Government's deficit plan sparks fears for workers in the region (From York Press)

Just WHO do we owe all this debt to? America? Japan? Mars?

If the ConDems raise Vat to 20% this will raise £12 billion a year so the deficit will reduce quite steadily.

If they use Vat to cut the deficit then there would be less risk to "needy areas" of public spending.

However increased Vat will hurt the less well of the most.

Our politicians are all the same - they are clueless regarding employment and equality. Or they simply prefer to maintain the huge gap between the rich and poor.

Hugh Bayley is surely disingenuous as his party would have made savage cuts also - they only thing they understand.

Regretably we are all going to feel the pain and no Government will be able to target the cuts, which we have to have, in a way which will please everyone. The last Government were irresponsible in the extreeme in an effort to keep themselves in power by putting off decisions which they knew would have to be made ultimatly but did not have the guts to deal with. But they put their profile to the public before the sensible choice of making us truly aware of the position.
However this is going to be a long hard slog and many innocent parties will lose their jobs during the 'cure' period which is devastating for them individualy but there is no way around this.Central and Local Government are bloated with staff and have lost track of financial responsibility as money has been plentiful.That is all about to change but the private sector has been feeling this pain already and it will get worse before it gets better.
lets just hope that the pain results in a long term cure rather than a short term fix and persuades all parties to spend only what we can afford; not what we think we should be able to have.
As a public we need to realise we have to do things for ourselves and not rely on the state for everything.If we want something we have to earn it; not get it given to us. Some are going to find this a real suprise and it would not suprise me if we end up with social unrest when this lot bites hard but its a necessary evil if UK Plc is not to go down the pan like Greece and eventually certain other European countries will.
I just hope we can al be wise enough to understand why we have to go through this and bite the bullet and work together to get us through waht are going to be very difficult times

meme wrote:
Regretably we are all going to feel the pain and no Government will be able to target the cuts, which we have to have, in a way which will please everyone. The last Government were irresponsible in the extreeme in an effort to keep themselves in power by putting off decisions which they knew would have to be made ultimatly but did not have the guts to deal with. But they put their profile to the public before the sensible choice of making us truly aware of the position.
However this is going to be a long hard slog and many innocent parties will lose their jobs during the 'cure' period which is devastating for them individualy but there is no way around this.Central and Local Government are bloated with staff and have lost track of financial responsibility as money has been plentiful.That is all about to change but the private sector has been feeling this pain already and it will get worse before it gets better.
lets just hope that the pain results in a long term cure rather than a short term fix and persuades all parties to spend only what we can afford; not what we think we should be able to have.
As a public we need to realise we have to do things for ourselves and not rely on the state for everything.If we want something we have to earn it; not get it given to us. Some are going to find this a real suprise and it would not suprise me if we end up with social unrest when this lot bites hard but its a necessary evil if UK Plc is not to go down the pan like Greece and eventually certain other European countries will.
I just hope we can al be wise enough to understand why we have to go through this and bite the bullet and work together to get us through waht are going to be very difficult times

Old fashioned, failed methods of fiscal rebalance.

And an excuse to maintain the status quo between rich and poor.

There is no need to bite any bullet - just equalise the wealth distribution.

T. Scaife wrote:

meme wrote: Regretably we are all going to feel the pain and no Government will be able to target the cuts, which we have to have, in a way which will please everyone. The last Government were irresponsible in the extreeme in an effort to keep themselves in power by putting off decisions which they knew would have to be made ultimatly but did not have the guts to deal with. But they put their profile to the public before the sensible choice of making us truly aware of the position. However this is going to be a long hard slog and many innocent parties will lose their jobs during the 'cure' period which is devastating for them individualy but there is no way around this.Central and Local Government are bloated with staff and have lost track of financial responsibility as money has been plentiful.That is all about to change but the private sector has been feeling this pain already and it will get worse before it gets better. lets just hope that the pain results in a long term cure rather than a short term fix and persuades all parties to spend only what we can afford; not what we think we should be able to have. As a public we need to realise we have to do things for ourselves and not rely on the state for everything.If we want something we have to earn it; not get it given to us. Some are going to find this a real suprise and it would not suprise me if we end up with social unrest when this lot bites hard but its a necessary evil if UK Plc is not to go down the pan like Greece and eventually certain other European countries will. I just hope we can al be wise enough to understand why we have to go through this and bite the bullet and work together to get us through waht are going to be very difficult times

Old fashioned, failed methods of fiscal rebalance. And an excuse to maintain the status quo between rich and poor. There is no need to bite any bullet - just equalise the wealth distribution.

Just how do those with a ring fenced final salary pension join in with their contribution to the mess? Isn't the constant requirement of top-up funds into the pension lake from those still working going to be a drain on youngsters for ever... and ever. Amen.

I worry about the logic of the ConDems though.
`
It's all fine and well cutting this, cutting that, cancelling laws. No one agrees with HIPS, but let's be fair - they create jobs.
`
The problem this country has is that we are not making enough. Jobs are plentiful when an economy is producing stuff, but we are not. Labour knew this, which is why they made stupid laws which generated jobs, for example, HIPs.
`
No government will be able to bring manufacturing back to the UK, it's just too expensive. So if the ConDems insist on all these cuts, and removing all these 'pointless' laws, how do they intend to provide jobs for people? They simply can't.
`
The growth of the economy was due to daft laws, the nanny state and a near-biblical obsession with H&S. This is what grew. Take these things away and we've got a whole big lot of nothing.

Garrowby Turnoff wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:

meme wrote: Regretably we are all going to feel the pain and no Government will be able to target the cuts, which we have to have, in a way which will please everyone. The last Government were irresponsible in the extreeme in an effort to keep themselves in power by putting off decisions which they knew would have to be made ultimatly but did not have the guts to deal with. But they put their profile to the public before the sensible choice of making us truly aware of the position. However this is going to be a long hard slog and many innocent parties will lose their jobs during the 'cure' period which is devastating for them individualy but there is no way around this.Central and Local Government are bloated with staff and have lost track of financial responsibility as money has been plentiful.That is all about to change but the private sector has been feeling this pain already and it will get worse before it gets better. lets just hope that the pain results in a long term cure rather than a short term fix and persuades all parties to spend only what we can afford; not what we think we should be able to have. As a public we need to realise we have to do things for ourselves and not rely on the state for everything.If we want something we have to earn it; not get it given to us. Some are going to find this a real suprise and it would not suprise me if we end up with social unrest when this lot bites hard but its a necessary evil if UK Plc is not to go down the pan like Greece and eventually certain other European countries will. I just hope we can al be wise enough to understand why we have to go through this and bite the bullet and work together to get us through waht are going to be very difficult times

Old fashioned, failed methods of fiscal rebalance. And an excuse to maintain the status quo between rich and poor. There is no need to bite any bullet - just equalise the wealth distribution.

Just how do those with a ring fenced final salary pension join in with their contribution to the mess? Isn't the constant requirement of top-up funds into the pension lake from those still working going to be a drain on youngsters for ever... and ever. Amen.

Final salary pensions are more than adequately funded if properly invested in spread betting in the stock market, property gold etc.

They have had a rough ride due to payment holidays, risk taking in the far east and of course the credit crisis.

The concept of final salary pensions is still sound so long as new regulations are introduced regarding investment policy, payment top-ups when necessary by members and the abolishen of payment holidays by companies.

The current retirement policy is also flawed. The State must introduce properly funded state pensions. Supported by hypothecated contributions from employers and employees.

Also the retriement age should be on a sliding scale - part-retirement from those in their 50's receiving less pension.

This would balance the system of payouts and leave more in the pot for those retiring later.

Most public sector employees receive an average of £70 a week from their public sector pension - not very much. The ones to limit are the higher salaried public sector employees - including MPs.

Final salary pensions are more than adequately funded if properly invested in spread betting in the stock market, property gold etc.

They have had a rough ride due to payment holidays, risk taking in the far east and of course the credit crisis.

The concept of final salary pensions is still sound so long as new regulations are introduced regarding investment policy, payment top-ups when necessary by members and the abolishen of payment holidays by companies.

The current retirement policy is also flawed. The State must introduce properly funded state pensions. Supported by hypothecated contributions from employers and employees.

Also the retriement age should be on a sliding scale - part-retirement from those in their 50's receiving less pension.

This would balance the system of payouts and leave more in the pot for those retiring later.

Most public sector employees receive an average of £70 a week from their public sector pension - not very much. The ones to limit are the higher salaried public sector employees - including MPs.

Firstly, it is incorrect to state that 10,000 university places are being cut. 10,000 fewer new ones are being created: the overall size of this September's intake will still be 10,000 higher than last year's was, and this at a time of a decreasing teenage population.

However increased Vat will hurt the less well of the most.

Not true. VAT is not levied on life's essentials (e.g. food, children's clothes, books, public transport etc.) at all. It's only levied on discretionary spending. Someone on £30k who spends a similar proportion of their take-home pay on non-essential consumer goods to that of someone on £20k will pay more. Both the rich and the poor have the option to reduce the amount of VAT they pay by reducing their outgoings on luxury items. The left's argument on VAT simply doesn't hold water. And in any case, our VAT is significantly below the EU average (21%): given that the left are so enthusiastic about Euro-federalism as a general rule, how do they explain their opposition to charging VAT at the same rate as the rest of the EU?

The main argument against a VAT increase is that it would reduce discretionary spending and thereby jeopardise jobs in sectors that produce leisure goods and services.

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Firstly, it is incorrect to state that 10,000 university places are being cut. 10,000 fewer new ones are being created: the overall size of this September's intake will still be 10,000 higher than last year's was, and this at a time of a decreasing teenage population.

However increased Vat will hurt the less well of the most.

Not true. VAT is not levied on life's essentials (e.g. food, children's clothes, books, public transport etc.) at all. It's only levied on discretionary spending. Someone on £30k who spends a similar proportion of their take-home pay on non-essential consumer goods to that of someone on £20k will pay more. Both the rich and the poor have the option to reduce the amount of VAT they pay by reducing their outgoings on luxury items. The left's argument on VAT simply doesn't hold water. And in any case, our VAT is significantly below the EU average (21%): given that the left are so enthusiastic about Euro-federalism as a general rule, how do they explain their opposition to charging VAT at the same rate as the rest of the EU?

The main argument against a VAT increase is that it would reduce discretionary spending and thereby jeopardise jobs in sectors that produce leisure goods and services.

But Vat is levied on lifes essentials - food is not the only essential.

Should Vat rise those on lower income have to pay a higher proportion of their incomes for everday costs than those on higher incomes.

Also the very wealthy tend to save a higher proportion of their income and Vat effects their total income less than the poor.

We have differing tax regimes to those on the EU mainland and Vat is a part of this difference.

In any case people from left and right persuasions are for and against the EU.

The main argument against Vat rise is it will increase inflation and therefore cost the poor even more for everyday expenditure.

It would be fairer to tax the wealthy more to make them pay in proportion to their wealth rather than attacking the poor and middle income earners.

Cut all the "meeting for the sake of a meeting" civil servants. Privatise the lazy good for nothing posties. Kick out the EU and wasters and benefit cheats.
Or give Scotland independence and the biggest drain on this country is gone in one instant.

pedalo paula wrote:
Cut all the "meeting for the sake of a meeting" civil servants. Privatise the lazy good for nothing posties. Kick out the EU and wasters and benefit cheats.
Or give Scotland independence and the biggest drain on this country is gone in one instant.

Ouch - what a sourpuss you are!

Guy Fawkes wrote:
Firstly, it is incorrect to state that 10,000 university places are being cut. 10,000 fewer new ones are being created: the overall size of this September's intake will still be 10,000 higher than last year's was, and this at a time of a decreasing teenage population.

However increased Vat will hurt the less well of the most.

Not true. VAT is not levied on life's essentials (e.g. food, children's clothes, books, public transport etc.) at all. It's only levied on discretionary spending. Someone on £30k who spends a similar proportion of their take-home pay on non-essential consumer goods to that of someone on £20k will pay more. Both the rich and the poor have the option to reduce the amount of VAT they pay by reducing their outgoings on luxury items. The left's argument on VAT simply doesn't hold water. And in any case, our VAT is significantly below the EU average (21%): given that the left are so enthusiastic about Euro-federalism as a general rule, how do they explain their opposition to charging VAT at the same rate as the rest of the EU? The main argument against a VAT increase is that it would reduce discretionary spending and thereby jeopardise jobs in sectors that produce leisure goods and services.

Your argument is flawed - what is essential to one person is not necessarily essential to others.

For example - I have to have a car for work purposes. VAT is levied on the petrol I buy. Petrol is not a luxury to me - it's a necessity. Unless I give up my present job of 10 years, I have to buy petrol.

Example 2 - sanitory towels and tampons - to a man, not necessary at all. To a woman? Need I say any more? Sanitory products are subject to VAT (albeit now at a reduced rate)and try telling a woman that they are "luxuries"!

Example 3 - food. Contrary to your posting, some food is vatable. most biscuits are exempt, but cake isn't, altho' I appreciate not all cakes are necessities.

Example 4 - clothes. Not all clothes are necessities but clothing IS a necessity. Whilst children's clothes are exempt from VAT, adult clothes and shoes are not. Do you propose we all walk about naked because clothing is a "luxury" (to use your definition)?

These are just 4 examples to show the flaws in the "we can all avoid the VAT increase if we avoid discretionary spending on luxuries" argument that you appear to be advancing.

pedalo paula wrote:
Cut all the "meeting for the sake of a meeting" civil servants. Privatise the lazy good for nothing posties. Kick out the EU and wasters and benefit cheats. Or give Scotland independence and the biggest drain on this country is gone in one instant.

...yeah..I witnessed the 'meeting for sake of a meeting' situation. Having mostly been employed in private sector it was a culture shock to witness the extremes of public sector. There were some notable exceptions as there were some genuinely clever funny and brilliant people who are desperately needed in private sector. That said there were other things going on which were wasteful (not least the ever changing furniture), and a lot of staff who would have found life unbearable if they had a job in private sector as they would have had to actually work. And regarding pensions...wow what a re-think they need. People are living longer...so if you were studying up to age of say 23 and then went to work (and were paying back your student debt) and then were lucky enough to find employment which would provide the means to purchase a home and bring up a family, who amongst us could also reasonably afford to save for a pension which we may need to depend on for 25 to 30 years until it was time to make our final exit. Financial planning needed?.....more likely a miracle needed...not too many jobs for life around these days so not too many company pensions are viable, portable or sustainable ...some companies go bankrupt with the burden. What is the way to make a pension pay for itself....and avoid the likes of Robert Maxwell or that American fella (where the name has just escaped me - was it Madoff) who made off with billions..........

moneyforwhat wrote:

pedalo paula wrote: Cut all the "meeting for the sake of a meeting" civil servants. Privatise the lazy good for nothing posties. Kick out the EU and wasters and benefit cheats. Or give Scotland independence and the biggest drain on this country is gone in one instant.

...yeah..I witnessed the 'meeting for sake of a meeting' situation. Having mostly been employed in private sector it was a culture shock to witness the extremes of public sector. There were some notable exceptions as there were some genuinely clever funny and brilliant people who are desperately needed in private sector. That said there were other things going on which were wasteful (not least the ever changing furniture), and a lot of staff who would have found life unbearable if they had a job in private sector as they would have had to actually work. And regarding pensions...wow what a re-think they need. People are living longer...so if you were studying up to age of say 23 and then went to work (and were paying back your student debt) and then were lucky enough to find employment which would provide the means to purchase a home and bring up a family, who amongst us could also reasonably afford to save for a pension which we may need to depend on for 25 to 30 years until it was time to make our final exit. Financial planning needed?.....more likely a miracle needed...not too many jobs for life around these days so not too many company pensions are viable, portable or sustainable ...some companies go bankrupt with the burden. What is the way to make a pension pay for itself....and avoid the likes of Robert Maxwell or that American fella (where the name has just escaped me - was it Madoff) who made off with billions..........

Yip. That's me. I'm 24, studied until I was 22. Pay off my debt, which is due to be repaid by the time I reach 62, interest rates permitting.
`
I've no chance of getting a pension, and to be honest, I don't really want one. By the time I reach 75 (which the retirement age will be by the time I get there), the state pension won't exist, and any private pension will either be worthless or worth(full?) depending on the economic conditions.
`
But then, I'm a white, middle class man. I'm just getting used to being **** on from every angle, and as a result I sincerely hope I'm not here in a years time to try and live through the mess the condems are going to make for us all.

mystic_genius, Acomb,

By the time you reach 75 I wager most work will be carried out by robots, intelligent computers and machines.

New technology will enable the automatic production of new extremely strong lightweight nanomaterials that do not require using natural resources.

Heat and light and power will all be sourced from nuclear fusion units.

So the whole concept of retirement will no longer exist as society will have moved on from conventional employment and th ework ethic to one of leisure and life for living -and extremely long and disease free lives at that.

No one will all agreed what is or is not the best way to deal with this VAT/cuts/pensions etc but we will all have to get used to the fact we will have less and be taxed more directly or indirectly and the only way to ensure this is as painless as possible is to cut out as much dead wood as possible
EG did you know yorkshire forward pay CoYC for 4 staff members to deal with York central ........I mean what is the cost and why the hell do they need to do this for a scheme that is dead in the water for years..its a joke ..Multiply this by councils accross the country and the cost will be staggering. much as i dont want to see these 4 lose their jobs its innevitable if we are to balance the books

T. Scaife wrote:
mystic_genius, Acomb,

By the time you reach 75 I wager most work will be carried out by robots, intelligent computers and machines.

New technology will enable the automatic production of new extremely strong lightweight nanomaterials that do not require using natural resources.

Heat and light and power will all be sourced from nuclear fusion units.

So the whole concept of retirement will no longer exist as society will have moved on from conventional employment and th ework ethic to one of leisure and life for living -and extremely long and disease free lives at that.

Well, that dosent sound too bad after all, I'll sleep tonight now.Only problem is I'll be 107 by then. Oh well **** happens.

Major tax reform to redistribute wealth is needed. Income tax ought to rise and thresholds should be raised. Better to have a little less now than make future generations suffer for our profligacy.
What doesn't seem to be put into the current row is that an awful lot of infrastructural work was done under Labour after years of neglect when "private is best" was the norm. Therefore there will be a lesser requirement for new schools and hospitals than hitherto. There should be a determined effort to stop engaging in foreign military adventures which merely poke trouble with a sharp stick and cost an awful lot of money. Finally, abandon Trident.

meme wrote:
No one will all agreed what is or is not the best way to deal with this VAT/cuts/pensions etc but we will all have to get used to the fact we will have less and be taxed more directly or indirectly and the only way to ensure this is as painless as possible is to cut out as much dead wood as possible EG did you know yorkshire forward pay CoYC for 4 staff members to deal with York central ........I mean what is the cost and why the hell do they need to do this for a scheme that is dead in the water for years..its a joke ..Multiply this by councils accross the country and the cost will be staggering. much as i dont want to see these 4 lose their jobs its innevitable if we are to balance the books

Odd that many private sector firms support YF. It's also a myth that the public sector has higher pay rates than the private. Many public sector workers are on low pay rates. The real fat cats in the economy are in the private sector and are able to manipulate the system and avoid paying tax, while threatening to move abroad if the tax regime changes. CEOs of local authorities are indeed overpaid but the obvious anomalies don't negate the general situation.

especially for mystic_genius
My attempt to cheer you up, and yes I know about being ****upon from all angles as have been self employed and that's a challenge!! My parents thought they had had the best of times. They saw changes and thought they were inprovements, but now like me they believe we need to step back a bit. Too much 'progress' perhaps...and then I read Mr Scaifes comments and thought bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them? Then I remembered something (don't know where it came from) in which I hope you will find solace. Each generation is different and the newest generation copes because that is what it has been born into and it doesn't know about the previous generations except as history...to you, even say the 80's is history. This is how the world evolves and how we cope ultimately. I have much faith in the young (though I wish my son would go to Australia and make his life there (and no I don't want him to go but I think there are opportunities for the brave & that he may make a better life there). Never mind the politics, I have great faith in the next generation to inherit this world. I think they will be sharper more responsible, more dedicated and more aware than a great many of their predecessors

moneyforwhat wrote:
especially for mystic_genius
My attempt to cheer you up, and yes I know about being ****upon from all angles as have been self employed and that's a challenge!! My parents thought they had had the best of times. They saw changes and thought they were inprovements, but now like me they believe we need to step back a bit. Too much 'progress' perhaps...and then I read Mr Scaifes comments and thought bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them? Then I remembered something (don't know where it came from) in which I hope you will find solace. Each generation is different and the newest generation copes because that is what it has been born into and it doesn't know about the previous generations except as history...to you, even say the 80's is history. This is how the world evolves and how we cope ultimately. I have much faith in the young (though I wish my son would go to Australia and make his life there (and no I don't want him to go but I think there are opportunities for the brave & that he may make a better life there). Never mind the politics, I have great faith in the next generation to inherit this world. I think they will be sharper more responsible, more dedicated and more aware than a great many of their predecessors

moneyforwhat,
What do you mean by - "bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them?"

I would have thought you would want a better world free from the drudgery and boredom that comes with most "work"?

And what exactly is "work". Is it chained to a desk and computer, chained to a checkout, chained to mundane clock watching?

There are already 10 million economically inactive in the UK so they don't have any work any way, but are marginalised by politicians.

The real challenge for the future is not as our hapless politicians see it in higher and higher retirement age. It will be how to improve the lot of everyone by better sharing the wealth available.

Employment in the future should not involve work that will be repetetive drudgery that numbs the mind and soul for a pittance.

It should be whatever you need to make your life and possibly others happier and more content.

As unemployment and malcontent increases around the world because of dumb politicians. So will dissent and unhappiness against those in power.

You see every generation is exactly the same, with the same challenges and the same dumbass politicians. And of course the same wealthy elite who would quite happily **** most of us to poverty and whatever else - just as they always have.

The next generation will be run by politicians too so you had better hope they get it right.

The State will never be an efficient and as controlled as a private business or even a private household. We need to make a small percentage saving in all departments - but we make a big deal about it. When you lose your job (and who hasn't in today's world?) your leisure budget is virtually nil. Friends are lost. Hobbies are ditched. Not the small wing clip that is going to happen to the majority who stay in paid work.

Pedro wrote:
The State will never be an efficient and as controlled as a private business or even a private household. We need to make a small percentage saving in all departments - but we make a big deal about it. When you lose your job (and who hasn't in today's world?) your leisure budget is virtually nil. Friends are lost. Hobbies are ditched. Not the small wing clip that is going to happen to the majority who stay in paid work.

Not quite sure what you mean Pedro.

Most private business relies on the State to some extent for investment either direct or indirectly, for tax relief, cheaper loans, subsidies.

Over 21% are employed by the State who go onto spend their State wages in the private sector.

Should government departments cut back then so will expenditure to private companies.

If there are hundreds of thousands in the public sector made redundant then this will decrease expenditure in local economies.

The majority in work, say 29 million comprises of at least 25% part-time workers.

Two thirds of all employees earn less than the so called average pay.

Without credit the economy stagnates as most people can't afford to save and buy more expensive essentials.

So we will have the double whammy of increased redundancy and reduction in welfare combining with already rock bottom wages for the majority and no access to cheap and ready credit.

The outlook is not good for the private sector. As inflation grows and interest rates rise it is estimated that 5.5 million people will not be able to pay their mortgages.

I hope the ConDems know what they are doing because if they get it wrong, Gordon Brown will be a happy memory in comparison.

It does not matter what form the new equivalent of the RDAs will be as they will fail with the same mentality and misunderstanding that government and the civil service has of the 'innovation chain'. For the knowledge base is just not there and that’s why according to independent research by the Taxpayer's Alliance, the RDAs have stood still since they were created over a decade ago. Or in other words, the changes that have happened would have occurred anyway even if the RDAs did not exist. Unfortunately though Britain has not seen any economic dynamism of merit for the 15-billion plus investment.

What all these so-called wise men in the civil service miss time-after-time is that we have to have the catalysts first and not just pumping money into established businesses in the hope that they will succeed. For the latter is like living in perpetual hope that things will change but where they usually never do. Indeed when you look at the UK economy over the past 25-years you see a constant decline in industries that can sustain us in the future as a nation. So much so that the UK economy is now a poor economic model.

For what we need vitally for Britain's future is new technological industries, not trying to prop up old industrial models that are superseded every year by other nations that have far more innovative government advisers than our own. In this respect we have to create principally innovative development centres for our inventors which are according to leading research by the Germans and the Japanese the best in the world by far. Indeed, according to them the fundamental thinking of British 'independent' inventors (those outside the confines of universities and corporate research centres) has created up to 54% of what we call the modern world today.

Therefore the fundamental and vital missing-link to the UK's economic dynamism is the establishment of special incubator centres throughout the UK and where our ground-breaking ideas can be brought out and exploited by our universities and corporate enterprises – not the other way around that we have today and that goes literally no where.

For without this new realism and requirement the UK will definitely be left behind over the next quarter of a century as the full economic might of SE Asia kicks in.

I therefore hope that the new conservative-liberal government opens up its mind and sees this time where Britain's true economic dynamism resides. For it certainly does not reside in the minds of Whitehall and their advisers based upon the last 50-years. If it did the UK would be booming and not like it is today, in decline year-on-year and a moribund economy. For staying with the status quo or something similar will just bring us more misery in the future. Britain was once built upon its great inventors, it has to go back to those fundamental days and do the same again.

Dr David Hill
Executive Director
World Innovation Foundation Charity
Bern, Switzerland

T. Scaife wrote:

Pedro wrote:
The State will never be an efficient and as controlled as a private business or even a private household. We need to make a small percentage saving in all departments - but we make a big deal about it. When you lose your job (and who hasn't in today's world?) your leisure budget is virtually nil. Friends are lost. Hobbies are ditched. Not the small wing clip that is going to happen to the majority who stay in paid work.

Not quite sure what you mean Pedro.

Most private business relies on the State to some extent for investment either direct or indirectly, for tax relief, cheaper loans, subsidies.

Over 21% are employed by the State who go onto spend their State wages in the private sector.

Should government departments cut back then so will expenditure to private companies.

If there are hundreds of thousands in the public sector made redundant then this will decrease expenditure in local economies.

The majority in work, say 29 million comprises of at least 25% part-time workers.

Two thirds of all employees earn less than the so called average pay.

Without credit the economy stagnates as most people can't afford to save and buy more expensive essentials.

So we will have the double whammy of increased redundancy and reduction in welfare combining with already rock bottom wages for the majority and no access to cheap and ready credit.

The outlook is not good for the private sector. As inflation grows and interest rates rise it is estimated that 5.5 million people will not be able to pay their mortgages.

I hope the ConDems know what they are doing because if they get it wrong, Gordon Brown will be a happy memory in comparison.

I don't for a second dispute the fact that the world isn't wired together and that gardener not getting a bonus won't lead to them spending less in a pub - making the pub employ less staff or even shut (because they are one of many.) However the dividing line will remain those that stay in work and those that end up redundant. Presently your mortgage payers (which you want to play violins about) get rock bottom rates and savers (like me) get Jack for the money we have put away to protect ourselves!

Pedro wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:

Pedro wrote:
The State will never be an efficient and as controlled as a private business or even a private household. We need to make a small percentage saving in all departments - but we make a big deal about it. When you lose your job (and who hasn't in today's world?) your leisure budget is virtually nil. Friends are lost. Hobbies are ditched. Not the small wing clip that is going to happen to the majority who stay in paid work.

Not quite sure what you mean Pedro.

Most private business relies on the State to some extent for investment either direct or indirectly, for tax relief, cheaper loans, subsidies.

Over 21% are employed by the State who go onto spend their State wages in the private sector.

Should government departments cut back then so will expenditure to private companies.

If there are hundreds of thousands in the public sector made redundant then this will decrease expenditure in local economies.

The majority in work, say 29 million comprises of at least 25% part-time workers.

Two thirds of all employees earn less than the so called average pay.

Without credit the economy stagnates as most people can't afford to save and buy more expensive essentials.

So we will have the double whammy of increased redundancy and reduction in welfare combining with already rock bottom wages for the majority and no access to cheap and ready credit.

The outlook is not good for the private sector. As inflation grows and interest rates rise it is estimated that 5.5 million people will not be able to pay their mortgages.

I hope the ConDems know what they are doing because if they get it wrong, Gordon Brown will be a happy memory in comparison.

I don't for a second dispute the fact that the world isn't wired together and that gardener not getting a bonus won't lead to them spending less in a pub - making the pub employ less staff or even shut (because they are one of many.) However the dividing line will remain those that stay in work and those that end up redundant. Presently your mortgage payers (which you want to play violins about) get rock bottom rates and savers (like me) get Jack for the money we have put away to protect ourselves!

Pedro you underestimate the power of government spending and its influence on all things including th eprivate sector economy. And since when were private companies efficiently run compared to the public sector?

I am not playing violins about mortgage payers I am just saying that if they default it will make the economy even worse and create even more unpayable debt.

Savers would be better serviced by solid guarantees by government that they will invest long term in new massive infrastructure programmes.

Then shareholders would put their money into the companies involved.

The mortgages should be placed into low profit government investment banks separated from the commercial business banks where interest can rise for savers such as yourself.

T Scaife re your wager with mystic genius,can I have a tenner on it?

sheps lad wrote:
T Scaife re your wager with mystic genius,can I have a tenner on it?

Yeah sure - but will either of us be around to collect it?

All I can say is do not underestimate technology and the will of government and big business followed by small business to replace humans with it.

They don't often care very much about the human casualties left behind - just more efficiency and more profit, for themselves of course.

It is only resisitance against the excesses of political and business bad practice that has any positive affects for the majority.

The coming decades will see the most fantastic developments in science and engineering and medical procedures.

Lets hope the benefit all of us around the world.

T. Scaife wrote:
mystic_genius, Acomb, By the time you reach 75 I wager most work will be carried out by robots, intelligent computers and machines. New technology will enable the automatic production of new extremely strong lightweight nanomaterials that do not require using natural resources. Heat and light and power will all be sourced from nuclear fusion units. So the whole concept of retirement will no longer exist as society will have moved on from conventional employment and th ework ethic to one of leisure and life for living -and extremely long and disease free lives at that.

You're almost implying that in 50 years time man/woman will be redundant. I feel your thought is fanciful at best.
`
There will always be a requirement for persons to work - if nothing else, to design the robots that build the robots which do the work.
`
There is also the added thought that the vast majority of people would rather interact with a person than a machine - I'm 24 and sick of shouting "LET ME TAKE TO A ****ING HUMAN" into a call centre robot drone when I call the bank. Employing people will be a competitive advantage some companies will be keen to include.
`
Yes, new technologies are guaranteed, but my bet would be something other than nuclear will come along in the next 50 years to power everything with.
`
Either way, unless everything is free (which it won't be), I'll still have to generate an income in some regard, and I firmly believe a pension is not the way to go.
`
On a seperate note, what on earth is a quango?

mystic_genius wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:
mystic_genius, Acomb, By the time you reach 75 I wager most work will be carried out by robots, intelligent computers and machines. New technology will enable the automatic production of new extremely strong lightweight nanomaterials that do not require using natural resources. Heat and light and power will all be sourced from nuclear fusion units. So the whole concept of retirement will no longer exist as society will have moved on from conventional employment and th ework ethic to one of leisure and life for living -and extremely long and disease free lives at that.

You're almost implying that in 50 years time man/woman will be redundant. I feel your thought is fanciful at best.
`
There will always be a requirement for persons to work - if nothing else, to design the robots that build the robots which do the work.
`
There is also the added thought that the vast majority of people would rather interact with a person than a machine - I'm 24 and sick of shouting "LET ME TAKE TO A ****ING HUMAN" into a call centre robot drone when I call the bank. Employing people will be a competitive advantage some companies will be keen to include.
`
Yes, new technologies are guaranteed, but my bet would be something other than nuclear will come along in the next 50 years to power everything with.
`
Either way, unless everything is free (which it won't be), I'll still have to generate an income in some regard, and I firmly believe a pension is not the way to go.
`
On a seperate note, what on earth is a quango?

You are falling into the trap of a dumbass politician. You believe that "your job" defines you as a person and individual. No job - you are redundant.

No one has a cyrstal ball but I am willing to guess what technology will deliver in the coming decades - and just dare to imagine the coming centuries!

I am afraid that our inefficient minds will be incapable of solving the problems we seek to solve in science. It will require much greater capacity to number crunch and memorise. This is where intelligent computing will reign supreme. They may be attached somehow or even inbuilt to our brains.

In the end computers will design and modify and build themselves.

Much of what we do today involves no human contact, online banking, online insurance, online bill payment. Bank branches and cash will disappear and even money should be redundant eventually if society evolves correctly.

Even the replacement for the space shuttle is robotic and can remain in space for 270 days rather than the current 16 days - and this is just the start of robotic exploration and warfare.

Some say that aircraft pilots will be totally replaced by robots in the next 20 years.

Humans have no advantage over robots, computers and machines when these things can interact, move and work endlessly 24/7 without payment or sustinence.

Call centres will be totally computerised and should you telephone, although that will die out, a computer will talk to you indistinguishable from a human voice and intellect.

The immense power needed to generate machines will require nuclear fusion to replace existing nuclear, oil, gas and coal power plants.

The fusing together of hydrogen atoms will create endless heat and therefore steam to drive generators - endlessly.

The problem you are having to appreciate the impact of future technology on society is you are basing future society on how things are today.

Things will have to change. I could carry on an write a long list of what I believe will happen to society and existing jobs.

A quango is an acronym for: quasi-autonomous non-governmental organisation.

It is estimated that these non-elected and unrepresentative organisations consume about £100 billion each year of tax payers cash.

T Scaife I have just had an interstellar chat with Dan Dare and he agrees with every thing you say. He will arrange a meeting when he finally defeats the Mekon.

sheps lad wrote:
T Scaife I have just had an interstellar chat with Dan Dare and he agrees with every thing you say. He will arrange a meeting when he finally defeats the Mekon.

Ha, Ha, Ho, Ho - You split my sides you really do.

I don't really care if anyone agrees with me or not. Only my points of view me old darling.

However you display the characteristics of our politicians - they must get many of their ideas from another planet too.

During your interstellar chats (oh my!) please give my best wishes to Dan.

Live long and prosper - oops that was Vulcan. Anyway whatever the equivalent is wherever you hang out in your mind.

Toodle pip.

Mr Scaife. Seen as you believe in wealth redistribution, how about you 'redistribute' some of that stuff you are smoking amongst the rest of us? Magic mushrooms and other hallucinogenic drugs don't come near!

T. Scaife wrote:

moneyforwhat wrote: especially for mystic_genius My attempt to cheer you up, and yes I know about being ****upon from all angles as have been self employed and that's a challenge!! My parents thought they had had the best of times. They saw changes and thought they were inprovements, but now like me they believe we need to step back a bit. Too much 'progress' perhaps...and then I read Mr Scaifes comments and thought bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them? Then I remembered something (don't know where it came from) in which I hope you will find solace. Each generation is different and the newest generation copes because that is what it has been born into and it doesn't know about the previous generations except as history...to you, even say the 80's is history. This is how the world evolves and how we cope ultimately. I have much faith in the young (though I wish my son would go to Australia and make his life there (and no I don't want him to go but I think there are opportunities for the brave & that he may make a better life there). Never mind the politics, I have great faith in the next generation to inherit this world. I think they will be sharper more responsible, more dedicated and more aware than a great many of their predecessors

moneyforwhat, What do you mean by - "bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them?" I would have thought you would want a better world free from the drudgery and boredom that comes with most "work"? And what exactly is "work". Is it chained to a desk and computer, chained to a checkout, chained to mundane clock watching? There are already 10 million economically inactive in the UK so they don't have any work any way, but are marginalised by politicians. The real challenge for the future is not as our hapless politicians see it in higher and higher retirement age. It will be how to improve the lot of everyone by better sharing the wealth available. Employment in the future should not involve work that will be repetetive drudgery that numbs the mind and soul for a pittance. It should be whatever you need to make your life and possibly others happier and more content. As unemployment and malcontent increases around the world because of dumb politicians. So will dissent and unhappiness against those in power. You see every generation is exactly the same, with the same challenges and the same dumbass politicians. And of course the same wealthy elite who would quite happily **** most of us to poverty and whatever else - just as they always have. The next generation will be run by politicians too so you had better hope they get it right.

well I just awoke from my prozac overdose having read your remarks, plus I read all your other comments and I have more pills ready to knock me out for a good spell.....how verbose, why use one word when ten will do. I don't care for your vision of the future...have we been reading Isaac Asimoz, H G Wells and some Nicholas Monsarrat or watching too much Star Trek diluted with Dr Who. Your vision of a life of leisure and a long life too will have to take on interplanetary proportions to accommodate everyone, and likely have a selective breeding programme in place also. How would anyone enjoy permanent leisure....it's like asking someone to be happy all the time. How would you enjoy going for a meal if there was no chef to prepare something mouthwatering, no gardener to produce something magical. We have social problems now due to people not having employment...idle hands and all that. I do believe that each generation differs and I do believe that the next generation will be smarter than those previously. Perhaps that may mean they will not tolerate ineffective politicans in the way that we have for quite some time and just perhaps they may have the gumption to sort somethings out. Money will certainly need to change if we are all to live longer and not work. Perhaps the future may be a better place as finally mistakes in past history will not be repeated.

petethefeet wrote:
Mr Scaife. Seen as you believe in wealth redistribution, how about you 'redistribute' some of that stuff you are smoking amongst the rest of us? Magic mushrooms and other hallucinogenic drugs don't come near!

Ah, another one. Smart alec comments and cheap remarks rather than intelligent counter arguments.

What parts don't you understand of what I have said regarding future technology applications etc.?

Or are you so fixated with the past and fading present that you can't a) think for yourself, b) use your imagination and c) support a system that has and will continue to fail.

moneyforwhat wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:

moneyforwhat wrote: especially for mystic_genius My attempt to cheer you up, and yes I know about being ****upon from all angles as have been self employed and that's a challenge!! My parents thought they had had the best of times. They saw changes and thought they were inprovements, but now like me they believe we need to step back a bit. Too much 'progress' perhaps...and then I read Mr Scaifes comments and thought bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them? Then I remembered something (don't know where it came from) in which I hope you will find solace. Each generation is different and the newest generation copes because that is what it has been born into and it doesn't know about the previous generations except as history...to you, even say the 80's is history. This is how the world evolves and how we cope ultimately. I have much faith in the young (though I wish my son would go to Australia and make his life there (and no I don't want him to go but I think there are opportunities for the brave & that he may make a better life there). Never mind the politics, I have great faith in the next generation to inherit this world. I think they will be sharper more responsible, more dedicated and more aware than a great many of their predecessors

moneyforwhat, What do you mean by - "bl**y nora...is that the future...what have I done for my kids... why have I had them?" I would have thought you would want a better world free from the drudgery and boredom that comes with most "work"? And what exactly is "work". Is it chained to a desk and computer, chained to a checkout, chained to mundane clock watching? There are already 10 million economically inactive in the UK so they don't have any work any way, but are marginalised by politicians. The real challenge for the future is not as our hapless politicians see it in higher and higher retirement age. It will be how to improve the lot of everyone by better sharing the wealth available. Employment in the future should not involve work that will be repetetive drudgery that numbs the mind and soul for a pittance. It should be whatever you need to make your life and possibly others happier and more content. As unemployment and malcontent increases around the world because of dumb politicians. So will dissent and unhappiness against those in power. You see every generation is exactly the same, with the same challenges and the same dumbass politicians. And of course the same wealthy elite who would quite happily **** most of us to poverty and whatever else - just as they always have. The next generation will be run by politicians too so you had better hope they get it right.

well I just awoke from my prozac overdose having read your remarks, plus I read all your other comments and I have more pills ready to knock me out for a good spell.....how verbose, why use one word when ten will do. I don't care for your vision of the future...have we been reading Isaac Asimoz, H G Wells and some Nicholas Monsarrat or watching too much Star Trek diluted with Dr Who. Your vision of a life of leisure and a long life too will have to take on interplanetary proportions to accommodate everyone, and likely have a selective breeding programme in place also. How would anyone enjoy permanent leisure....it's like asking someone to be happy all the time. How would you enjoy going for a meal if there was no chef to prepare something mouthwatering, no gardener to produce something magical. We have social problems now due to people not having employment...idle hands and all that. I do believe that each generation differs and I do believe that the next generation will be smarter than those previously. Perhaps that may mean they will not tolerate ineffective politicans in the way that we have for quite some time and just perhaps they may have the gumption to sort somethings out. Money will certainly need to change if we are all to live longer and not work. Perhaps the future may be a better place as finally mistakes in past history will not be repeated.

Verbose, moi?

I chose my words carefuly unlike you. And by the way you write at least as many as me so I must respond in kind I suppose.

And I don't need to pad them out with silly talk of prozac, meant I am sure, as some dim witted coarse humour.

I tried to explain what I believe the future could hold for technology and its impact on society. If there is another method of doing so rather than the use of words - please illustrate.

Unemployment is the growing burden of this world with billions of people living in abject poverty.

New technology is an opportunity to rescue these billions from their lot.

Your view of leisure is plain wierd!

yeah I was waiting for it...you poor unfortunate. You need something to chill out with else the men in white coats will arrive...there is only you believing yourself to be intelligent...I rather think you have lost your impetus here as all you are capable of is deriding other peoples intelligence and really who are you to do that? Get in your time machine and go to your future...end of. ZZZZZZZZZZ

moneyforwhat wrote:
yeah I was waiting for it...you poor unfortunate. You need something to chill out with else the men in white coats will arrive...there is only you believing yourself to be intelligent...I rather think you have lost your impetus here as all you are capable of is deriding other peoples intelligence and really who are you to do that? Get in your time machine and go to your future...end of. ZZZZZZZZZZ

Is that the best you can do?

You are delusional I have never mentioned myself as intelligent - if I were I would not be wasting time talking to apparent dimwits like you.

I have never otherwise derided others intelligence either.

You have lost the plot if you feel I have lost my impetus - it is you who care not to or can not respond with counter arguments.

So carry on taking the Prozac - you need it!

Good point about the time machine though - see you sometime in the future. I hope its my concept of future and not yours.

T. Scaife wrote:
Good point about the time machine though - see you sometime in the future. I hope its my concept of future and not yours.

what a poor excuse for a human being...but please don't waste any more of your precious time (ha!) if your insults are falling my way they are perhaps sparing others....if you need the last word for your ego ...go for it...you've shown yourself for what you are already

T. Scaife wrote:
Final salary pensions are more than adequately funded if properly invested in spread betting in the stock market, property gold etc. They have had a rough ride due to payment holidays, risk taking in the far east and of course the credit crisis. The concept of final salary pensions is still sound so long as new regulations are introduced regarding investment policy, payment top-ups when necessary by members and the abolishen of payment holidays by companies. The current retirement policy is also flawed. The State must introduce properly funded state pensions. Supported by hypothecated contributions from employers and employees. Also the retriement age should be on a sliding scale - part-retirement from those in their 50's receiving less pension. This would balance the system of payouts and leave more in the pot for those retiring later. Most public sector employees receive an average of £70 a week from their public sector pension - not very much. The ones to limit are the higher salaried public sector employees - including MPs.

Please don't write on a subject you obviously know nothing about. Final salary pensions are NOT adequately funded. Unless the public sector removes these schemes for the future then the country will be bankrupt. We simply cannot afford to carry on as it is. Pensions earned to date will not be affected but change is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the future.
Final salary schemes have all but disappeared from the private sector - why should the public sector be any different?
Please stop making uneducated comments, particularly on such complicated subjects.

moneyforwhat wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:
Good point about the time machine though - see you sometime in the future. I hope its my concept of future and not yours.

what a poor excuse for a human being...but please don't waste any more of your precious time (ha!) if your insults are falling my way they are perhaps sparing others....if you need the last word for your ego ...go for it...you've shown yourself for what you are already

Ok.

Dish it out and you will get it back.

I dont mind being a pathetic excuse of a human being - at least I tend to care about the billions of human beings who are suffering and dare to be optimistic for their futures - unlike you.

Zebedee wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:
Final salary pensions are more than adequately funded if properly invested in spread betting in the stock market, property gold etc. They have had a rough ride due to payment holidays, risk taking in the far east and of course the credit crisis. The concept of final salary pensions is still sound so long as new regulations are introduced regarding investment policy, payment top-ups when necessary by members and the abolishen of payment holidays by companies. The current retirement policy is also flawed. The State must introduce properly funded state pensions. Supported by hypothecated contributions from employers and employees. Also the retriement age should be on a sliding scale - part-retirement from those in their 50's receiving less pension. This would balance the system of payouts and leave more in the pot for those retiring later. Most public sector employees receive an average of £70 a week from their public sector pension - not very much. The ones to limit are the higher salaried public sector employees - including MPs.

Please don't write on a subject you obviously know nothing about. Final salary pensions are NOT adequately funded. Unless the public sector removes these schemes for the future then the country will be bankrupt. We simply cannot afford to carry on as it is. Pensions earned to date will not be affected but change is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for the future.
Final salary schemes have all but disappeared from the private sector - why should the public sector be any different?
Please stop making uneducated comments, particularly on such complicated subjects.

I did not say they were adequately funded I said: "Final salary pensions are more than adequately funded if properly invested in spread betting in the stock market, property gold etc."

They have tended to be inadequately funded and organised.

MPs still have final salary schemes and are gold-plated.

If its good enough for them...

Most public sector workers will not receive much personal pension unlike their bosses and MPs.

So please do not make uneducated comments about my comments which you have not correctly interpreted.

T. Scaife wrote:

moneyforwhat wrote:

T. Scaife wrote: Good point about the time machine though - see you sometime in the future. I hope its my concept of future and not yours.

what a poor excuse for a human being...but please don't waste any more of your precious time (ha!) if your insults are falling my way they are perhaps sparing others....if you need the last word for your ego ...go for it...you've shown yourself for what you are already

Ok. Dish it out and you will get it back. I dont mind being a pathetic excuse of a human being - at least I tend to care about the billions of human beings who are suffering and dare to be optimistic for their futures - unlike you.

had you correctly read my comments you would know that I am optimistic for the future as I believe the next generation will see the mistakes of the past and act on them. It would be interesting (yawn) to know how you are caring for the billions of human beings in addition to finding time to do all this corresponding. Many of us have our own ways of trying to assist those who are suffering...but this is off tangent from the original line which was up for comment. Additionally you chose to join a comment intended for another party with whom I empathised. You have systematically attacked with your dogma almost all those who have chosen to post and are unncecessarily over preoccupied with your own highly inflated opinions. There must be another way for you to manage this angst....ah yes I have it ....select an additional user name and correspond with yourself.

moneyforwhat wrote:

T. Scaife wrote:

moneyforwhat wrote:

T. Scaife wrote: Good point about the time machine though - see you sometime in the future. I hope its my concept of future and not yours.

what a poor excuse for a human being...but please don't waste any more of your precious time (ha!) if your insults are falling my way they are perhaps sparing others....if you need the last word for your ego ...go for it...you've shown yourself for what you are already

Ok. Dish it out and you will get it back. I dont mind being a pathetic excuse of a human being - at least I tend to care about the billions of human beings who are suffering and dare to be optimistic for their futures - unlike you.

had you correctly read my comments you would know that I am optimistic for the future as I believe the next generation will see the mistakes of the past and act on them. It would be interesting (yawn) to know how you are caring for the billions of human beings in addition to finding time to do all this corresponding. Many of us have our own ways of trying to assist those who are suffering...but this is off tangent from the original line which was up for comment. Additionally you chose to join a comment intended for another party with whom I empathised. You have systematically attacked with your dogma almost all those who have chosen to post and are unncecessarily over preoccupied with your own highly inflated opinions. There must be another way for you to manage this angst....ah yes I have it ....select an additional user name and correspond with yourself.

You are a very, very, very sad individual.

The only one showing angst is you - I only wish to discuss opinions, inflated or otherwise. Why, I will even discuss your over inflated opinions with you.

I have only ever responded to personal attacks against me - I always choose to engage in the argument, however people such as you can't stand it when when one doesn't buckle under your insults and tantrums.

Go away and return when you have grown up enough to debate issues rather than engage in personal attacks - which of course will be responded to.

I hope you get better soon.

So long and GOODBYEE!

moneyforwhat,

I have had an epiphany and now realise you are completely right and I am completely wrong.

So I will never engage on this York Press site, ever again.

Thank you for enabling me to see the error of my ways.

I am not worthy to be in the company of such greatness.

You have set me free - thank you and may your future be a good one.

Byeee, for good.

It's brought a tear to my eye, that has.