“Before we start arguing over how to create growth, perhaps we need to determine that real growth is actually possible. Shuffling money around the system to pretend living standards can continue increasing infinitely may simply be making the inevitable reckoning harder. Trouble is no-one in politics is ever going to stand up and say "Sorry folks, with all the borrowing, we've spent the next few years money, so we've going to have to be on metaphorical bread and water for a few years to compensate".

Where is real growth actually going to come from as opposed to the illusory growth that comes from printing money or extending credit? Today will see the launch of the latest all singing mobile phone which is apparently better than the one the maker launched 6 months ago, which was itself better than most people want or need. What that does is try to induce growth by making something perfectly useful obsolete rather than letting it wear out - the implications for our scarce resources need considering as well.”

“Depends exactly what's being talked about here. If it's redirect spending that would be used up on Trident towards building new social housing, then yeah, that might go some way to stimulate growth in addition to all the benefits in terms of welfare.

If it means borrow extra in order to build, there's the issue that came up in Question Time last week: discourse from the ratings agencies suggests that increased borrowing could further weaken the credit rating.”

“With an emphasis upon fashion and consumerism not only can some growth be illusory but so can the associated employment. Taking your example Dave, the mobile 'phone not only uses rare materials but also we have to pay for its disposal; however technology has benefited those in the third world therefore, as you say, it is planned obsolescence or fashion that are the culprits.

However there is a need for social housing and associated infra- structure and instead of reinforcing bank capital ratios to no good end i see no reason why grants to housing associations and councils should not be increased. Not only will this satisfy a social need but it will also generate employment and the resultant incomes will, through the multiplier effect, result in growth and further employment.

Mundane it may be, but i consider housing and youth employment to be our priorities and growth is a means, not the end.”

“Respondent, i think that growth can come from not only better targeted govt. expenditure but also by changing the emphasis on monetarism to out of fashion Keynes. The credit assessments are made taking into account not only the borrowing requirement but also future economic prospects, and at the moment we are facing a triple dip depression. Even that most conservative of nations, the Japanese, has recognised that after 20 years of zero growth increased expenditure and monetary relaxation are required. Also, unless we enter the strengthening euro, sterling weakness and potential speculation will be the drivers of economic policy.”

“The first thing we need to do is ditch the UK's absurd reliance on ideological solutions to every problem. If we elect a regime that is only capable of steering to the right we shouldn't be surprised if we end up going in circles and getting nowhere. Someone needs to look at the evidence and decide policy on that basis. At present the evidence would suggest current policy is not working.

Agree with most of what you say, but would pick you up on Trident - no matter whether you see a need for it or not - it most definitely *would* generate a huge amount of UK employment. Unlike HS2 (which is even more expensive, bizarrely) it cannot simply be contracted to German companies. Excepting the missiles nearly everything would be UK-sourced, and the vast majority of that £26bn would be labour costs paid to UK workers.”

“Moe, i was in two minds about including HS2 but the labour involved in track laying was the deciding factor. Trident was not only ideological on my part - i am a strong advocate for a common EU defence/foreign policy in addition to NATO, but because it is US controlled i assumed that the UK sourcing and labour would be token. However, in the absence that i could find of any breakdown i defer to your knowledge relying instead upon my ideolology and the long term nature of the expenditure which does nothing to assist the 974,000 youngsters currently unemployed nor the need for housing.”

“Bath1946, agree with most of that. I used to be in favour of the deterrent, but not any more. If we can't afford sufficient conventional forces to exercise ongoing commitments then Trident becomes a bit of an anachronism. Sorry UN, we've got no aircraft carriers and can't spare any ground troops for peacekeeping/evacuations/aid distribution in problematic countries, but we could just erase the whole problematic country for you?

And as you say people are going hungry and homeless; renewing Trident is like spending the kids' dinner money on turtlewax for the Porsche.

That said, I disagree that it is controlled by the US. In what way? Also, the deterrent is protected from the market by its nature - the money would definitely go to UK contractors and workers. Like it or not, an engineering project of this scale *would* be good for employment and would sustain the UK's lead in many areas of technology.”

“Brief clarification, Moe, of my posts on a topic on which we are both agreed. As you say the submarines are a lead contractor BAE/Rolls Royce build but i understood that a decision on the latest class would not be taken until 2016. The warheads are UK developed but the missile system itself which is what i was thinking about is US.”

“I apologise for derailing this thread somewhat, but I see this myth that the US controls our nuclear deterrent springing up all over the place, and it's a bit of a bugbear of mine. The missiles are made, privately, in the US; but the US government has about the same level of control over them as the German government has over where I drive my Volkswagen.

Of course they're not cheap, but - assuming they're still US Tridents - they are effectively off-the-shelf and the vast majority of the money will go towards development of the submarine itself and the warheads; all of it in the UK. The design is already well underway and millions are already being spent. However, we are agreed and I will shut up now.”