Ireland to get bail-out loan

So Ireland is going to be giving shedloads more money, not as a gift but a "loan", whilst it is up to its neck in collossal debt. How are they going to pay it all back?

Maybe the European Commission and the Irish government could tell us all how much is exactly owed? The BBC is talking of a "very substantial loan" and "tens of billions" of euros. We hear of "pumping" money in. Where will it all come from?

Simple questions!

1. How much does Ireland owe?
2. How much will Ireland be given?
3. Where will the "loan" come from?

No need for committees. No need for summits. Just simple one line answers.

Congressman Pete Stark, the Great Debt Lover!

Congressman Pete Stark, from California, thinks the bigger a country's national debt the more the other less indebted nations will genuflect at its corrupt altar.

Can any one suggest a good reason why this moron was ever let loose on US politics?

Update: I've just taken a look at Wikipedia on Pete Stark. He's got no degree in economics. He's got one in general engineering. Still that didn't stop him tooling up in the banking industry. In 1963, Stark founded Security National Bank, a small bank in Walnut Creek. Within 10 years it grew to a $100 million company with branches across the East Bay. No wonder he likes debt! Other people's and the nation's, of course!

To whom do we pay the deficit?

The government is pressing on with reducing the deficit and I have no qualms or quibbles with this. However, it would be nice to know where all the money is going. It seems that when one enters the counting houses of billionaires, no questions need be asked. A billion pounds off this quango and a billion pounds off that state department. Good, but where does all the dosh go? Who will be getting it? Transparency is thin on the ground at the moment.

Last week, Matthew Wright had as a panellist that gruff Mancunian Terry Christian. In a moment of "hang on a tick", Christian asked Wright about the deficit payments. Matthew had no clue other than waffle. Then a day or two later, Christian asked the same question. Wright appeared to have been given a brief of sorts, but the answer was pretty vague and vapid. None the wiser.

Robert Preston hasn't helped much either. He never talks about it, which is a pity, as the BBC could do us all a favour. We are still in this triangle of quantative easing, fractional reserve banking and deficit reduction. Nobody gives us any balance sheets, tells us who owes what to whoever, and the merry-go-round still pumps out the same rickety tune. "We're all in this together". Yeah, OK, but in what exactly?

If you Google "To whom do we owe the national debt" it appears that the search engine to beat all search engines gets chronic amnesia. I've seen a bit about a guy who is seeking a Freedom of Information answer and a couple of weird answers on Yahoo Groups.

Come on George Osborne! Let's have a fact sheet with the pithy points laid out. Surely we should know who Paul is before we rob Peter?

George Osborne's cutting plans today

Today is the day. George Osborne is about to tell us what's in store for us by way of hardships and hefty cuts. I'm getting all doubtful about what is best. All I know is that we've been playing with monopoly money for too long. Something has to give. The only problem is who gives more and who gives less. Being all in it together implies the tax avoiders are going to cough up as much as the soon-to-be redundant state workers.

I wouldn't mind if we all had an equal shot at trying to reduce the deficit but just as in wartime, when some were active backsliders, we must be on our guard for those who think this debt crisis is nothing to do with them. We'll see in just over an hour!

Cherries picked out of Connaught's basket

Good news and maybe bad news on the jobs front with regard to the Connaught administration. Part of the business has been cherry picked by building firm Morgan Sindell. They have taken on the best contracts. Can't blame them for that. But those cherries deemed not fit for sale are in limbo. Around 1900 employees in the social housing maintenance business may be out of work. As for the sub-contractors, life is still lived on Rocky Road.

This may be a sign of things to come. Cutting public spending means cutting jobs. The Coalition is keen to see the private sector take up the new job creation. But many who work in the private sector are feeling demoralised and in fear of jobs. Companies are recruiting but not on the scale that is required. However, constant talk of cuts just makes us all draw in our horns like a snail in distress. When Margaret Thatcher was about to make cuts, the likes of Arthur Scargill made them sound like viscious knife attacks. Somehow Britain got out of the doldrums. But nobody really appreciated that it was mostly financed with easy money as opposed to hard worked for income.

New Labour pandered to the bankers who were devising schemes and plans to sell to customers eager to let their heads go to jelly. I was one who let my brain get temporarily fazed. Now we have as a nation collosal debt problems caused by computerised money being shown up to be worthless.

Robert Peston came on the BBC News last night to talk about it yet again. He mentioned Northern Rock and its woes. These he put down to loans going bad and inferred that some lending had been a might too risky. True enough. But he never mentioned that Northern Rock's cupboard was almost bare. When depositors queued up to take their money out they had no clue (most of them I would think) that the bank could never pay them all. Because their money was not in the bank. It had been used up and transmogrified into a notional set of numbers on a computer. No wonder the powers-that-be panicked. The cat was getting out of the bag and would be scratching around causing mayhem by morning.

The Coalition is right to try to stop the rot, but not by a one-sided approach. We need a proper debate on how the banking system finances business. Currently it is all based on debt with the debts paying interest. It is also a system where fees, commissions and bonuses are centre stage.

When a company goes bust the general economy can take that. But when whole industries are in turmoil it can't. I get a sense that Britain just doesn't have enough real money to go round so that everyone can survive. The cherry pickers may soon be scrapping around at the base of the tree that used to grow Britain's money supply.

George Osborne's Counting House

I am still wondering how Britain will get out of the financial mess. The government seems fairly certain it will mean tough times. But for whom? Are we to rely on the bankers to get us out of the mess? If so, it's more funny money and a greater catastrophe down the line.

Britain is no longer a manufacturing country of note. OK, some things are made in the UK, but mostly we import things we want "others" to make. These being mainly dragooned Chinese workers. Globalisation is a kind of empire strikes back. It is also significantly unpatriotic. Even bordering on high treason. Export the jobs, import the cheap merchandise. Everybody is happy. We now live in some kind of wonderland fueled by collective denial and financial amnesia. I do no exclude myself from joining in the scrum. Very soon the Chinese workers will demand better conditions and then what do we do? Connive with the politburo or cave in to their demands?

Some say each man, woman and child owes £22,000. Some put it as high as £35,000. The debt counter on this blog has it just passing £33,000. Who really knows? The thing is most people don't earn £22,000 so they will have to get some form of easy payment plan going. It's commonly called taxation. But if everybody draws in their horns and doesn't buy as much, VAT goes down in revenue take. David Cameron talks about wastage by which he means people as well as things. We've just got 3000-odd HIPS surveyors thrust onto the dole. A prime example of cutting back. But will it save any money. We can sack all and sundry in those jobs we think are useless but where are these people going to earn money?

The stark reality is that all this grandiose talk of scaling back in order to reduce the deficit means diddly squat unless the country PRODUCES something that other countries want to buy. Proper goods and proper services. Anything else is akin to moving the deckchairs around on the Titanic.

Is Britain going bust?

Gordon Brown's government is borrowing money as if it is of little or no consequence. They borrowed another £4.3bn last month to plug the growing hole in the UK's finances. Soon the amount owed will be too much for even penal taxation to repay. The country does not want increased taxes. It does not want job losses. So politicians try to follow a kind of Tommy Cooper routine with financial magic.

Private Fraser in Dad's Army comes to mind at the moment. Are we all doomed? How is Britain ever going to repay this cash. It seems the financial experts are filing into two opposing camps. Those that think the deficit should be tackled now annd those that think not. Lord Skidelsky thinks the other side is trying to "frighten" the public over the scale of the deficit. Lord Layard is an emeritus professor of economics at the London School of Economics, so he should know something about bean counting. He says Alistair Darling's plan for reducing the deficit was "sensible". The Conservatives, who believe in tackling the growing national debt have "Twenty leading economists, plus business leaders, including Richard Branson, who agree with us that the failure to have a credible plan to reduce the deficit threatens to undermine the recovery and push up interest rates. We are happy to have that debate with the government."

So are we, the public, to be docile bystanders whilst these two sides have a ding-dong about whether or not it is OK to have a colossal debt or not? I have long held the belief that having any number of degrees and qualifications is no bar to those who have a propensity for deviousness or political subterfuge. Having a doctorate does not stop a person from human desires such as greed.

It could be that the truth is nearer to the fact that Britain has exported jobs to countries like India, China and Brazil. We are beholden now to banks and their whims and fancies. At one time we had merchant banks who lent judiciously to businesses. Now we have investment banks who play a kind of Las Vegas game with other peoples money. If anyone attempts to enter the casino with the slightest whiff of censure, then the banking bigwigs scream blue murder and threaten to take the wheels of fortune elsewhere.

So we have blackmailing bankers encouraged by dubious financial experts who give investors the idea that things like mothballing steel plants is a good thing to do. If things get any worse, we may get riots outside these banks. Darling has only a short time to make any sense. What we don't want are prima donna pundits squabbling over who knows best. Everyone knows that if you borrow money you either pay it back or default. For a country, either way is going to be very painful indeed.

Nick Clegg plays Robin Hood today

Some say the party conference season is just like a series of pantomimes. Well, if that is so, the Liberal Democrats are putting on Robin Hood with Nick Clegg in the starring role as Robin of Locksley himself. Vince Cable, as Friar Tuck, is the Treasury spokesman of the LibDems. He is all for a 0.5% annual levy on the most expensive homes in Britain, raising £1 billion in extra tax. This would apply to the extra value over the £1 million mark. Are there that many million-pound mansions in the country? The Lib Dems say about 250,000 property-owners would pay about £4,000 a year each on average mostly in the South-East of England. The tax would be based on Land Registry valuations. That includes quite a few properties worth considerably more that £1 million.

Nick Clegg says, "I think people, even at the top end, now accept we need to try and rebalance things a bit so that everyone moves together - the whole of society moves together. This is a small correction which I think will make a big difference for people who are really struggling to make ends meet." I am all for helping people out but "rebalancing a bit" is surely not going to help matters much in the struggle to pay back our National Debt.

He says the reason for the new tax was "fairness" and rebalancing "one of the most unfair tax systems around". Granted, but we need a powerful hedgecutter to trim things back, not a puny pair of secateurs!

VAT will have to go up. Bank bonuses will have to be curtailed. Corporation tax will have to go up. Public spending will have to be seriously reduced. It will hurt, but this is the time to take off the rose-tinted specs and get a pair of glasses that gives us 20/20 vision!