Dave's view of "Britain's economic future"

[MikeMcc]

What might you learn about the tories that i can't tell you mike?

Not much, I don't believe in any of the current crop of politicians, but the OP was talking about the policies, not so much that it was Cameron. Brown's VAT cut was hardly the most influential policy decision either. Any ideas on what might be effective?

Something will have to give somewhere, either the level of debt keeps rising to fund all of these schemes and maintain the level of government spending, taxes have to rise, or savings have to be made.

Personally I'd rather see all the special interests kicked in to touch and simplify the tax system from the ground up so that there aren't any loopholes for companies and individuals that can employ clever accountants to avoid tax. I'd like to see these quangos like Ofgas, Ofcom and whatever one monitors the railways given some real teeth to be able to tell the suppliers to fuck off and the governments to employ people who aren't quie so pal-ly with the suppliers to run them.

It will never happen though.

 

[Azrael]

Personally I'd rather see all the special interests kicked in to touch and simplify the tax system from the ground up so that there aren't any loopholes for companies and individuals that can employ clever accountants to avoid tax.

I'd support this. If you're resident in Britain, or hold British citizenship, you should pay our taxes.

I wouldn't support giving Quangos teeth unless they're refomed and can in some way justify their existence. More effective would be placing the railways in one set of hands, so ownership the infastructure and trains are not divided, as is absurdly the case. This could in private or public hands, whichever is most effective.

 

[N_igma]

or are we all caring helpful liberals now? Jesus.

No we're sensible mature people, I take it you aren't?

 

[MikeMcc]

I'd support this. If you're resident in Britain, or hold British citizenship, you should pay our taxes.

I wouldn't support giving Quangos teeth unless they're refomed and can in some way justify their existence. More effective would be placing the railways in one set of hands, so ownership the infastructure and trains are not divided, as is absurdly the case. This could in private or public hands, whichever is most effective.

Better phrased than I put it but essentially what I was meaning. I can't see the point of them if they aren't effective.

 

[butchersapron]

No we're sensible mature people, I take it you aren't?

Sensible mature people all taking about the tories and how you can hep them. Nice trick btw, worthy of a champ like you.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I'm disappointed with all of them.

Being constructive, UKIP could be the gang for you.

 

[MikeMcc]

Sensible mature people all taking about the tories and how you can hep them. Nice trick btw, worthy of a champ like you.

So would you prefer to keep the all of the old silliness going just because it seems to suit your world view?

 

[butchersapron]

So would you prefer to keep the all of the old silliness going just because it seems to suit your world view?

wtf is that supposed to mean? I'm sorry to get in the way of your re-figured google news posts that are literally changing the world, crack on with that if you like. Talking about tories with fucking tories on here - do fuck off.

 

[elbows]

There is a good reason all the main parties in the UK, and Obama, are going on about green technology jobs. Its not just because its fashionable, its because we have climate change and peak oil imposing limits on economic growth. Countries that embrace these realities have a chance to transition more successfully, and to make stuff that will find an international market, helping our future balance of trade.

Likewise digital & knowledge stuff isnt just parp, its that the net and stuff is seen as an important part of a low-carbon future, and the digital realm will be one realm where significant growth can be expected in future.

Whilst increased national debt is not desirable, at a time when individuals and business stop spending, government is the only thing left with the power to spend in a massive way. So I support the principal that many governments around the world are taking, that they will have to spend big. This is incompatible with certain right-wing ideologies, hence the Tories silly stance on this issue. They are isolated on that one. Whether the governments around the world spend the money in the right way remains to be seen, they have to do far more than pay lip service to green stuff if they want our society & economy to transition so that it can still exist in any recognisable form in a decade or 2.

 

[N_igma]

Sensible mature people all taking about the tories and how you can hep them. Nice trick btw, worthy of a champ like you.

Who's helping who?

Constructive criticism is better than "fuck off", I sometimes wonder your validity as an intellect.

 

[butchersapron]

I wonder your validity as an intellect - sometime too i, sometime too i

 

[Blagsta]

Who's helping who?

Constructive criticism is better than "fuck off", I sometimes wonder your validity as an intellect.

yeah but fuck off is funnier

 

[david dissadent]

• An environmental stock market, where green companies are listed and traded

What in the name of christ is this? Hes not shit because he is a conservative he is actualy shit at being a tory. Cameron and Osborne are just boys doing a mans job.
Clegg is another whimsical airy fairy nothing politician.

Unbelievably Brown is actualy the best man out of the current crop to be PM. He actualy understands ecomonics and can at least grasp a whisp that his whole 10 year stewardship of the economy worshiping at the alter of Greenspan was a fuck-up. He had a half decent plan about pouring money into health, rail and education, but was too blinded by the market and all those targets to really get value for money out of all that investment. Mind you his road to Damascuss "we are all Keynsians now" is a bit late in the day and hypocritical: I guess its a bit like being half bulimic george on debt in a recession but have georged on debt during the upswing.


On the brightside, the UK now has one hell of a lot of science graduates with great programming skills now seeking work. People who were world leaders in cooking up the complexity of quants can now maybe get some work done on things like modeling atmospheric physics and new turbine blades......

 

[agricola]

What in the name of christ is this? Hes not shit because he is a conservative he is actualy shit at being a tory. Cameron and Osborne are just boys doing a mans job.
Clegg is another whimsical airy fairy nothing politician.

Unbelievably Brown is actualy the best man out of the current crop to be PM. He actualy understands ecomonics and can at least grasp a whisp that his whole 10 year stewardship of the economy worshiping at the alter of Greenspan was a fuck-up. He had a half decent plan about pouring money into health, rail and education, but was too blinded by the market and all those targets to really get value for money out of all that investment. Mind you his road to Damascuss "we are all Keynsians now" is a bit late in the day and hypocritical: I guess its a bit like being half bulimic george on debt in a recession but have georged on debt during the upswing.


On the brightside, the UK now has one hell of a lot of science graduates with great programming skills now seeking work. People who were world leaders in cooking up the complexity of quants can now maybe get some work done on things like modeling atmospheric physics and new turbine blades......

You keep thinking that really, really hard and it might come true.

 

[scott_forester]

There is a good reason all the main parties in the UK, and Obama, are going on about green technology jobs. Its not just because its fashionable, its because we have climate change and peak oil imposing limits on economic growth. Countries that embrace these realities have a chance to transition more successfully, and to make stuff that will find an international market, helping our future balance of trade.

That may be so, however, if a 'eco stock market' was needed to raise funds it would already exist. Changing public policy to increase demand works, but saying for example you'll give everyone fast internet access is a pointless promise because he won't be funding it. If he was saying he would change the tax system to encourage home working or even set a target for Government employees to work from home he'd be creating a market for innovation to flourish.

 

[Azrael]

There is a good reason all the main parties in the UK, and Obama, are going on about green technology jobs. Its not just because its fashionable, its because we have climate change and peak oil imposing limits on economic growth.

The Guardian's George Monbiot has questioned the sincerity of David Cameron's green ideals. Like most aspects of Mr Cameron's platform, I suspect it's been adopted purely as a route to political office. If Mr Cameron actually believes it, all credit to him. I'm glad he believes in something.

Investing in computer and communications technology is sensible, but basing your economy around an intangible product is silly. An "information economy" is predicated on the idea that we can sell, well, ideas. Other "developing" countries will work out how to do this for themselves rapidly enough, and then where are we?

I'm not against government spending in principle. I'm against very little in principle. I'd support temporary and judicious spending to kickstart the economy, depending on the proposal, but not a general belief that the state can spend its way out of trouble. That's ever bit as limited as its free market opposite number.

 

[david dissadent]

You keep thinking that really, really hard and it might come true.

Loving your work.

 

[scott_forester]

Being constructive, UKIP could be the gang for you.

Not really, if they had stuck to Europe they'd been okay.

 

[goebfwai]

One thing's for sure, something needs to be done to prevent High Streets up and down the country turning into ghost towns.

In an era of declining, finite resources, increasing unemployment/underemployment (with those in work becoming increasingly parsimonious/penny pinching) and the prospect of higher and increasingly unreliable energy supplies which will make manufacturing of brand spanking new stuff even loss cost effective, it stands to reason that turning the idea of what constitutes the retail shopping experience needs to be turned on it's head and reinvented.

Shopping streets, particularly in faceless large towns and cities, need to become a greater place for innovation, the arts, light entertainment, community, education, enterprise, recycling/second hand/'vintage' goods stores and socialising, just as much for satisfying consumer needs.

I have always thought that the 'in-shops' mini mart concept where small traders and services like seamstress businesses, shoe repair shops and little ironmongers etc are often based has been under utilised. They could really be expanded a fair bit in city centres, especially now that there will be a lot of people looking to become small-scale self-employed for the sake of doing something rather than nothing as redundancies increase. That's something that will be a lot easier with a lot of prime sites becoming vacant. (There's an idea for some entrepreneur out there!) A more intimate, down to earth shopping experience. Plus small co-operative ventures.

Plus during a major recession, people have a lot more time on their hands. Cheap and affordable, fun, escapist pleasures like going to the movies (as did gambling, boozing and prostitution unfortunately) became very popular during the Great Depression. The movies aren't so cheap now though. I wonder if there would be any mileage in converting High Street shop units, into little specialist boutique cinemas/cafes or something>? I've always thought it would great if there were cinemas that only play good classic films (Wizard of Oz, Citizens Kane etc) rather than all this mass-market muck or art house rubbish.

 

[scott_forester]

Shopping streets, particularly in faceless large towns and cities, need to become a greater place for innovation, the arts, light entertainment, community, education, enterprise, recycling/second hand/'vintage' goods stores and socialising, just as much for satisfying consumer needs.

Sadly I can't see that happening because there isn't much parking in high streets. When I'm at home I walk everywhere local, unless I'm doing a big shop. I go to the local Indian green grocer, the local coffee shop etc the vast majority of people in my street hop in the car to waitrose because they can park.

 

[Azrael]

Shopping streets, particularly in faceless large towns and cities, need to become a greater place for innovation, the arts, light entertainment, community, education, enterprise, recycling/second hand/'vintage' goods stores and socialising, just as much for satisfying consumer needs.

The two could go hand-in-hand. The sort of demographic you describe could sustain certain types of shop if they were attracted to shopping malls.

Anything that's both ecomically viable and adds spice to the bland uniformity of our high streets is a good thing in my book.

 

[butchersapron]

Tory window dressing - marvelous.

 

[elbows]

The Guardian's George Monbiot has questioned the sincerity of David Cameron's green ideals. Like most aspects of Mr Cameron's platform, I suspect it's been adopted purely as a route to political office. If Mr Cameron actually believes it, all credit to him. I'm glad he believes in something.

Maybe, my previous comments might be wrong, my own strong beliefs about the agenda of today and tomorrow being driven by peak oil & friends, could be wrong, and the green stuff is just posturing. I do have trouble believing that Cameron believes the stuff he says, but Im also not sure that green stuff is a big vote winner, hence there could be some underlying economic reality that drives the Tories to such a stance, thats my guess.

Investing in computer and communications technology is sensible, but basing your economy around an intangible product is silly. An "information economy" is predicated on the idea that we can sell, well, ideas. Other "developing" countries will work out how to do this for themselves rapidly enough, and then where are we?

Well I do think the term 'information economy' is bad. Part of the economy in future can be based on uk workers with skills and knowledge, I guess thats the sensible application for the term, but most of the other computer stuff doesnt fit and makes the term seem silly. Personally, I think that the net will be used to cut down on transport & non-essential/entertainment physical products, we are already seeing this around the edges. Computers & the net obviously require some energy & other resources, but there is room there for the god of growth to live on in digital form.

 

[Azrael]

... but Im also not sure that green stuff is a big vote winner, hence there could be some underlying economic reality that drives the Tories to such a stance, thats my guess.

Interesting point, and if that's the case, then I may develop a modicum of respect for David Cameron. I doubt I'd ever vote for the man, mind. Conservatism is a natural ally of environmental conservation, and the Tories could offer a distinctive take on the issue, but I don't think Mr Cameron is much of a conservative in the proper, Burkeian sense.

It also depends how serious his environmentalism is. If Mr Cameron supports restrictive policies such as carbon rationing, road-charging and flight rationing, I'll believe he's serious. If he bans incandescent lightbulbs and drives a Prius I'll remain sceptical.

Well I do think the term 'information economy' is bad. Part of the economy in future can be based on uk workers with skills and knowledge, I guess thats the sensible application for the term, but most of the other computer stuff doesnt fit and makes the term seem silly. Personally, I think that the net will be used to cut down on transport & non-essential/entertainment physical products, we are already seeing this around the edges. Computers & the net obviously require some energy & other resources, but there is room there for the god of growth to live on in digital form.

The Net has a vital role in our economy, sure. If Mr Cameron isn't proposing we base our economy around selling ideas, then again, I'd develop some more respect for the man. (Which, given my current opinion of him, wouldn't be hard)

 

[elbows]

If he bans incandescent lightbulbs

The Net has a vital role in our economy, sure. If Mr Cameron isn't proposing we base our economy around selling ideas, then again, I'd develop some more respect for the man. (Which, given my current opinion of him, wouldn't be hard)

He doesnt get much choice about the lightbulbs, its an EU directive that they are to be eliminated soon.

People may laugh at the lightbulb stuff but when you compare how much energy a few incandescent bulbs use compared to a laptop, tv etc, it does make a difference, its watts better used elsewhere. And across the whole nation this energy use adds up, plus its something they can do without having to radically change the underlying system of mass manufacture & consumption.

Anyway I cant imagine every believing the Tories would be the best party to lead us through the change, or ever supporting them myself, but as I am passionate about energy & economic issues I will comment whenever they offer some sort of policy idea on these issues. I might make positive comments about the ideas if I like them, but I wouldnt want Cameron to get into power anyway.

I might be wrong about green issues and votes. There probably are a lot of people who would vote for a party if they truly believed it would act on green issues. Its the realities of green policies that I dont think are vote winners, because it involves change that many would resist, penalties and incentives they wouldnt like, it will cramp peoples style. I believe this is necessary, but have come a cropper on these boards more than once for apparently sounding like I want to inflict this pain on the working class for the sake of it.

 

[scott_forester]

I might be wrong about green issues and votes. There probably are a lot of people who would vote for a party if they truly believed it would act on green issues. Its the realities of green policies that I dont think are vote winners, because it involves change that many would resist, penalties and incentives they wouldnt like, it will cramp peoples style. I believe this is necessary, but have come a cropper on these boards more than once for apparently sounding like I want to inflict this pain on the working class for the sake of it.

The problem with green policies is that they almost always have the word 'tax' in their somewhere. As you have demonstrated with the lightbulb example it doesn't require taxing everything that moved to have an impact. Very few people believe green taxes are there to help the environment, rather they are just a way of raising money.

 

[Azrael]

People may laugh at the lightbulb stuff but when you compare how much energy a few incandescent bulbs use compared to a laptop, tv etc, it does make a difference, its watts better used elsewhere.

Not the 25-40W lightbulbs I'm using. Targeting a particular technology, instead of general consumption, strikes me as gesture politics. (The people who get migraines from fluorescents will be especially displeased.) But that's by the by, I've ranted about Joseph Swan's invention here before.

I thought the EU directive hadn't passed yet, BTW? Be interested to read more.

The key to green votes rests, like you say, between perception and reality. Green gesture politics will probably get votes from the ethical demographic. (Buy free ranged chicken, free trade coffee, so on.) Serious lifestyle restrictions, however, would, I imagine, be far less popular.

I'll reluctantly support "green" politics based on the precautionary principle, but I believe much of the agenda has been hi-jacked by primitivists & romanticists. (Not to mention people using it for ulterior political motives.) A common sense environmentalist party could get the votes of people like me, but I too doubt the Cameroons are that party.

 

[Azrael]

The problem with green policies is that they almost always have the word 'tax' in their somewhere. As you have demonstrated with the lightbulb example it doesn't require taxing everything that moved to have an impact. Very few people believe green taxes are there to help the environment, rather they are just a way of raising money.

Myself included. If they made it a part of the legislation that "green taxes" have to help environmentalist & conservation projects, it could solve that issue. (I admit that the wording would be tricky.)

 

[elbows]

Not the 25-40W lightbulbs I'm using. Targeting a particular technology, instead of general consumption, strikes me as gesture politics. (The people who get migraines from fluorescents will be especially displeased.) But that's by the by, I've ranted about Joseph Swan's invention here before.

I thought the EU directive hadn't passed yet, BTW? Be interested to read more.

Oh I didnt know it hadnt passed yet, everything Ive read for a year or more just talks about it as if its a cert. Maybe there are some formalities yet to occur, but I think its highly likely to happen and Cameron wont get a chance to stop it.

I certainly dont think its gesture politics. There are problems with alternative bulb technologies for sure, but lighting is an important and significant use of energy that is not too hard to address, so they will, and I support them. I prefer LED to fluorescent but it will take a while for that to happen.

I think they are phasing in the incandescent ban, the 100 watt bulb's time is up in September.

 

[Azrael]

The Council of Ministers agreed to ban incandescent lamps in October 2008. Don't know enough about the buro-zone to say it that makes it Euro law now.

Cutting energy is fine, but I don't support banning a certain technology that does no intrinsic harm. The amount of energy the ban would actually save is also debatable. If we must do this, carbon taxes would make a lot more sense. You could price incandescents out the interest of most people. Banning them seems to have taken on moral value amongst many greens.

As you say, LEDs are almost here. Solid-state lighting would have killed incandescents off within the decade, which again leads me to believe the ban is gesture.