When will the Government come clean...

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

backtrack, backtrack, backtrack - you do make me laugh.

i'm not a Labour voter btw, just don't believe in your Tory mantra that they are going to be the knights in shining armour

How can I be backtracking if you changed the topic of discussion to an irrelevant one in the first place?

You make an assertion that James Dyson isn't interested in British industry because he offshored some jobs to Malaysia. Have you read his report and the suggestions he made? Why does the fact he offshoring some jobs (and kept some in the UK) invalidate all points he made?

I just said a change of government would be better than Labour, not the Tories were knights in shining armour. Why do you have such a strong conviction Labour will be better?

StevieJ

Strangely enough I am not a Labour voter either Can't be doing with march back to 1984.

chucky

Kohoutek wrote: »

How can I be backtracking if you changed the topic of discussion to an irrelevant one in the first place?

You make an assertion that James Dyson isn't interested in British industry because he offshored some jobs to Malaysia. Have you read his report and the suggestions he made? Why does the fact he offshoring some jobs (and kept some in the UK) invalidate all points he made?

I just said a change of government would be better than Labour, not the Tories were knights in shining armour. Why do you have such a strong conviction Labour will be better?

so closing down a factory and sending nearly 1,000 jobs to Malaysia is good for British manufacturing or industry... that's not 'some' jobs but a lot of jobs.

i've heard it all now...

Kohoutek

chucky wrote: »

so closing down a factory and sending nearly 1,000 jobs to Malaysia is good for British manufacturing or industry... that's not 'some' jobs but a lot of jobs.

i've heard it all now...

Learn to read mate...I just was saying how does the fact he offshored jobs mean that his report on British industry automatically has no value.

If we're going to name names about who supports globalisation (and the inevitable job of British jobs it causes), then start at the top:

Gordon Brown says he is "evangelical" about globalisation, but warned that the UK must raise skills levels to exploit economic changes [failed] Addressing the CBI conference, the UK chancellor condemned protectionism and said he wanted the UK to become a great "globalisation success story".

(2006)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6190902.stm

Gordon Brown: 'Recession must not lead to a retreat from globalisation'

(immediately after the financial crisis)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/financialcrisis/4343242/Gordon-Brown-Recession-must-not-lead-to-a-retreat-from-globalisation.html

Globalisation can be for the people or against the people. Poorly managed, globalisation can create a vicious circle of poverty, widening inequality and increasing resentment. Managed wisely it can lift millions out of deprivation and become the high road to a more just and inclusive global economy.

(2001)

http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/press_146_01.htm

Well considering how wealth inequality has increased under Labour, I'd say the former is true. Gordon Brown's support of globalisation and its effects on jobs has been far more damaging that a single businessmen offshoring British jobs.

Sir_Humphrey

Kohoutek wrote: »

Well considering how wealth inequality has increased under Labour, I'd say the former is true. Gordon Brown's support of globalisation and its effects on jobs has been far more damaging that a single businessmen offshoring British jobs.

Are you expecting a return to protectionism under the Tories? That would be big news if true.

Kohoutek

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Are you expecting a return to protectionism under the Tories? That would be big news if true.

Well, I think we may see a partial return to protectionism in several countries countries as a policy response to the economy crisis, e.g. China-US.

I don't see Cameron as a protectionist, but at least he doesn't relentless parrot the 'globalisation' and 'new world order' line like Gordon Brown. Cameron is eurosceptic isn't he? I suppose that means he gravitates towards nationalist economic policies more than 'globalists' like Brown.

Sir_Humphrey

Kohoutek wrote: »

Cameron is eurosceptic isn't he? I suppose that means he gravitates towards nationalist economic policies more than 'globalists' like Brown.

Thatcher was Eurosceptic but signed the Single European Act.

There is always a danger of projecting your hopes on to a political party which shows no signs of actually fulfilling your hopes. It was something I used to do when I was younger and naïve.

Kohoutek

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Thatcher was Eurosceptic but signed the Single European Act.

There is always a danger of projecting your hopes on to a political party which shows no signs of actually fulfilling your hopes. It was something I used to do when I was younger and naïve.

Don't worry, I began to take an interest in politics under the Blair era, so attaching any emotion towards politicians apart from total cynicism is impossible.

I would prefer the Tories to win because I'd don't think any other regime could be conceivably worse than five more years of Gordon Brown. It's obvious that there's no easy way out of this crisis, but I'd rather have someone new than the person who should be bearing a significant amount of responsibility for this crisis, yet continues to insist he can do no wrong.

If you're young enough like me to still be around when the consequences of Brown's insane borrowing are reaped, then I don't see how you can vote for him. There's no historical evidence I can think of that continuing to support a failed economy with government money works in the long term to build a sustainable recovery, it just means a impossibly large bill for the next generations to pay.

Sir_Humphrey

Kohoutek wrote: »

If you're young enough like me to still be around when the consequences of Brown's insane borrowing are reaped, then I don't see how you can vote for him. There's no historical evidence I can think of that continuing to support a failed economy with government money works in the long term to build a sustainable recovery, it just means a impossibly large bill for the next generations to pay.

The alternative is that the young pay now through long term high unemployment. The Great Depression was ended by govt spending, although a lot of that was because of winning WW2.

The overall national debt has been much, much higher in the past. The debt is increasing faster than other other countries, but only a small part of that is down to extra spending and it is from a very low base. The eventual recovery will deal with a lot of the problems.

Kohoutek

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The overall national debt has been much, much higher in the past. The debt is increasing faster than other other countries, but only a small part of that is down to extra spending and it is from a very low base. The eventual recovery will deal with a lot of the problems.

But why is an eventual recovery guaranteed without addressing the structural problems with our economy - i.e. too much based on consumption and govt spending.

If the government wants to cause a recovery by government spending, then they need to spend a lot more than now. Look at the US in the 1930s - the New Deal didn't create a sustainable recovery, it was when the government virtually nationalised the economy during WWII, creating near 100% employment by huge deficit spending. At peak, they were deficit spending 25% of GDP - double what the UK is today.

We're just simply doing what Japan has done for the last 20 years - running a deficit to prop up failing companies, to maintain the public sector, to maintain welfare. It's never worked, and they've just ended up with a lot more debt - now almost 200% of GDP.