« George Osborne defends spending pledge | Main | The importance of George Osborne »


Mike Ainsley, if the problem of import dependency is not addressed and if you are still alive a generation from now you will remember my words as the effects of social and economic decline will be in full flow by then. Currently it is still possible for government to patch up the economy, keep it fueled with credit to give the appearance that it works and just about support the massive welfare state that has developed over the last 35 years. However the day will come when even playing catch up won't be possible and the days of democratic conjecture on this issue will also be over, leaving the door open to political extremism. Betrayed by politicians who put the interests of individuals above the long-term interests of the nation. We are about to diminish, to be overtaken and overrun by the eastern economies. Then Mike Ainsley, the time for cracking cheapskate jokes will be over.

An interesting debate,Conhome at its best I think. Whilst not an economist I'm in favour of free trade by instinct if it is to the advantage of Britain. Therefore I am not against 'managing' as circumstances dictate and allow and would have no compunction against introducing tarrifs if it benefits British workers without hugely damaging the consumer.
After many benign economic years the fact that we still have so many unemployed is an absolute scandal given that so many industries depend on immigrants. This cannot be allowed to continue.

I don't think I suggested that "helping to poor" was the point of raising the income tax threshold. Presumably in a sense the poor wouldn't be helped at all, because the truly poor would be on means-tested benefits anyway
The higher tax thresholds would mean that when they got a job they would be better off.

Something else which could be done is to stop crediting people on benefits with NI contributions - in a lot of cases people are turning down part time jobs because they wouldn't pay the full neccessary contribution, if they wouldn't get the contribution anyway then they would lose this disincentive.

Importing what we can produce for ourselves is just crazy
What about Software, despite advances of many Linux products (most still written in other parts of the world including commercial ones) and of Star Office/OpenOffice.org, Microsoft still dominates the Operating System and Office software market - would you suggest adding tariffs on their software and making it more expensive - that wouldn't be very popular among people who had trained on those and who were using systems where applications had been developed to run on the MS Office products or on Windows and where maybe a lot of re-training and re-coding might be needed as a result to switch, especially in small businesses and home users who struggle to afford such packages. In many cases there is open source software that will do the same things or work in a very similar way, so many people feel intimidated by slight interface differences and Microsoft propaganda into feeling they can't switch to a different product.

Industry needs workers with the skills relevant in those jobs, it isn't just a matter of the tax regime and regulatory regime being right, a company needs people who can start doing work from the outset, if neccessary they need to be able to recruit people from abroad. If people with certain skills are here, whether they come as refugees or doing other jobs as economic migrants then companies looking to setup somewhere are more likely to consider setting up in the areas they are in - once a company is setup locally whether by a British firm or overseas firm then others from the local area the sites are setup in will also start getting jobs there and getting into the right training and mindset for that particular industry.

Yet Another Anon, you believe the use of specific software is of more importance than determining the economic direction of our country for the next fifty or hundred years? The problem I have in explaining my point about the dangers of import dependency is that so many people fail look beyond their own lives, their own needs, or give a moments thought to the state of our nation after they have passed away.

Each one of us, has only a limited lifespan, we must always remain conscious of what we live behind. That includes the state of our country. As we get older we get a sense of time ebbing away from us, we go from counting the years we have lived to wondering how many years we might have left. Yet our nation, and our people will continue long after we have faded into history. We must consider those generations to come, what we do today will mark their lives, just as the actions of previous generations mark ours.

We must not allow our country to be overrun with foreign goods, to be bought up by foreign interests, to be dismantled inch by inch. We need to hand our nation down to future generations intact and able to sustain itself. Britain is beginning to disintegrate, due to import dependency, due to immigration, due to law inposed from abroad, due to a diminished sense of identity. Children are killing each other on our streets, half of marriages end in divorce, more and more children are born illegitimate, we are losing our way. We need to rebuild our nation, socially and economically. Those who don't see the breakdown that is already occurring must be blind, or in denial. Britain as we know it is slipping away, and to quote Mr Cameron, the lion must roar again.

@Mike A

German Secret service and the Ex Italian PM says that Intellligence agencies know 9/11 was an Inside Job
Japanese Parliament questions 9/11 and calls the official version of events a 'FairyStory'

Yet Another Anon, you believe the use of specific software is of more importance than determining the economic direction of our country for the next fifty or hundred years?
Business relies very heavily on software, many people do their home accounts using Microsoft software, the economy relies on the Personal Computer more than ever - decisions taken by Software multinationals have a big effect on the global economy, you suppose that specific software doesn't matter - it does if a company then has to rewrite a large amount of the code it uses to support new software or if the file filters in new software don't properly support document formats previously in use.

What about the software in use on production lines - supposing the machines in use in that particular industry use software produced abroad. It isn't the stone age you know, British industry has to compete with hi-tech industry around the world, much of industry uses equipment produced by other companies - many businesses have contracts with IBM or Microsoft and other US companies that are for years ahead, starting trying to force switches to using British companies could create a UK recession in itself I would have thought because whatever they are going to use has to be there for them to use before they can use it and the government can't decide seperately on each item on whether it could start being produced in time in the UK.

Watch WTC7 Collapse, neatly, at FreeFall speed into its own footprint, Just like WTC1 & 2.
Aside from the fact that this is all total bilge it has absolutely nothing to do with economic policy, it is recycling of Al Qaeda, Communist and Anarchist propaganda.

All of which could be eliminated by reducing our Population
People in the world will still use energy and fuel so simply not allowing them into the country will make no difference to global warming or other pollution globally, the only way any difference to reducing global warming would be if the UK contributed to reducing world population through greater use of birth control and capital punishment.

Coin our Own Money instead of Borrowing it into existance from a Private Bank
Money borrowed is still based on actual assets, some borrowing isn't from banks anyway - National Savings and Investments schemes amount to borrowing from private savers in order to invest. Everyone with any kind of bank or building society account with money in it is effectively lending that organisation money.

The National Debts in both the UK and even more so the US are far too high of course, many will have expected George W. Bush when he entered office to have cut Federal spending instead of which he let rip with spending while slashing taxes and the worry has to be that George Osborne by committing to match Labour's spending for so long has rather boxed himself in - 11 June 2009 must still be the most likely date for a General Election and yet George Osborne's commitment which he re-iterated in the last couple of days leaves him committed almost 2 years after that date to matching Labour's spending plans, it's not clear that Labour's 1997 commitment to match spending for 2 years really benefited them any more than a commitment for only a year would have done, generally when people switch their votes it is on the assumption that there are going to be some differences between the partys and whether it's a year, 2 years or 3 years people are still going to want to know what the main parties intentions are for the remainder of that parliament for which they have made the commitment.


Can we please delete at least the more lunatic elements of Adrian Peirson's emails? He's making this thread look like a conspiracy theorist loon debate.

Yes, Andrew. I will do so now. The best thing is to email me when you see nonsense/ spam etc being posted. Samuel and I do keep a close eye on the site but can't give it round-the-clock attention. Thanks!

Great debate.

Andrew Lilico - quick question for you? Do you have any figures on the costs of raising the income tax threshold by x amount?

I ask because I too have always felt that raising the threshold was better than reducing the tax rates. But when I met George Osborne last year and tackled him on this, he said the problem was the enormous cost of raising the income tax thresholds by even a small amount.

If you have £3.5billion if flexibility, you can cut IHT for anyone except millionaires, or you can raise the tax thresholds by a tiny tiny amount - hardly noticable.

I'd love to see some figures on this?

Don't think about this, Why doesn't Government Print Money in to the economy Instead of Borrowing it.

The comments to this entry are closed.



ConHome on Twitter

    follow me on Twitter

    Conservative blogs

    Today's public spending saving

    New on other blogs

    • Receive our daily email
      Enter your details below:

    • Tracker 2
    • Extreme Tracker