How about dispersing them in and around the Home Counties?

That's not a matter to be joking about.

By the way, you live in the SW don't you? Just about as far away from Hull as you can get in England!

Too expensive. The point was to reduce costs if you recall.

1. Scrap HS2 and spend the same money on new branch lines, longer trains and the stations to accommodate them, along with major road improvements.

2. Crack down on both benefit abuse and tax evasion and avoidance schemes (I don't say evasion, I say avoision)

3. Introduce rent controls along with restrictions on the number of houses a person or company can own

4. Lower VAT to 17.5%

5. Raise the basic rate of income tax to 25%

6. Large social housing programme

7. Increase the size of all branches of the armed forces but especially the army

I'd agree with all those. Point 7 - I agree from a security perspective but what's your thinking economically / deficit-wise?

I think the armed forces and especially the army is a great way of getting often uneducated/not academically minded, sometimes "lost", and nearly always poor young people into a decently paid job. Plus of course there are jobs for skilled people in areas like communications, engineering etc.
It also helps with knock-on effects like RN ships, army vehicles and equipment are generally designed and built here in the UK.
I think it would help from a security point of view in that if we're to continue to play a role on the world stage we need the forces to back it up - the RN aircraft carriers for example. But I also think it would help economically. One of the big problems in economics is trying to get the measures to help the right people. I think the armed forces, while not perfect, is a pretty good way of getting money to some people from poor areas who would have struggled to find a job and a place in society.

Another dig at Hull eh Dally.
Last time you got you anus handed to you so much that I actually felt for you whilst I tore you to shreads.

Perhaps you could find another topic you actually have a clue about...Erm.

Except, it's not. For one thing, the housing markets in the two countries are not especially comparable, eg the Germans' propensity to rent rather than buy; for another, there are huge variations in rent levels from the big metropolitan areas to the rest of the country, even very large conurbations. There are various factors at play and the proposition isn't made out. An rlarticle in the Guardian in 2011rl suggested German rents were overall cheaper. I'd say "it just depends", and that there is no point of general application.

I offer this, it could work alongside what's already been suggested, or as a stand-alone measure, it is quite draconian, and would probably never happen, but would return money to the public purse and boost the economy:-

Renationalise the services that the evil Thatcher sold off for profit in her term in office.

Thoughts?

Germany also has a system of rent capping, which we do not. This is primarily designed to prevent landlords hiking rents for people on lower incomes.

The problem we have is that, just as this country has developed its systems and mindset over many years, the problems that have developed will also take years to sort. Unfortunately, people tend to demand a quick fix to things, when it's impossible. Not only do changes have to be phased in, but it will also take a long time to change peoples' mindsets.

Take smoking as an example. 25 years ago, people smoked in front of kids, in public places and it wasn't deemed a massive problem. It's only a prolonged campaign, and gradual withdrawal of advertising that has got us to where we are now. And it will take another 25 years to get to the 'ideal' stage.

So of course, the first problem is that a government gets five years. It's not enough. The smoking issue is one that both major parties agree on, so it's implementation has worked and both parties have persevered with it. Sadly that can't be the way with everything, where fundamental disagreements fuel an attitude (to some) of digging your heels in when the party you don't like suggests something.

Dally's idea of having a maximum sized branch chain of 25 is, on the surface unrealistic. But it's not quite as ridiculous as it sounds. Most large brands in the USA (and we know they're far from perfect, so lets not get into that) are franchised, rather than corporate owned. So whilst you get a big nationwide brand, when you walk into an outlet, you're in many cases dealing with that shop's owner or people directly employed by that person.

The concept of 'master franchising' - having chains within a chain is quite common - most Subway outlets in the UK, for instance, are either owned individually, or part of a chain of between 10 and 20 outlets. The letting agent, Belvoir, is going the same way. Why can't high street chains or even your large supermarkets operate in a similar way? There will be area managers up and down the country who would jump at the chance to be a part of things like that, and if one franchise fails, at least it doesn't put the other parts of the 'chain' at risk.

I often wonder if, say, HMV operated that way it might not have failed en masse, as you will get the individual entrepreneurs at the head of each part coming up with different ideas that they wouldn't be prevented from implementing (plus implementation will come at a lower cost, because they have fewer outlets, and can then be adopted as official policy by head office, to be rolled out amongst everyone else). Secondly, every outlet wouldn't have been in deficit, so at least the profitable ones would have remained. As it was, the entire group was put under strain by the weakest performers, which killed the entire business.

On another note, I don't think removing benefits or adding more tax will do much to encourage or discourage certain types of behaviour. Only education will do that over a long period of time. You have to start with the kids, so that they grow up with attitudes that are alien to most of their parents. Easier said than done, I accept.

I don't think that it's a good idea to tax everyone to death. The only way the economy will grow is when there is money available to be spent in it, and it follows that the more money that goes to the government, is money that cannot be spent in shops or online.

This is by no means everything, but why not start here...?

- Stamp Duty. Currently paid ONLY by the buyer, and only on purchases more than £125k. This has killed the £125-£150k market, and also the £250-£300k market where it jumps to 3%. My view is that all buyers and all sellers should pay stamp duty at 0.5% of transaction value, no matter that the price. It's an affordable level, that way, and everyone pays something.

- Tax. Get rid of tax codes, and introduce a very simple sliding scale. If you earn X, you pay X. The onus should also be on the employee to make payment, not the employer. It cannot in this day and age be too difficult to compel employers to calculate wages online, which sends relevant info to HMRC, who then take the employee's tax by direct debit FROM the employee a set amount of time afterwards. Again, this is as much about instilling responsibility in the general public, and making people take responsibility for their own affairs.

- National Insurance. As above, however the employer should still make their contribution as they do now. A concession should be offered, in that a rebate should be available to the employer if they take on an apprentice, or young staff member who receives some kind of formal training.

There's loads I could go into, but I'll let you shoot the above down first

Allied to my idea of annual taxes on second homes, capital gains tax on them should be scrapped. The two measures together would free up loads of property and cut prices (although the banking system probably wouyldn't withstand that at present). A big problem with CGT is that long-term landlords just hold onto their property until they die to avoid the CGT hit on sale.

I don't own any ta.
I do find you fascination with them a concern however.