Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, it's not a fundamentally bad idea. I'm not really against it. In fact, I quite like it to some degree.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Indievertigo)
    Yes, we are wanting to pump money in to save capitalism/jobs/livelihoods, whereas you would give £22bn to foreign MNCs, not even attempt to say where it comes from and claim train ticket prices might fall? When as I showed ticket prices couldn't possibly fall and indeed would most likely rise.

    The hypocrisy of your argument completely astounds me, I thought that this HoC mainly attracted reasonably intelligent people with perhaps a minimum age of 16, but obviously it attracts idiotic 12 year olds that can't recognise a hypocritical argument.




    There are plenty other ways? Like what? How does one go about saving jobs, without investing in capitalism (when our entire real economy is based on that)?

    How does one even attempt to help the 22 million people employed by companies formed under a capitalist country?

    Do you propose we ignore them and concentrate on the 5.7 million people employed by the public sector? Save their jobs and ignore the jobs which pay the wages of those 5.7 million? Is that what you suggest? Because I don't see any other suggestion on the table from you and indeed most of your arguments suggest that is what you want.

    If there is going to be no substance in your response, then keep it to yourself.
    Probably the most unnecessarily abusive post this forum has seen for a while. Play nice plz.

    I like the premise of the bill, but am still dismayed at this obsession with eliminating QUANGO's and the notion that eliminating a few will save all of this countries economic problems. Surely if it was that clear cut, someone might have, you know, already thought of that?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    They also employ quite a lot of people. That's not to say we shouldn't remove inefficient and useless state services which are essentially subsidised, but just that it shouldn't be done now.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    By the way, I suggest you all turn in your RL Tory party cards - I don't think this proactive approach would be too welcome at Central Office, where they actually oppose any stimulus plan...
    Im adverse to state intervention but there comes a time when one has to be pragmatic, like I said earlier this bill isnt about ideology it is about making a substantial difference. Furthermore this isnt just a simple injection of cash into business, it is a loan, a loan which we expect to be paid back. It will provide stability and save jobs in the short term and have no negative long term impact to the tax payer.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by Gremlins)
    Typical Tory propping up their chums who own businesses. Once again we see that no matter how much they squeal about their lack of affiliation to any outside group and their belief in a government without special interests, when the going gets tough the Conservative Party once again prepares to splurge to save the already well off. Very, very disheartening.
    What's the primary cause of unemployment at the moment? Answer: businesses collapsing due to having no money, or having to reduce their workforce due to not having enough money to maintain their payroll.

    The businesses who you seem to hate so much employ millions and millions of people, and will only continue to employ these people if they're making a profit.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by smalltownboy)
    Probably the most unnecessarily abusive post this forum has seen for a while. Play nice plz.

    I like the premise of the bill, but am still dismayed at this obsession with eliminating QUANGO's and the notion that eliminating a few will save all of this countries economic problems. Surely if it was that clear cut, someone might have, you know, already thought of that?
    When someone can be so blindingly hypocritical, I think it is necessary to dole out a wake up call.

    The idea has been thought of already, Google taxpayers alliance. I've linked them many times. And it is that clear cut, but it's not been implemented because New Labour is obsessed with Quangos.

    Official estimates point to a minimum of £21.5bn wastage in Government, and a top end of over £100bn in wastage.

    It is only you that suggests eliminating a few QUANGOs will save all this countries economic problems. It would be fantastic if it were that simple.

    I really am astounded that members of the socialist party are quite happy to accuse us of reckless spending, so soon after the scandal of the nationalisation act graced the house.
    Offline

    13
    We're not accusing of reckless spending. We're accusing you of reckless cutting...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Isnt that typical of the left/right divide? Left spends, right saves.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    We're not accusing of reckless spending. We're accusing you of reckless cutting...
    :rolleyes: I don't think I can take you seriously any more.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    We're not accusing of reckless spending. We're accusing you of reckless cutting...

    If there is less money you can't afford to buy so much. It's the way with everything.

    It's highly hypocritical to say we can't afford this bill but could afford to spend just as much nationalising railways. Personally I'll be abstaining as I'm not sure on the economics of this bill, I haven't the time to do my homework but frankly a bill to prop up businesses that need it is a far smaller waste of public money than ruining the railways by encouraging their owners to asset strip them.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Nefarious)
    If there is less money you can't afford to buy so much. It's the way with everything.

    It's highly hypocritical to say we can't afford this bill but could afford to spend just as much nationalising railways. Personally I'll be abstaining as I'm not sure on the economics of this bill, I haven't the time to do my homework but frankly a bill to prop up businesses that need it is a far smaller waste of public money than ruining the railways by encouraging their owners to asset strip them.
    We don't have the Tories fear of public borrowing in a recession...
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Personaly i think the way out of recesion is increased spending, but as i have said, i shall leave this mainly to our economic spokesperson.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    We don't have the Tories fear of public borrowing in a recession...

    You're in denial, it's obvious now - you've realised how wrong you were all this time, how wrong socialism is, but you can't accept it. Yet.

    Anyway, the way that New Labour plan to get us out of this recession - by their figures alone we will be taking on more debt than was required to win the second world war, and in fact any war or event in this country's history. And that was when we had the resources of the empire to call upon, and a cash rich USA to bail us out.

    Adjusted for inflation, and not counting the £30bn or so overspend already this year (and most likely in subsequent years).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I think we should give them their due on this one, they've made an effort to make a bill that (they thought) would be agreeable to most MPs - helping the businesses that our economy and jobs depend upon during one of the worst recessions ever. They've explained where the money is coming from, merely from streamlining government bureaucracy - according to this article http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3953922.ece QUANGOs cost £100 billion ever year, and even if the ones this bill would get rid of/cut back on aren't unnecessary or superfluous, I think it's a justifiable sacrifice in the face of such a grave situation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    There's a lot of HoC-related stuff I need to do! For the time being, I'll say that like Alasdair, I am concerned about the spending cuts proposed, but I don't vehemently oppose this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    So you're funding this on the assumption that you're going to pass a repeal of a bill that you failed to stop in the first place? How ridiculous...

    Why don't you just come out and say what we all know - this bill will mean cuts in vital services such as schools, the police, the army, training grants, hospitals, transport and much more.

    I'm all for economic stimulus, but let's not do it by cutting spending on schools in favour of doling out money to failing businesses...
    Well, i am not a member of the conservative party, and i certainly am not too keen on this bill. However, 22bn can easily be found.
    To start, ID cards could be scrapped - thats 18bn saved.
    Secondly no longer will the armed forces fund their children to go to private schools at a cost of 2.5 bn.
    Unemployment benefit should be fully means test, however, assets should also be brought into the calculation, with all unecessary assets sold before any benefit is given and a maximum period of unemployment benefit of 10weeks over a 4 year period.
    Overall a saving of well over the 22bn required, and that is before we even touch the "QUANGOs" which to be fair to the current RL Labour governmnet every opposition party promises to cut but never does.

    BUT, the real problem with this bill is what would be done with the money. NO, it should not be spent on bankrupt businesses, no it shouhld not be spent on banks, but instead it should be spent on tax cuts for businesses, and there should be a scheme to underwrite loans.
    Teh conservative party are not sticking to their key principles of lack of government intervention and are joining on the socialist bandwagon. Failing business must not be propped up and must be allowed to fail, and that should include the banks.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand why the house are responding so weirdly.

    The Railway Nationalisation Bill was at least £22bn, which received the support of socialists and has practically passed. This in the long run, will effectively cost the government money, like most nationalised industries. However, when the Conservatives post a measure, to help the economy and support our workforce to prevent further redundancies and to give real businesses, who have a fighting chance that little push to succeed, for exactly the same amount is being heavily criticised due to funding? In the long-term this bill should in theory, profit the government and pay off a bit of a huge budget deficit which we will inheret from the RL Labour Government.

    Giving Businesses, the money they need to cope whilst saving jobs. This system is capitalist, and it's very durable.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DayneD89)
    I'm going to leave this Bill to hebe. I'm rubbish at economics, whiile he is very good at it
    I'm rubbish at economics as well and so am standing aside, but the attitude of some members in this house is completely unacceptable. I think we're best out of it
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by daniel_williams)

    1.1)For the financial year April 2009-2010, £22 Billion will be invested into UK Financial Limited. This money will be invested as follows:
    1.1.1) Small and Medium sized business' will recieve £15 Billion of the total
    1.1.2) Large business will recieve £7 Billion of the total.
    1.2) The investment will be only on a pound for pound basis, i.e UKFI will match private investment up to £22bn.
    1.3) For the purposes of this act, small medium and large size businesses will be defined by EU standardised definitions.
    I'm somewhat concerned about large businesses getting only £7bn. Large businesses (as defined by the EU) employ more than 250 people and due to this and several other factors, they are going to have significantly higher costs than smaller businesses. If we are expecting huge amounts of applications to be received for this financial support (especially from big businesses), then I fear that the entire £7bn will be taken up by the few rather than the intended many.

    (Original post by daniel_williams)

    1.1)For the financial year April 2009-2010, £22 Billion will be invested into UK Financial Limited. This money will be invested as follows:
    1.1.1) Small and Medium sized business' will recieve £15 Billion of the total
    1.1.2) Large business will recieve £7 Billion of the total.
    1.2) The investment will be only on a pound for pound basis, i.e UKFI will match private investment up to £22bn.
    1.3) For the purposes of this act, small medium and large size businesses will be defined by EU standardised definitions.
    We need to be extremely careful here of how this private investment will be conducted; ie. if we encourage the bigger businesses to invest more, because they are able to achieve economies of scale, their increased quantities of cheaper goods will only make things more difficult for the smaller businesses who are unable to achieve similar economies of scale.

    To this point, I anticipate a reply along the lines of 'well this is why we've given the smaller businesses £15bn'. However smaller businesses are going to be using this money to pay off existing debts and loans; I severely doubt that these very businesses will be able to suddenly sell goods cheaply. At the end of the day, it's the consumer who decides where to shop, and if they're deciding to do business with the bigger firms (who can afford to sell goods at cheaper prices having achieved the aforementioned economies of scale), then we can't blame these consumers. Perhaps we need to consider a degree of relieving the financial burden on consumers, whereby they'll feel as confident buying (slightly more expensive) goods from the smaller businesses.

    (Original post by daniel_williams)

    2 Bankruptcy rescue finance

    2.2) If a business goes bankrupt after recieving this aid then normal bankruptcy procedures will apply, and the UKFI will be entitled to claim assets as any other stakeholder would be.
    Just to enlighten the bill-proposer, when it comes to UK law, the term 'bankruptcy' is only ever used to refer to individuals or partnerships, not companies (for whom the relevant term would be 'administration'.)

    Now to the issue relating to this part of the bill; when a business goes bankrupt/into administration, the so-called secured creditors (in this case, including the government) will be able to enforce their claims before the other creditors. Then the preferential creditors (eg. employees, etc.) will be able to make their claims. However I'm concerned that if the business is in a really bad shape and the government essentially ends up selling all/most of the business's assets, there will be barely anything for the employees to claim in terms of unpaid wages. The bill must be amended to account for the interest of the workers should this scenario occur.

    (Original post by daniel_williams)
    2.3) The money due to section 2.1 will be invested in a way decided between UKFI and the company, either through shareholding or as a loan. Any loan given will have an interest free (but still subject to inflation) and flexible payment term of 3 years. After 3 years, if the loan is still not fully paid back, it will be charged at not more than 3% above base rate, with flexible payment terms.
    If the government is helping to decide how the money will be spent, then the possibility of businesses going bankrupt/into administration is unthinkable. Otherwise the folks from the government who partook in the decision-making will be deemed incompetent for essentially making the very decisions that led to the downfall of the businesses in question. If this bill is passed, you'll be walking on extremely thin ice.


    (Original post by daniel_williams)
    3 Decision making process

    3.1)Unless otherwise stated, companies wishing to apply for funding will lay an application with an executive official of a County Authority nominated for the purposes of dealing with economic matters who shall (with the aid and advice of a panel of local economic advisers) prepare a report for the County Council recommending approval or disapproval of the application and giving reasons.

    3.2) The decision on an application made under Subsection (1) shall be made by the appropriate county council, with due consideration to the advisory recommendation given by the relevant executive official, and if approved passed to the UKFI.
    3.3) The process in subsections (1) and (2) shall take no longer than 4 weeks.

    3.3.1)Businesses if accepted can expect a discussion with a panel of UKFI representatives within 4 weeks of UKFI receiving their application.

    3.3.2)A fund of £100m will be made available to achieve this in instances where applications far outweigh capacity to process them.
    Firstly, what criteria will be used to judge where or not to give the business that cash injection that they require? I fear that some local authorities might be less liberal than others, and therefore businesses in some parts of the country might be simply unluckier than those in other parts.

    Secondly, The logistics of how the £100m fund will operate are very unclear. We need to have some strict oversight with regards to this as naturally businesses are going to be very desperate for this money. If their only option is having to wait months for the cash injection they require, this could lead to potential cases of fraud where directors deliberately make things worse so they get their desired cash injection sooner rather than later (ie. from the £100m on offer).

    (Original post by daniel_williams)
    4 Sourcing of monies

    4.2) Spending on all QUANGOS will be reviewed by a parliamentary select committee chaired by a Mr T lookalike, or Mr T himself if possible. 1 gold chain costing not more than £1bn may be purchased to make this possible.
    I trust the latter part of that will be removed from the bill?

    Hebe
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hebe001)
    I'm somewhat concerned about large businesses getting only £7bn. Large businesses (as defined by the EU) employ more than 250 people and due to this and several other factors, they are going to have significantly higher costs than smaller businesses. If we are expecting huge amounts of applications to be received for this financial support (especially from big businesses), then I fear that the entire £7bn will be taken up by the few rather than the intended many.
    I considered this too, but then considered the numbers of employees, small and medium sized businesses employ (2003 figures) 21.7 million people - that accounts for 97% of all businesses in the UK. Taxpayers money would be spent very quickly indeed if we were to try to significantly intervene with large businesses.

    Essentially, if a large business can't survive the recession, it's most likely not because of the credit crunch, but because its weak - either its not built up a good brand image, its being bettered by competitors, its expanded in the boom far too quickly etc.

    Perhaps adding a subsection blocking applications from large businesses which aren't being affected by the lack of credit, but the recession might give this more direction?
    We need to be extremely careful here of how this private investment will be conducted; ie. if we encourage the bigger businesses to invest more, because they are able to achieve economies of scale, their increased quantities of cheaper goods will only make things more difficult for the smaller businesses who are unable to achieve similar economies of scale.

    To this point, I anticipate a reply along the lines of 'well this is why we've given the smaller businesses £15bn'. However smaller businesses are going to be using this money to pay off existing debts and loans; I severely doubt that these very businesses will be able to suddenly sell goods cheaply. At the end of the day, it's the consumer who decides where to shop, and if they're deciding to do business with the bigger firms (who can afford to sell goods at cheaper prices having achieved the aforementioned economies of scale), then we can't blame these consumers. Perhaps we need to consider a degree of relieving the financial burden on consumers, whereby they'll feel as confident buying (slightly more expensive) goods from the smaller businesses.
    You make a good point. My immediate idea upon reading your post was to not require larger companies to have private investors match the government investment, giving small and medium size businesses £30bn and large businesses only £7bn. But that wouldn't really make much difference, large businesses are more likely to get credit than a small business is.

    How would we relieve the financial burden on consumers spending in small and medium sized businesses and not large businesses?


    Just to enlighten the bill-proposer, when it comes to UK law, the term 'bankruptcy' is only ever used to refer to individuals or partnerships, not companies (for whom the relevant term would be 'administration'.)

    Now to the issue relating to this part of the bill; when a business goes bankrupt/into administration, the so-called secured creditors (in this case, including the government) will be able to enforce their claims before the other creditors. Then the preferential creditors (eg. employees, etc.) will be able to make their claims. However I'm concerned that if the business is in a really bad shape and the government essentially ends up selling all/most of the business's assets, there will be barely anything for the employees to claim in terms of unpaid wages. The bill must be amended to account for the interest of the workers should this scenario occur.
    Would this cover it?

    2.2.1)All secured creditors to any business backed by UKFI will not be able to claim assets until all employees have received pay up to their last day of work.

    If the government is helping to decide how the money will be spent, then the possibility of businesses going bankrupt/into administration is unthinkable. Otherwise the folks from the government who partook in the decision-making will be deemed incompetent for essentially making the very decisions that led to the downfall of the businesses in question. If this bill is passed, you'll be walking on extremely thin ice.
    Incompetence in this matter (and in all levels of government/public spending) should be met with prosecution, perhaps adding a hard line on this bill would avert a large amount of incompetence?

    Firstly, what criteria will be used to judge where or not to give the business that cash injection that they require? I fear that some local authorities might be less liberal than others, and therefore businesses in some parts of the country might be simply unluckier than those in other parts.
    L can't see local authorities acting anything short of selfishly in this bill, they won't have to spend any money (barring the decision making) and any form of extra investment in their local economy would be sought after.

    Secondly, The logistics of how the £100m fund will operate are very unclear. We need to have some strict oversight with regards to this as naturally businesses are going to be very desperate for this money. If their only option is having to wait months for the cash injection they require, this could lead to potential cases of fraud where directors deliberately make things worse so they get their desired cash injection sooner rather than later (ie. from the £100m on offer).
    The intention was for this to only be available for UKFI, not local authorities. We expect local authorities to be able to deal with applications quickly, it is in their interests after all. Perhaps adding a sub section requiring local authorities to expand their decision making team as soon as they realise they wouldn't be able to get through applications on time? Because of the Local government reform act passed in this house, they have access to unpaid members of the local community in the form of aldermen who could be called upon to help in this matter.

    I trust the latter part of that will be removed from the bill?

    Hebe
    Indeed, it won't be possible to buy such an expensive chain, it would be fit for an elephant or perhaps blue whale, let alone Mr T.
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.