Budget

[DrCheese]

I am slowly but surely building up an opinion that unions are significantly to blame for many of the problems this country has faced for the last 30+ years!

eh, I wouldn't say that for the past 10/15 years but certainly between the 60s and late 80s they had way too much power and would strike at the drop of a hat.

 

As for a lot of businesses being privatised in the 80's, a lot it made perfect sense. It escapes me why the tax payer should have owned companies outside of wartime like British Airways/Cable & Wireless/Jaguar(!)/Rolls-Royce/BP. Heck at one point the government owned Thomas cook !

[localzuk]

eh, I wouldn't say that for the past 10/15 years but certainly between the 60s and late 80s they had way too much power and would strike at the drop of a hat.

 

Indeed, and it was Thatcher who reduced union power. However, unions are still up to their old tricks - look at BA, Royal Mail etc...

 

As for a lot of businesses being privatised in the 80's, a lot it made perfect sense. It escapes me why the tax payer should have owned companies outside of wartime like British Airways/Cable & Wireless/Jaguar(!)/Rolls-Royce/BP. Heck at one point the government owned Thomas cook !

 

Indeed, it makes no sense for a government to own many businesses, like why the government still owns 'The Tote'.

[Theblacksheep]

I have a feeling that your views are based on your geography, and therefore due to either your own personal experiences in life, or those of family. I've not lived in mainland England for an overly long time, so am looking at this from the point of view of looking at all sides of the argument.

 

Is this for real??

[localzuk]

Is this for real??

 

Why wouldn't it be? I grew up on the Isle of Man for the most part, and only moved back to England 8 years ago. So, having spent a lot of time reading about this stuff from a historical point of view, and from a political point of view, I base my views on that - rather than my own experiences of what's going on.

[localzuk]

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

It shows ... Id stick to IT if I were you.

 

Thread done.

 

Well done. What a detailed and balanced argument...

 

All I ask for is this - evidence that the pits were viable and were closed anyway. (Thinking about it logically, why would the government want the industry to close pits unless they weren't viable?!)

 

Ahh Some feedback 'Arrogant idiocy as usual!'. Well thought out there whoever that was.

[Butters]

Still not offered any evidence to support your claims though so you can't just claim Localzuk is 'incorrect'.

[srochford]

Indeed, it makes no sense for a government to own many businesses, like why the government still owns 'The Tote'.

 

You're right that the government should never have owned many of the businesses it did own and it was sensible to sell them off. My problem with the sale was that most (all?) of them were sold at bargain basement prices. People complain because Gordon Brown lost a lot of money by selling gold at the wrong time and for too low a price but he only did it once. Thatcher sold lots of companies at far too low a price - making sure that big business benefited but the majority of tax payers lost out.

 

I rather suspect that the current government will do the same when they sell the banks we currently own; it ought to be possible to sell them at a large profit (and hence clear a great chunk of debt)

[GrumbleDook]

One of the reasons / excuses (call it what you will) for selling off the nationalised industries was that they were not cost effective to support or not bringing in the money they should do. Personally I don't have a problem with selling off a majority share in these things as long as the right people come in to run it, to get a profit going again or to simply stop it costing the tax-payer money for something which is not good value.

 

However, I would say that good value does not always just mean it is cheaper ... I don't mind things like national forests costing money as the benefits they bring are wonderful, but what one person loves another might think is pointless.

 

Good public transport costs ... either directly by the people who use it or via subsidies. It annoys me that commercial companies have been able to pick and choose the bits that earn a nice profit and drop poorly used (but dearly needed) routes. The same applies to many other services ... the need to get the price down down / profit up in a selfish manner by some groups will cost others.

[witch]

if you are saying that labour took 15 years to try and get us out of the problems the tories got us into, well then how about we give the tories 15 years and assess if they get us out of the same mess, rather than 1 year in saying they are rubbish and we'd be better off without them

 

No, I wasn't saying that. AND I didn't say that we would be better off without this govt - not quite yet anyway.

 

 

As for things being wonderful in the 80's, I remember when we bought our house in 1988 - and we took out a fixed rate mortgage at 13% because the normal rate was something appalling like 15%. So for all those who think the govt of the day did a good job - hmm - not quite so sure there.

I still feel that every govt only thinks about that particular term of office and blaming someone else for any issues.

 

As for nationalisation, I cannot see the sense in selling off our utilities, especially now when some are owned by foreign powers. Public transport should be owned by the government and subsidised so people use it, and integrated with trains, etc as it is in other countries.

Edited March 24, 2011 by witch

[beeswax]

You report "disappointing" borrowing figures for February (Report, 23 March) and sympathise with the chancellor's budget dilemma. Net borrowing now stands at £875bn which is supposed to make Osborne's eyes water. But this is still only 58% of GDP – within the Maastricht limit of 60%. Servicing this debt still costs less than 3% GDP – far less than the 5.15% reached under Thatcher – who, incidentally, understood Gordon Brown's golden rule and heavily borrowed her way out of recession. Get some perspective.

Saville Kushner

[Dos_Box]

Thatcher – who, incidentally, understood Gordon Brown's golden rule and heavily borrowed her way out of recession. Get some perspective.

 

 

Erm, did Maggie have a time machine? Perhaps it was Brown who understood Thatchers golden rule, but just taxed us to death anyway?

[AyatollahPies]

No, I wasn't saying that. AND I didn't say that we would be better off without this govt - not quite yet anyway.

 

 

As for things being wonderful in the 80's, I remember when we bought our house in 1988 - and we took out a fixed rate mortgage at 13% because the normal rate was something appalling like 15%. So for all those who think the govt of the day did a good job - hmm - not quite so sure there.

I still feel that every govt only thinks about that particular term of office and blaming someone else for any issues.

 

As for nationalisation, I cannot see the sense in selling off our utilities, especially now when some are owned by foreign powers. Public transport should be owned by the government and subsidised so people use it, and integrated with trains, etc as it is in other countries.

 

Yet we have the lowest interest rates in history and lots of people are still struggling to pay their mortgages. Can you imagine what would happen if rates went up to just 5%, the long term average?

 

Of course, this government and the previous one seem intent on keeping house prices high. Tax payer funded deposits, shared equity, support for mortgage interest scheme.

 

Imagine what the future currently looks like for an 18 year old in this country.

 

Drives a car? That'll be a few grand per year at least please, just to get insured.

Going to Uni? That'll be circa £30k debt in 3-4 years.

Graduate and look for a job? Average salary (even for graduates) is about £24k

Want to buy a house? Ha ha ha ha, forget it mate. You must pay rent to pay off the mortgage of some bloke that was lucky enough to have taken out loans during the biggest house price boom of all time. It's his pension innit? Your rent, student loan repayments and general living costs will leave you with nothing left to save for your future.

 

Welcome to slavery.

[beeswax]

Of course the right to buy your council house has nothing to do with the shortage of affordable accommodation? Once these dwellings are removed from the market, buying becomes the only option, and with the big housing companies buying up land, and not building on it, or allowing anyone else to build on it, the shortage increases house prices. Which in turn leads to people borrowing ridiculous amounts to get on the first rung of the house owning ladder, and makes for higher profits for said companies.

Incidentally, the last time I looked, Bangladesh had the highest number of home owners, whist Switzerland had the highest number of rented properties.

[beeswax]

Erm, did Maggie have a time machine? Perhaps it was Brown who understood Thatchers golden rule, but just taxed us to death anyway?

 

I think it's referred to as irony.

[Gatt]

Get Lord Vetinari in, he'll sort it out...

[MK-2]

so....erm....the budget....from 2011.....that lasted all of two pages

[localzuk]

Of course, this government and the previous one seem intent on keeping house prices high. Tax payer funded deposits, shared equity, support for mortgage interest scheme.

 

Well, yeah, they do want to keep them high - by having high house pricing, it means more people have to rent. The more people that rent, the closer our economy becomes in 'compatibility' with the EU single currency. A few years ago, Gordon Brown stated that the biggest obstacle to joining the single currency was the UKs high home ownership numbers compared with other single currency members.

[AyatollahPies]

Well, yeah, they do want to keep them high - by having high house pricing, it means more people have to rent. The more people that rent, the closer our economy becomes in 'compatibility' with the EU single currency. A few years ago, Gordon Brown stated that the biggest obstacle to joining the single currency was the UKs high home ownership numbers compared with other single currency members.

 

Another reason to vote for UKIP then. Another reason Brown should be hung from a lamp post.

[localzuk]

Another reason to vote for UKIP then. Another reason Brown should be hung from a lamp post.

 

Well, that depends if you think we should be in the EU or not... I think we should (which will come as no surprise to some).

[AyatollahPies]

Well, that depends if you think we should be in the EU or not... I think we should (which will come as no surprise to some).

 

So to be in the EU, you think it's acceptable for the younger generations to be priced out of owning their own home and be forced to rent?

[localzuk]

So to be in the EU, you think it's acceptable for the younger generations to be priced out of owning their own home and be forced to rent?

 

No, I think they're belief that we should do that is wrong, but that EU membership is hugely important and that we should be moving towards joining the single currency.

[AyatollahPies]

No, I think they're belief that we should do that is wrong, but that EU membership is hugely important and that we should be moving towards joining the single currency.

 

Fair enough, but I think the PIGS are proving that the single currency does not work.

[localzuk]

Fair enough, but I think the PIGS are proving that the single currency does not work.

 

No, they're proving that the current structure of the system is wrong. The concept and purpose are fine. If someone breaks a leg, you don't instantly amputate all the limbs, you re-set the bone and let it heal, then you educate the person how not to break their leg...

[Gibbo]

Yet we have the lowest interest rates in history and lots of people are still struggling to pay their mortgages. Can you imagine what would happen if rates went up to just 5%, the long term average?

 

Of course, this government and the previous one seem intent on keeping house prices high. Tax payer funded deposits, shared equity, support for mortgage interest scheme.

 

Imagine what the future currently looks like for an 18 year old in this country.

 

Drives a car? That'll be a few grand per year at least please, just to get insured.

Going to Uni? That'll be circa £30k debt in 3-4 years.

Graduate and look for a job? Average salary (even for graduates) is about £24k

Want to buy a house? Ha ha ha ha, forget it mate. You must pay rent to pay off the mortgage of some bloke that was lucky enough to have taken out loans during the biggest house price boom of all time. It's his pension innit? Your rent, student loan repayments and general living costs will leave you with nothing left to save for your future.

 

Welcome to slavery.

 

When my folks bought their first house, the cut back and ate beans on toast. Nowadays people feel buying a house and making do isn't enough. They have to fill it with massive screen tellies, new sofas, new carpets and kitchens and so on.

 

Driving a car? It isn't an automatic right. If you can't afford it, tough. I can't afford to buy and run my own plane but I don't whinge and moan about it. Insurance is expensive for everyone because people can't drive properly. I daily see people driving too fast and too close which results in front and rear shunts. Not to mention people taking their cars out in the snow and ice and crashing everywhere. And that isn't the end of it. Insurers drag their heels and weasel out of paying so injured parties have to seek a solicitor to move things on. Someone ran into me in January 2010 and by April nothing had happened. I took on a solicitor and a week later had a cheque for the car. However, its still ongoing and they're racking up thousands in solicitors fees. Its Churchill by the way who are trying to weasel out of paying, so if you're with them and your premium has gone up this year, its probably because of the £5000 solicitors bill they've got, as well as the £3000 payout for my car.

 

Uni costs? A good idea. It might cut the wheat from the chaff. When I was at uni a few years ago the first year was full of people who couldn't be bothered and didn't want to learn, but got it all paid for. By year 3 our classes were down from 35 to 8! As for the fees, you don't have to pay them back immediately. And if you're on a good job I can't see it being an issue. I don't know any poor doctors, do you?

 

House buying. Again, its not a right. We need to stop the belief that you MUST buy a house and get a mortgage. You spend all your life paying it off then you die and its sold and the money split between your kids, who then blow it on crap. I bought my house for £56k in 2000 (Labour in power). A few years ago it was revalued for when we had an extension and it was valued at £155K. Its now dropped to about £120K.

Edited March 25, 2011 by Gibbo

[pcstru]

Is this the right room for an argument???