You be the chancellor
you decide what the cuts the Govt should make it today's emergency budget
On my first gut feel, I achieved £75.7bn - that means an extra £1.7bn to spend on beer and chips!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:34, Reply)
you decide what the cuts the Govt should make it today's emergency budget
On my first gut feel, I achieved £75.7bn - that means an extra £1.7bn to spend on beer and chips!
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:34, Reply)
I may be an idiot
but I don't see a problem in raising VAT to a European standard, perhaps even going the way of the Scandinavians and hitting the big 25%
It's really hard to take into account the subtleties of things like reducing public order, defence and the NHS, and especially the last one "other". I managed to save £28.2 billion on "other" alone.
25% VAT generates 36 billion smackaroonies.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:40, Reply)
but I don't see a problem in raising VAT to a European standard, perhaps even going the way of the Scandinavians and hitting the big 25%
It's really hard to take into account the subtleties of things like reducing public order, defence and the NHS, and especially the last one "other". I managed to save £28.2 billion on "other" alone.
25% VAT generates 36 billion smackaroonies.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:40, Reply)
I went for 20%
if you don't want something - then don't buy it - it sounds daft but many things are too cheap at the moment. Products that are overpriced anyway will be reduced in price to make up for the vat increase
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:45, Reply)
if you don't want something - then don't buy it - it sounds daft but many things are too cheap at the moment. Products that are overpriced anyway will be reduced in price to make up for the vat increase
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:45, Reply)
Also with VAT
I believe that the bare essentials, like food and baby type items are VAT free and therefore a raise in VAT only affects the "luxury" items (and ahem, businesses).
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:51, Reply)
I believe that the bare essentials, like food and baby type items are VAT free and therefore a raise in VAT only affects the "luxury" items (and ahem, businesses).
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:51, Reply)
VAT applies to most business costs
So when VAT goes up, so does your food. Even though its VAT-exempt.
Besides which, Georgy Boy has just raised VAT to 20%
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:15, Reply)
So when VAT goes up, so does your food. Even though its VAT-exempt.
Besides which, Georgy Boy has just raised VAT to 20%
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:15, Reply)
I suspected as much
hence the brackets... but still less of an impact hopefully than other cutbacks. For example the 15% to 17.5% affected me and my business marginally at best..
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:43, Reply)
hence the brackets... but still less of an impact hopefully than other cutbacks. For example the 15% to 17.5% affected me and my business marginally at best..
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:43, Reply)
Slightly off topic...
...but last week, did tory mp Eric Pickles tell councils to stop saving money with fortnightly bin collections?
Is it just me, or is once a fortnight perfectly adequate for the bins we have (your mileage may vary - I have a blue wheelie bin for recyclables, a green one for compostable waste and a black bin for 'other')
Shouldn't councils be saving money any way they can?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:47, Reply)
...but last week, did tory mp Eric Pickles tell councils to stop saving money with fortnightly bin collections?
Is it just me, or is once a fortnight perfectly adequate for the bins we have (your mileage may vary - I have a blue wheelie bin for recyclables, a green one for compostable waste and a black bin for 'other')
Shouldn't councils be saving money any way they can?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:47, Reply)
we have one bin
as our garden is about 8 feet square. I don't want rotten refuse that close to my house for a fortnight, bagged up or not.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:52, Reply)
as our garden is about 8 feet square. I don't want rotten refuse that close to my house for a fortnight, bagged up or not.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 12:52, Reply)
I could happily do twice weekly
as long as they did the recyclables every week
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:02, Reply)
as long as they did the recyclables every week
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:02, Reply)
This.
I have a compost heap, and recycle paper, bottles, cartons and cans. (Manchester City Council is reasonable about recycling.)
I have my wheelie bin emptied about once every two months, and it's only about half-full even then.
My neighbours manage to have theirs overflowing every week. I genuinely don't know how they manage it.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)
I have a compost heap, and recycle paper, bottles, cartons and cans. (Manchester City Council is reasonable about recycling.)
I have my wheelie bin emptied about once every two months, and it's only about half-full even then.
My neighbours manage to have theirs overflowing every week. I genuinely don't know how they manage it.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)
I suspect endless ready-meals.
I live in quite a poor area - and yet the MASSIVE Tesco down the road is stacked to the rafters with plastic food.
Result? The people around me end up spending unnecessarily large amounts of money that they don't have on food that leaves them obese yet malnourished. Yes, I do count obesity as malnutrition.
(On a similar topic: I noticed the other day that Tesco sells special hubcap-cleaning fluid, and - and I could barely believe this - special dashboard polish. Really, you have to admire their genius for squeezing money out of chavs.)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)
I live in quite a poor area - and yet the MASSIVE Tesco down the road is stacked to the rafters with plastic food.
Result? The people around me end up spending unnecessarily large amounts of money that they don't have on food that leaves them obese yet malnourished. Yes, I do count obesity as malnutrition.
(On a similar topic: I noticed the other day that Tesco sells special hubcap-cleaning fluid, and - and I could barely believe this - special dashboard polish. Really, you have to admire their genius for squeezing money out of chavs.)
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)
welll
hubcap cleaner is specially formulated to dissolve brake lining dust and dashboard cleaner is the only liquid on earth that smells like lemons
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)
hubcap cleaner is specially formulated to dissolve brake lining dust and dashboard cleaner is the only liquid on earth that smells like lemons
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)
...
*searches*
*fails to find flaw in this account*
*emulates*
*profits from chavs*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)
*searches*
*fails to find flaw in this account*
*emulates*
*profits from chavs*
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)
it doesn;t matter how often it is collected
the same amount is produced.
In my area, recyclables tend to get collected weekly and the rest fortnightly
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)
the same amount is produced.
In my area, recyclables tend to get collected weekly and the rest fortnightly
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:03, Reply)
That does not
give me the option to cut local govt high earners pay, MPs expenses, over cost not wanted and poorly performing govt IT projects etc
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)
give me the option to cut local govt high earners pay, MPs expenses, over cost not wanted and poorly performing govt IT projects etc
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:10, Reply)
You can only cut 20-0dd percent from the forces.
I'd cut a lot more.
The UK is no longer a world power, and should stop pretending to be one. What it is very good at is providing special-forces type support. Were it down to me, I'd cut a large chunk of the Army, and significant bits of the RAF and Navy, on the basis that they're just not necessary for the foreseeable future: the UK won't be fighting any defensive territorial wars for at least half a century, and possibly ever again.
I'd also cut all nuclear weapons, and give up the UN Security Council seat. Canada and Germany seem to do perfectly well without either.
What it can, and ought to, do is concentrate on small, acute operations, and on cyberwarfare.
You don't need many people for that.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)
I'd cut a lot more.
The UK is no longer a world power, and should stop pretending to be one. What it is very good at is providing special-forces type support. Were it down to me, I'd cut a large chunk of the Army, and significant bits of the RAF and Navy, on the basis that they're just not necessary for the foreseeable future: the UK won't be fighting any defensive territorial wars for at least half a century, and possibly ever again.
I'd also cut all nuclear weapons, and give up the UN Security Council seat. Canada and Germany seem to do perfectly well without either.
What it can, and ought to, do is concentrate on small, acute operations, and on cyberwarfare.
You don't need many people for that.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:16, Reply)
cyberwarfare is the way forward
no expenses in travel as they all work from their Mum's basement, and all it costs is a monthly World of warcraft subscription per operative
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)
no expenses in travel as they all work from their Mum's basement, and all it costs is a monthly World of warcraft subscription per operative
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:20, Reply)
Seriously.
Territorial warfare is basically economic warfare by other means. But it's an inefficient method.
The future will be all about disabling infrastructure without damaging it, and in a manner that can be repaired in a matter of hours rather than decades.
I appear to be turning into Jean Baudrillard...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:24, Reply)
Territorial warfare is basically economic warfare by other means. But it's an inefficient method.
The future will be all about disabling infrastructure without damaging it, and in a manner that can be repaired in a matter of hours rather than decades.
I appear to be turning into Jean Baudrillard...
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 13:24, Reply)
What do you think
the publicity will be like for the presiding government who cuts that level of forces. Can you imagine the red-tops?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:21, Reply)
the publicity will be like for the presiding government who cuts that level of forces. Can you imagine the red-tops?
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:21, Reply)
Don't care.
:)
EDIT FOR ELABORATION: I don't see any moral reason why government policy should have to have anything to do with popular sentiment. Of course, it'd be nice if the population supported a good policy - but it strikes me as being more important that it's a good policy to begin with.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:42, Reply)
:)
EDIT FOR ELABORATION: I don't see any moral reason why government policy should have to have anything to do with popular sentiment. Of course, it'd be nice if the population supported a good policy - but it strikes me as being more important that it's a good policy to begin with.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 14:42, Reply)
I believe a number of governments have followed this approach...
...and are not always viewed kindly in hindsight - or indeed at the time.
Democracy may be ****ed up, but it's less ****ed up than someone deciding they know best, and then not bothering to convince everyone else.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:21, Reply)
...and are not always viewed kindly in hindsight - or indeed at the time.
Democracy may be ****ed up, but it's less ****ed up than someone deciding they know best, and then not bothering to convince everyone else.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:21, Reply)
not going to change anytime soon
as you say, we should reduce the amount of spending on the forces, and some of the big defense projects. I mean the eurofighter, who are we going to use those against that we haven't already got treaties with, or can overpower with our existing ones, as well as the trident replacement.
however, i reckon that we'll continue to have a large ground based army, not only for political muscle and existing agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, and our "special" relationship with the US, but for the future, especially Argentina, now that they've found oil offshore.
As you say, we should be funnelling money not only into cyberwarfare (especially with the number of attacks from China), but also into drones, since that will allow us to reduce costs if we're going to continue in pointless wars.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:08, Reply)
as you say, we should reduce the amount of spending on the forces, and some of the big defense projects. I mean the eurofighter, who are we going to use those against that we haven't already got treaties with, or can overpower with our existing ones, as well as the trident replacement.
however, i reckon that we'll continue to have a large ground based army, not only for political muscle and existing agreements on Afghanistan and Iraq, and our "special" relationship with the US, but for the future, especially Argentina, now that they've found oil offshore.
As you say, we should be funnelling money not only into cyberwarfare (especially with the number of attacks from China), but also into drones, since that will allow us to reduce costs if we're going to continue in pointless wars.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 15:08, Reply)
I disagree about the army.
You don't need a large army: you need a disproportionately well-trained and equipped one. I take your point about the Malvinas - but there's NATO and the UN to act as policeman there (assuming you think they ought to be British anyway, and assuming you think it'd make any difference at all in the long run) - and the WHO.
With peak oil on the horizon, there'll be a big shift away from petrochemical resources around the world; and when that happens, noone'll be fighting over oil wells anyway. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
Besides: if there ever was a serious threat to the UK's integrity, and assuming you give a toss about that, conventional re-armament'd be quite easy within a few years.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)
You don't need a large army: you need a disproportionately well-trained and equipped one. I take your point about the Malvinas - but there's NATO and the UN to act as policeman there (assuming you think they ought to be British anyway, and assuming you think it'd make any difference at all in the long run) - and the WHO.
With peak oil on the horizon, there'll be a big shift away from petrochemical resources around the world; and when that happens, noone'll be fighting over oil wells anyway. It simply wouldn't be worth it.
Besides: if there ever was a serious threat to the UK's integrity, and assuming you give a toss about that, conventional re-armament'd be quite easy within a few years.
( , Tue 22 Jun 2010, 16:19, Reply)