How Dumb can the Government get?

Sir_Humphrey

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I am being serious - the end of the 70s saw the UK as a laughing stock of a basket case. That got sorted.

Yeah, she sold the basket for half its value. :rolleyes:

m00m00

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

I think the Thatcher govt. did sort out a lot of things that needed sorting.

and destroyed many things that shouldn't have been

like social cohesion and respect for the rights of others as individuals, not merely 'consumers'

BTLNEWbie_3

moanymoany wrote: »

To those who think a Conservative Government is going to be the knight on the white charger I say one thing - they weren't last time.

Did they not hand over a flourishing economey, only for TB to waste it on all those spin doctors and quangos.

Pobby

This is what the Thatch said

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

And that`s what we are seeing now. A breakdown in society, an obscene gap between rich and poor. Knife crime, sink estates, Jane Goody, oh I could go on.

What is the government there for if not to fix the problems?

WTF?_2

Pobby wrote: »

This is what the Thatch said

http://briandeer.com/social/thatcher-society.htm

And that`s what we are seeing now. A breakdown in society, an obscene gap between rich and poor. Knife crime, sink estates, Jane Goody, oh I could go on.

What is the government there for if not to fix the problems?

I don't think you can blame Thatcher for social breakdown. That's down to lax standards in society itself. Principally (IMO) p1ss poor parenting and of course peoples' willingness to look the other way.

For example, the whole 'lad culture' thing seemed innocuous at the time but has now lead to pretty anti-social behaviour becoming commonplace.

Until people buck up their standards and make a stand against anti-social behaviour around them there's not a lot any government can do. The police can do their best to enforce laws, they can't stop thousands of kids growing up to be scumbags because they weren't brought up with a sense of decency and to know right from wrong.

dopester

!!!!!!? wrote: »

What an absolutely genius idea. This is actually being considered by the Treasury :mad:

It is over now. The liquidity scheme will not work.

Attempts to suppress the fluctuations of the business cycle increase the dangers of a system failure which are essential to the economy's vitality as a dynamic system.

We are all in the economic cycles of history. The only news is the history we don't know. The downturn has been delayed and delayed and delayed by all mechanisms possible. Special schemes for liquidity by the Government to prevent the property market crashing just will not work.

Disturbances analogous to economic depressions are characteristic of many complex systems in nature. Paleo-ecologists for example, have established that spectacular forest fires in Yellowstone Part, in which vast numbers of acres are consumed, such as that in the summer of 1988, "occur every 200 or 300 years." In effect there is a "long wave" of forest growth, followed by a major conflagration and a slow period of regeneration.

William H. Romme and Don G. Despain point out that forest systems evolve through various stages of succession. Growth is most luxuriariant and varied immediately after a major fire. For quite logical reasons, the forest is not very flammable during the recovery period when a few widely spaced saplings and low-lying vegetation keep the forest floor moist.

Neither are major fires likely during the many decades when "the treetops rise too far above the the forest floor to be easily ignited from below." But during the "climax stage," when the understory of old-growth forests is littered with dead trees and rotting underbrush, a spectacular fire is almost inevitable. It is only a matter of time until lightning strikes in a dry season and the whole flammable mix explodes.*

The long cycle of economic life appears to be shorter than the long cycle of forest growth in Yellowstone Park, and we hope, less combustible. Yet both cycles may function in inheritantly similar ways. Just as it is impossible to prevent or surpress spectacular forest fires by putting out every small fire over time, so too, economic policiies that aim to prevent depression by forestalling bankrupcies and enlarging debts may only increase the severitiy of the ultimate disturbance.

The mounds of debt paper issued by politicians in the leading countries, especially the United States, may merely be littering the understory of the economy with combustible material. When the spark is lit, it will produce a "mighty flame".

Of course, many people no longer believe that the long cycle of boom and bust still operates. They imagine that the climax of the cycle - the period of credit collapse and deflation - is now impossible because politicians have determined to prevent it. The is not the place to go into an extensive analysis of why this view is mistaken. We shall save that for another chapter. Suffice it to say that the populations of the leading industrial countries evidence a touching faith in the powers of politicians.

*The pattern of growth and conflagration is not unique to Yellowstone. Some Florida pine forests for example actually require fires in order to survive. The Florida pines have evolved so that their cones will not open to release their seeds unless they are heated to a high temprature by fire.

-The Great Reckoning (1994)

Pobby

Point taken !!!!!!? However it needs to be said that I would place some of the cause of this decline at Thatchers door. I was in my 30s when she ruled and it was a time of greed and grab. Pretty much the same since Nu Labour arrived on the scene.

I agree that we need to buck up our standards. Have you ever faced a gang of p!ssed up 15 year olds acting in an anti social way? Try telling them to behave and see what happens.Oh and btw, don`t expect the police to do much either. Oh and be careful that you arn`t arrested insteed of them.

I have a nephew who was engaging in mildly anti-social behaviour. Boy was he surprised when he got it from me using both barrels.

Agreed with poor parenting as well. Seems to me that some of these kids are given Grand Theft Auto at 10 years old and then the parents wonder why they end up as little thugs.

lostinrates

Pobby wrote: »

. Pretty much the same since Nu Labour arrived on the scene.

I agree that we need to buck up our standards..

please excuse ruthless editing....

I notice a tangibe different in the last ten years. Ten years ago i would merrily walk through some london streets alone late at night, the night bus though not pleasant felt reasonably safe and I although prudence was required if you behaved sensibly and kept a low profile in some areas you felt very safe, in others just safe...I even remmeber bus conductors telling people to behave...(losing bus conductors was a great loss to public transport saftey). Now I am uite frankly scared of night buses. I take a pair of flat shoes with me and walk, or scuttle, more often, going out in the evening I simply forego a glass of wine and drive....less fun, more expensive but feels safer. In ten years my sense of saftey has really, really diminished.

neverdespairgirl

m00m00 wrote: »

and destroyed many things that shouldn't have been

like social cohesion and respect for the rights of others as individuals, not merely 'consumers'

I don't think that was really down to Thatcher in the same way as you do, though.

Family breakdown is a much bigger issue, to my mind.

dopester

dopester wrote: »

the very least I'm expecting is abrupt and severe cutbacks for the NHS, whole categories of medical procedures will have their spending budget eliminated...

and definitely for fancy expensive treatments which do not extend life expectancy in proportion to their cost.

NHS will harden their attitude to drug addiction, alcoholism, and life-style choice illnesses.

I had no idea new guidelines had been passed... but anyway.. expect more and more of these cutbacks, because how can the NHS continue treating all ailments when it will have to more allocate whatever future funding it does receive, as less revenues come in to the Gov's coffers.

The Press Association

Fury over NHS cancer drugs plan

6 hours ago

Patients with advanced kidney cancer will be denied four treatments on the NHS under new guidelines.

Professor Peter Littlejohns, clinical and public health director at Nice, said: "The decisions Nice has to make are some of the hardest in public life. NHS resources are not limitless and Nice has to decide what treatments represent best value to the patient as well as the NHS."

Although these treatments are clinically effective, regrettably, the cost to the NHS is such that they are not a cost-effective use of NHS resources. Two of the manufacturers have developed proposals which may have the effect of reducing the cost of the drugs."