Re: An indictment of Economic policy

You appear to have missed out foreign aid.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

I see no reason, at the moment to change the existing 'foreign aid' policy!!!

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

Indeed, it would certainly not be a good idea in the present climate.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

Please explain why.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

Were you born stupid or did you practice?

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

UJ point by point breakdown on your policy

First policy is the cancellatipn of HS2, the money saved to be given to the NHS.

So you want to stop areas of high unemployment of having the chance to get jobs by easier travel. Good transport attracts companies to move near to a good transport system which creates jobs in local areas
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Then a cancellation of the Trident programme and the abolition of nuclear weapons in the UK


But it is ok for other countries to have them and leave us unprotected
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Third programme, the elimination of all private schools and academies. Private schools that have enjoyed charitable status will need to find alternative method of funding, as charitable status will cease.


So no more choice of education. everyone will have to conform to one standard even though some have a higher mental ability. Therefore keeping them back from achieving their potential
That means more state paid teachers paid for by the tax payer
--------------------------------------------------------------------
All employers will have, as they did many years ago, have a trainimg levy imposed to pay for apprenticeship schemes. There will be the re-establishment of a wages inspectorate with adequate staff and resources to carry out regular inspections on all establishments. Employers found guilty of underpaying their employees will face heavy fines and/or imprisonment.

No apprenticeship schemes as employers won't pay a levy
costs passed on to the consumer no doubt putting up prices
-------------------------------------------------------------------
A wages inspectorate means more government employees paid for by the tax payer

Fineing employers for underpaying involves very expensive court costs again out of tax payers money
------------------------------------------------------------------
The re-establishment of a properly funded and adequately staffed Legal aid fund which will also be empowered to provide adequate representation at statutory tribunals.

Again funded by the tax payer
----------------------------------------------------------------------
All local authorities will be empowered to build social housing, which cannot be sold off. They will be given the powerand responsibility to deal properly with all homeless in their area


So all our green belt you want built on and council taxes increased to cover the cost
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Now try again where the cost is not burdened on the tax payer
Obviously not thought through to the end result.

next maybe suggesting taking out a huge loan to cover all this leaving the country deeper in debt.

I did say at no cost to the tax payer and now you want the consumer to pay more which in turn puts up the wage bill which in turn increases the cost of goods.

Sorry UJ

But your ideas just don't and won't work, no matter how much you believe in them. Everything you mention is to put an unbearable/impossible burden on tax payers

No solution to the unemployed. Infact doing away with transport could well increase the number of unemployed not served by the new rail network you mentioned. That is not forgetting all those jobs involved in the new HS2 build


So with all this extra tax to pay what about the OAPs on a fixed income, they won't be able to pay so what happens to them? thrown out on the street making more homeless people.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

I agree with your points 1) and 2) (although I don't think it's money the NHS needs, but other agencies that have been short-changed). I don't agree with 3) as private schools take the pressure off the state school system. I agree with part one of point 4) but not part 2. as that would stifle free enterprise. I agree with point 5), but not point 6) as not sure how that would work and local authorities don't have the skills to deal with half the stuff they are currently responsible for (mainly due to being starved of funds but not only down to that). Should be a central policy in my opinion.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

I don't think having to pay out so much is justified and I can't see how it will benefit employment when there are adequate transport links already. How is it value for money for the taxpayer? They really need decent transport links in places like Somerset and Wiltshire. Why are they not bothering with those areas?

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

Only 9 countries have them as far as I know. How come the rest of the world hasn't been decimated yet? Nuclear was simply a power trip for us, one we no longer need. Total waste of money.

Re: An indictment of Economic policy

Look at recent history for he answer. We were totally unprepared for WW2 and when Germany declared war we had very little defence. We had to rely on massive support from the USA to help us.

So having the nuclear subs and are there as protection not as a threat.
Has anyone give any thought to the work the Scottish people get from having the sub base there? not just those directly involved with sub maintenance but the supply industry as well. Even down to local cafes and delivery drivers get work indirectly

So do away with all that in a high unemployment area and thousands more out of work and no doubt unable to meet living expenses so out on the street

the consequences of anything also have to be taken into consideration. The knock on affect hits more people than those directly involved