The mentally ill bit is fine but the rest of it is merely the dead hand. Oh well, sure you've got a cushy pension lined up.

HAving worked uder threat of imminent redundancy for three years now (cull of the Qangos) the pension's about the only good thing left.

And if we're going to judge social worth, what's your occupation?

I don't think you can be accused of missing a joke which never left the station.

Well it's budget day and this year George has at least managed to get through it without offending and alienating every single part of society.

Well last year within 24 hours we had 'pasty tax' and 'granny tax' headlines, followed up by 'caravan tax' and numerous stories about 'skip taxes' mere days later. In the end he had to reverse most of his budget because it simply wouldn't get out of the news cycle. Osborne is probably just hoping the budget disappears from the news cycle within a week as they usually do.

When flicking through the key points the only thing which concerned me was this 'Help to Buy' scheme. Now Labour today have got a row going out of playing class war, claiming it helps millionaires buy second homes but that wasn't my worry. The moment I saw it a few alarm bells went in my head at the thought of Government entering the mortgage market and using taxpayers money to secure mortgages. Sound familiar? It's similar to the Clinton Administrations scheme and we know how that turned out.

Labour are providing an opposition but that opposition isn't saying what I want them to say.

Jamie does not let facts get in the way of a good storey.He writes better fairy stories than Grim

There has not been to my knowledge a budget where the populus as a whole have come out on top, what sounds good has always drawbacks when you delve a little deeper.

You really should stop listening to these TV and newspaper pundits and come out and enjoy your one and only live.

You should really f*** off and get run over by a train.

Now I know that response is not exactly in the style preferred by the web site, but it made me laugh out loud. Get annoyed did we? Now come on Jamie, that is not the way to debate. I disagree with Collos's comments about your posts.

I've been watching all the news programmes in recent days waiting to hear some politician (former or current) or 'commentator' say what I've been thinking; house prices weren't allowed to fall low enough after the crisis. Somebody finally did say it and that person was Michael Portillo.

To the chagrin of some, you have allowed me to get back on your favourite subject. (Irony alert.) As Dominic Lawson wrote in The Sunday Times, one reason why the Labours were unwilling to tackle immigration is that it helped maintain house prices. The US, Spain and Ireland have had huge house price drops, whereas we haven't. When you get 100,000 net immigration, it has to impact house prices.

I'm sure this scheme is very well meaning. The Government is clearly trying to help people currently priced out of the mortgage market enter it, I don't think anyone can complain about the sentiment. My point is if we stop bailing out banks, let financial institutions go bust and let house prices crash through the floor then that serve as that opportunity for people as it's supposed so. We've propped up these failing institutions and false bubble prices and now we're trying to do it again?

If we had let banks go bust, it would have been worse than the Depression, so not ideal. Banks going bust would bankrupt many people, would impoverish others, cause companies to go bust because creditors had gone bust, destroy confidence in the UK, and cause a massive financial crisis. It would have been a nightmare scenario. This crisis is worse than the Great Depression except that governments have learnt lessons, and taken measures to prevent the situation from being truly awful.

one reason why the Labours were unwilling to tackle immigration is that it helped maintain house prices.

Certainly helped drive up private rents but the bigger problem was tiny banks/building societies lending 125% mortgages at rates of 9x the borrowers salary.

Yes, that helped drive up prices. But why did they not collapse after the economic crisis as per Spain and America? Instead they are treading water, or even rising in London. The general shortage of housing is the fundamental explanation, and a lack of house building along with immigration are causes. If more people want to rent, more people can buy to let, which competes with the private buyer, helping keep prices up. Foreign buyers, not immigrants, are driving the high end London market.

If we had let banks go bust, it would have been worse than the Depression, so not ideal... It would have been a nightmare scenario.

This was Gordon Brown's argument and it's one the media as well as public at large appear to have bought into without scepticism. The reality is somewhat different to the doomsday depiction which unfortunately we can't verify through lack of a time machine.

When we talk about 'the banks' we mean RBS and Lloyds. Allowing them to go bust would've obviously meant substantial losses for many banks, investors, bondholders and indeed depositers. However there was already a Government guarantee against deposits to a certain level and much of those banks' profitable operations would've been bought by their better competitors. Reliable debtors would've eventually been secured by other companies buying that debt and providing them with credit.

You saw how Northern Rock nearly went bust when people started to withdraw funds following rumours of instability. Once one high street bank went bust due to a run, do you think people would trust other banks? The truth is that a run on one bank could have caused a domino effect, as every person and their dog tried to withdraw funds from their banks. I was very worried, but being a Nationwide saver, I was most probably okay. But had they gone under I could have lost most of my personal wealth, and been seriously screwed e.g. working on a till at Tesco after age 67, and living in a rented flat. The guarantee was not much, only £70,000 or something like that. By the nature of banks, they borrow money from savers, and lend it to mortgage holders. So they do not have the free capital to cover the borrowings. A run would send them under. So, do you think the goverment could pay out billions to cover the savings guarantee? Would that be any less than the money we have paid out anyway? And what about the damage to individuals? Would it be morally acceptable?

Lehmann Brothers was not bailed out and the sky didn't actually fall down.

Lehman Brothers was an investment bank, so not the same thing. However, the crash of LB would have brought down Northern Rock, had it not been saved by the tax payer. Had NR gone down, how many business and other banks would have failed? The problem was that confidence was lost. No-one knew who owned junk debt, and hence which institution could go bust. So no-one wanted to lend money, because it was not clear if the borrower would be able to pay it back. As it is we are in the poop, so we would have been deeper in the poop.

Barclays bought up much of their profitable stock and now many former LB buildings have Barclays written on them instead. Capitalism is about opportunity and risk taking - if it pays off you benefit, if it fails you don't.

Iceland experienced what you describe and suffered ramifications from the old testament for a brief period, but five years later they're back in growth and doing fine.

Iceland's banking success was largely built on lending to foreigners, so when they went bust, foreigners lost money, but Icelanders did not suffer any losses, although there would have been job losses when the banks collapsed. The situation was completely different from the UK.

New Zealand's financial sector hit crisis a few years ago but the Government shrugged their shoulders and told them it was their problem. New Zealand didn't sink into the sea.

There were only four elected UK politicians on record opposing the bailout when Brown rammed it through without asking for the publics permission. I object to my taxes going to bail out some incredibly wealthy financiers who should've experienced big losses and I don't think I'm alone in that.

Alastair Darling is on record as saying that the UK economy was on the brink of a very serious crisis had they not acted. He has stated that the bank management were very casual, and oblivious to the dangers. Yes, the idea that we supported wealthy bankers is appalling, and a serious problem.

It would've been hell for a few months here but by March 2013 I'm convinced we'd have been in a better position than we are now. Instead we've created a vast moral hazard, whereby insolvent banks are a more secure destination for your money because the Government will bail it out.

Yes, there is moral hazard. They are attempting to solve that by ring fencing so called casino banking. That means that the wealthy bankers who take risks will in future lost their shirts, assuming the regulators do their job properly. However, even then there is coupling. The high street banks owned bad mortgage debt, so ring fencing is only a partial solution.

You might like to read about Long Term Capital Management, if you haven't already, which was saved at the cost of billions, to save damage to the US economy. Do have some aspirin handy, and take deep breaths.

Within a short drive round West London you'll encounter many Greek/Portuguese owned expensive property.

London has a huge French population especially in South Kensington. And there are Arabs, Russians, Cypriots and so on.

Frankly that should be the banks problem. If you or I run our businesses badly we end up on the losing side. The Government don't come and rescue us. I see no reason why the Government couldn't have met the billions to cover banks savings/deposits and credit obligations to consumers.

That is not so different from what happened i.e. large public funds bailing out the banks.

No two situations are identical but I'm using it to demonstrate mass nationalisation isn't the only answer. Iceland went through a period of 25% inflation, 25% interest rates but in 2013 they're back in growth. They're also still an independent country, not imprisoned in the EU straitjacket.

You miss the point that Iceland was very very different. They protected all domestic investors, and screwed foreign investors, the latter being the majority. We cannot do that. What you suggest would end up hurting huge numbers of UK people, with serious damage to the UK economy.

Darling is one of the few Labour politicians I have some time for because taking over any set of books after Brown's been at them for a decade is a thankless job. Even worse when the worlds financial system goes to hell just after you've taken the job. However with all due respect; he would say that wouldn't he.

I also respect Darling, he seems to be a decent man, and unlike some of the vile Labours (Caroline Flint, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls), does not engage in puerile knee jerk jingoism expressing such sentiments as "the Tories are unpleasant people out for themselves, and siding with the rich, against the poor".

Yes, the idea that we supported wealthy bankers is appalling, and a serious problem.

It's frankly impossible to justify billions of taxpayers money going to very wealthy financiers when we're also telling disabled people we need to cut their benefits to pay down the debt.

Sadly it isn't impossible to justify. Life is not black and white, and sometimes the best course of action has some distasteful side effects. Proper regulation and oversight would have prevented enriching some bankers.

Yes, there is moral hazard. They are attempting to solve that by ring fencing so called casino banking. That means that the wealthy bankers who take risks will in future lost their shirts, assuming the regulators do their job properly.

But as I've said before; the Glass-Steagal act did exactly that. After the monumental crash of 1929, the Americans wrote a very sensible law dictating investment banks be seperate from clearing banks. It was repealed in 1999 and within a decade the world went to hell. When our glorious politicians talk about being 'progressive' by 'breaking up the banks' they're talking about a law from 1931.

Quite.

How many banks had to be nationalised in America between 1931 and 1999?

One more thing; we often get told this is a 'global crisis' which has affected the whole world. Not true. We're talking about 7 or 8 very rich yet debt laden countries, not the whole world. Canada and Australia both have very active financial sectors but no bank in either country has needed Government help.

It was a sort of global crisis, but Blair and Brown contributed to the problem, by deregulating and removing oversight. The FSA turned out to be a poor overseer. And of course they massively increased public spending, such that when the economy turned, we were left with huge obligations we could not afford. And of course if you try to cut the public sector, you are classed as nasty, evil and a killer of baby bunnies.

Oops. Posted by mistake

Edited by Leif on 25/03/2013 at 21:37

What you suggest would end up hurting huge numbers of UK people, with serious damage to the UK economy.

At some point you'll tell me how that's supposedly different to what we've got now. Yes in the short term the world would've stop turning but by this point we'd be on our way back. Instead of allowing the bottoming out of the market and for capitalism to take it's actual true course, Government has frozen the economy in place.

When all the commentaries by people far more knowledgeable than thee and me refer to a near collapse of the banking system, and that it would have been catastrophic, then I accept what they say, rather than accept your opinion, which has no justification.

Sadly it isn't impossible to justify. Life is not black and white, and sometimes the best course of action has some distasteful side effects.

I don't believe kicking disabled people out of their homes is a natural side effect of bailing out the Royal Bank of Scotland and nor do I believe it's a side effect which would help anybody. If the Government were serious about cutting the social security bill they'd be cutting the £12bn child benefit bill to a bare minimum.

They'd be raising retirement age to 70, effective from 2015. They'd be getting rid of the £2bn winter fuel allowance bill - paid for by no longer subsidising windmills and rich land owners, so energy would be cheaper anyway. They'd be scrapping most tax credits, raising the income tax threshold to cover the minimum wage and thereby stop paying tax credits to people on a reasonable income. If people with 'spare bedrooms' was such a massive problem they wouldn't be exempting the over-65s from the impending changes, as they're the most likely to have 'under occupied' homes.

You misunderstand the aims of the disability changes. They are supposed to prevent people who do not deserve them getting them. In other words it stops people unfairly claiming. As to whether or not that is actually the case, I know not. But raising the retirement age to 70 is not fair. The winter fuel allowance is essential to many old people.

If the Government were serious about cutting back public spending they'd admit we haven't got the £130billion the NHS wants and there's an argument to be made that doubling health spending hasn't doubled productivity, so there must be room to cut. If they were serious they wouldn't be protecting the £10bn foreign aid budget.

You sound very confused. On the one hand you attack the coalition for cutting benefits to the disabled. Then you suggest they should cut the NHS. Clearly you have little experience of the NHS if you think there is room to cut. The truth is that it is horribly stretched, and my late mother's death in an NHS hospital was unpleasant. Some of the staff were plain rude. One shouted at her when she wet the bed. She was 78, paraplegic, seriously ill, and embarrased at wetting the bed, and one nasty little **** had a go at her. Years earlier she'd spent a very long time on a trolley when she lost the use of her legs. Some NHS staff are dedicated, but quite a few aren't and hide behind laptops. But I am sure they are overworked, just as teachers are.

Regarding the foreign aid budget, that is probably a popular area to cut. I do not know if the cuts to the disabled are fair or not. I saw a film on the TV, and I was not convinced. I saw no actual cases of hardship, but I did see worried people. However, cutting disability benefits seems to me to be shooting themselves in the foot, not a good idea when the benefits are less. They should know that from a publicity/image viewpoint it is a no no, it plays up to the "nasty Tories" image. There are a lot of people claiming unemployment benefit who are capable of working, and they need to be tackled.

Again your regulation argument is something of a four-legs-good sort of thing. Every day there's some career politician saying 'we need tougher regulation in future' as though the more Government control you have; the better everything is. The reality is the FSA are an outpost of the EU. They're job is to implement EU regulations. We got rid of sound, solid rules but piled on silly regulation for decades.

You seem to argue for the sake of arguing. Read your earlier posts. Or have you changed your mind.

And of course if you try to cut the public sector, you are classed as nasty, evil and a killer of baby bunnies.

I can perfectly understand why the Coalition are being viewed as baby bunny killers. I see a Government which when it attempts a popular policy (cutting child benefit for high earners) they make such a hash of it that everybody disapproves. This lot can't even get basic stuff right and people right at the bottom who are genuinely struggling feel they're paying the price while the Government is too gutless to attack vested interests.

I suspect you do not understand the severity of the crisis. Still, our currency is devaluing, and wages are not rising in line with inflation. In the private sector a lot of people get laid off, then rehired at lower wages by other companies. This will help us. I speak from first hand experience. Unfortunately the public sector does not accept that they are no different from the private sector. They want job stability, and wages that grow in line with inflation, or thereabouts. And if they do not get it, they go on strike. In the private sector people are glad for a job.

Incidentally, are you on the VW Up forum?

I didn't know there was one.

I would not have a VAG car never mind go on one of their forums.

By the way my comment was tongue in cheek.

When all the commentaries by people far more knowledgeable than thee and me refer to a near collapse of the banking system...I accept what they say, rather than accept your opinion

There are smart, credible people out there backing up my point of view - Tory MEP Daniel Hannan and Euro Pacific Bank CEO Peter Schiff for starters - but they get precious little BBC airtime.

You misunderstand the aims of the disability changes.

The aims are frankly none of my concern. What I do understand is the results of them which is far more relevant.

They are supposed to prevent people who do not deserve them getting them. In other words it stops people unfairly claiming

If by 'do not deserve them' you mean fraudulently claiming then the figures don't stack up. Disability Living Allowance has a 4% fraud rate yet they aim to cut it by 20%. The fact they've already stated how much it'll be cut and how many current claimants won't receive it proves the assessments are a sham.

They've already concluded your result before you walk in.

As to whether or not that is actually the case, I know not.

Well I know because I've worked closely with this stuff before, so I know exactly what's happening. Did you not notice the fact no Team GB Paralympian would be seen dead wearing anything sponsored by Atos? Does that not make you wonder why?

But raising the retirement age to 70 is not fair.

It's not fair that disabled people will be kicked out of their homes next Monday, but it's happening. If we really are all in this together then tackling the monstrous pensions bill is an important part of that.

I understand my parents generation - and their parents' even more so - were sold the concept of national insurance. The fact is though the system was never geared to pay the state pension for 25 years and retirement age needs to rise to 70 very fast.

The winter fuel allowance is essential to many old people.

Spare bedrooms are essential to many disabled people, but they haven't got the electoral block or lobby groups the pensioners have got.

...Then you suggest they should cut the NHS. Clearly you have little experience of the NHS if you think there is room to cut. The truth is that it is horribly stretched...

The NHS has complained about being 'horribly stretched' since its inception. It doesn't matter how much money you throw at them they'll always want more. The NHS manages its money terribly. We spend 5% less than the EU average on healthcare but fall far shorter than 5% on all measures of results. I have experience of the NHS but anecdotal evidence is irrelevant. What matters is the figures and they don't look good.

I do not know if the cuts to the disabled are fair or not. I saw a film on the TV, and I was not convinced. I saw no actual cases of hardship, but I did see worried people.

That's because the changes haven't actually happened yet. That starts next Monday. Working for a disability charity has resulted in me learning things I'd never have known.

Through that I know of a severely disabled man who needs machines on at night with tubes up his nose, so his wife sleeps in the now infamous spare bedroom. Iain Duncan Smith seems to have decided they don't deserve that and will be kicked out soon - despite the council admitting in writing that they have nowhere to rehouse them.

What you and the Government never recognise is most disabled people have a network of friends, family and health professionals who they'll trust and be comfortable with who all live locally. I've met a few people who have decided they now have to move far away from their support network to save the Government £40 a week.

May I remind you the over-65s were exempted from the 'bedroom tax' right from the start, despite the fact they're surely the most likely to have 'under-occupied' homes?Another example of the Government being too terrified of the pensioner vote, so it's everyone else who has to take the kicking instead.

However, cutting disability benefits seems to me to be shooting themselves in the foot.... it plays up to the "nasty Tories" image.

Well in this case it actually is more than image, it really is nasty. The Government has promised they won't cut schools, won't cut the NHS, won't cut anything to do with pensioners and won't cut overseas aid. They've cut the Police and Soldiers as much as they can and laid off public sector workers every quarter since May 2010, yet they're still borrowing £120billion every year.

So the only thing left they will touch is the disabled, who have to take all the punishment for the aforementioned untouchable groups. I really want to believe it's merely oversight and incompetence rather than vindictive 'nastyness' though, so I hope these policies are revised in due course to correct the Governments mistake.

There are a lot of people claiming unemployment benefit who are capable of working, and they need to be tackled

Of course we've got some scumbags but that's not as big a problem as the Murdoch Press and Downing Street would have you believe. Most people think around 40% of the social security bill is paid out to unemployed jobseekers, when in reality it's 5%.

I'm more concerned about our economy generating work for people to go to rather than vindictive arguments over who deserves to be kicked the most.

I suspect you do not understand the severity of the crisis.

I understand the severity much better than you do. You're the one who believes the state pension, universal pensioner benefits and the entire NHS budget are untouchable so you presumably believe we can actually afford all of that.

Tell me, what would you actually cut to make up the £120billion shortfall?

What an angry rant, writing as if you know everything, and I know nothing, never crediting me with knowledge, always attacking everything I say. What an honour it is for me to learn so much from you. :(

What an angry rant

Oh god you're one of them people who resorts to accusations of ranting whenever your assumptions are proven wrong. You know what it probably is a bit ranty, but there's plenty to rant about isn't there?

No, it was a rant, an angry aggressive rant.

writing as if you know everything, and I know nothing, never crediting me with knowledge, always attacking everything I say.

I know plenty and probably know more about certain things than you, so I am merely trying to share knowledge. I didn't attack everything you said and I never suggested you know nothing.

It was one very long attack. Not a discussion. An attack. It was boring and tedious. It must be tiring for you being so superior to others.

If my post sounded aggressive then I do apologise but I have close family members facing possible loss of much needed disability benefit which could render them househound so I am concerned - yet you come on here and tell me there's no problem, so how do you expect me to react?

Most of your post consisted of attacking what I said on the basis of your one obsession which is disability benefits. In fact you dismissed everything I said on the basis of your obsession.

Oh stop being so precious and painting yourself as a poor attacked victim. Grow up for goodness sake. It's not an 'obsession' it's something important and close to home. Perhaps if that were the case for you your p*** poor attitude towards me would change.

Given that I defended you against some attacks from others here, that statement is unfounded. Especially given your completely out of order abuse of another forum user.

As I said, there's plenty to rant about and I don't think I said anything unfair or inaccurate. You should expect such responses when you tell me my mother doesn't deserve to go outside and then tell me raising the retirement age to 70 is unfair. Again I'm curious as to what response you expected?

I think I've made the facts clear on this matter, so if you want to move on from it I'll gladly join in a civilised discussion. I didn't even mention your public sector comments because I wasn't actually referring to zealous unions protesting over teachers retirement age rising to 27 or whatever it is they complain about.

Yawn. It gets boring talking to a know all. This isn't a discussion, a trading of ideas, it is just you urinating on me and others. You will find lots of instances where I agree with statements you make, but even when I do you urinate on me. Get off yourself self righteous high horse.

I'm sure you told us all a while back, Jamie, old bean, that you couldn't be bothered to read some longish post by a contributor on this forum.

I don't know if you've noticed, but...

Edited by FP on 26/03/2013 at 13:11