or fraud.

That will happen in the USA. Do you really think it will happen in the UK? After Brown cosied up to the money men/people over a decade?

If a decently prepared person couldn't get into government spend and take out at least 5percent of costs, he or she would never make it in a privately owned organisation.

What do you want? State control? USSR style garbage that did nothing worthwhile?

Chinese economy, that relies increasingly on privately delivered benefits?

Get real.

A Chinese style "one child and you're out" philosophy or a "have another child and we're all ready to pay for that outcome" approach?

Why should I pay for some stupidity by a teenager with no moral background?

Did you ditch your children? Or expect others to pay for them? If you're happy to pay, is it for a plasma TV, really good-up-to-date trainers, or just food, home and basic needs?

Been there. My problems were mine.

Never expected any others to pay for any mistakes I made.

Do you really believe we are "all" responsible for some stupid corporate or governmental choices?

I've never been financially out of control.

So why should I pay for idiots?

"Labour, of course, will demand to know where the money's coming from."

I demand to know where all the LaLa Labour money has come from?
Borrow and steal (they never beg) is my theory.
Get back in your box Derek Baker.

#4 - Watch the blasphemy, mate. I assume you were using "Christ" in a swearing sense. Either that or this blog must be gospel, eh?

@53 Barker
Quote "Might have something to do with my christian values."

Sorry sir but your rantings certainly arent Christian.

Your Post #17 encapsulates your judgemental opinion and the one thing that the bible teaches is "judge not lest ye be judged yourself"

You acuse other of being self righteous while being self righteous yourself.

I suggest sir that you remove the beam from your eye before attempting to remove the splinter from mine.

#53 derekbarker

wrote:
The tories just don't get it! good stuff can happen, it occurs when good people collectively respond to a bad situation.


That's what a great number of us are doing.

Outgoings not exceeding income and saving when possible.

We're still having to bear the brunt of the wild expenditure of others and the government's mismanagement.

#53 derekbarker

"1986 and the thatcher deregulation of the FSA was indeed! the catalyst."

===

Derek, you must have a poster of Maggie on your bedroom wall, you truly are fixated with her.

The Financial Services Authority (FSA) was established in October 1997 by the way.

Or did you mean the Food Standards Agency, which was established in 2000?

We are now starting the real argument over the economy. This is good. The phoney war is over and we can all settle down to a feast of good red meat.

The Labour argument to date is that since the markets have failed then the state needs to take over. An interesting point of view; but constrained by the fact that the state also failed to regulate those markets.

In effect we are dealing with both market failure and state failure. When we look into the complex nature of those markets we discover that when things we starting to get out of control - see BoE Stability Report 2006 - the state failed to call the top of the market.

Both the state and the financial markets have been at fault. The participants of that failure must all be indicted and until this responsibility can be assessed, measured and a verdict brought in there will be no lasting solution to our current plight.

What we need are alternatives and it is interesting to note the gradual evolution of policy from the Conservatives. They now say they are opposed to the Big State: hurrah - sinners come to repentance!

The battle lines of the future political struggle are now being drawn. On the one hand are those, like me, who have no trust in either Big Business or Big Government, and on the other are those who will do anything to protect their power and their privileges.

Sounds like something we had once before, doesn't it?

`...that the poorest he that is in England hath a life to live, as the greatest he; and therefore, truly, sir, I think it is clear that every man that is to live under a government ought first by his own consent put himself under that government; and I do think that the poorest man in England is not at all bound in a strict sense to that government that he hath not a voice to put himself under..'

By all accounts Tom Rainsborough was a decent man who, in the above words, set a standard by which all governments and politicians need to be judged in both his time and ours. Maybe, dear Tom's time has now come.

There would be a delicious irony if the Tories made his ideas come true.

This just seems to prove that the Tories are economically illiterate. During a recesssion encouraging saving is the last thing you should do. Did Cameron learn any economics whilst at Oxford or was he too busy polishing the buttons on his Bullingdon frock coat?

#62

Where on earth do you get your retail price index from?

Are you one of those in the top ten percent of earners, who have quickly worked out a tax safe on your earnings in real terms is far greater to you than say those on the miimum wage?

#63
Hey up' fairlyopenmind, a little less on the USSR and China syndrome and a bit more on the real world of economics.

Bad blood doesn't make a good black pudding?

Dear Nuck,
Happy New Year,
BRITAIN PLC is an economic war zone.
2008 WAS A POLITICAL DISASTER
2009, will be worse,
Brown should go, PLEASE.
and those running the country and fiscal policy have dragged us to the Depths of dispair and as Politicians we all sit back and accept the diatribe that spews forth out of their mouths, BUT NO ONE HAS SAID SORRY, EXCEPT THE CHAIRMAN OF BARCLAYS. BANK
One thing is right though, GORDON Brown is not to be trusted, and Andrew Marr 's interview with him on Sunday 4th Jan, "who was licking whose shoes."? Marr did not do his job, he let the man off the hook like every one else, ALL too frightened to to Rock the Boat.
The Establishment needs a boot up the backside, they have behaved abomerably towards the British People, who they have ignored, and now expect them to bail the government out, its no wonder there is so much anger by the general public aimed at politicians and Bankers.
AND IT IS NOT NOW GOING TO GET BETTER AS GORDON BROWN SAYS FOR 2 YEARS.
ROLL ON THE GENERAL ELECTION,
IVE HAD ENOUGH OF LABOUR, EVERY ONE OF THEM. TIME TO SHOW THEM THE LAST RIVET,, BEFORE THE DOOR IS SHUT ON THEM FOR GOOD., IT HAS TO BE GOLD, TO REMIND bROWN WHAT HE DID WITH BRITAINS GOLD RESERVES????

@70 Apb
"During a recesssion encouraging saving is the last thing you should do"

So therefore saving should be done during a boom and unfortunately for you Brown failed to do this. In fact he legislated to make saving less palatable during the boom so he is actually in a much less beleivable position now.

Its hardly a wonder so many people want an election

70. At 1:39pm on 05 Jan 2009, APbbforum wrote:
This just seems to prove that the Tories are economically illiterate. During a recesssion encouraging saving is the last thing you should do. Did Cameron learn any economics whilst at Oxford or was he too busy polishing the buttons on his Bullingdon frock coat?

===

And James Gordon Brown is an economic Shakespeare is he?

By the way, Our Great Leader has not yet authorised the use of the "r" word. It is a "downturn", and it all started in America, and he saw it 10 years ago (but did nothing about it)!

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Question 1: Gordon Brown deserves:

1) To be tarred and feathered

2) To be flogged with rhinoceros hide whips dipped in brine

3) To be imprisoned in the Tower of London for treason

4) To spend a whole year in the pillory and have rotten tomatoes thrown at him, one for every person he has crushed with debt

5) To be sent to work in the salt mines

Discuss

70. At 1:39pm on 05 Jan 2009, APbbforum wrote:

so your saying everyone should just keep spending?

Isn't this the very heart of the problem.........people spending what they don't have.

common logic tells us that books have to balance whether it is personal or business finance.

If this wasn't the case wouldn't the banks still be borrowing money.

YOU DON'T BORROW MORE TO GET OUT OF DEBT!!!!
You simply balance income against expenditure.
Something Golem Brown and his cronies led many to believe he was doing but it has turned out to be untrue.


I have no faith in this government and will not risk any serious expenditure until they have been replaced and i'm sure many other millions of hard working taxpayers who have been shafted by this government agree with my stance.

#70 APbbforum

Did I misunderstand? I was under the impression that the announcement of scapping tax on saving for basic rate payers was to give people such as pensioners a better standard of living. After all, tax has already been paid on earnings.

#70 APbbforum

Did I misunderstand? I was under the impression that the announcement of scrapping tax on saving for basic rate payers was to give people such as pensioners a better standard of living. After all, tax has already been paid on earnings.

71. At 1:45pm on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:
#62

Where on earth do you get your retail price index from?

Are you one of those in the top ten percent of earners, who have quickly worked out a tax safe on your earnings in real terms is far greater to you than say those on the miimum wage?

===

I've read the post and it is clear that it was a hypothetical figure so that you could understand and answer his point. Which I note you have not done.

What is a tax safe, by the way?

I think you must have eaten too much black pudding.

Hi Nick,

There is another solution but neither party will have the foresight to suggest it.

A flat rate of tax of say 20% (full stop)starting at £ 16,000. The top figures before negotiated taxes could be quite high. All final salary pensions for civil servants to be halted and as the government has no qualms punitive retroactive legislation back date it to 1997.

The immediate benefits of a flat rate tax :

(i) ordinary people who are struggling would have instant and real liquidity.
(ii) the banks would not need government pressure to lend, as the realities of not having customers for their loans should do the trick.
(iii) the Treasury could be trimmed down to a much smaller Department.
(iv) the cost should be a lot cheaper than shovelling billions and billions into the abyss ... sorry into banks, car companies (et alia).

Why won't they do it ? No politician will ever believe that less government is better government.

This Labour Government can't afford to have so many people taken our of dependency on the State, because they will lose their electorate. So as far as Gordon Brown is concerned the poorer people become the better.

Why should they do it ? The rich will get a lot richer BUT the poor will also get richer and that should be their only focus.

Finally who wouldn't want to live and invest in UK when effectively it would become a 'tax-light' haven ?

76. At 1:53pm on 05 Jan 2009, power-to-the-ppl wrote:
Question 1: Gordon Brown deserves:

1) To be tarred and feathered

2) To be flogged with rhinoceros hide whips dipped in brine

3) To be imprisoned in the Tower of London for treason

4) To spend a whole year in the pillory and have rotten tomatoes thrown at him, one for every person he has crushed with debt

5) To be sent to work in the salt mines

===

Is it all 5? Because he truly is a hoon.

#71 DB

What an utterly pathetic response from a man that claims to know better.

Did you not notice the term SAY in my earlier post?

If you want to be taken seriously, answer the earlier question. Would the Conservatives spending plans for 2009 represent an increase on 2008 spending projections or not?

I am also keen to find out how much of our money you think is right for our government to take from us. Any suggestions, or do you simply accept what GB and his puppet Darling say?

I am not hopeful of a consistent or argued response, but you never know.

I am curious about the effect of such proposals and to which 'savings' they might apply too. Most of my £30K is in ISA's which are either not taxed or bear a very light tax. I have another £7K for the cost of a house repair this year on which I will pay tax on the interest on the average amount held in the account. I am an OAP of course so maybe my temporary savings might benefit!

So who will get the benefit and is it likely to be worth anymore than the VAT cut to most people with "pocket money saving"? with 2-3% interest

As for NuCons cuts in public expenditure Camaroon had no idea about where the savings be coming from, should he be in government in the next few months, as told the students and academics at the LSE last month. NUCon shadows are supposed to be hunting hi and low for them. In the long term of course he expects to transfer much of the public services to capitalist and 'voluntary' bodies (remember the Housing Associations run by Estate Agents, Surveyors and Solicitors') fiananced I would expect on the basis of pay as you use. Its a Nucon's Cameroon con!

yellowbelly.

Dont just rant your nonsense, check your facts first, thatcher and the deregulation 1986.

I guess they have a saying for folk like you!

"Big belly, Empty head"

Brown was running a bigger than 3% budget deficit in 2006-07 when the economy was growing above trend. Hence Labour's figures to increase state spending do add up, but the balancing item eventually is massive debt.

Brown was running his budget clearly keeping in mind an election in late 2007 early 2008, but then was taken aback by Cameron's decent performance at the Conservatives conference late summer 2007 and some of their policies, including lower death taxes.

PS: please note I'm not from the UK, not a party hack.

PS2: Still waiting for a BBC reporter with a gram of economic bagage to ask Brown why he ran a budget deficit in boom times and tried to get more doves on the monetary policy committee when the UK savings rate dived below 0% in 2006.

70. At 1:39pm on 05 Jan 2009, APbbforum wrote:

This just seems to prove that the Tories are economically illiterate. During a recesssion encouraging saving is the last thing you should do.

===

No, that's right. We should all go out and buy more Chinese made plasma TVs to boost the Chinese economy!

you know what?

I don't even care if the tories win and are useless

because this government is so ridiculous, so out of touch with the common man, and common sense, that I would welcome anything else we elected

not only is Brown arrogant in refusing an election, which he probably will call later this year, despite it 'being the last thing on his mind' (and just remember that when he does - another fib)

that and their economic policy is based on a defense of the last decade, which from a purely practical point of view limits their actions, and leads to there being far too much politics directing it

meanwhile they are pig headed over ID cards, 42 days, the equalities bill and any other lefty agenda they can think off

they are an old tired government and need to be put out of their misery, if they somehow are in power after next year then I wash my hands of any responsibility

76 power to the people

I believe 1 and 2 would be possible, I think the other punishments have been removed from british law, probably by this record breaking gov

4 Derek Barker and 70 APbbforum

Some reality for you both to chew on:

Cameron Turns back the 'Do Nothing' Charge on Brown

53. Barking: To be Christian means to FOLLOW CHRIST and his teachings. Having Christian values is just not enough. Being good to others is not necessarily Christian.

However, I forgive you because you are the only poor soul on here bleating away on behalf of the Labour shower. It must be so hard for you.

What you are actually doing is painting them in an even bleaker light and anybody who was half for turning has changed their mind.

84. At 1:58pm on 05 Jan 2009, cping500 wrote:

"As for NuCons cuts in public expenditure Camaroon had no idea about where the savings be coming from, should he be in government in the next few months, as told the students and academics at the LSE last month."

===

That is because the spiteful Broon refused to allow the Official Opposition access to the Civil Service, going against all previous political convention. Could it be that Golem was afraid of what the Conservatives would find?

re: 82, brownisahoon

Well done, you got it exactly right.

Which is more than can be said for the Hoon of Hoons and his NuLab goons.

#42

Cameron wants to make an immediate cut in 2009 public spending of some 5Bn

He wants to go on and reduce the 2009 spending by another 25Bn in cuts.

Not enough. We need to balance the budget. This shouldn't be too difficult. With interest rates at 2% and mortgages only slightly more then the biggest expense for most people - their mortgage - has practically halved in recent months.

I reckon a (say) 10%-15% pay cut in the public sector should do the job. That's what the lads at JCB did to ensure they all kept their jobs.

Either that or fire 10-15% of the public workers.

It won't happen though. We've already doubled national debt since 2001 just to make the payroll and now Brown proposes to quadruple it in another three or four years. Again, just to make the payroll. We will still have absolutely nothing to show for it except an additional one million public service workers on cast-iron salaries (with annual grade increases) and pensions. No productivity increases, a few new concrete and steel hospitals and schools and a two week play-park costing 12bn quid.

Utter insanity.

Brown will go down as the man who quadrupled national debt. A man who, in ten short years, squandered three times as much as every chancellor in UK history before him combined. More than two world wars. More than Callaghan, Wilson and the rest of them. Combined.

For nothing.

For less than nothing. Because on top of the planned borrowing we also have PFI liabilities for hospitals and schools we won't even own in 20 years time. If they haven't collapsed due to shoddy materials used in the first place.

Derekbarker

You have convinced me that Labour really is in terminal decline.
Your manic personalised responses highlight the fact that the ZaNuLabour party really has nothing relevant to say any more.
Are you really the media savvy party that controlled the media agenda for so long?
It’s quite sad.
Can you respond to this statement for me?
Labour has destroyed the economy every time it’s had power.

@85 DB

There goes that non Christian attitude again.

Post less, read more bible or you will be sorely dissappointed when you meet St Peter

Poor Derekbarker fighting a losinmg battle here today with no CEH or jimbrandt to support his spendaholic views.

Has it occured to you Derek that newlabour are already themselves proposing 5bn of public sector sepnding cuts and the vast majority of wonder 'boy' Dave's proposals are funded by said newlabour cuts?

He doesn't need to cut frontline services to anything. You can't grow public sector spending faster than the privatee sector ad infinitum or you will end up bust or a communist state. We can't afford it.

Newlabour cronies need to get teal to the real debt crisis facing this country and the total denial is more eviudence that they are unfit for government.

Call an election.

Let's live in a society that values work and training more than idleness and diversity.

Let's vote for a society that helps itself and others and not for a government that patronises that it knows better.

let's vote for a governemnt that abpolishes tax on the first 25,000 pounds of income and over 100,000 obliges charitabel contributions to charities that present a viable business case.

Let's get rid of this inept, corrupt and self regarding newlabour rabble.

goodbye newlabour.

85. At 1:59pm on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:
yellowbelly.

Dont just rant your nonsense, check your facts first, thatcher and the deregulation 1986.

I guess they have a saying for folk like you!

"Big belly, Empty head"

===

derekbarking

Check your facts!

The Securities and Investments Board (SIB) was incorporated on 7 June 1985.

The FSA came into effect on 28 October 1997.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_Services_Authority

As I've said before, resort to smears, misquote fact and namecall any one who doesn't agree with you, typical ZaNuLabour.

85. At 1:59pm on 05 Jan 2009, derekbarker wrote:
yellowbelly.

Dont just rant your nonsense, check your facts first, thatcher and the deregulation 1986.

I guess they have a saying for folk like you!

"Big belly, Empty head"

-------

Hello Dolly, how's the lovely Kate?

I'm fascinated by the "Tories' sums don't add up" chestnut.

To any reasonable person, the story should be something like that the government acquires income through taxes, and then spends it through provision of services (e.g. schools, the health service, overseas development) and running costs (e.g. spin, derekbarker's salary etc.). When expenditure exceeds income, then "the sums don't add up".

Just what was the Pre-Budget Report then?

On the best available estimate, in the current year, expenditure will exceed income by £120 billions!

Labour's own sums don't add up - it's because tax income has collapsed.

How dare they try to cover that up by making the same criticism of the Tories' plans?

Some integrity would be brought back to a legitimate debate on the economy if the government could at least go against its current habit and be honest about the situation as it currently stands.