Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mike

'The economy is safe with the Tories'

Recommended Posts

That's all fair enough, but what do you think is stopping the opposition from voicing alternative policies? EdM has just been up in front of the TUC to say 'yeah this public sector pensions business is slightly appalling, but, y'know, going on strike is very very naughty'.

 

Where's the brains?

 

I don't disagree with this either, but I'm all about challenged the status quo, the percieved widsom if I may.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The original point was about the old addage that the economy is safe in Tory hands and not under Labour. A Tory representative on this very forum (Murph) came out with exactly this line when I challenged him on it recently. The truth is obviously very different, in the 80's and early 90's under the last Tory economic era, we had rampant inflation with periods of growth quickly followed by recession. 'We've inherited this mess' is the line every government trots out to justify the action they choose to undertake, but the truth is, the 'mess' we are in, is a matter of political opinion, not economic reality - we're not in the unchartered territory that some would have us believe. The economy is tanking and it's directly related to decisions made, not in the last 50 years, but those of the last 18 months.

 

Running up the biggest deficit the country has ever seen has nothing to do with it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These non-core subjects can be taught at A-Level

 

Sometimes I have too much to say but cant be bothered to got into too much detail

 

Clever kids will always get good grades

The not so clever or the ones that have to work hard who normally might come out with C,D,E & F's

if they could have less subjects to study and concentrate on core areas those above grades might turn

into A,B & C's.

 

So what im trying to say is that having a more smarter workforce is good for the country

 

 

You can't teach someone A-Level French in two years if they have no grounding in modern languages.

And your definition of 'core areas' is entirely subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue is that we'll never mass produce anything - at least not in our lifetimes - as we are too pricey and it can be produced offshore.

 

Even if we managed to get anything off the ground it will no doubt be snapped up by some overseas equity group backed by foreign investors with profits ending up offshore/overseas.

 

Very good point. A good solution would be for the government to set up a sovereign private equity fund with specific investment criteria only in British industry.

 

The fund would invest based on strict criteria (and obviously a merit assessment which could be financial or socially orientated) and only be able to take up 49% ownership so control remained with the entrepreneurs. The owners could buy out the government at a later date based on a pre-agreed earn-out.

 

The catch would be that there would be a lock in where the owners would have to hold a majority ownership stake for at least say 20 years if they were took up the option for the funding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In regards to the OP question, i personally dont think the economy would ever be safe under any party!

Govts are too short term & there is no continuity, some govts might be in for a few years others for decade or so..

 

Maybe the whole party systems needs to be revised but a question for another day!

Edited by Owen1978

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't teach someone A-Level French in two years if they have no grounding in modern languages.

And your definition of 'core areas' is entirely subjective.

 

People calm down... was just an example

 

Just to keep people happy

 

what If those subjects are mandatory and if kids want do addtional

subjects then they can?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Running up the biggest deficit the country has ever seen has nothing to do with it?

 

Annual budget deficit as a % of GDP is not the only measure of deficit. The UK's annual deficit (PBR) of cumulative public sector debt paints a different story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just some random thoughts really, I haven't got the time to put it together coherently.

 

 

You should read a couple of books by Corelli Barnett (The Audit of War and Losing Victory: British Dreams, British Realities) which focus on post-war decline and what he sees as the reasons for it. The first book was pretty influential in government circles in the 1980s and 1990s with regard to things like ceasing to distinguish between polytechnics and universities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know you want to save it for another day, but what's the alternative to the 'party system'?

 

Don't think an alternative is needed just some separation, maybe certain areas should be overseen by independent groups.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think an alternative is needed just some separation, maybe certain areas should be overseen by independent groups.

 

Which particular areas do you think would benefit from having no democratic accountability?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which particular areas do you think would benefit from having no democratic accountability?

 

More in relation to what others have said regarding the short-term views/goals of political parties. I mean does all this chopping and changing of policies, depending on who is in power, benefit say the education system, the NHS etc? Could they not be overseen by an independent body with long-term goals set in place?

 

 

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You should read a couple of books by Corelli Barnett (The Audit of War and Losing Victory: British Dreams, British Realities) which focus on post-war decline and what he sees as the reasons for it. The first book was pretty influential in government circles in the 1980s and 1990s with regard to things like ceasing to distinguish between polytechnics and universities.

I'll have a look, it sounds interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More in relation to what others have said regarding the short-term views/goals of political parties. I mean does all this chopping and changing of policies, depending on who is in power, benefit say the education system, the NHS etc? Could they not be overseen by an independent body with long-term goals set in place?

 

This is what we need - Quangos.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More in relation to what others have said regarding the short-term views/goals of political parties. I mean does all this chopping and changing of policies, depending on who is in power, benefit say the education system, the NHS etc? Could they not be overseen by an independent body with long-term goals set in place?

 

 

.

 

I'm sure they could be. Whether they should be is another matter. No party is going to want to sign away control of such a huge proportion of public expenditure in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely one of the problems, with an area like education/health/even the economy etc. is that the ministers that are in charge aren't specialists in that particular field. They can do their best to brush up on it, have expert advice etc, but ultimately they're poorly placed to make the decisions.

 

Which is where things like "quangos" come in. There's always the vague suggestion that, by their very nature, quangos are self-serving and negative-but on certain things I know whom I'd like to trust with the decision.

 

For example, education - policy driven by a group of top ex-headteachers/deputy heads, rather than some chap who's Minister for Education before the job at the Home Office becomes available.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarilly disagree but, with policy (and presumably budget) for these areas being independent, what would government actually be for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely one of the problems, with an area like education/health/even the economy etc. is that the ministers that are in charge aren't specialists in that particular field. They can do their best to brush up on it, have expert advice etc, but ultimately they're poorly placed to make the decisions.

 

Which is where things like "quangos" come in. There's always the vague suggestion that, by their very nature, quangos are self-serving and negative-but on certain things I know whom I'd like to trust with the decision.

 

For example, education - policy driven by a group of top ex-headteachers/deputy heads, rather than some chap who's Minister for Education before the job at the Home Office becomes available.

 

Which experts do you choose? Particularly for the economy? You'll get 'experts' who can't agree on a thing.

 

And the 'top heads' might be hardcore disciplinarians, or trendy 80s teachers who won't let anyone say 'blackboard' because it's racist.

 

Which areas would you leave the Government in charge of? Would the same arguments not apply to defence, foreign policy, justice, and everything else?

Edited by John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Moving away from democratic accountability and towards more annonymous, unaccountable elites id definitely the way forward.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't necessarilly disagree but, with policy (and presumably budget) for these areas being independent, what would government actually be for?

 

 

They could set up a system where someone democratically accountable oversees each department and manages policy therein. They could be called Monosters.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A flat lining economy, unemployment on the rise again by 80,000 to over 2.5 million, the largest fall in public sector employment since records began. The consequences of savage cuts to jump start an economic recovery has been proven to be, at best, woefully misguided and at worst deliberate. The real truth behind the endless parade of depressing statistics is that what we see unfolding before us is the ruthless execution of a criminally divisive ideology - and this before the cuts really start to bite.

 

So I ask the question, exactly who are the Tories representing?

Same as always, the rich. All the problems you mention above, and we are having a debate about whether to cut taxes for the richest in society (well ,those who aren't allowed to go offshore).

 

I saw a headline over someone's shoulder in the Evening Standard the other day, it said something along the lines of 'It may not be popular, but tax cuts for the rich might benefit all of us'. I thought to myself that we have an excellent example of whether that is true, because in the mid 1980s, the top rate of tax was cut from 60 to 40%. Now, did that benefit all of us, or did it benefit those who were rich enough to be paying the 60%? Money doesn't trickle down, it f***ing races up.

 

Fair enough, it's just that I'm getting sick of the continual pointscoring that goes on,which seems to be dictated by political allegiances, and less to do with what is actually best for the country.

 

That's called democracy. People have different views and they express them at the ballot, and this produces changes in government. If everyone agreed what was 'best for the country' we'd have no need for politics.

 

A few questions need to be asked...

 

Would we better if we hadn't joined the EU?

- How much of UK moneys goes to them?

- Would it helped stem the flow of workers from EU countries?

 

Are we importing too much?

- Stop importing coal and re-open mines?

- Reduce other imports or tax them higher?

 

I also think the UK should concentrate in becoming a world leader in green energy

- Govt should have bought MG or created a new car company & get the best minds

from around the world to design a electric car thats actually works!

- Govt should also create a new energy company that is soley a nuclear power company

 

also just thought...

Doesnt the UK have large consumer electronics company similar to Samsung, LG etc...

If not why not?

One of the problems of the UK since the start of Thatcherism, and which has accelerated in recent years, is that our governments, virtually alone in the world, have been wedded to this idea that globalisation will deliver massive benefits to our economy. It worked to some degree, because some companies, mainly in financial services, are located here and provide employment. However, they often pay little tax here. Furthermore, we allow foreign companies to buy ours without any thought for defending them. There is no other country in the world that does this. Especially not in Europe. Therefore we lose tax base and expertise to foreign companies.

 

I don't take your point that a nationalised company specialising in the above would make us world leaders though. That company would need investment, and governments always have to make choices about investment. COme the choice about whether to spend money on the NHS or on a whizzy new car, I know where most people would (rightly) turn. This was the problem of the command economy of the 60s and 70s particularly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...