We’d like to remind Forumites to please avoid political debate on the Forum.
This is to keep it a safe and useful space for MoneySaving discussions. Threads that are – or become – political in nature may be removed in line with the Forum’s rules. Thank you for your understanding.
Debate House Prices
In order to help keep the Forum a useful, safe and friendly place for our users, discussions around non MoneySaving matters are no longer permitted. This includes wider debates about general house prices, the economy and politics. As a result, we have taken the decision to keep this board permanently closed, but it remains viewable for users who may find some useful information in it. Thank you for your understanding.
📨 Have you signed up to the Forum's new Email Digest yet? Get a selection of trending threads sent straight to your inbox daily, weekly or monthly!
Labour seen as more competent
Comments
-
GeorgeHowell wrote: »That's probably largely true. Large swathes of the British electorate comprises individuals who are shallow, irrational/emotive, short-termist, fairly ignorant, not too diligent (euphemism for lazy), and in denial about many of life's harsh realities. This is the British character. So they want to have their cake and eat it. They expect government to provide :- high growth, jobs for all, superlative public services, low prices and inflation, high wages which go up every year, good pensions, high savings rates and low mortgage rates, ever increasing FTSE and house prices, peace and security, tough policies on crime, immigration, and welfare but not so as to appear illiberal or harsh, no disagreements in the House of Commons, and good weather ..... and for it all to be done with low taxes.
.
Well, yes. But mercifully, with a few temperamental and regional differences here and there, the same is true universally. It's the human condition.0 -
GeorgeHowell wrote: »That's probably largely true. Large swathes of the British electorate comprises individuals who are shallow, irrational/emotive, short-termist, fairly ignorant, not too diligent (euphemism for lazy), and in denial about many of life's harsh realities. This is the British character. So they want to have their cake and eat it. They expect government to provide :- high growth, jobs for all, superlative public services, low prices and inflation, high wages which go up every year, good pensions, high savings rates and low mortgage rates, ever increasing FTSE and house prices, peace and security, tough policies on crime, immigration, and welfare but not so as to appear illiberal or harsh, no disagreements in the House of Commons, and good weather ..... and for it all to be done with low taxes.
Because no party can deliver such a programme they are disillusioned with all politics and politicians.
Clegg's sudden and massive surge of popularity after the first TV debate, which melted away by the time of the election, showed how volatile and shallow are the views of many of our dear electors, and how useless polls are.
Difficult to disagree with the thrust of this....
Sometimes I like to speculate just how successful (or not) a large corporation would be if it was run and managed the same way. In other words, the CEO, FD, and all executive were voted in and kept changing every few years.
One day you have a 'captalist' as CEO. Then the Trade Union guy gets voted in instead. 15% rise in worker salaries.... reinstatement of FS pension scheme..... 8 weeks holiday a year....
As we all realise, such a company would eventually fail and die. If (like Governments) they are protected from dying, the company would languish at the bottom of the pile.
So why do we tolerate such a system to run and manage the country? Why are we surprised that the country is in such a mess?
OK, the Civil Servants (and House of Lords) provide some sort of buffer against total madness/extremism. But this is hardly a substitute for 'good management'.0 -
Loughton_Monkey wrote: »
OK, the Civil Servants (and House of Lords) provide some sort of buffer against total madness/extremism. But this is hardly a substitute for 'good management'.
Perhaps the civil servants are part of the problem not allowing the politicians to actually achieve meaningful change?"If you act like an illiterate man, your learning will never stop... Being uneducated, you have no fear of the future.".....
"big business is parasitic, like a mosquito, whereas I prefer the lighter touch, like that of a butterfly. "A butterfly can suck honey from the flower without damaging it," "Arunachalam Muruganantham0 -
You're a bit behind the thread, old chap - do try to keep up.
I think we'd reached the point where PFI was being hailed as a Good Thing when being used by Labour like a drunken sailor's pay advance, and a Bad Thing when used by the Tories.
It is, of course, bad whoever uses it.
Yes I was trailing the thread but at least not rewriting history as you and one or two others consistently attempt to do on this board
'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
Here we go againThe PFI was introduced in the early 1990s by the Conservatives. It involves private companies being appointed by public bodies to design, build and pay for capital projects such as roads, hospitals and schools. In other words, the private sector puts the money up front and the public sector pays an annual charge over the subsequent 30 years or so.
You are correct PFI was launched in the early 1990s but it is really like comparing apples and pears trying to compare the early PFI with the PFI of Mr Browns time.
The rules in effect in the early PFI meant that little work actually went into the private sector. What became known as the Rylie Rules had to be followed.
It was only after the 1997 review, when Gordon Brown made PFI his own, and changed the terms to make PFI much more attractive to private companies did PFI actually take off.
In 1999 Mr Brown had another review and made it even more profitable for private companies and relaxed the rules even further."The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell. British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)0 -
You are correct PFI was launched in the early 1990s but it is really like comparing apples and pears trying to compare the early PFI with the PFI of Mr Browns time.
The rules in effect in the early PFI meant that little work actually went into the private sector. What became known as the Rylie Rules had to be followed.
From what I can gather the [STRIKE]Rylie [/STRIKE] Ryrie rules were introduced in the early 80's and formally retired in 1989 because big business didn't like them. I do acknowledge that Labour in 1997 further undermined the rigour that was applied to PFI, I agree this was further compounding the previous error and increasing public investment costs ( e.g. govts can borrow more cheaply than private companies and the profit element has to be built in).'Just think for a moment what a prospect that is. A single market without barriers visible or invisible giving you direct and unhindered access to the purchasing power of over 300 million of the worlds wealthiest and most prosperous people' Margaret Thatcher0 -
From what I can gather the [STRIKE]Rylie [/STRIKE] Ryrie rules were introduced in the early 80's and formally retired in 1989 because big business didn't like them. I do acknowledge that Labour in 1997 further undermined the rigour that was applied to PFI, I agree this was further compounding the previous error and increasing public investment costs ( e.g. govts can borrow more cheaply than private companies and the profit element has to be built in).
Apologies for the bad spelling, the Ryrie rules indeed. They were relaxed in two stages 1989 and again in 1992
I would like to think that this current lot have gone back to them but its doubtful.
Politicians of all persuasions seem to prefer short termism and a nice headline in the Daily Mail/Guardian rather than prudence, although for some talking prudence is a vote grabber. "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
Bertrand Russell. British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)0 -
grizzly1911 wrote: »Perhaps the civil servants are part of the problem not allowing the politicians to actually achieve meaningful change?
An interesting subject : does the civil service help to ameliorate the pendulum swing between political philosophies by being a steadying influence, or does it stifle improvement in the quality of life by being ultra-conservative and obstructive ?
My guess is that like all large bureaucracies the civil service is run to serve the interests of those who control it -- ie senior civil servants. They want as quiet and affluent a life as possible.No-one would remember the Good Samaritan if he'd only had good intentions. He had money as well.
The problem with socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money.
Margaret Thatcher0 -
I'm not sure about the argument "we get the government we deserve".
It seems to suggest we had a choice between prudent small state ruling parties and liberal expansive parties. The reality is that all parties have drifted to the centre ground to woo the electorate.
No party can be all things to all voters, yet this is *precisely* what they claim in their manifestos.
The electorate are just guilty of believing them.0 -
I'm not sure about the argument "we get the government we deserve".
It seems to suggest we had a choice between prudent small state ruling parties and liberal expansive parties. The reality is that all parties have drifted to the centre ground to woo the electorate.
No party can be all things to all voters, yet this is *precisely* what they claim in their manifestos.
The electorate are just guilty of believing them.
If its not the parties moving to centre ground...then it will be the markets dumping the pound etc if they don't get their way..
Maybe our taxes could be better spent but whos to deliver this.
Theres many who work in the private sector who question the way their bosses spend the money also..
At the end of the day best part of the spending doesnt need to be influenced by politicians...its basic needs stuff.0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.1K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.5K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.2K Spending & Discounts
- 245.1K Work, Benefits & Business
- 600.7K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.5K Life & Family
- 258.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16.2K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.6K Read-Only Boards