Economy watch

gloswhite wrote:Those were my exact thoughts Wander, and I lost out.

I have a feeling it will stay on, or near, the current levels, as the background info seems to be saying that though were not sinking any lower, at the moment, neither are we blazing trails.

It's a worry if it stays at this level and even more worrying if we stay 13% down on the pre-Brexit rate against the dollar as the price of oil has just risen to above the pre-Brexit price hitting $51 a barrel which means that sooner or later it's going to get expensive.

It's times like this that I wish Britain still owned the oil and gas underneath our waters.

I don't think we own any of our assets any more, whether its oil, or industry, or brains for that matter.  We're still making money, but for whom ?

Disappointing figures re July's budget surplus published today. If you are unfamiliar with what it means, in essence it's to do with austerity. 
As I understand it, the Chancellor sets a budget for public spending (investment in infrastructure, schools, hospitals, services etc) and collects income from e.g. corporate taxation. If the public sector doesn't spend all the money they borrow in a particular month or if the income exceeds the expenditure, the money "saved" is used to pay off the public sector debt which after years of Tory rule now stands at an unprecedented £1604 billion (£1.6 trillion)
In July, the budget surplus was £200 million less than anticipated for the month - not a lot in the scheme of things but it all helps.

Osborne had been borrowing like crazy to give the impression that the Tories are doing a good job - a lesson he took out of Thatcher's book - but realised that he couldn't do that forever, so he introduced a plan to cut back on the borrowing and start paying a bit back to minimise interest payments. That plan was reflected in his budget targets, however it is thought that when Hammond announces his Autumn budget, Osborne's repayment plans will be cut back or even stopped altogether.

The downside of saving money to pay off our debts is that the money doesn't get spent on public services (which is very unpopular) so it looks like Hammond will keep public expenditure going at the expense of rising debt in order to cement the popularity of the new Government.

So if Britain is going to recover we need to be successful in trade and attract foreign investors without investing too heavily in industry subsidies so it's going to be a long and tricky road ahead.
Hammond appears to be going for "austerity lite" and hoping our performance is good enough to try to keep everybody sweet.

Final bit of news today is that more people are setting up their own businesses which has helped the unemployment figures but interestingly the "real earnings" of SME owners has dropped by 26% in the last ten years so more jobs with lower wages.

Perfect Wander. The only thing missing are the PowerPoint slides

gloswhite wrote:Perfect Wander. The only thing missing are the PowerPoint slides

I have them here if you'd like to PM me Glos
If the projector's not working don't worry - I'm highly experienced at presenting with just the aid of sock puppets.

Seriously, it's complicated and there are some enormous numbers involved so I've done my best to explain what appears to be happening.

Duncan Donuts urges May to get on with the EU negotiations asap and not to accept a "EU lite" agreement.

May says it won't happen this year and that she can't say what we'll have to accept anyhoo.

Article here.

There will probably be a public outcry if these plans for NHS cutbacks come to fruition...

Politically I think that May would rather sacrifice some other part of the national budget if possible but with all other departments effectively losing whatever % it is that our economy has shrunk by recently, I don't know where she'd find the savings. 

We need some serious austerity to live within our means but there's no way the Tories would admit to it so I imagine that Hammond will go for the Thatcher option i.e. borrow even more money from the World Bank to plaster over the cracks and make out everything is fine. And let the next government/next generation worry about making the repayments.

Personally I think there is increasing evidence that the Tories intend to break the NHS so that it can be "fixed" by privatising large chunks of it to their off-shore friends and backers. It's no surprise that news of these cuts only arrives just before the August Bank holiday.

Of course Brexit just aggravates the situation but good luck trying to get a Brexit fan to admit that.

Agreed.

Hence my rant in that other thread about their pointless "customer survey" texts, sent post-A&E treatment.

Did anybody else hear the phone in on 5 Live this morning about the difficulties faced by homeless people when trying to access primary heath care?

There were people actually texting in saying that homeless people shouldn't be allowed to receive any treatment on the NHS because of their "life-style choices" and the fact that they didn't pay NI stamp.

I am genuinely fearful of what we are turning into as a society.

xmiles wrote:Personally I think there is increasing evidence that the Tories intend to break the NHS so that it can be "fixed" by privatising large chunks of it to their off-shore friends and backers. It's no surprise that news of these cuts only arrives just before the August Bank holiday.

Of course Brexit just aggravates the situation but good luck trying to get a Brexit fan to admit that.

i agree and as an NHS worker myself it leaves me feeling uneasy.

They may get away with privatising some parts of the NHS but we as a nation i would hope we would never allow any Government to make us pay for basic treatment, it would be political suicide surely?

I don't think it's a Brexit issue as the Trusts were asked to draw up their plans last year so some degree of austerity was on the cards anyway, perhaps to make a dent in last year's borrowing. Obviously a contracting economy and weak pound only makes the need for reducing expenditure more urgent but I really hope they don't do it this way.
Mind you, borrowing the money is possibly worse as any further increases on what is already our biggest national debt of all time will only delay the inevitable.

As for homeless people, if they are able to find or rent a postal address they can claim benefits and will therefore have their NI stamp paid for them. I think you can rent a postal address for about a tenner a week.

xmiles wrote:Personally I think there is increasing evidence that the Tories intend to break the NHS so that it can be "fixed" by privatising large chunks of it to their off-shore friends and backers. It's no surprise that news of these cuts only arrives just before the August Bank holiday.

Of course Brexit just aggravates the situation but good luck trying to get a Brexit fan to admit that.

Sooner or later the NHS nettle is going to have to be grasped. There needs to be a serious debate on what services are going to be provided by the state and which are to be paid for by private insurance policy's. The government that does this will be accused of destroying the sacred cow that it has become but it is becoming unmanageable both operationally and financially.

The money will need to be found whether we stay in the EU or not and these revelations were planned before the referendum so I don't see what it has to do with the Brexit vote tbh.

Diverting the circa £200 000 000 000 that's earmarked for replacing Trident would be a start...

Bread2.0 wrote:Diverting the circa £200 000 000 000 that's earmarked for replacing Trident would be a start...

Not even close, Breaders. My masters think it would be cheaper and more efficient to go to an air based deterrent. The initial cost is for the Successor class submarines which will initially be armed with present Trident. The Trident replacement is years down the road but will obviously be expensive.
£11–£14Billion for a class of four new SSBNs. £2–3 billion for refurbishing warheads. £2–3 billion for infrastructure. These 2006/7 prices would equate to about £25bn in out-turn price for the successor submarines; the 2011 Initial Gate report confirmed estimates of £2-3bn each for the warheads and infrastructure. It's going to be more costly than the NHS, though you have to remember the costs in total are lifetime costs. But having said that when estimates are published the final cost is generally multiplied by a factor of ten. The major problem we now have is the North Koreans trialling SSBNs. That's going to keep a few people awake. 

Taking your comments into account Bollo, then it would be more sensible to have a sub floating off, or near to, the North Korean mainland, I would have thought. Still, when it comes to money and government projects, the end result is rarely what was requested in the first place. Such as TSR2, F111, Nimrod, etc.

You forgot Blue Streak, Glos.....

i believe there are even problems with the Typhoon, F35 and Lightning II.
Bloody hell Breaders, even I'd forgotten that one 

Typo, I know the Lightning is the F35. Sorry

You leave the Typhoon alone, you bad, bad man...!

It's a thing of inherently unstable, fly-by-wire magnificence.

I don't care how much it costs, it's ace.

gloswhite wrote:Taking your comments into account Bollo, then it would be more sensible to have a sub floating off, or near to, the North Korean mainland, I would have thought. Still, when it comes to money and government projects, the end result is rarely what was requested in the first place. Such as TSR2, F111, Nimrod, etc.

Spheres of influence, Glos and I think DPRK  would come under US/South Korea as primary and SEATO as secondary. Our (UK and France) input would be further down the line.
   TSR2 was really a donkey though an advanced donkey, but lauded as the best, possibly as BAC had been formed and a "Best of the best" was needed. In the event we got the Blackburn Buccaneer which proved itself after some early teething problem.
   F-111 was a con visited upon us by our US partners and we went with F4 Phantom in the end.
   Nimrod was another con, though this time by our very own and should never have been instigated by a government that was after kudos and nothing to do with defence of the realm.
   Military hardware is a very difficult subject and has forever been a series of very costly exercises by a bunch of chaps who NEVER listen to the military. Why do you think the new carriers, without cat and trap, are £3Billion quid each and couldn't be cancelled as the penalty would have been far more? Pollies and defence (and Gordon Broon)procurers often get it wrong. That's probably another reason why my pay is so low.