The prosperity of the 1950s was created, at root, by state investment in everything from a universal healthcare system, greater educational opportunities for all, home building – and many other measures of investment.

To start with, reconstruction was obviously needed just to deal with the damage caused by bombing.

What it did was put people into work – it created jobs. But it also created a healthier, more educated workforce, not just for then but for later.

It was an approach that was hugely influenced by the knowledge of what soldiers had returned to after WWI – the "land fit for heroes", as promised by David Lloyd George, turned out to be nothing of the sort, as the Depression hit, itself created (in part at least) by the sort of 'trickle-down' economics that today's neo-liberals pretend will somehow work better now.

Right now, because we have deindustrialised, in the short term we need to regain consumer confidence and get people spending – whether on services or goods (because that's what 75% of our national economy is now based on).

So you invest. At this point, borrowing to do that is as cheap as it can be. But if you do something quickly it will start to have a positive impact quickly too. So for instance – I think I mentioned, recently, Robert Skidelsky's idea of insulating homes, which could be done quickly (training new workers to do it is not difficult and doesn't take long). The first and quickest result is that you put a large number of people back into meaningful work. They're no longer claiming benefits, but paying tax – and spending money within their own local economies. The longer-term benefits would see people's housing improve and their bills fall (and I'm not even going to mention the enviornmental benefit ).

So you get a lot for that investment.

In the longer term, I think everybody now realises that the economy needs to be rebalanced. But that is a long term thing – it cannot happen overnight. So if you don't want the deficit to simply keep on growing, you have to tackle confidence and employment.

If you simply keep cutting benefits, you'll probably increase crime – and you'll see even more increases in food banks, soup kitchens and people ending their own lives out of despair. Those are no, in my opinion, options for a civilised society.

You can, of course, also increase revenues through taxation. It's interesting at present that the Times is obsessing about famous individuals who use tax avoidance schemes. David Cameron himself has condemned at least one who did that (although stopped that approach in short order) and has now even mentioned 'the rich paying their share'. But I would suggest that the far greater question is not increasing tax – but collecting the tax that is owed by corporations.

Today, for instance, we learn that Facebook UK paid just £238K on a UK turnover of £20.4m (Story). Don't raise taxes – simply collect them.

The prosperity of the 1950s was created, at root, by state investment in everything from a universal healthcare system, greater educational opportunities for all, home building – and many other measures of investment.

To start with, reconstruction was obviously needed just to deal with the damage caused by bombing.

What it did was put people into work – it created jobs. But it also created a healthier, more educated workforce, not just for then but for later.

It was an approach that was hugely influenced by the knowledge of what soldiers had returned to after WWI – the "land fit for heroes", as promised by David Lloyd George, turned out to be nothing of the sort, as the Depression hit, itself created (in part at least) by the sort of 'trickle-down' economics that today's neo-liberals pretend will somehow work better now.

Right now, because we have deindustrialised, in the short term we need to regain consumer confidence and get people spending – whether on services or goods (because that's what 75% of our national economy is now based on).

So you invest. At this point, borrowing to do that is as cheap as it can be. But if you do something quickly it will start to have a positive impact quickly too. So for instance – I think I mentioned, recently, Robert Skidelsky's idea of insulating homes, which could be done quickly (training new workers to do it is not difficult and doesn't take long). The first and quickest result is that you put a large number of people back into meaningful work. They're no longer claiming benefits, but paying tax – and spending money within their own local economies. The longer-term benefits would see people's housing improve and their bills fall (and I'm not even going to mention the enviornmental benefit ).

So you get a lot for that investment.

In the longer term, I think everybody now realises that the economy needs to be rebalanced. But that is a long term thing – it cannot happen overnight. So if you don't want the deficit to simply keep on growing, you have to tackle confidence and employment.

If you simply keep cutting benefits, you'll probably increase crime – and you'll see even more increases in food banks, soup kitchens and people ending their own lives out of despair. Those are no, in my opinion, options for a civilised society.

You can, of course, also increase revenues through taxation. It's interesting at present that the Times is obsessing about famous individuals who use tax avoidance schemes. David Cameron himself has condemned at least one who did that (although stopped that approach in short order) and has now even mentioned 'the rich paying their share'. But I would suggest that the far greater question is not increasing tax – but collecting the tax that is owed by corporations.

Today, for instance, we learn that Facebook UK paid just £238K on a UK turnover of £20.4m (Story). Don't raise taxes – simply collect them.

In response to the OP, cutbacks don't save the economy.

According to the IMF (page 43) every £1 cut by countries with developed economies since the financial crisis, directly lead to a drop in output of between £0.90 and £1.70. Apparently the OBR were expecting every £1 cut to result in a £0.40 drop in GDP.

So not only are the cuts directly harming growth, the government knew (although not to this extent) that this was going to happen. Makes 'the budget for growth', and the gov't blaming poor growth on extra bank holidays/the weather/Europe look pretty disingenuous.

A Tory group was using FB to spread propaganda, claiming that by 2016/17 debt would be £300billion lower than if Labour were in power. I explained that if this were true, then according to the IMF this means that the Conservatives would've been responsible for an approximate 30% drop in GDP by 2016/17 compared to if Labour were in power. Surprisingly no one replied to my comment, they all just carried on sharing and liking the 'fact' as if i'd never posted.


According to the link FA posted, the number of households who are net-recipients of the state is 53%, but this drops to 40% when you only look a at non-retired households. I have no idea how Scotland can be doing so much worse than the UK as a whole, I suspect some statistics may have been manipulated/misinterpreted, If not then surely Scottish independence is completely out of the question.

In response to the OP, cutbacks don't save the economy.

According to the IMF (page 43) every £1 cut by countries with developed economies since the financial crisis, directly lead to a drop in output of between £0.90 and £1.70. Apparently the OBR were expecting every £1 cut to result in a £0.40 drop in GDP.

So not only are the cuts directly harming growth, the government knew (although not to this extent) that this was going to happen. Makes 'the budget for growth', and the gov't blaming poor growth on extra bank holidays/the weather/Europe look pretty disingenuous.

A Tory group was using FB to spread propaganda, claiming that by 2016/17 debt would be £300billion lower than if Labour were in power. I explained that if this were true, then according to the IMF this means that the Conservatives would've been responsible for an approximate 30% drop in GDP by 2016/17 compared to if Labour were in power. Surprisingly no one replied to my comment, they all just carried on sharing and liking the 'fact' as if i'd never posted.


According to the link FA posted, the number of households who are net-recipients of the state is 53%, but this drops to 40% when you only look a at non-retired households. I have no idea how Scotland can be doing so much worse than the UK as a whole, I suspect some statistics may have been manipulated/misinterpreted, If not then surely Scottish independence is completely out of the question.