Let's scrap more stuff

[New POD]

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

Imagine that the UK is just a big family.

Daddy, he makes stuff, in the garage and sells most of it to other families,
Mummy, she tends the garden, and most of what she grows, the family eat. However Daddy gives her most of the money so she can buy other stuff she can't grow. She also manages to make too much jam but gives it to the church summer fair.
Child one has a paper round but expects daddy to pay pocket money. He spends it all outside the family.
Child 2 gets pocket money and pays child 3 to do his homework
Child 3 pays child 4 to clean his room, eventually he pays a child from another family to do it cheaper (Polish Labour)
child 4 saves it all in his piggy bank.
Child 5 organises a rota, and taxes everyone, and then pays it back to them in tax credits. (Civil Service)

Then Maggie thatcher said "Daddy stop making things, and start selling child 4 banking services"

30 years later the UK is nearly bankrupt. Well Done to the Conservatives and Labour who followed through with the madness.

[Gaspode]

AJS- said:

I'm not talking about disolving the entire state and giving a free hand to the mafia though am I? I'm talking about closing down a few departments who have large budgets for little tangible gain.

But your arguments for so doing appear to be driven by political philosophy rather than a dispassionate assessment of the actual costs and benefits of running these departments. We live in a democracy, which means to get your ideas implemented means you are going to have to convince a significant minority of the voting population of the validity thereof - and simply coming up with political right-wing rhetoric isn't going to cut it, I'm afraid.

The fundamental problem with naked free market capitalism is that it thinks that the sole purpose of organisations is to make profits for their owners, forgetting that for nearly everybody else in the society, the purpose of organisations is to give employment to people - and that's what they vote on.

To be taken seriously as a political theorist, one has to formulate not only workable policies, but also figure out a way of getting people to vote for them. All the time you are spouting about chucking public servants out of work, you're not going to get anywhere without their explicit support. Turkeys don't willingly vote for christmas.

[AJS-]

No argument with the fact that my ideas are driven by my ideology. It seems to me though that my ideology is currently being proved fundamentally correct. Our government is too big and we can't afford it.

[Gaspode]

It's bleedin' obvious to all concerned that current levels of deficit are unsustainable in the long term. The question is, how do we get out of it? Lefties/Keynesians would say borrow even more to increase public spending on infrastructure projects (like massive house building) to stimulate the economy, then we'll get growth and a bit of inflation and this will enable us to reduce the deficit to manageable levels. This has a proven track record of success, it's how the US got itself out of the depression in the '30s. The downside risk is that if it doesn't work, we're worse off than ever.

The right wing/monetarist argument is much like yours - cut back state activity to affordable levels, remove restrictions on private enterprise, let the markets sort things out. This, too, has succeeded in the past, albeit at a greater short-term pain (which is what we are suffering at the moment). The downside risk of this approach is that if the population feels like it's being shafted too much, there will be rioting on the streets, breakdown of law and order, and we'll end up worse off than ever.

So, both approaches have merit. Both have risks. The question is, which one do you think is more appealing to the electorate?

[MartG]

AJS- said:

Our government is too big and we can't afford it.

Just pay MPs minimum wage

[AJS-]

MartG said:

AJS- said:

Our government is too big and we can't afford it.

Just pay MPs minimum wage

I think they get enough already.

[einsign]

New POD said:

Imagine that the UK is just a big family.

Daddy, he makes stuff, in the garage and sells most of it to other families,
Mummy, she tends the garden, and most of what she grows, the family eat. However Daddy gives her most of the money so she can buy other stuff she can't grow. She also manages to make too much jam but gives it to the church summer fair.
Child one has a paper round but expects daddy to pay pocket money. He spends it all outside the family.
Child 2 gets pocket money and pays child 3 to do his homework
Child 3 pays child 4 to clean his room, eventually he pays a child from another family to do it cheaper (Polish Labour)
child 4 saves it all in his piggy bank.
Child 5 organises a rota, and taxes everyone, and then pays it back to them in tax credits. (Civil Service)

Then Maggie thatcher said "Daddy stop making things, and start selling child 4 banking services"

30 years later the UK is nearly bankrupt. Well Done to the Conservatives and Labour who followed through with the madness.

Exactly this, if you dont MAKE something and sell it to someone else for a profit, ie another country, where do you expect to find any money from. Its not rocket science and there are some seriously deluded people in this country who claim to be intelligent!

[Gaspode]

einsign said:

Exactly this, if you dont MAKE something and sell it to someone else for a profit, ie another country, where do you expect to find any money from. Its not rocket science and there are some seriously deluded people in this country who claim to be intelligent!

Well, kind of. I certainly agree that as a country we have undervalued our manufacturing industry for too long, but the goods and services we manufacture and export don't have to be physical things. Risk capacity, for example. Or intellectual property, like designs. Either way, we'll certainly never drag ourselves out of recession by selling each other domino's pizzas

[CDP]

Gaspode said:

It's bleedin' obvious to all concerned that current levels of deficit are unsustainable in the long term. The question is, how do we get out of it? Lefties/Keynesians would say borrow even more to increase public spending on infrastructure projects (like massive house building) to stimulate the economy, then we'll get growth and a bit of inflation and this will enable us to reduce the deficit to manageable levels. This has a proven track record of success, it's how the US got itself out of the depression in the '30s. The downside risk is that if it doesn't work, we're worse off than ever.

The right wing/monetarist argument is much like yours - cut back state activity to affordable levels, remove restrictions on private enterprise, let the markets sort things out. This, too, has succeeded in the past, albeit at a greater short-term pain (which is what we are suffering at the moment). The downside risk of this approach is that if the population feels like it's being shafted too much, there will be rioting on the streets, breakdown of law and order, and we'll end up worse off than ever.

So, both approaches have merit. Both have risks. The question is, which one do you think is more appealing to the electorate?

You are forgetting the other option. Cut everyday operations to an affordable level while making massive investment in infrastructure on projects that will generate a return. But a proper return, not art galleries in Newcastle (other towns and crackpot projects available). Everything has to be geared up to making the country sustainable.

[einsign]

Gaspode said:

einsign said:

Exactly this, if you dont MAKE something and sell it to someone else for a profit, ie another country, where do you expect to find any money from. Its not rocket science and there are some seriously deluded people in this country who claim to be intelligent!

Well, kind of. I certainly agree that as a country we have undervalued our manufacturing industry for too long, but the goods and services we manufacture and export don't have to be physical things. Risk capacity, for example. Or intellectual property, like designs. Either way, we'll certainly never drag ourselves out of recession by selling each other domino's pizzas

Not kind of it is true, and how do I know, because I actually do it for a living! I agree you can export other things but why not design and manufacture in this country? One single person designing a widget in the UK and exporting this to give 500 people a job in Germany making them, how does this help us, the numbers never stack up?

You must think of this as a TEAM exercise, however if there are too many chiefs and not enough indians then it also wont work, by this I mean people who can actually DO THINGS, not get useless qualifications and demand 50k for sitting at a desk pretending somehow they are important or contributing!

By the way I have no idea what Risk Capacity is or how you would export it ??

[AJS-]

Gaspode
The spending part of the new deal lasted about 3 years. The UK has been deficit spending and debasing the currency for a decade now. And by epic proportions for the last couple of years. I'd say it isn't working to stimulate growth.

You could argue that it's being spent poorly, but if you wanted to do big infrastructure projects without running up an even bigger debt then you'd still have to make big cuts somewhere.

[jbi]

CDP said:

Not so sure about not having any enemies. There are tensions in the subcontinent, middle east, east asia and don't forget the EU could collapse in a catastrophic way.

There's an awful lot we don't really need - Minstry of Culture and Sport looks a good candidate. I'm sure people won't stop being creative or running around with it's demise.

Indeed considering the cuts to our conventional armed forces we would be a fool to remove our nuclear capability.

The world can change overnight as demonstrated many, many times from history.

Besides, your not saving 30 billion annually by cutting trident... this is stretched over a 30-40 year period

[AJS-]

I'm a bit ambivalent on maintaining nuclear weapons. I can see the sense in it, and it seems daft to give it up because we wouldn't get them back easily if we needed them. However as per the Yes Minister episode I can't really envisage a scenario where we would ever use them.

[MartG]

AJS- said:

I'm a bit ambivalent on maintaining nuclear weapons. I can see the sense in it, and it seems daft to give it up because we wouldn't get them back easily if we needed them. However as per the Yes Minister episode I can't really envisage a scenario where we would ever use them.

Just think of them as an insurance policy - you hope you never have to use them, but are a necessary expense just in case

[AJS-]

In case of what though? I could see it with the cold war, if the Soviet army was massed in Calais and we had no hope of holding them back with conventional weapons then we have a final, ultimate retaliation. But we just don't live in that world anymore.

It's inconceivable that we would use them against say Argentina in a dispute over the Falklands, and I don't see them being much use in the middle east. Iran is the most likely candidate I suppose, but what circumstances would put such an act in our interests?

[Mr Snap]

AJS- said:

In case of what though? I could see it with the cold war, if the Soviet army was massed in Calais and we had no hope of holding them back with conventional weapons then we have a final, ultimate retaliation. But we just don't live in that world anymore.

Because that's what would have definitely happened...?

I think the best way of clawing back the debt would be to tax moany, right wing, ex-pats for posting on UK discussion boards. The tax would be punitive, let's say 50% of all earnings. Any properties in the UK would be confiscated, too, of course.

There could also be a similarly punitive tax on moany ex-pats who return to the UK, in their final years, and use the National Health Service.

Even better, the taxes could be collected by private companies who would be allowed to make a profit and not by HMRC. That would ensure efficiency and that no state money would be wasted on them.

I'm willing to pay reasonable taxes to support british culture in all its forms, from science to arts. I don't want the coronation of King William to be sponsored by McDonald's.

[AJS-]

Yes, but you (collectively) are not able to pay sufficient taxes to "support culture" along with everything else the you want the government to do.

Edited by AJS- on Sunday 14th October 08:30

[Gaspode]

AJS- said:

The UK has been deficit spending and debasing the currency for a decade now. And by epic proportions for the last couple of years. I'd say it isn't working to stimulate growth.

...and I would agree with you. But the way I see it the problem isn't with figuring out an appropriate alternate strategy, it's selling that strategy to a fundamentally venal electorate that is the hard part.

If you were on the hustings, you would be telling people that your policies are going to put the out of work or cut their standard of living, and on the opposite side would be a lefty Keynesian telling them that they could borrow loads more money at extremely low rates of interest, stimulate more growth, and everything would be hunky dory.

This is why I think we are fked.

[AJS-]

Well fortunately I'm not running for election so free of those constraints. It's likely that the left (I hesitate to call them Keynesian) in some form will win the next election, but after another 5 years of economic slump, and/or a debt default I think it's quite likely a sizeable portion of the electorate will be open to dramatic cuts, and whatever government is in at the time will have to make them. To me it seems as good a time as any to start discussing what and where those cuts should be made.

Yes it's informed by my ideology/philosophy, as most political arguments are, but it falls along way short of my ideal model of what a government should do.

[AJS-]

To actually sell it to the electorate, I'd look at a combination of a big, visible tax cut and gradually taking people out of tax once we have a balanced budget.

Fuel duty raised about £26bn and the VAT on fuel about £4bn in 2009, so let's say you chop a third off that it gives you a net loss of £10bn assuming no increase in consumption, petrol falls 20p a litre over night. Then you cut out all of the above, and get somewhere close to a balanced budget. Sure a lot of people will be put out but at least lots of people would be happy with cheaper fuel.

In reality I think petrol consumption would increase a fair bit so revenue loss would be mitigated, and there would be an upturn in economic activity as a result.

It would also have the left flapping and moaning distractedly about global warming and being in the awkward position of arguing for a tax that hits the working poor hardest of all.