If the mega-rich who caused this crisis paid the same level of tax as you and me, we wouldn't have a deficit.

[TapselteerieO]

U.K Uncut

An interesting article?

On the note of the financial services industry having been relied on too much to bring in the lion's share of this country's profits... what is the current government doing to redress the balance, if anything? Or is it also chasing the apparently easy money and yet again building up a total over-reliance on one sector? Or is it just so incredibly busy cutting back on spending in the short term that it just cannot keep its eye on anything much in the long term? We certainly don't seem to get a huge amount of reporting on anything but budget cuts.

Maybe the current government would actually like the UK to become one giant financial services industry hub with nothing much else going on here?....

The current government claim they want to rebalance the economy by building up other sectors (and holding the financial sector steady).

The trouble is (apart from the credit crunch and bail outs ) the UK is actually good at banking. Financial Services is one of our 'core competences'. As we come out of the recession - the temptation to rely on it will be great.

Reducing our £160bn a year deficit is a big ask, and the British people don't like cuts and won't pay higher taxes.

Yes, jackstarb, I remember hearing the current government claim they wanted to rebalance the economy, it's just that I haven't heard anything since! Except with respect to it being a good thing to encourage more financial services companies to set up camp, here. The only other reporting I've heard relates to organisations like Pfizers in Kent upping sticks. I worry, therefore, that we are going to have a financial services-heavy economy thrust upon us one way or the other, but without any honesty from government about that being the way we are heading.

RS- it's a difficult one. I've raised the issue on a number of threads and am yet to get a good answer as to what the UK should focus on economically (I don't have an answer either btw- I'm just slightly concerned that there isn't one and we're "doomed").

We have very few natural resources, no advantage in labour costs (in fact, quite the opposite), and no real expertise in mass manufacturing or technical expertise. We're quite good at researching/developing things, but not that good at converting that expertise to manufacturing, which is what will provide jobs.

On that basis, I can understand the reluctance of the government to slit the throat of the golden goose without anything else to replace it.

Bagged, I dont want the Banks/Financial services replaced just controlled and taxed fairly.

The problem with 'fair' is that it is an entirely subjective measure that means whatever the person using it wants it to mean. Flat tax tax is fair. Taxing everything over minimum wage at 100% is fair. Fair is a pretty useless benchmark.

BaggedandTagged - I wouldn't want the government to slit the throat of the golden goose. However, with a population the size of that in the UK, we can't all be employed by or directly in connection with the financial services industry, nor can those of us who can't be employed in that way all be the personal slaves of those who are. There are only so many nannies, therapists, nail technicians, private tutors, private school staff, interior designers, fancy toilet paper designers etc, required to fulfil the needs and tastes of the wealthy minority.

And doesn't it worry you to think that we might one day be marooned on an island that is totally (rather than substantially...) reliant on everywhere else in the world for its food, fuel and goods, no longer has people with the skills to be more self-reliant within its own population, and has argued with all of its European neighbours prior to pulling out of the EU? It's all very well for our island to be used like that by people with no territorial fidelities and who therefore live wherever they want in the world, but not such a fantastic vision for most other people.

RS- Yes, it worries me no end. Seriously. I think we are basically agreeing that we need to diversify. We cannot have an economy based entirely on a service industry and it's spin-offs.

Unfortunately, the devil's in the detail in terms of what we should diversify into for the reason I mentioned earlier.

I hate the frikkin' EU though- I agree with the idea of a common market- i.e. free trade between member states, but the current bureaucratic nightmare has little to commend it as far as I'm concerned.

Most people's answer to this conundrum is to hark back to Thatcher selling off and closing heavy industry.

But what's the point in that? How will it help?

We need properly thought out solutions and suggestions not endless political gaming. Having been a dyed in the wool Labour supporter, I finally came to the end of it when I could see they have no idea what to do next. It is both sad and frightening.

I too am worried about our over reliance on the financial sector, but as I once read here on MN, a man lost in the desert doesn't shoot his only horse.

"FAIR" was a silly word which cameron once used

Historically fairness to the big battalions alone is what they practised. (Hence "nasty party" by one of their ministers)

If the Tory party really took 11 million quid from the City. (HMG will be more thatn "FAIR" to them in response.)

Lets get real. Ted Heath once said we support those who support us.

Is Eton Dave about to do a "maggie" on troops?

cheers "Gabby"

word factory. I agree. Should've, would've, could've will get us nowhere. Everyone blaming everyone else for everything that's happened (and I believe there is blame in all corners- government, unions, financiers etc) but no-one saying "Right. We are where we are. These are the issues. How do we fix them?"

Bagged: we live through difficult times to the best of our ability. (remembering there are a significant percentage of people who wont be seriously effected. Mainly at the top salary end)

We write about talk about it...and there will be council elections in may to ....Vote about it.

The govt have most of the daily papers supporting them. (a bit unfair) ....but....a big BUT....

The Mail and the Torygraph dont like the Coalition.
(they would break the Liberal part if they could)

Nil desperandum Life goes on until your toes turn up.....(I feel good this morning) "Gabby" on fire.
(not literally)

Bagged, how were the unions in part to blame for the present crisis they have been hamstrung since Thatchers time.

The amount of industrial action and strikes is insignificant now although call me Dave has been suggesting tightening the law because he knows the unions will be a focal point against the Tories savage cuts and damage to society.

Newwave- sorry- probably wasn't very clear. I was taking a long term view on it- I'm not talking about recent years.

IMO, some of the heavy industry could have been saved had the required changes been made back in the 70's. For example, we probably could still have a steel industry making high quality steels in relatively low quantities despite our lack of natural resources (iron ore and coking coal). Sweden has succeeded in doing this. What we couldn't have now is a large, mass production based industry such as we had post war.

Efforts to modernise the industry were made but these were strenuously resisted by the Unions to the extent that they involved any reductions in manpower. They succeeded in saving the jobs short term but lost them all longer term when the steel mills closed because you can't make money out of a commodity product if you don't have access to the raw materials, especially now that the raw materials make up about 80% of the cost.

I feel that Unions can be very short sighted and fiercely protect the status quo even when this isn't in the best interests of the workers longer term.

the trouble is without unions bosses have total command (they have now)

With 2 million plus unemployed. I have heard of hundreds applying for a lowly supermarket job.

And what about the growth of youngsters working 6 months for nothing. (probably their parents can afford it)

But that leaves employers calling all the shots.

cheers "Gabby"

When jobs are scarce it's an employers' market, unions or no unions. When jobs are plenty, as they were up to fairly recently, we still had nearly 2m unemployed because the benefits system made it borderline whether to apply for the 'lowly supermarket job'.

Bankers still at it. Do their bosses have no chame and are they more powerful than elected government.?

Cameron and Ossy hope it will just fade away. it seems not to do so.

They are more powerful than their elected puppets. Exactly as in the US. We ARE the 51st state of the USA.

yes, it's true. It's absolutely true, but don't expect that to change things. We've gotta get out there and do it ourselves; just look at Tunisia and Libya; you have to be prepared to fight for what's right. Who's going on the March 26th march?

I would if I were in the country. There's a thread on this section from a mum looking for fellow protesters. "Safe haven for mums" or somesuch title.

I am going on the march. Iv'e been round the local roads here, giving out flyers. So far lots of support but no promises! The kids have made their save the NHS T shirts today, bless em.

Actually the wealthy do pay more tax than you. Check the facts and figures and you'd see that.