How would you spend it?

Two items in the news this week fit together rather nicely - the protesters in the City of London are calling for some new thinking and The Guardian published its brilliant graphic showing what the Government is spending our money on.
I’m all for new ideas coming from the public. They tend to be more sensible than the ideas governments put forward.
And I’m all for a new look at how governments - Left or Right - spend our money.
On the left of this table is how the coalition government is currently spending our taxes.
On the right, the changes my government would propose.

Total spend, in billions	691.67			Suggested spend	625.49
Work, pensions, benefits	160.68	23.23%		160.68	25.69%
Health	105.60	15.27%		105.60	16.88%
Education	58.34	8.43%		58.34	9.33%
Revenue and customs	45.78	6.62%		24.21	3.87%
Debt interest	43.90	6.35%		39.51	6.32%
Defence	39.46	5.71%		3.46	0.55%
Local government	37.80	5.47%		37.80	6.04%
Scotland	34.88	5.04%		34.88	5.58%
Business	24.04	3.48%		24.04	3.84%
Wales	15.87	2.29%		15.87	2.54%
Transport	12.32	1.78%		12.32	1.97%
Home Office	10.45	1.51%		10.45	1.67%
Justice	9.46	1.37%		9.46	1.51%
Ireland	9.05	1.31%		9.05	1.45%
Climate	8.06	1.17%		8.06	1.29%
International	7.68	1.11%		3.46	0.55%
Culture, media, sport	7.02	1.01%		7.02	1.12%
Others	61.28	8.86%		61.28	9.80%

The main savings come from Defence spending. Do we still need the army, navy, air force and nuclear deterrent we needed when we were threatened by invasion by Germany 60 years ago?
The world is different now. The threat of invasion no longer exists. We use our military forces to attack other countries, not to defend our own.
There are threats, but do we need military might to defeat terrorism, or is intelligence a better weapon?
My government would slash Defence spending and beef up GCHQ.
I’d also cut international aid. How much of the £7.68 billion is doing good and how much is simply going in to venal pockets? We should be looking towards Europe, not towards Africa.
Finally, I would cut the amount we spend on collecting taxes. We need a simpler tax system which needs fewer taxmen and women to administer and fewer lawyers to investigate.
The savings from those three areas would reduce our borrowing and cut the amount we have to pay in interest charges.

There must be other new ideas out there. My government does not have exclusive rights to wisdom. The figures are public. How would you spend it?

Money, money, money

Why is the answer to bankrupt banks always to pour millions more into them?
There is a risk in almost everything we do.
Walking, cycling, driving all have inherent risks. Take a job and you risk being made redundant or sacked at some point. The benefits outweigh the risks, but there are still risks.
Put your money in a bank, in stocks and shares or under the mattress and there is a risk your money may go down in value, or vanish altogether.
Putting it in a bank is actually less risky than anything else. Here in the UK, our banks have a guarantee scheme which promises to pay out up to £50,000 if the bank holding your money goes bust. Most of us don’t have £50,000 in our bank accounts, so the payout will be much less than £50,000 x number of customers.
Presumably an insurance company has sold each bank a policy which will pay out the customers’ money if a bank does go bust. This spreads the risk, which is something financial companies love to do. There is still a risk, but it is being managed by the banks and the insurance business.
So why does the Government have to step in and pour money it does not have into the bank to prevent it going bankrupt? Why don’t they let banks go bust so that other banks may see the writing on the wall and mend their risky ways?
Extending the argument, why do European countries have to stump up money they do not have to prevent Greece from defaulting?
A country which wants to join the European Union has to pass a financial test. If a country fiddles the figures to get in, or goes off the financial rails immediately after getting in, it runs the risk of being kicked out of the EU and told to find another currency and another sugar daddy.
Surely the hard-headed markets would think more of an EU which acted with this rigour then one which endlessly borrows or prints more and more money to keep a failing country and the investors who unwisely lent said failing country money from feeling the chill.
We are in the financial doldrums. Governments are cutting costs left, right and centre in an attempt to get their debts under control. But governments are still able to come up with zillions to guarantee that banks won’t go bust. It doesn’t make sense.
This is the nonsense which has sparked demonstrations by people from all walks of life who are simply fed up being told by politicians and bankers that it has to be done.
Politicians and bankers are insulated from the recession. The rest of us are not.