The Big Society - what does it mean?

[Brendan]

Don't go confusing "knowledge" with "opinion".

[Jeremy]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Succesful countries never have and never will "live within their means"

True, in as much as everyone needs to borrow sometimes. But although the current govt possibly exaggerate the situation to fit their ideology, current borrowing is not really sustainable. It should be possible to have the public debt running at something like half the current amount.

So Labour over-spend... and the Tories give us a sound balance sheet, but with higher unemployment and no investment on infrasctructure/services. Neither are desirable, but at least we get to alternate between them now and again.

Asset Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> what would happen if the country just defaulted on the debt?

As others have said, we will always need to borrow for various reasons, so to default is unimaginable. It's analagous to skipping your loan/credit card/mortgage repayments - see what happens next time you need to borrow cash for repairs to your home, or to send kids to uni!

[mockney piers]

I think Russia got away with it for two reasons.

In terms of foreign investment people wanted to continue to invest in the country rather than write off their losses (sort of double or quits).

In terms of the governemtn getting away with it, just think oil and gas. Russis's cash rich at the moment and enjoying the fact.

Significant invesment in anything but energy infrastructure is low, and apart from the shiny new urban prosperity for a very narrow middle class, Russia is rotting away.

Argentina even more so, I've seen the legacy of the sell-offs, neglect and instituional corruption there first hand, and do not underestimate the economic fragility of the country (one of my favourite places in the world I might add).

Defaulting would be a disaster for Britiain, we're running out of natural resouces and the most bankable asset as a nation is our triple A status; lose that and we've not much left to offer the world. (well, there's all the drugs and guns that we do well out of, but that's another story).

[Asset]

http://johannhari.com/2011/03/29/the-biggest-lie-in-british-politics]

Just thought I'd throw this article into the mix

[????]

Jonathon, sorry Johann, Hari's the left wing equivalent of Richard Littlejohn with less intellect

[????]

For starts...National debt has been bigger YES...er Budget Defeceeit NO these two are very different. Basically if your annual income is say ?10,000 (you can have a mortgage of say ?40K) but then having an annual spending of ?12,500 a year on long term annual commitments say a new gardener and cook (or a million new PS employees say hey Gordon) is not the way to go so you have to cut back your annual spending by that ?2,500 or busto, Read that Johan.

[????]

Mamora Man puts it far better than my rant on the thread about the demos....It's worth a C&P

By the end of 2009 UK Gov't was funding approximately 25% of its annual spend with debt. The debt was ratcheting upwards and the cost of servicing that debt was adding further to it - borrowing money to repay debt is not only Alice in Wonderland economics it leads to higher interest rates for gov't borrowing and the whole merry go round becomes an unstoppable positive feedback loop that, as S. American and other countries discovered in the 80's, leads inevitably to international loan default.

Even with the coalition economic programme National Debt will still increase over the next 4 years, not decrease, but at a slower rate. In the subsequent coalition / Conservative government UK might be able to reduce its national debt and the cost of servicing it.

As Labour and any informed commentator knows - total government spending will be higher at the end of this parliament than at the beginning. These are not savage ideological cuts that will take UK back to the dark ages, the coalition's programme represents some minimalist trimming of expenditure to bring government income and expenditure back into a form of balance by 2015.

I personally would posit a far greater cut back of state spending - but I detest the willful misrepresentation of today's true position by left leaning commentators. They are perpetuating a con trick on the population that extending gov't debt and spending is a cost (and pain) free exercise and, conveniently, forgetting that the last Labour administration was planning almost identical cost reduction programmes - albeit over a slightly more extended period. Now Labour and its cheerleaders appear bereft of any rational plan, except opportunistic cat calling.