Originally Posted by Alikado

The explosion in spending during the Banking Crisis was a one off to bail out the banks (which I opposed, they should have let them go bust), the cuts that followed were driven by Political Dogma as is this current boom in alleged spending by a Government trying to curry favour with the Electorate, if / when it actually happens they will have to explain the implications and conditions of it. Nobody has said what the implications of HS2 are, it is just Sunshine & Roses, Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of letting the Banks go bust the problems it would have left would have driven us into a desperate recession, imagine turning up at the bank for your wages, businesses with no cash to pay them or buy stock or materials.

The poor would have suffered horrendously anyone who has had to wait for liquidators to pay them knows how long it takes and how low the payout often is.

It would have taken at least weeks to put a stop gap system in place at least.


Living within your means is not political dogma its something those who pay for those who don't understand very well.

Originally Posted by local

Living within your means is not political dogma its something those who pay for those who don't understand very well.

The country hasn't lived within it's means since the concept of national debt was created in 1692.
It's now £2.3trillion.

Originally Posted by local

Whilst I agree with the sentiment of letting the Banks go bust the problems it would have left would have driven us into a desperate recession, imagine turning up at the bank for your wages, businesses with no cash to pay them or buy stock or materials.

The poor would have suffered horrendously anyone who has had to wait for liquidators to pay them knows how long it takes and how low the payout often is.

It would have taken at least weeks to put a stop gap system in place at least.


Living within your means is not political dogma its something those who pay for those who don't understand very well.

Letting the Banks go bust would have protected the poor as the Government underwrites the first £85k of losses.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Can you name any real people that fit the bill or are they just in your imagination?

I don't know their names - but there are enough homeless people could do the work with their eyes closed. Then apart from them - there are a huge number of business professionals who could do the job far better than anyone from the public sector, take your pick. When one applies for these jobs, the application only requires certain competencies associated with public services - these requirements have absolutely nothing to do with the talents necessary for the work that the position requires. The result is that those elected to these positions are all the same type of people and there is no improvement in the output.

Originally Posted by salus.populi

Sefton hasn't had any council housing for years.

It no longer has to. The new housing projects agreement demand somewhere around 10% of the new houses to be sold to Housing Associations to be rented out to people with low incomes. Similar to council houses but without the government guarantees of regular maintenance.

Originally Posted by Alikado

Letting the Banks go bust would have protected the poor as the Government underwrites the first £85k of losses.

So where do you think the government get the money to underwrite those Bank losses?

Originally Posted by Alikado

Letting the Banks go bust would have protected the poor as the Government underwrites the first £85k of losses.

It would have been a disaster for the lower paid and poor most who do not have 85 K or anything like to call on, they live from month to month on low wages and when the Bank that processes their wages shuts their doors what are you expecting them to do ?

Their employers money to pay them frozen or lost, payment for work done frozen or lost, payments to suppliers stopped your direct debits stopped.

I could probably fill a page with the knock on effects of letting the Banks go bust.

Originally Posted by said

It no longer has to. The new housing projects agreement demand somewhere around 10% of the new houses to be sold to Housing Associations to be rented out to people with low incomes. Similar to council houses but without the government guarantees of regular maintenance.

The council set up the One Vision Housing Association and transferred it's housing stock. The reason being that the government of the day introduced the "decent homes standard" and Housing Associations were allowed government grants to bring their properties up to the standard bit councils were not.

Originally Posted by said

I don't know their names - but there are enough homeless people could do the work with their eyes closed. Then apart from them - there are a huge number of business professionals who could do the job far better than anyone from the public sector, take your pick. When one applies for these jobs, the application only requires certain competencies associated with public services - these requirements have absolutely nothing to do with the talents necessary for the work that the position requires. The result is that those elected to these positions are all the same type of people and there is no improvement in the output.

You think a homeless person could walk straight into a job of, say, being in charge of children's services or adult social care?


I hope you never use the NHS given your contempt for public sector workers.

Oh please, I employ a builder and I can
say John that's not right.
Go to a restaurant and say Carol
the food is a little cold.
The COUNCIL you speak to no one
and its not their money. You can't sack
them and they will get their
hyper pensions. So why should they
care.

Originally Posted by ausard2

Oh please, I employ a builder and I can
say John that's not right.

But can you rectify the builder's mistakes?
Presumably not or you'd have done the work yourself.

Originally Posted by ausard2

Oh please, I employ a builder and I can
say John that's not right.
Go to a restaurant and say Carol
the food is a little cold.
The COUNCIL you speak to no one
and its not their money. You can't sack
them and they will get their
hyper pensions. So why should they
care.

You do highlight the problem of lack of accountability.

Originally Posted by ausard2

they will get their hyper pensions.

What planet are you on. Many Council Workers are on minimum wage and will get tiny pensions