5 Ways To Get Britain On Its Feet Again

[gezzagregz]

I came across an interesting article in Management Today (A business management magazine) which put forward some interesting suggestions of how Britain could avoid a double dip and get back on its feet. My opinions are mixed on some of these suggestions and I would be interested to hear your views.

1: TORPEDO OUR OBSESSION WITH HOME OWNERSHIP

The first suggestion made by Management Today focuses on why Brits feel the need to tie up ludicrous proportions of their take home pay into their mortgage.

MT explains that “mortgage money could be far more productively saved or spent elsewhere rather than being locked up in bricks and mortar.” In 1953 the proportion of UK home ownership was 32% and now the figure is close to 68%

I DISAGREE: At present it is actually more financially beneficial to have a mortgage than it is to rent. MortgageStrategy.co.uk estimates that it is actually £100 cheaper per month to buy a house rather than renting one. For more information click here

2: GET OUR KIDS READY FOR WORK

With more and more employers highlighting the lack of high calibre school leavers, the biggest threat to the UK’s long-term competitiveness could be the failure of our education systems.

I personally for one agree with this point. Despite academic exam results improving year, upon year, do school leavers really have the necessary skill sets that employers seek?

A recent CBI survey of more than 500 employers revealed that 44% of them had to invest in some sort of remedial training for school or college leavers to address skill deficiencies.

Management Today suggests that we should introduce a compulsory employability qualification for 16 year olds, designed and taught in partnership with schools and local businesses. They called it ‘a driving test, but for jobs’.

I AGREE: In my earlier days; through high school, college and finally through university, I did sometimes question the practicality of some of the theories and subjects that were covered. I think educating kids about what skills various industries require is crucial. This will help kids/young adults to make informed decisions on what courses, apprenticeships and general skills they should pursue.

3. STAGGERING INCOME TAX

This point may raise a few eyebrows. As we know, Income tax is currently banded and the more you earn the more you pay.

Management Today makes the suggestion of income tax bands that rise and fall according to how old you are. They recommend a low base of 10% for those under 25 and increases up to a peak of 60% for those aged 60 to 65.

Their ideology focuses on the imbalance in wealth created by the property boom in the 1990’s which created a glut of wealthy empty nesters sitting on a fortune through the positive equity created in their bricks and mortar – ‘simply because they were born at the right time’. Management Today goes onto explain “their children by contrast, are the first generation to be poorer than their parents in living memory”.

This would help the younger generation get on the property ladder (contradicts the first point they make), start investing in a pension and “all those grown-up things which they say they cannot afford to do now”.

I DISAGREE – I’m 24 and on the face of it, this seems like an attractive proposal, however when I reach my mid 30’s, with a mortgage and family to support, would I be happy to pay 40% or more despite being on an average salary? I think not.

4. Light a real red tape bonfire

With the introduction of departments like the Office of Tax Simplification (OTS), the government is attempting to identify and eradicate red tape that actually causes more harm than good.

The forum of Private Business recently estimated that complying with bureaucracy costs the nation’s small businesses some £16.8bn annually.

Management Today suggests that this money could instead be invested in innovation and growth. They go on to mention initiatives such as simplifying employment law, to make it cheaper and less terrifying for small businesses to hire more staff and fire them when necessary.

I AGREE – need I say more

5. Get ready for the Olympics

The Olympics is inevitably going to help boost the economy. With the weak pound and the Olympics just around the corner, boosting tourism is a ‘no brainer’.

Management Today paint a picture of millions of British tourists ‘enjoying the regional delights on offer and spreading their much needed cash about our beleaguered economy’.

They suggest that VAT exemption should be extended to all visitors from abroad with preferential rates for accommodation and attractions which will help attract more visitors.

I AGREE (with some scepticisms) – I agree that Britain should make the most of the Olympics , however the idea of giving VAT exemptions to tourists seems a bit farfetched in my opinion – how would such a thing be managed?

Please share your thoughts too

 

[WebTrust]

stop giving free money to the work shy.

Financial crisis solved.

 

[Kieran_Fawcett]

Too many youths happy to spend their £50 per week on fags, weed & booze. It's too easy.

 

[Davek0974]

Stop wasting money on the EU gravy train.

 

[Gillie]

Too many youths happy to spend their £50 per week on fags, weed & booze. It's too easy.

I take it you mean the over 18's??

Only way for an under 18 to get any money from the Gov is because they are a child in care or a 'family' man who has left home to set up with his OH.

All other under 18's get diddly squat!!

 

[fisicx]

Stop sitting in front of the computer trying to earn money by doing nowt.

 

[matt seymour]

Torpedo our obsession with home ownership?

Houses are so obscenely overpriced that it won't be long before your average earner will have no chance of getting on the property ladder anyway. As a result, greedy letting agents and landlords will just ramp up the cost of renting property and we'll be in a proper mess with the government having to dish out even more money on housing benefit and working families tax credits etc.

The future for many people is bleak, even post recession.

 

[directmarketingadvice]

I DISAGREE: At present it is actually more financially beneficial to have a mortgage than it is to rent.

Not if your home is dropping in price.

In my last flat, the property price was falling by more than I was paying. Not only that, but when something broke, the landlord had to pay to fix it.

Steve

 

[Mitch3473]

Easy.....stop reading the papers

 

[grazzenger]

it'll take a while but... get every adult in britain to spend £5/week in a local independent shop as opposed to online/supermarket/big chain. not £5 extra, just transfer the spending. this would create massive growth in small businesses who would support other small businesses (rather than shareholders/fat cats), who would support other small businesses, etc.

in our town of c9k people, that would equate to around £1.9M extra/ year. between the 20 or so small retailers, that's c£95k extra revenue each per year. as an indy retailer, i'd be creating jobs with that.

repeat, right across the country...

(i'll not try to claim credit for this. see Totally Locally. they're visiting our town on thursday)

 

Stop sitting in front of the computer trying to earn money by doing nowt.

Agreed all you webdesigners and IT geeks should go out and get a proper job that contributes real products for society.

The government wants every one to be computer literate.

Is that so everyone can sit and stare into space?

Earl

 

[Lucan Unlordly]

Pool your money..........

I have savings, a bit of rainy day money in the bank, some premium bonds, other bits and pieces and of course a property with a mortgage on it.

So does my brother, sister, sister in law etc.,

Were we all to pool our savings we could pay off one, possibly two mortgages and save fortunes in interest (this plan was obviously better a few years ago:redface to be put back into the pot.

A sort of family cooperative. Have we done it? No. Will we do it? Probably not as we're all too protective of our individual status.

 

[AnneLou]

Totally agree with the one about getting our kids ready for work!

I employ quite a lot of staff under the age of 25 - I once asked a 19 year old to buy some stamps and post some bills at the Post Office. He looked at me quite confused and asked me where would he put the stamp on the letter!!:redface:

 

[Richie N]

I posted a thread the other day about reducing VAT on hospitality and tourism, and this was one of the reasons why.

 

[gezzagregz]

Totally agree with the one about getting our kids ready for work!

I employ quite a lot of staff under the age of 25 - I once asked a 19 year old to buy some stamps and post some bills at the Post Office. He looked at me quite confused and asked me where would he put the stamp on the letter!!:redface:

I can't think of anything worse than someone that displays no initiative! Quite funny though!

 

[Merchant UK]

A great Boost to get the UK back on its feet would be to do away with membership of the EU and divert the Billions we give away each year

The latest figures show that over the ten-year period 1993-2002 inclusive, the UK paid over to EU Institutions... gross, cumulatively: £104 billion.

Putting it another way, the UK has paid over to Brussels, net, in every single one of the 3,652 days (including two leap years) of the last ten years, £11 million. Or, £77 million per week.

11 Million Pounds a Day !!!!

And they are figures i found from 10 Years Ago, I can see them definately increase for the current year.

Just think how that sort of money could put the UK back on its feet, a world leader yet again, as oppose to being the Dustbin of Europe and the Cash Cow of the EU

 

[scm5436]

Growing Small Businesses and Start-ups are the key to increasing employment (people seem to think that big businesses provide all the new jobs, but in reality there aren't that many big businesses and they don't generally announce 1000's of new jobs - growth comes from the millions of small businesses adding a few workers here and there).

But the biggest stumbling block to new jobs is that the small businesses are almost scared to take on new staff, because it's so difficult to get rid of them if the work dries up, or even if the employee is just a pain.

So the obvious (though politically unlikely) solution is to simply make small businesses exempt from many of the employment laws. I don't mean faffing around at the edges like most governments do. I mean exempt them from the big stuff.

"Having a baby? Here's your P45.", "too many sick days? your fired", always late on a Monday morning after the weekend bender? Fired. Rude to customers? Lied on your CV? Health problems? Attitude problems? fired fired fired.

It sounds harsh, and quite frankly it is. But a steady job isn't a right - it's a job. You work, you get paid. You slack off, you can get lost. Small businesses aren't charities, they can't afford to carry slackers or sick people, or subsidise motherhood. If you want a steady job, with sick pay, and maternity leave then go work for a medium sized or large company.

Obviously it would be a tad unfair to impose such harsh rules on existing employees, so I would suggest from a certain date small businesses (upto say 15-20 employees) should be able to exclude themselves from specified rules and regulations in the employees contracts when they hire them. If the employee is happy to sign away their rights then that's all sorted.

Small businesses can then get on with running their businesses rather than trying to arrange temporary replacements for people on maternity leave or sickness, or dealing with other HR issues. And they can employ people in the knowledge that if it doesn't work out, or the economy suddenly goes down hill they can lay people off again without worrying about getting sued for anything. (under my job creating regime small companies would also be exempt from tribunals!)

Also, companies should be allowed to give honest references without fear of getting sued.

This and the other things above should also 'train' employees to be better employees. eg. If they know that if they keep turning up late they'll get fired - and get a bad reference - then they'll learn to be more punctual in future!

Vote for jobs - vote for me!

 

[MASSEY]

I DISAGREE: At present it is actually more financially beneficial to have a mortgage than it is to rent. MortgageStrategy.co.uk estimates that it is actually £100 cheaper per month to buy a house rather than renting one. For more information click here

This has always been the case even prior to the recession you would generally let a property for slightly les than the actual monthly mortgage payment. Home ownerhip is the only way most people get their nest egg together for retirement usually or money to leave their kids. If you always look at the big picture over the tiny that most people look at you'll see that even when there is a recession you're still better off being a homeowner than not.

At present there are a lot of people who had good mortgage products and have mortgage payments that are negligible against their salary but inflation will be taking a chunk of that large saving. You'll find a lot of people renting off landlords with interest only mortgages are lining the landlords pocket heavily every month at the moment.

 

[gezzagregz]

Growing Small Businesses and Start-ups are the key to increasing employment (people seem to think that big businesses provide all the new jobs, but in reality there aren't that many big businesses and they don't generally announce 1000's of new jobs - growth comes from the millions of small businesses adding a few workers here and there).....

Totally Agree!!

 

[KateCB]

Growing Small Businesses and Start-ups are the key to increasing employment (people seem to think that big businesses provide all the new jobs, but in reality there aren't that many big businesses and they don't generally announce 1000's of new jobs - growth comes from the millions of small businesses adding a few workers here and there).

But the biggest stumbling block to new jobs is that the small businesses are almost scared to take on new staff, because it's so difficult to get rid of them if the work dries up, or even if the employee is just a pain.

So the obvious (though politically unlikely) solution is to simply make small businesses exempt from many of the employment laws. I don't mean faffing around at the edges like most governments do. I mean exempt them from the big stuff.

"Having a baby? Here's your P45.", "too many sick days? your fired", always late on a Monday morning after the weekend bender? Fired. Rude to customers? Lied on your CV? Health problems? Attitude problems? fired fired fired.

It sounds harsh, and quite frankly it is. But a steady job isn't a right - it's a job. You work, you get paid. You slack off, you can get lost. Small businesses aren't charities, they can't afford to carry slackers or sick people, or subsidise motherhood. If you want a steady job, with sick pay, and maternity leave then go work for a medium sized or large company.

Obviously it would be a tad unfair to impose such harsh rules on existing employees, so I would suggest from a certain date small businesses (upto say 15-20 employees) should be able to exclude themselves from specified rules and regulations in the employees contracts when they hire them. If the employee is happy to sign away their rights then that's all sorted.

Small businesses can then get on with running their businesses rather than trying to arrange temporary replacements for people on maternity leave or sickness, or dealing with other HR issues. And they can employ people in the knowledge that if it doesn't work out, or the economy suddenly goes down hill they can lay people off again without worrying about getting sued for anything. (under my job creating regime small companies would also be exempt from tribunals!)

Also, companies should be allowed to give honest references without fear of getting sued.

This and the other things above should also 'train' employees to be better employees. eg. If they know that if they keep turning up late they'll get fired - and get a bad reference - then they'll learn to be more punctual in future!

Vote for jobs - vote for me!

This is how it USED to work, and people DID work - its also the cry of most honest small business owners, but you daren't say it for fear of being sued!

I grew up in a regime where if you didn't work you didn't get paid - end of story. If you were well enough to get out of bed and go down to the telephone (lets remember that this was the 80's and mobiles were only available in Star Trek) then you were well enough to go to work - they have toilets there too......

Motherhood was a choice - could you, as a family afford to give up work? I received £25.00 a week for 6 weeks when I had my son, nothing else, no rights of return etc....and I survived....

Starting to feel old.....'remember when you had a pound in your pocket and could go out on a bender and get fish and chips on the way home and have change for the weeks bus fares'......sounds like my Mum talking!

 

[Scousejock]

1. I do not believe in ANY non means tested benefits. If your income means that you do not need assistance why should you receive it. I include child allowance in that. YES I have 2 children and I receive family allowance. There are other non means tested benefits and for us to be handing out money to people who could be earning 7 figure amounts is stupid. Even if the limit is set quite high this should still be done.

2. The job centre has the biggest resources for people available for work so why not use these resources offering temping type services. If the job centre calls and says I have a weeks work for you at........ and you do not go then you lose some of your benefits. If you are offered a 2nd & 3rd and do not show then at some point all your benefits should be cut.

3. Despite the country being in massive debt already one way to actually help bring us out of that would be for the government to invest. If more money was being invested in building needed infrustructure for the country this would a) give us much needed services for the future. b) create a lot of employment which in turn reduces unemployment and benefit payments (especially if done at the same time as No.2)

4. I am not racist in any way but with unemployment figures rising we need to seriously look at the numbers of people we allow to come into the UK. This not only takes jobs that could be done by others but also increases health/education costs. Many of those coming to the UK are from other EU countries which we can not stop so therefore maybe we should consider out association with the EU. OTHERWISE we could get dragged further into the hole because of the mess in other EU countries.


There is many other things I would do but I have had enough of a rant lol. Hell if I was PM I would be shot within a week for upsetting too many people who just want something for nothing.


Our biggest problem is GREED and the general public wanting something for nothing. Everyone needs to roll up their sleeves and knuckly down and individually and as a country we can get out of this.

 

1. I do not believe in ANY non means tested benefits. If your income means that you do not need assistance why should you receive it. I include child allowance in that. YES I have 2 children and I receive family allowance. There are other non means tested benefits and for us to be handing out money to people who could be earning 7 figure amounts is stupid.

.

100% agree.

not only stupid its immoral.

Every slice of the cake that is given to those that don't need it is a slice less for those in desperate need.

Earl

 

[90DC]

I had an 'advisor' from the Job Centre call me late last week to ask whether somebody had attended a job interview at my company.

Thing is, the cheeky little scrote had the brass neck to hand out my details, having not applied for a job, let alone attend a job interview and somehow, expect not to get away with it, after confirming with the Job Centre staff that I didn't know the 'applicant' from Adam, she hung up... I'd hate to have been him, sat in that Job Centre, having been found out.

There are certain walks of society that have adopted an attitude that work is not worth it. A couple of years ago, I lived next door to a couple in their fourties and neither of them had worked for around or over twenty years. They didn't appear to have health problems, were able to afford a three year old Yamaha motorcycle and trips to Ibiza (Or so they say, could've been Skegness and tanning salon on way home), and whilst my Partner and I are 'busting our guts' to earn a living to support our family, there are people who have lived an existence for twenty-or-so more years than us that have contributed less to society.

Thing is, people with a 'forget it' attitude to work aren't all young, it is something that somewhere down the line has been adopted as a way of life. I know families where three generations have not worked or done so in very minimal terms. The cost to society over the lifetime of one of these people is phenominal, when they could be contributing to the country in whatever way they could.

What happened to ambition and all the rest of it? I set myself goals at the age of seventeen, the key one was to own my own home by the age of twenty five, I haven't quite made it yet, but I own two properties. Is that not something people aspire to?

Sorry.

 

[Scousejock]

I set myself similar targets and this is a positive thing and something I try to pass on to my children. Unfortunately there are way too many who dont think like that. Both people who dont bother to work because they can get enough on benefits (plus prob cash in hand work) and I have even unfortunately heard others talk about how they will be "made" as soon as their parents pass away. I am disgusted that people think that way.

Bottom line if you want it earn it and when you do, you will enjoy it much more.

Good luck in hitting your goals I hope you make it. You cant reach the stars if you dont reach for them

I had an 'advisor' from the Job Centre call me late last week to ask whether somebody had attended a job interview at my company.

Thing is, the cheeky little scrote had the brass neck to hand out my details, having not applied for a job, let alone attend a job interview and somehow, expect not to get away with it, after confirming with the Job Centre staff that I didn't know the 'applicant' from Adam, she hung up... I'd hate to have been him, sat in that Job Centre, having been found out.

There are certain walks of society that have adopted an attitude that work is not worth it. A couple of years ago, I lived next door to a couple in their fourties and neither of them had worked for around or over twenty years. They didn't appear to have health problems, were able to afford a three year old Yamaha motorcycle and trips to Ibiza (Or so they say, could've been Skegness and tanning salon on way home), and whilst my Partner and I are 'busting our guts' to earn a living to support our family, there are people who have lived an existence for twenty-or-so more years than us that have contributed less to society.

Thing is, people with a 'forget it' attitude to work aren't all young, it is something that somewhere down the line has been adopted as a way of life. I know families where three generations have not worked or done so in very minimal terms. The cost to society over the lifetime of one of these people is phenominal, when they could be contributing to the country in whatever way they could.

What happened to ambition and all the rest of it? I set myself goals at the age of seventeen, the key one was to own my own home by the age of twenty five, I haven't quite made it yet, but I own two properties. Is that not something people aspire to?

Sorry.

 

[gezzagregz]

I had an 'advisor' from the Job Centre call me late last week to ask whether somebody had attended a job interview at my company.

Thing is, the cheeky little scrote had the brass neck to hand out my details, having not applied for a job, let alone attend a job interview and somehow, expect not to get away with it, after confirming with the Job Centre staff that I didn't know the 'applicant' from Adam, she hung up... I'd hate to have been him, sat in that Job Centre, having been found out.

There are certain walks of society that have adopted an attitude that work is not worth it. A couple of years ago, I lived next door to a couple in their fourties and neither of them had worked for around or over twenty years. They didn't appear to have health problems, were able to afford a three year old Yamaha motorcycle and trips to Ibiza (Or so they say, could've been Skegness and tanning salon on way home), and whilst my Partner and I are 'busting our guts' to earn a living to support our family, there are people who have lived an existence for twenty-or-so more years than us that have contributed less to society.

Thing is, people with a 'forget it' attitude to work aren't all young, it is something that somewhere down the line has been adopted as a way of life. I know families where three generations have not worked or done so in very minimal terms. The cost to society over the lifetime of one of these people is phenominal, when they could be contributing to the country in whatever way they could.

What happened to ambition and all the rest of it? I set myself goals at the age of seventeen, the key one was to own my own home by the age of twenty five, I haven't quite made it yet, but I own two properties. Is that not something people aspire to?

Sorry.

Totally agree. The government has made it too easy not to work and actually have a good standard of living.

In America they have food and clothes stamps. Those on benefits can only use them for that purpose. In the UK, they are given money to spend on what they choose (usually luxury items).

I'm just in the middle of reading Alan Sugars Biography...If you could sell the ambition he had in a tin the country would be sorted in a day!

 

[Dymo King]

Maybe we should follow the model that the US took a few years back - time limited benefits. I don't remember what the limits were, but a variation of the model would be:

1st two months of unemployment, full benefits
months 3-6, gradually reducing benefits
Benefits stop completely at 6 months
Not able to claim unemployment again for another 6 months (to stop people getting a job for a few weeks then getting themselves fired so they can go back to benefits)

When the US did this there was the expected hoohar from charities and unemployed people and various other interested parties. But when they actually did it guess what? Faced with having no money or getting a job, the huge majority went out and found work. So it wasn't necessarily full time work or good paying work, but who said life was easy?

For practical reasons it would need to be applied to newly un-employed initially, then phased in later for existing claimants...

 

You see seems everyone wants to hold the bottom of the ladder responsible for our woes,but its the top rungs that are weak.

Earl

 

[Podge]

Yep that worked a treat.

Remind me again what the unemployment figure is in the USA.

I'm not saying we don't have a problem but the impression given by a lot on this forum that the work is there if you want it is simply laughable.

 

[Dymo King]

You see seems everyone wants to hold the bottom of the ladder responsible for our woes,but its the top rungs that are weak.

There are problems at both ends of the ladder, the problem is it's us in the middle that has to bail both of them out!

 

[Scousejock]

My comments wasnt about what got the country into this mess it was about how we get out of it.

BUT TBH i think blaming the top rung is as wrong as blaming the bottom. The fact of the matter is that society in general is to blame. Everyone wanted more and many wanted to do less to achieve it. Because of this people borrowed more to live a better lifestyle and this was always going to come to a sticky end eventually regardless of the people at the top. You could blame the banks for allowing people to borrow but we all have to take some responsibility.

In order for us to get back into credit we need to now do the opposite and actually put in more work and that goes for everyone on every rung of the ladder.

You see seems everyone wants to hold the bottom of the ladder responsible for our woes,but its the top rungs that are weak.

Earl

 

[telemax]

Maybe we should follow the model that the US took a few years back

How's that working for them?

Last time I looked their unemployment rate was way higher and they'd loss their AAA rating. I used to live in Canada only about 20 miles from the US border. I used to make fairly regular trips across to the US, and never fail to be shocked by the utter poverty that existed there,even in Rural New York and Vermont. It makes British poverty seem like a stay at the Hilton!!

 

[Dymo King]

Yep that worked a treat.

Remind me again what the unemployment figure is in the USA.

I'm not saying we don't have a problem but the impression given by a lot on this forum that the work is there if you want it is simply laughable.

It did at the time, but it was quite a few years ago now. And they've since backtracked in recent years (not that that is the reason for high unemployment now, but perhaps it would be lower if they had stuck to their original idea instead of caving in)

Sure, there may not be enough employment for everyone, but at the same time it's not like there are zero jobs out there - there are plenty of vacancies, it's just they're low end vacancies that don't pay much/any more than being on benefits - so why would people take them if they have a choice?

 

Unemployment benefits 12 billion.

Defence budget 40 billion.

I suppose when the MOD pays 18 quid for a light bulb one may expect there spending to be a tad high.

Earl

 

[Dymo King]

Unemployment benefits 12 billion.

Defence budget 40 billion.

Sure, of course there are other areas that could be cut - although that comparison is slightly midleading. Firstly, if reducing the benefits caused people to get jobs instead then not only would there be the gains from not paying the benfits, but there would be an increase in income tax (although to be fair I think the low paid should be excluded from income tax completely, but that's a different discussion ). Additionally, cuts to the defence budget may have knock on effects (job layoffs and less corporation tax at our large defence contractors) etc.

I'm not saying that all our problem are caused by benefit claimants, but clearly of expenditures exceed our income by a long way and we're already upto our eyeballs in debt (as a country). Which means some fairly drastic measures need to be taken to a) increase income and/or b) reduce expenditures. It just seems to me that increasing employment (and decreasing unemployment) seems a good step in both directions...

 

[AnneLou]

Theres a terrible irony in our employment/benefit cultures! I employ a man who only wants to work the magic number of 16 hours per week. I want him to cover more hours but he refuses as it jeopordises his benefits. My business pays higher taxes and national insurance to cover the benefit system. My business cannot afford to pay higher wages to take him off benefits. He would rather stay at home on benefits.
I would rather stay at home on benefits - but there's none left for me because everyone else has spent it!

 

[Mustaka]

Unemployment benefits 12 billion.

Defence budget 40 billion.

I suppose when the MOD pays 18 quid for a light bulb one may expect there spending to be a tad high.

Earl

One of the reasons I resigned my commission in the Army was the shear amount of financial waste that went on. Take Windows for Warships as an example. Its not that control systems in all aspects of the armed forces needed improving. Its just that some bright spark in procurement decided to tie the armed forces into using a specific version of an operating system that by definition will be decades old by the time it sees effective service. And not only that we are tied contractually as the tax payer to pay for it for years to come.

Standard issue army boots that the forces pay 4 times the amount (and in bulk amounts as well) than you can buy them off the shelf from the same supplier.

I think as far as all aspects of public procurement goes anything that is purchased using any aspect of public funds should be published on the net for public scrutiny. If someone has the authority to spend public funds then they should have the responsibility to justify why they have spent over the odds.

If I spent 4 times the odds for supplies or goods for my business I would not be in business for long that is for sure.

 

[Scousejock]

The problem with spending in he MOD is those who are responsible for authorising and those who do the selling are normally ex colleagues. Many of the representatives of the suppliers are ex-MOD high level staff.

I agree if they are authorised to buy then they should justify it and publish the figures. Look at the buyers for the SAS and you will see the difference in what they pay as they have more authority to buy their own equipment and get better equipment at lower prices.

I think they call this the old boy network and they are looking after themselves. Name & Shame. Then lets get rid of them and do the job properly.

One of the reasons I resigned my commission in the Army was the shear amount of financial waste that went on. Take Windows for Warships as an example. Its not that control systems in all aspects of the armed forces needed improving. Its just that some bright spark in procurement decided to tie the armed forces into using a specific version of an operating system that by definition will be decades old by the time it sees effective service. And not only that we are tied contractually as the tax payer to pay for it for years to come.

Standard issue army boots that the forces pay 4 times the amount (and in bulk amounts as well) than you can buy them off the shelf from the same supplier.

I think as far as all aspects of public procurement goes anything that is purchased using any aspect of public funds should be published on the net for public scrutiny. If someone has the authority to spend public funds then they should have the responsibility to justify why they have spent over the odds.

If I spent 4 times the odds for supplies or goods for my business I would not be in business for long that is for sure.

 

[number42]

The Eurozone money hogger is on the move!

 

[mitchellleary]

Here is my solution;

The government re-opens as public companies, all of the factories around the country that are currently lying derelict. They turn them into viable companies that produce at a low cost of production various things that are needed worldwide for whatever industry i.e. automotive, plastics, whatever.
We as a nation can then go back to the days of exporting and selling to other nations rather than importing and sending our money overseas. The products that are produced can then be sold cheaply in the UK and sold at a higher price similar to what China is doing and thriving at now. This would drag our economy back to being profitable.

The other objective of re-opening our industrial past is to get all of the benefits loafers off their arses and back to work and doing something productive for their country. Until they do, this country will never go back to how it was.
So for all of the people on benefits, even some of those on disability benefits i.e. wheelchair bound, they would need to work in one of these factories in order to receive their benefits. Compulsary! They would also then get the option once they reach their work limit to receive their benefits to work overtime and actually make more money than they would have earned from their benefits. This would encourage them to work harder to earn the things they own and teach them to respect other people's property that they've worked for hence putting an end to thug, looter, benefit culture of being owed something for nothing.

I believe this would be a good way to sort the economy and country as a whole out.

 

[AnneLou]

The problem is that our benefits culture has lulled people into thinking that they have a right to an income. No effort needed. People have been able to make lifestyle choices to only work part-time or not at all and the state will supplement that choice.
I once watched a program about emigrating to Australia and the contestant was a part-time teacher who had loads of kids and a stay-at-home wife. He opted to only work part-time in this country because the state picked up the bill - he was dissapointed to learn that he would have to work full time in Oz because they had no supplements. He was aghast at the thought of a full working week!
There are businesses in the UK with jobs on offer but the quality of candidate is poor. I recently advertised for bar staff and was hit with about 50 applications. I offered interviews and almost half didn't respond to my offer - they simply were not interested in the job just following procedure to keep their benefits.
One of the suggestions bounced around by this government was that benefit claimants would be required to carry out some form of community work for their benefits. A local television news station interviewed a single mum claimant who was an IT graduate. She had been unable to secure a job as she expected to command such a high salary to cover her benefit loss. She moaned about the possibility of being forced to sweep a road in return for her benefits. Whats wrong with cleaning in return for money? I own my own company but still have to do it? Why is she allowed to make a lifestyle choice to remain on benefits until a job which she deems suitable comes along?