Thank you Jan for your comments. Old Keithy loves to stir the brown stuff but he means nothing by it...
You are right, I am more 'right' than the government and my main fear is that they are not cutting spending enough.
Jan, I was interested in what you said - you think some of my ideas as odd or strange. Good, I am very glad you do. I would hate to be a conventional thinker, some of us need to think outside the box, that is how civilisation progresses. That said I would not put myself down as a particularly original thinker, my economic thinking for example is pretty much mainstream in the more prosperous booming economies of the world. In that recent tv programme 'Britains Trillion Pound Horror Story' they tackled many of the themes I have pursued, so I am not even particularly out on a limb in the UK. I do raise issues and say things that politicians who want to be elected will not say but that does not make me wrong. In other respects I am pretty much a traditional Tory who likes to challenge many of the so called 'modern' attitudes that I believe have led to a decline in our society.
I will not dignify a certain individual with further comment as he clearly has nothing worthwhile to contribute.
My point on the subject of the thread, if we can get back to it, is that there must be cuts to spending. 53% of GDP is totally unsupportable.
There is a valid debate as to what should be cut and for every cut there will be an argument that a particular group will be disadvantaged as in this case Howard raised. If you want to argue for one part of public spending to be preserved then you should identify something else of equivilent size to cut as an alternative. Sadly though, I fear that the cuts (so called) are not enough and will barely touch the deeper problems with our economy.
But the fact is the best way that help can be afforded to the disadvantaged is by sustainable economic growth and prosperity. To cut public spending is in the interests of everyone long term, short term pain for long term gain.
Lasting and sustainable economic success is simply out of our reach with public spending as high as it is, providing such a massive burden for the smaller private sector to carry.
The only way to correct this is by massively reducing the size of the public sector and boosting economic growth. We really do need public spending down below 30% of GDP to compete with the Far Eastern economies.
Once down to that level then increasing public spending could be linked to economic growth - what is important is not to allow it to impede growth and prosperity.
Public spending could actually be higher than now in cash terms, if as a smaller percentage of a much bigger economy. It is getting that economic growth while carrying the current public sector burden that is the difficult bit, it simply is not realistic so to spur growth we need to cut public spending.