Well it seems like the coalition has listened and is going big on infra-structure spending. They are considering funding it through peopl'e individual savings, rather than more borrowing. So, for all you Keynsians, you know who you are, get any money withdrawn from your ISA, bank, building society accounts and invest in "growth bonds". Masterstoke from the government - Plan A with Plan B funded by those calling for it.

Is that another U turn then?

Not seen the story yet, but your precis sounds very much like it.

[url=http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osbornes-latest-plan-ask-britains-savers-for-money-7818038.html'Trust us with your savings.'[/url

On the face of it, it does look like a good idea, using fairly dormant money to fund infrastructure works and, thereby, growth.
It also gives savers a better return on their money than the current low interest rates give them.

However ...
It depends on what infrastructure works we are talking about and where they will be.

And ...
HM Gov can issue bonds at a historically low yield (i.e. cheap interest), so what Gideon is suggesting is that we stump up our savings to pay for infrastructure works and get a higher rate of interest from the developers than HM Gov would have to pay if they did it.
The developers will then recoup their higher interest that they paid us by, erm, charging us to use "their" motorways or leasing them back to us at a higher price than if the government did it.

But hey, it's not "borrowing".

nearly as barmy as the Green Deal legislation planned.

I've got a better idea.

Prevent any company that utilises "tax efficiency" schemes via any non-EU country from bidding on any government contracts and give 6 months notice of termination of contract to any company who already has such a contract, unless they remove these "efficient vehicles" and start paying their full whack of UK tax.

Then offer 99 year leases at a peppercorn rent, to any charity or non-profit organisation that wishes to build social housing on publicly owned land. Build houses and rent them at 50% of current market rates, with no possibility of "right-to-buy". That would attract investment from insurance companies and pension funds because it also would be a far better rate than gilts.

great idea, never going to happen (with either Tories or Labour in power)

Social Housing is a bit of a "problem child" to our political establishment I am afraid.

The government can't borrow the money from the banks because the money that the banks are currently sitting on is the money that the government printed through QE. Quite why they didn't simply print it and then spend it on capital projects is beyond me

Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. It's better to get more domestic savers involved with holding UK government bonds, because then when the government ends up paying the interest on the bonds it goes back into the UK economy and gets recycled round. It's why Japan has been able to sustain debt levels that are on a different stratosphere to Europe and the US, because nearly all their debt is owed to Japanese citizens so although their government pays a huge interest bill every year it is paying its own citizens who spend that money back in the Japanese economy.

I will be inclined to do my bit for our great nation and put some money aside in growth bonds, I assume Dally being a fellow patriot will do the same?

The general idea is sound enough and government bonds are about as safe as you can get, the execution of the deal is screwed up though.

Haven't got any, so can't.

This will be an interesting proposition if it goes ahead. If it's successful, there may be an orderly run on banks and building societies which would further reduce lending and could send a few institutions under. Maybe its all a plan to give the public the chance to get their money out of these financial institutions so the banks can be left to go bust if the Eurozone buck ultimately stops with London banks (which I guess it might)? Anyone with money left in will then only have themselves to blame and so will not be worthy on being compensated by HMG?

They already have 2k of my money 'NS&I' and they wont be getting anymore until they can prove that they won't blow it on something stupid and that it will be shared fairly right across the country.

I fear when they say 'there is the potential to tap into this money and get it invested in infrastructure' what they actually mean is 'there is the potential to tap into this money and get it invested in infrastructure in and around London'.

What's the problem with the Green Deal legislation?

But what about the deficit? Won't someone please think of the deficit!

They have. It's down c.25% since they came into power.

Have you read it, do you fully understand the implications, never mind the fact that it's primary legislation which means future governments don't have to stick to it?

(maybe worthy of it's own thread, once (IF) it ever passes the secondary legislation stage)

Given the propensity of this bunch of misfits to u-turn (sorry, listen) on any proposal apart from raping the poor to furtrher subsidise the rich, then anything could happen.

So they'll just about be on course to meet Labour's target of 50% deficit reduction in the first term, instead of their totally unrealistic target of deficit elimination?

But to achieve that stupendous, magnificent, awe-inspiring feat of a 25% reduction they have increased Local government borrowing by 400%, cut investment by 40% (and projected to go into negative figures next year), and increased debt as a % of GDP by around 40%.

In essence, they've really fcked it up.

And let's not forget the double-dip recession.

Yup, that's about the level of it.
Plus students now have to borrow more to buy an education, millions are out of work, disabled people and terminally-ill people are being reclassified as fit to work, many people "in the middle" have been moved up a tax band and GDP is still flatlining.

But hey, rich people now pay less tax, so it's not all bad.
Don't forget, we're all in it together.

What do you expect, though, when the guy running the economy - who's therefore nominally supposed to be a bit of a financial whizz - at the age of 67 is still only on basic rate income tax?

So you haven't got any money to put aside?

How are you planning for your future?

Are you hoping that the state will take care of you in your retirement?

You need to start focusing on living within your means and putting something aside for the future.

can I be the first to suggest cancelling his broadband and Daily Mail subscriptions?

That's brilliant.