£932 billion is the national debt-as of today-of the United Kingdom. We owe £14,819 per every man, women and child and it equates to £32,250 for every person who is currently employed. This year, we will increase the nation debt by £170 billion – taking the grand total to over £1 trillion.
In order to be able to finance and reduce the national debt, reform of the public services and economy are needed. There is no giant money tree. When the state borrows money, it borrows against our savings. You and I are not only associated to the debt, but we are liable for it, too.
Health and education reform are vital to the long term finances of this country, and to the taxpayer. The continuation of the status-quo is a vulnerable path towards generational austerity; a continuous cycle of the same crisis.
Worst policy for the coalition is to keep undermining reform with lightweight legislation. Competition and, yes, private sector capital will be required – the government can no longer afford the cheques. And it is about time we face reality.
danielfurr
Everything you say is true, but its not the whole truth. It’s also very important to remember that public spending frequently acts to stimulate and facilitate economic activity. Cuts in some areas or implemented in the wrong way can cost much more than they save.
We will be spending £750 billion a year, by 2015. Public spending is a serious problem in this country and helps to restrict the private sector; the most productive sector of the economy.
It’s true that we can’t continue with the disparity between revenue and spending. My issue is with placement, speed and extent of cuts while seemingly turning a blind eye to tax havens and many other drains on the public purse. The private sector exists on public infrastructure, with employees educated at public expense. Much of our private science and technology sector begins as university spinoffs and is built on individuals trained to a very high level through publicly funded PhD / PostDoc grants. If you cut education, R&D, infrastructure, etc in the long term you are crippling the private sector too. Then there is health – we pay approximately half as much per capita for health care compared to the US, so why are we moving towards a marketised health care system? It won’t save money. Cuts to HE + student loans will cost the public more in the short and medium term, thats without taking in to account any impact it has on number of students taking university courses and what they do afterwards.
@Chris
The NHS is not moving towards a market based structure, but is being heavily corporatised in fact (the same has been happening to America’s healthcare system which is heavily regulated and lobbied by corporations). There is a difference between ‘privatisation’ and ‘market’; e.g. Singapore heatlhcare care system has a market based structure, but America’s healthcare system is fully private but mostly influenced by insurance companies than patients’ demand. If you can’t make that distinction then I can see why you might have that perspective.
Government subsidies to private businesses is anti-competitive, far too often leads to monopolies and creates large corporations. It also crowds out investment and scientific research from the private sector.