Same here, I'll be following this closely.
Autumn Statement 2014
- Thread starter Cosimo
- Start date
Same here, I'll be following this closely.
All I've heard about the oil and gas industry is a reduction in the supplementary tax on production offshore, meaning they will now "only" pay between 60 and 80p in supplementary tax, rather than 62-81p. That may make a couple more fields economic but it's not really funding is it...? Was there an announcement for tax reductions onshore stuff too?
Agreed totally on the masters loans however, with the cutting in NERC and other funding for masters courses there was a big gap, especially for the hard science courses. Hopefully more will be able to afford to go again.
Agreed, I was very fortunate in the funding of my masters, and I managed to live with the parents for the duration which helped enormously. My department was only 5% British though, and I imagine that funding played a big part in this.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 5,365
- Location
- West Sussex
I sniff the engineering of another housing bubble on its way.
Some more info here: http://www.businessgreen.com/bg/new...rne-rejects-green-growth-opportunities/page/2
As you say, the 2% drop isn't going to do much considering it was raised from 50 to 62% back in 2011 based on a much higher oil price....
Ah yes, the sovereign wealth fund! 
Perhaps the wind industry could have one set up as well? Oh... Wait...
On a more serious note it's a real shame the removal of some of the subsidies and tax cuts for renewables has happened, but then again this is Osborne, the man that hates renewables. It's also a shame that rather than a proper debate all the reply from the renewables industry is a bunch of moaning... While I agree with their sentiment (especially draughty homes) the cost will be significantly more than the few million the government are spending to get independent data that will most likely show that the speil so many anti fracking campaigners spout is incorrect. But then again that hasn't stopped them in the past...*
*I'll differentiate between organisations like Greenpeace who have legitimate debate and questions, helping to increase regulation and best practice rigour and the "professionals" that are going round making money off an anti fracking standpoint.
Perhaps the wind industry could have one set up as well? Oh... Wait...
On a more serious note it's a real shame the removal of some of the subsidies and tax cuts for renewables has happened, but then again this is Osborne, the man that hates renewables. It's also a shame that rather than a proper debate all the reply from the renewables industry is a bunch of moaning... While I agree with their sentiment (especially draughty homes) the cost will be significantly more than the few million the government are spending to get independent data that will most likely show that the speil so many anti fracking campaigners spout is incorrect. But then again that hasn't stopped them in the past...*
*I'll differentiate between organisations like Greenpeace who have legitimate debate and questions, helping to increase regulation and best practice rigour and the "professionals" that are going round making money off an anti fracking standpoint.
Explain Please!!!!
Why do we need to clear the deficit? Why can't we just borrow and borrow? Do we not get interest payments on our debt as a country?
Am I being stupid or something, because surely the debt would just keep getting bigger and bigger if we kept borrowing money, which would make us as a state skint as we wouldn't be able to afford our payments to whom ever we borrow the money from? or is it that we are just borrowing money from ourselves and thus making our own currency weaker and thus making it more difficult for businesses to operate here, and thus we go full circle?
Government spending on things such as infrastructure have a multiplier effect, so for every £1 spent on building a road, train line, whatever, you might see £3 returned into the economy. Clamming up and not spending the £1 actually 'costs' £2. This government's desire for minimal public spending seems to be based more on an ideology rather than evidence.
No doubt some government departments are inefficient with how they spend their funding, but I'm not sure how just reducing the amount of cash they receive is going to help this.
But if none of that had happened we would still have been hit by the global downturn that was 2008. I'm not saying these are good things, but the world's economies aren't in the position they are in now as a result of what the UK government did. I've noticed the Tories are slowly changing the narrative from "Labours mess" to "global economic crisis" now it's becoming more apparent that they are missing their targets by a country mile.
Last edited: