Economy

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless.  As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?

This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.

    * £250 for a one-bedroom property
    * £290 for a two-bedroom property
    * £340 for a three-bedroom property
    * £400 for a four-bedroom property

Who are you trying to convince? No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.

Look on the Vebra website. There are only a handful of 3 bed properties available for rent at below £340/week within 10 miles of central London. So that's anyone on a low wage with a family priced out of living there.

The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.

Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?

We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.

There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?

Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless.  As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?

This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.

    * £250 for a one-bedroom property
    * £290 for a two-bedroom property
    * £340 for a three-bedroom property
    * £400 for a four-bedroom property

Who are you trying to convince. No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.

The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.

Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?

We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.

There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?

Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.

You kind of contradict yourself though saying you agree with it then saying 'hang on I don't'.  What is the answer then, keep shelling out large amounts of money to people willy nilly?  I do see your point on London it is a different animal that's for sure, though you could also argue that I have to travel a fair distance to work as does my Dad (neither of us work in Doncaster), so why shouldn't people have to travel?

[jucyberry]

The solution has to begin with more control over the ammount landlords are able to charge. The are the cause of the problem, not the tennants....

I do not blame the tennants for wanting to live in better areas, Live on a sink hole estate and run the risk of your kid being the next gang statistic, or stay in a better part of London and hopefully keep them safe..What would most chose?

The thing that really irritates me is the belief that the housing benefit is handed to the claiment. Generally speaking it is paid directly to the landlord for obvious reasons. Yet the masses are working themselves into a frenzy thinking this is money that the claiment is physically given. They believe all the negative spin and propaganda fed through the likes of the mail and its ilk.

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

What baffles me is how they say the cap on housing benefit to £400 a week, £20k per year will make people homeless.  As someone who had a real nice flat and a real nice house for £90 a week inclusive of bills, I wonder how £400 is not enough for a weeks worth of rent, where are these people living, Buckingham Palace?

This is the proposal laide out, I fail to see how people cannot live on this much money for housing benefit.

    * £250 for a one-bedroom property
    * £290 for a two-bedroom property
    * £340 for a three-bedroom property
    * £400 for a four-bedroom property

Who are you trying to convince. No point persuading us, I agree with you. The people you need to convince are the greedy t**ts who set the rents and who were let off the leash by Thatcher's Govt leading to a situation where rents in the centre of London are off the scale. So, anyone living in the centre of London who isn't earning way above average earnings cannot afford a roof over their heads without massive Govt help.

The Market response would be \"Tough shit. Don't live there then.\" That, in essence is what Gideon and Dave are saying.

Kind of misses a vital point though. Cities cannot exist purely on the work done by Financial whizz-kids, Top-Class Estate Agents and Bollinger salesmen. Some people have to drive buses, mop floors, empty bins, clean windows and wipe shitty arses in hospital. Where are they supposed to live? Is the idea that they live in Dover where it's cheap and commute to London?

We have a rampant market system that has allowed the cost of living to explode in the centre of the capital. As a consequence, the only way that people doing low-paid menial jobs can afford to live reasonably close to their place of work is if their housing is heavily subsidised. If they are forced to live 10-20 miles from their work, the transport costs will be prohibitive. So, the unrestrained market makes it impossible for a civillised society to exist.

There is a more dangerous potential consequence. Many of the menial workers in central london are immigrants or second-generation immigrants. The nearest low cost housing is in the East End. So, an obvious consequence of the Housing Benefit cuts will be to lead to an influx of immigrant families into the East End. Has anyone in Government thought through the consequences of this?

Yet another half-baked, ill-considered semi-proposal from a pair of immature chancers.

You kind of contradict yourself though saying you agree with it then saying 'hang on I don't'.  What is the answer then, keep shelling out large amounts of money to people willy nilly?  I do see your point on London it is a different animal that's for sure, though you could also argue that I have to travel a fair distance to work as does my Dad (neither of us work in Doncaster), so why shouldn't people have to travel?

What I agree with is that £340 per week SHOULD be enough to pay for a three bedroomed house anywhere in the country. But it ISN'T. Because Free Market Forces (read: Greedy scrubbing middle-class barrow boy rentier landlords that were the darlings of the Thatcherites) decree that that isn't enough in Central London. So, anyone on poverty wages will be driven out of Central London.

And then...

You're an accountant. You do the sums.

A cleaner in Central London is paid little more than minimum wage levels. Many cleaners jobs are advertised at ~£10k per year. An annual Zone 1-5 Travel card is the thick end of £2k. So, by driving the menial workers out into the suburbs, you are simply producing another problem - you're driving people's take-home pay to sub-poverty levels. And that's before you take into account the racial tensions that I alluded to in the earlier post. You reckon the citizens of Barking and Dagenham are going to have street parties to welcome the thousands of immigrant families that will be displaced there from central London?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Perhaps the answer is that there should be a difference between the central London value and the rest of the country (something that is being considered apparently).  There's no doubt that it will reduce rents a little bit and I do agree 100 percent that these landlords are taking the piss.  Though you would also argue if people will pay that it makes sense, that's what an accountant would argue.  At the moment it is too easy to do that, now reducing this benefit may have an effect, it may not, theoretically it should if it really makes that much difference landlordw would have no choice.

[BillyStubbsTears]

big fat yorkshire pudding wrote:

Perhaps the answer is that there should be a difference between the central London value and the rest of the country (something that is being considered apparently).  There's no doubt that it will reduce rents a little bit and I do agree 100 percent that these landlords are taking the piss.  Though you would also argue if people will pay that it makes sense, that's what an accountant would argue.  At the moment it is too easy to do that, now reducing this benefit may have an effect, it may not, theoretically it should if it really makes that much difference landlordw would have no choice.

What's that old quote about accountants knowing the cost of everything and the value of nothing?

Nothing personal like, but that is the spirit that has got us into this mess. It's the Free Market let off the leash. Thatcher's Govt did this by de-regulating the housing rental market. And you end up with this sort of shambolic situation where essential menial workers have to be subsidised to live near their jobs, and then are villified for being subsidised.

Same old Tories eh? If you let the Market rule, it is ALWAYS the ones at the very bottom who get shit on. And ALWAYS the ones being shit on who are held up as the devious villains who take the rest of us for a ride. The Tories are simply doing what they always do. Blowing up a nothing scare story to pander to the comfortable middle-class Mail-reading tut-tutters who form the bulk of their voters.

As for an alternative system being considered for London - why now? Did they not think about this before announcing the policy on a blaze of rabble-rousing media hype?

[CusworthRovers]

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

As a PS that others might find interesting, Private Eye has a feature called 'Number Crunching', and the following are in the currect issue:

£7bn = Further cuts to UK welfare budget announced last week.
£7bn = Predicted bonuses to be paid by UK banks this year.


£81bn = Amount government is cutting from public spending over next four years.
£185bn = Amount government lent to banks for three years in Special Liquidity Scheme.

And one away from politics/economics...

33 = Miners rescued in Chile this month who received worldwide coverage.
37 = Miners killed in gas explosion in China this month who didn't.
34 = Average number of accidental deaths in Chilean mining industry each year in last decade.
57 = Miners killed in accidents in USA so far this year.

I read some interesting stuff about this so called recession. I too noted it was all down to the banks and posted it back then. Whilst we keep arguing over which party is to blame, it's worth noting that it's all of them for allowing the banks to run this country and f**k it over for the sake of fat cat profits for the few. Sombody needs to get hold of these mofo's.

[River Don]

CusworthRovers wrote:

Glyn_Wigley wrote:

As a PS that others might find interesting, Private Eye has a feature called 'Number Crunching', and the following are in the currect issue:

£7bn = Further cuts to UK welfare budget announced last week.
£7bn = Predicted bonuses to be paid by UK banks this year.


£81bn = Amount government is cutting from public spending over next four years.
£185bn = Amount government lent to banks for three years in Special Liquidity Scheme.

And one away from politics/economics...

33 = Miners rescued in Chile this month who received worldwide coverage.
37 = Miners killed in gas explosion in China this month who didn't.
34 = Average number of accidental deaths in Chilean mining industry each year in last decade.
57 = Miners killed in accidents in USA so far this year.

I read some interesting stuff about this so called recession. I too noted it was all down to the banks and posted it back then. Whilst we keep arguing over which party is to blame, it's worth noting that it's all of them for allowing the banks to run this country and fcuk it over for the sake of fat cat profits for the few. Sombody needs to get hold of these mofo's.

Couldn't agree more Cussy.

Very little is being done to reform the system, they're doing everything possible to breath life back into it but I don't think it's possible, certainly not without a lot of pain. Meanwhile the bankers have won.

I'm no expert but it seems to me fractional reserve banking is at the root of our ills. While ever the banks are allowed to conjure money out of thin air, we're doomed to see bubbles grow and suffer the resultant busts.

The best we can hope for is some regulation to at least try and keep some control of it but it seems these are being resisted very successfully.

[CusworthRovers]

Is there a better example than Northern Rock?

[Savvy]

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is there a better example than Northern Rock?

Better example in what way cussie?

[BillyStubbsTears]

There is a big problem with reforming the banks. They are such a huge part of our economy and they have been so for decades.

Easy to say that we should reform them, but if by doing so we drive them elsewhere then we have a huge hole in our economy. Prior to 2007, they were responsible for paying something like 20% of the total tax income in the UK. The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.

If Brown had unilaterally tried to reform OUR banking system in, say, 2000, we the banks would have moved business to America, Switzerland or other places, and we would have had that financial trouble even earlier.

What is needed is GLOBAL banking restrictions. We can influence that but only to the extent that other countries come along with us.

In the meantime, we need to spend 20 years encouraging and supporting other areas of economic activity to broaden our economy and lessen our reliance on the banks. Trouble is, that goes against everything we have done in thus country for half a century and more. Labour were certainly at fault for not doing more on this score. The Tories are talking a good game in this topic, but their actions are not backing this up. The Business and Innovation Dept had taken the biggest cuts of any Dept, and the very first thong the coalition did was to cancel the loan to Forgemasters, which was both economically stupid and designed to send a message. The priority is all about cutting back and to hell with the consequences.

In the meantime, to balance the books over 5 years, the temptation wi be to let the banks grow all powerful again, and take the tax income from them. I suspect that in 5 years time, we'll have even less high tech manufacturing as a proportion of our economy and we'll be as reliant as ever on the banks.

[Savvy]

Interesting read Billy, just a couple of points,

The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.

Have you evidence to back that up or is it just a conclusion you'll arrived at?

If the banks are responsible for 20% of the tax income of the country, de facto 80% is coming from other areas, so we arent really that reliant on the banks are we?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy wrote:

Interesting read Billy, just a couple of points,

The main reason that our deficit us so huge is not that the Govt was spending ridiculous amounts. They weren't, despite what the Tories say. The problem was that tax income from the banks collapsed with the financial crisis.

Have you evidence to back that up or is it just a conclusion you'll arrived at?

If the banks are responsible for 20% of the tax income of the country, de facto 80% is coming from other areas, so we arent really that reliant on the banks are we?

I have plenty of evidence that Labour was not massively overspending. Before the recession struck, Govt spending was about 38% of GDP. That was a lower proportion than Major's Govt was spending in 1996. Only hardline Thatcherites think that that is an excessive amount.

As for tax receipts from the financial sector, those figures I gave were from memory. According to  Price Waterhouse Cooper, in 2007, tax receipts from the banking sector were about 15% of all Govt income. I heard on the radio last week that this came down to about 10% last year. Of course that doesn't explain the whole if the deficit. Every country ran a deficit in response to the recession, but it goes a long way to explaining why our deficit was one of the worst.

You're right of course that we are not totally reliant on banking tax income. But the point is that it forms one of the largest areas of tax income, and we would struggle badly without it. If, say, banking tax income halved for a decade, the resulting loss of Govt income would be over £300bn. That's a lot of schools, hospitals, railway lines and roads that wouldn't get built. THAT is why no Govt had dared to regulate our banking sector isolation. They could not afford the loss of income if the banks were driven elsewhere. Look at the furore (led by the Tories) in 2007 when Brown suggested taxing non-doms in the financial sector.

[Savvy]

Thanks for that explaination Bill, what I can't get my napper round is how they are being allowed to get away with these outlandish claims! Surely someone on the opposition has got to say look....put up or shut up. Show us the empherical evidence that we've be profligate with the nations finances or knock the scaremonging on the head!!

They insist that the private sector will be the catalyst for bailing us out of the shite, but can you honestly see any CEO or Company Chairman addressing the shareholders next year and saying \"You know what, now is the time to build that new factory/warehouse or set on that extra 500 employees\" They'd get voted out tout suite!

Just as an aside, how do you see this Banking Levy/tax panning out? I agree they have to play this one cagey because the ham shanks could quite easily bail out if they feel that they are being unjustly treated!

[BillyStubbsTears]

Being a moderate lefty misen Savvy, I spent the whole Election campaign tearing out my non-existent hair shouting at the telly every time I saw a Labour politician, \"TELL THEM THE NUMBERS. Find a simple way of showing folk what caused the recession and what you have done to reduce the effect of it.\"

Only one conclusion for me. Labour's election campaign was rank-bad. They had spent 15 years playing it softly-softly in election campaigns and winning easily against a shit opponent and they had no idea how to come out and take part in a dog-fight.

To be fair to Miliband, I think he's playing a smart game in response to that. In Opposition, you don't have to win the arguments in a slugging match. You bob and weave. Make the odd sharp soundbite comment to stick in folks' minds, then step down and let the Govt flounder. Land a jab then vanish. Cameron was a master of that. He scarcely put up a single policy in Opposition, but he was a master of landing jab after jab on Brown, even when Brown was saving the world. He might get some back over the next 4 years.

It's not what I would like. I'd prefer to see some upfront full-on arguments and may the better side win. I'd prefer to see an up-front pub-brawl with every weapon each side possesses used than a little bloke sticking pins in the big lad then running way. But we as a people are a bunch of soft cnuts these days, and it'd only scare the children if we saw our politics a bit redder in tooth and claw.

As for the banking levy, it's a pin prick. The banks know that they have to be seen to have their arses caned. Headline figures showing that the levy will bring in £3bn a year look good, but this is only 1/20th of what the banks already pay in taxes. It's enough for Govt and the banks to say the slate has been wiped clean, but nowehere near what would really be required to bring them to heel. Not that we COULD really bring them to heel without f**king up our own tax receipts anyway.

Shit int it?

[River Don]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

What is needed is GLOBAL banking restrictions. We can influence that but only to the extent that other countries come along with us.

I agree but it's simply not on the agenda.

Half the worlds Off-shore Tax havens come under British jurisdiction, the worlds biggest is the City of London! Most of the rest belong to the Americans or the French. If they really wanted to they could shut the lot down in a week. Thing is, the banks won't allow that to happen.

[CusworthRovers]

Savvy wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is there a better example than Northern Rock?

Better example in what way cussie?

From what I have read about this fiasco, is that Northern Rock Building Society was a very good one, going about it's investments to protect the savings of all it's members, after all they are the most important.

It transpires that NR wanted some of the action that all the big banks were cashing in on and earning huge profits for the few (in short they became greedy and were entering a brutal big boys market, that in many opinions, they were out of their depth). That aside NR turned itself into a bank and duly failed, it tried to be floated on FTSE but failed, it tried to be bought out twice, but failed.

Perhaps NR should have thought more about it's savers.

Anybody watch QT last night with that stroker who runs hedge funds. Now this seems to be the new buzz word 'hedge funds'......massive profit making machine for the very few wealthy, in times of debt/recession. These chuffs will never go without. About time somebody smashed these few, bring back Marx and Engels

[River Don]

And if you believe commentators like this it looks like worst is yet to come.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-29/gold-will-outlive-dollar-once-slaughter-comes-commentary-by-john-hathaway.html

Buy physical gold.

[Savvy]

CusworthRovers wrote:

Savvy wrote:

CusworthRovers wrote:

Is there a better example than Northern Rock?

Better example in what way cussie?

From what I have read about this fiasco, is that Northern Rock Building Society was a very good one, going about it's investments to protect the savings of all it's members, after all they are the most important.

It transpires that NR wanted some of the action that all the big banks were cashing in on and earning huge profits for the few (in short they became greedy and were entering a brutal big boys market, that in many opinions, they were out of their depth). That aside NR turned itself into a bank and duly failed, it tried to be floated on FTSE but failed, it tried to be bought out twice, but failed.

Perhaps NR should have thought more about it's savers.

Anybody watch QT last night with that stroker who runs hedge funds. Now this seems to be the new buzz word 'hedge funds'......massive profit making machine for the very few wealthy, in times of debt/recession. These chuffs will never go without. About time somebody smashed these few, bring back Marx and Engels

See thats why I asked the original question Cussie!

From everything I've read, Northern Rock did everything by the book. The problem they had was a liquidity issue. The American banks that they used to borrow their funds from weren't prepared to lend them any additional funds and they announced to the financial authorities straight away that they were unable to meet their short term commitments as per the banking rules and regulations.  They had sufficient assets to cover their obligations, but when their normally reliable source of funding said \"Nay!\" that left them exposed in the short term.  The government then intervened to prevent a run on the banks, and anyone who wished to withdraw their funds was allowed so to do, although due to the queues it might have taken abit long than normal.

Its interesting that the other banks have cried off-side at the government intervention citing anti-competitive rules which due to the government guarantees have made Northern Rock one of the safest places to keep your wonga!

Referring back to Billy's comments regarding the ability to put into place punative measures against the banking fraternity, I wonder, given that Northern Rock is a state bank in all but name, wether or not there could be something that could be done to bring them into line!

[CusworthRovers]

It might be that we need to take hold of the controlling of the banks. As said NR is now Nationalised, but more by necessity from it's failings.

I thought from what I knew NR could manage the short term stuff ie the customer savings, but it was everything else that f**ked them over that led to them being bailed out.


No government is going to get hold of the root cause of the worlds situation, ie the greedy f**kers that run this planet. It's them that run the governments of the world. It needs a re-distribution of wealth

[BobG]

I told you all a week back. We need a bloody revolution. And I used the word 'bloody' advisedly. Of course, an awful lot of folk on here tonight, including me, will fall victim to the subsequent pogroms and purges, but bugger me. Them that are left might have a chance of avoiding the mistakes of both left and right.

Of curse, if I wewre to run said revolution, there'd be a f**k of a lot of jobs come available. Building walls.

BobG

[BillyStubbsTears]

Interesting stuff here, in a speech by Mervyn King.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2010/speech455.pdf

It's heavy going, but the gist of it is that those figures I quoted earlier about how much the banking sector adds to UK GDP are massive over-estimates. He reckons that the usually accepted figures are TWICE the true level.

Looks like he's preparing the ground for a proper fist-fight. He's looking to take on the banks and bring them to heel. Publishing these figures is the first shot - it shows that the banks aren't as important as we (and they) thought they were.

This is proper ground-breaking stuff. The first time in 50 years that anyone in authority has openly challenged the almighty power of the banks. Who knows? We might be about to reclaim power over them after all.

And if the BoE is questioning the importance of the banks, the game is open for more radical solutions to keep them at heel. Like keeping the ones that WE now own as effectively nationalised banks with a remit to foster our economy rather than to line their shareholders' pockets.

Bob G - hasta la revolucion compadre.

[Savvy]

BillyStubbsTears wrote:

Interesting stuff here, in a speech by Mervyn King.

http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2010/speech455.pdf

It's heavy going, but the gist of it is that those figures I quoted earlier about how much the banking sector adds to UK GDP are massive over-estimates. He reckons that the usually accepted figures are TWICE the true level.

Looks like he's preparing the ground for a proper fist-fight. He's looking to take on the banks and bring them to heel. Publishing these figures is the first shot - it shows that the banks aren't as important as we (and they) thought they were.

This is proper ground-breaking stuff. The first time in 50 years that anyone in authority has openly challenged the almighty power of the banks. Who knows? We might be about to reclaim power over them after all.

And if the BoE is questioning the importance of the banks, the game is open for more radical solutions to keep them at heel. Like keeping the ones that WE now own as effectively nationalised banks with a remit to foster our economy rather than to line their shareholders' pockets.

Bob G - hasta la revolucion compadre.

Hem, Hem, Can I draw the Right Honourable Gentleman to the final paragraph of my last post?  

[River Don]

This is a very interesting article.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8102785/Bank-of-England-must-use-QE-to-buy-bad-mortgages-warns-Fathom-Consulting.html

Turns out the banks assets are worth far less than they would have us believe, that is why they dare not 'mark to market' and use their computer models to invent figures instead.

Now they're suggesting we bail them out some more. Another £20billion, £180billion, who knows the true scale of the problem? More QE. Inflate the problem away, devalue the pound, currency wars, protectionism. Etc, etc.

Or instead we could try and find a way to allow our massively inflated housing market to correct it's self and start dealing with the problem of the debt.