The Future of the UK
Discussion
Before the election this year, the IFS and many others were saying all parties are ignoring the fact we live way beyond our means and politicians aren't being honest with the electorate by denying this. With every month running a significant deficit, a huge national debt with debt repayments being more than some government department budgets and record tax take (still increasing) and crappy public services, what next?
From the change of government this year it is clear nothing has or will change.
We are about to see a budget where the public is asked to give up even more of our hard earned money and this will not rescue us either.
So question is what do we do?
1. Carry on as we are trying to deliver everything but running up more debt?
2. Cut services from the books to bring about affordability?
3. Cut more services and reduce the tax burden?
From the change of government this year it is clear nothing has or will change.
We are about to see a budget where the public is asked to give up even more of our hard earned money and this will not rescue us either.
So question is what do we do?
1. Carry on as we are trying to deliver everything but running up more debt?
2. Cut services from the books to bring about affordability?
3. Cut more services and reduce the tax burden?
I think it's more a question of what this government will do, as I'm more convinced that rather than tackling big issues governments would rather just kick the can down the road for the next lot to deal with, or hopefully do just enough to get re-elected.
The real challenge lies in finding a balanced, long-term solution. One that may involve reforming public services to be more efficient, targeted tax reforms, and perhaps a candid conversation with the electorate about what is truly affordable. Without honest dialogue and serious reform, the cycle of deficits and rising debt will continue, making future corrections even more painful. I'm not big on politics tbh, I do find Labour's initial stint in office strange, although blaming the previous government is a normal strategy it will only wash for so long, it doesn't sound like the 22bn hidden deficit is actually a thing, the WFA was an odd one to go after, must have been lower hanging fruit to go after.
The real challenge lies in finding a balanced, long-term solution. One that may involve reforming public services to be more efficient, targeted tax reforms, and perhaps a candid conversation with the electorate about what is truly affordable. Without honest dialogue and serious reform, the cycle of deficits and rising debt will continue, making future corrections even more painful. I'm not big on politics tbh, I do find Labour's initial stint in office strange, although blaming the previous government is a normal strategy it will only wash for so long, it doesn't sound like the 22bn hidden deficit is actually a thing, the WFA was an odd one to go after, must have been lower hanging fruit to go after.
We'll probably keep gradually cutting services for future generations until demographics starts to balance out
Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
Previous said:
We'll probably keep gradually cutting services for future generations until demographics starts to balance out
Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
Like NOrth Sea Oil extraction? Oh wait...Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
The economic/political consensus of dogma over the last 30 years has been:
Import lots more people and grow our way out of it.
People may be starting to realise it hasn't worked, and it will continue not working.
The flip side of 'spend and borrow' is that someone, somewhere needs to keep deciding to lend the money.
That means not just people buying government debt, but also private, personal and business, finance like mortgages and business capital, much of which ultimately comes from abroad.
If you were looking in from outside, how much of your dosh would you invest in the UK?
Import lots more people and grow our way out of it.
People may be starting to realise it hasn't worked, and it will continue not working.
The flip side of 'spend and borrow' is that someone, somewhere needs to keep deciding to lend the money.
That means not just people buying government debt, but also private, personal and business, finance like mortgages and business capital, much of which ultimately comes from abroad.
If you were looking in from outside, how much of your dosh would you invest in the UK?
It's the size of the government spend on cash that is extreme.
The biggest change of the last 30 years is this.
People don't want services, they want cash.
Brown/Blair splashed the cash on tax credits.
Cameron/May/Johnson/Sunak splashed the cash on pensioners.
The argument about the winter fuel allowance is simple evidence of peoples' obsession with cash handouts.
Today's reveal of the borrowing figures for August are mental - tax revenue are higher than ever before. But the deficit gets bigger and bigger because the cash spend is growing even faster.
The biggest change of the last 30 years is this.
People don't want services, they want cash.
Brown/Blair splashed the cash on tax credits.
Cameron/May/Johnson/Sunak splashed the cash on pensioners.
The argument about the winter fuel allowance is simple evidence of peoples' obsession with cash handouts.
Today's reveal of the borrowing figures for August are mental - tax revenue are higher than ever before. But the deficit gets bigger and bigger because the cash spend is growing even faster.
KAgantua said:
Previous said:
We'll probably keep gradually cutting services for future generations until demographics starts to balance out
Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
Like NOrth Sea Oil extraction? Oh wait...Raising pension age / means testing pensions etc.
The UK ideally needs to find something (and maybe a few things) it's good at that other countries want to buy.
And get government to support that in a big way.
Can someone explain to me why we can’t ‘downsize’ rather than chasing constant growth?
Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
TGCOTF-dewey said:
This is the case for every country though.
The US, China, Spain, Italy, etc. etc.
You don't have to look to hard to see it's an international problem.
This then means that the solution is a global generation of Turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas.
Absolutely this. I’ve lived and worked in four other countries and follow media in several others (because learning languages). Most developed countries facing similar issues: ageing population, fewer children, lack of economic growth, migration, deficits, problems with healthcare systems. The US, China, Spain, Italy, etc. etc.
You don't have to look to hard to see it's an international problem.
This then means that the solution is a global generation of Turkeys are going to have to vote for Christmas.
I just read yesterday that the proportion of over 65s in China is going to jump from 14% to 30% by 2030 (they are increasing retirement age).
Crumpet said:
Can someone explain to me why we can’t ‘downsize’ rather than chasing constant growth?
Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
Capitalism doesn’t work that way. It is all about growth. What we need is an economic system that retains the good bits about capitalism (innovation, increased productivity, efficient allocation of capital, etc) but ditches the worst parts such as the tendency for increased income and asset inequality and blindness towards the environment and social issues. I’m not holding my breath for someone to do that though. Capitalism benefits rich people most (at least up until the point of revolution) and rich people generally hold power in most countries.Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
Crumpet said:
Can someone explain to me why we can’t ‘downsize’ rather than chasing constant growth?
Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
Seek you the movies Logan's Run or even the totally bonkers Zardoz to see how that might play out.Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
But actually I agree with your core argument. If we could have locked in '1997', say, I'd have been pretty happy with that.
nuyorican said:
Crumpet said:
Can someone explain to me why we can’t ‘downsize’ rather than chasing constant growth?
Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
I’ve often thought about this.Ever more people with ever more infrastructure to cope with them seems to be totally at odds with the push for saving the environment - which seems to be the number one priority these days.
A smaller, better educated, healthier population would be my goal. I suppose it’s a bit difficult to get rid of the ‘dead wood’ like you would in nature, though. Probably gets a bit genocidey.
More emphasis on looking after and training the indigenous population rather than just constantly cramming more people in from Africa and the Middle East hoping they contribute.
No need for genocide. Just stop mass immigration for a bit.
nuyorican said:
I’ve often thought about this.
More emphasis on looking after and training the indigenous population rather than just constantly cramming more people in from Africa and the Middle East hoping they contribute.
No need for genocide. Just stop mass immigration for a bit.
Which is all well and good until you want someone to wipe an old persons arse, then suddenly no one wants to do it and we have to import that errr serviceMore emphasis on looking after and training the indigenous population rather than just constantly cramming more people in from Africa and the Middle East hoping they contribute.
No need for genocide. Just stop mass immigration for a bit.
a311 said:
Without honest dialogue and serious reform, the cycle of deficits and rising debt will continue, making future corrections even more painful. I'm not big on politics tbh, I do find Labour's initial stint in office strange, although blaming the previous government is a normal strategy it will only wash for so long, it doesn't sound like the 22bn hidden deficit is actually a thing, the WFA was an odd one to go after, must have been lower hanging fruit to go after.
A recent survey found, that 50% of people asked, were unable to explain 50%.
Under such circumstances, there is a huge number of people who believe any number they are told, so a perfect scenario to think of a £22bn figure and blame the previous government.
Perhaps the £22bn figure was selected, because the true 2022/24 deficit of £120bn would appear too large for people to understand.
Trying to say they did not know, is either implausable because monthly figures are published, or perhaps if they had known, questions would be asked about why was none of this mentioned in the Labour Party Manifesto.
'In the financial year 2023/24, government revenue – from taxes and other receipts – was £1,096 billion.
Government spending was £1,217 billion.
The deficit was therefore £120 billion, equivalent to 4.4% of GDP.
At 4.4% of GDP, the deficit was the UK’s eighteenth largest since 1948.
Borrowing of £120 billion is equivalent to around £1,780 per head of the UK’s population.'
geeks said:
Which is all well and good until you want someone to wipe an old persons arse, then suddenly no one wants to do it and we have to import that errr service
Well at that point you discover the true cost of that service. Someone will do it, you just have to pay them enough to make it worth their while.geeks said:
Which is all well and good until you want someone to wipe an old persons arse, then suddenly no one wants to do it and we have to import that errr service
Well perhaps that’s one area where we should look to change the law. We could make it easier for people to end their life if they choose to do so.
We could make it such that we choose to not use expensive treatments and medicines to needlessly and pointlessly extend the life of people beyond a certain point.
We could (and should) prioritise medical treatment to the working population, not the 80 year olds with a few years left. There’s no good reason why a 35 year old mother of three should compete against an 85 year old for cancer treatment. (In an ideal world there would be no need to compete, obviously.)
We could assign jobs to those who refuse to work - and there’s plenty of them - with carer jobs being the default.
We could use technology, innovation and intelligence to reduce the need for care - whatever that may be (I’m not that innovative or intelligent!). A magic pill that stops old people from s
tting?Until someone in charge takes a dramatically different direction (and makes some very controversial decisions) we’re just going to end up going down the same path that clearly doesn’t seem to be going anywhere at the moment.
nuyorican said:
That’s true. Perhaps an exemption for bum wipers. Or incentives for indigenous bum wipers.
Off tangent a bit, I was thinking of Japan recently. A country I have much curiosity about And specifically how they are considered mega racist because they value and want to preserve their culture and don’t go in for this mass immigration thing. And it got me thinking, what is so wrong about that?
I can’t say it’s working for them though, as they all seem to work like devils. So how do they approach the bum wiper conundrum?
A good friend of mine married a japanese lady. Before she'd move in, he had to spend a couple of thousand Canadian dollars to install a Japanese computerised toilet, which is basically an automated car-wash for your bum, uses UV lamps to destroy bacteria etc. They find our manual processes quite disgusting apparently. Also, compared with here, in Japan the extended family is still very much a thing. Each generation venerating and caring for their forebears, rather than packing them off to an institution at first opportunity. Off tangent a bit, I was thinking of Japan recently. A country I have much curiosity about And specifically how they are considered mega racist because they value and want to preserve their culture and don’t go in for this mass immigration thing. And it got me thinking, what is so wrong about that?
I can’t say it’s working for them though, as they all seem to work like devils. So how do they approach the bum wiper conundrum?
TBH I know the Japanese have their problems but I'd rather have theirs than ours. Maybe not the earthquakes.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff