We indeed do have an economy dependent on consumer spending. So what's the point of this policy they've been signalling this week where they're offering to guarantee loans to small enterprises? This is supply side economics, yet the problems seems to be demand side. Unless I'm missing something, this is yet more economic illiteracy.

Regarding the current lot, I firmly believe that they are doing exactly what they intended to do.
i.e. complete the destruction of the post-war settlement, a destruction begun in 1970 or 1979, depending on whether you think it was Heath or Thatcher who began it.
This is, of course, nothing like what they said they were going to do.

Make no mistake, what they are doing is for political, idealogical and self-serving reasons not the economic reasons to which they lay claim.

I see a 1% public sector pay increase cap is "fair to taxpayers", the obvious follow on being that public sector workers AREN'T taxpayers (seeing as a cap is hardly "fair")

No one told me that - does it mean I'm eligible for a refund for the 14 years income tax I paid, or the huge amount of VAT I paid on good, services and fuel etc?

Or are public sector workers being made the scapegoat by this set of chancers (as opposed to the last set) and the media AGAIN?

I've had this argument with someone already Chris. Claims he pays public sector workers wages and not happy about the strike, when I mentioned my hubby also paid taxes the same so in essance paid into his own wages this person failed to respond.

What this government are doing to the sick/disabled and public sector workers is nothing short of a witch hunt and a disgrace. Turning worker against worker. Divide and conquer I believe its called.

The irony surely can't be lost on anyone, even the most right wing zealot, that with these infrastructure projects they are simply trying to spend their way out of recession.

The trouble is even with this new spending it does not make up for the money they have taken out of the economy already by the cuts. So whether it will make any great difference as the cuts bite further is debatable. Better not to have flung so many into unemployment in the first place.

As to the reason why its gone belly up for Osborne it is NOT down to the crisis in the Euro but because the effect of the 2008 crash did far greater damage to our economy then first thought.

Now given the 2008 crash was caused by the banks what is his remedy? Well in part it is to limit public sector workers pay to a 1% par rise while he adopts inflationary polices (qualitative easing, VAT rise, potential fuel duty rises etc) further eroding their ability to spend thus help the economy never mind what the effect there is on living standards.

So what we end up with here is in effect a deficit tax.

The ordinary people having seen the deficit shoot up to stop the banks going bust are now the ones being fleeced to pay the deficit down.

Meanwhile Orsborne cut corporation tax (which gives banks even bigger profits) in the vein hope this will stimulate growth when all companies are doing with this windfall is sitting on the cash because they fear investing in the current climate.

I don't think there has been a more incompetent government since the end of WWII and we have had some before now!

I've got a project that they can fund, that will solve many ills but may cause a bit of a problem to some.

Local councils have lots of land that's basically hanging around doing nothing.

Houses are relatively cheap to build - if we take only cost of materials and labour into account.

Why not get housebuilders building houses on council-owned land? The houses are then rented out, not according to market forces but according to the cost of build and projected maintenance. The council retains the title to the land and they and the developers get a monthly payment - a bit like a mortgage in reverse

That way we get people to work building houses and the required infrastructure, we stimulate the economy because people need to furnish those houses. I'm sure it's been done before and it was pretty successfull last time round.

If only Chance the Gardener mistakenly wandered into the Downing Street 'rose garden', Dave and Gideons problems would be solved in a oner.



Prime Minister ''Dave'' : Mr Gardner, do you agree with Lord Ashcroft, or do you think we can stimulate growth through temporary incentives?
(Long pause)
Chance The Gardener : As long as the roots are not severed, all is well. And all will be well in the garden.
PM ''Dave'' : In the garden.
Chance The Gardener : Yes. In the garden, growth has its seasons. First comes spring and summer, but then we have autumn and winter. And then we get spring and summer again.
PM ''Dave'' : Spring and summer.
Chance The Gardener : Yes.
Lord Ashcroft : I think what our insightful young friend is saying is that we welcome the inevitable seasons of nature, but we're upset by the seasons of our economy.
Chance The Gardener : Yes! There will be growth in the spring!
Lord Ashcroft : Hmm!
Chance The Gardener : Hmm!
PM Dave : Hmm. Well Mr Gardner, I must admit that is one of the most refreshing and optimistic statements I've heard in a very, very long time.
(Lord Ashcroft applauds)
PM ''Dave'' : I admire your good solid sense. That's precisely what we lack in Downing Street.

I've just thought where we could get some more land from. There are also many companies (supermarkets for one) and individuals who are sitting on non-productive land, in the hope that they can make a fast buck in the future. So we could offer them an alternative: either they offer up the land for my housing developments, on a 99 year lease, at a peppercorn rent. The alternative is we charge them an annual land tax, based on a theoretical maximum developed value. That should free up another few acres around the country. In fact, this fella could make a start by offering up his spare land to the scheme

I've just thought where we could get some more land from. There are also many companies (supermarkets for one) and individuals who are sitting on non-productive land, in the hope that they can make a fast buck in the future. So we could offer them an alternative: either they offer up the land for my housing developments, on a 99 year lease, at a peppercorn rent. The alternative is we charge them an annual land tax, based on a theoretical maximum developed value. That should free up another few acres around the country. In fact, this fella could make a start by offering up his spare land to the scheme

Pretty much agree with that, Labour's VAT cut didn't work last time and it won't work this time either, Cable warned during the election that Osbourne's way would lead to any growth being strangled at birth and he was right.

Strangely he now seems reluctant to say "Told you so". It's not like 'im