The Polls - Labour Lead At 14 - Is It The Economy?

BertieUK

Wookster wrote: »

Actually it was someone else's fault.

It is hard to find many objective measures on which the country was in a better state in May 2010 than it was before Labour came to power.

To name a few:
- Greater inequality of wealth distribution
- higher levels of personal, public & corporate debt
- bigger state
- biggest deficit
- lower education standards
- higher long term unemployment
- bigger housing shortage
- less energy generating capacity

It is astonishing that people can look back on the labour government's time in office and not see that problems were allowed to grow and fester rather than be sorted out.

With the greatest of respects to you, until you can convince the electorate that your policies are working, instead of living in the past you can only blame yourself if you lose the next election, too late to blame anyone else then I would think.

All the good that the Conservative Government are doing at this moment in time is being totally overshadowed by this problem they have of the blame game.

You have to convince the electorate with positive results not just empty words and promises.

I think that this quotation, if my memory is correct, sums up the situation that the Conservatives have to overcome...

He who blames others has a long way to go on his journey. He who blames himself is halfway there. He who blames no one has arrived

grizzly1911

Wookster wrote: »

Actually it was someone else's fault.

It is hard to find many objective measures on which the country was in a better state in May 2010 than it was before Labour came to power.

To name a few:
- Greater inequality of wealth distribution
- higher levels of personal, public & corporate debt
- bigger state
- biggest deficit
- lower education standards
- higher long term unemployment
- bigger housing shortage
- less energy generating capacity

It is astonishing that people can look back on the labour government's time in office and not see that problems were allowed to grow and fester rather than be sorted out.

All these things come in cycles. Many issues last longer than a parliament and work done by one government doesn't take effect until the next takes up the baton.

It will be interesting to see where we are with the ones I have hilighted in another couple of years. Changing targets doesn't make them any better. Wealth distribution is continuing to spread at pace.

Arguably we still don't have a strategic energy policy even now, a few holes have been filled in the interim.

Driving down debt is a good thing it got out of hand, but that wasn't just labour policy it has been heading that way from the eighties.

We may have less people in public sector jobs, that doesn't mean to say they haven't been placed in the private sector, or they aren't still being paid for out of the public purse, or that the wage bill has decreased.

Labour made some PP decisions, but that isn't to say the cons wouldn't have if they had had the chance - raiding pensions, going to war, going to war for instance.

Generali

grizzly1911 wrote: »

When the brown stuff hits the fan you can usually tell those that can deliver and those that can't, unfortunately when it stops flying it generally lands on those that can.

No different in business you often find the rapid pole climbers are useless at actually achieving anything and simply get promoted out of harms way.

You should read the Peter Principle.

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Principle-Things-Always-Wrong/dp/B002QGSWGA

It's a brilliant book. The premise is simple. If you remain in a meritocratic organisation for some time and you are competent at your job you will be promoted. The longer you stay there and the more competent you are, the higher a position you will attain in the company until you are promoted into a job at which you are incompetent. At that point you will stop being promoted as you have reached your level of incompetence.

That's why almost any manager that has been in a single role for a long period of time or has had a series of sideways moves is incompetent: (s)he has reached his level of incompetence.

Generali

BertieUK wrote: »

He who blames others has a long way to go on his journey. He who blames himself is halfway there. He who blames no one has arrived

"One of the annoying things about believing in free will and individual responsibility is the difficulty of finding somebody to blame your problems on. And when you do find somebody, it’s remarkable how often his picture turns up on your driver’s license" - P.J. O’Rourke

drc

It will be interesting if Labour are re-elected (which is quite likely). I wonder if they will continue with the cuts to the welfare state and public sector jobs or if they will go back to taking money from the magical money tree?

grizzly1911

Generali wrote: »

You should read the Peter Principle.

http://www.amazon.com/Peter-Principle-Things-Always-Wrong/dp/B002QGSWGA

It's a brilliant book. The premise is simple. If you remain in a meritocratic organisation for some time and you are competent at your job you will be promoted. The longer you stay there and the more competent you are, the higher a position you will attain in the company until you are promoted into a job at which you are incompetent. At that point you will stop being promoted as you have reached your level of incompetence.

That's why almost any manager that has been in a single role for a long period of time or has had a series of sideways moves is incompetent: (s)he has reached his level of incompetence.

Thanks Gen I was aware of the principle didn't know what it was called.

I'll add that gem yo my wish list.

I think Dilbert's is worthy of consideration.

Dogbert says that "leadership is nature's way of removing morons from the productive flow". Adams himself explained,[1]

I wrote The Dilbert Principle around the concept that in many cases the least competent, least smart people are promoted, simply because they’re the ones you don’t want doing actual work. You want them ordering the doughnuts and yelling at people for not doing their assignments—you know, the easy work. Your heart surgeons and your computer programmers—your smart people—aren’t in management. That principle was literally happening everywhere.


Adams writes that, in terms of effectiveness, use of the Dilbert principle is akin to a band of gorillas choosing an alpha-squirrel to lead them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dilbert_principle

Yes Minister ring any bells.

coastline

drc wrote: »

It will be interesting if Labour are re-elected (which is quite likely). I wonder if they will continue with the cuts to the welfare state and public sector jobs or if they will go back to taking money from the magical money tree?

Of course they will make cuts...all parties were committed to cuts in 2010..it was in the manifesto...reduce the deficit to £80bn by 2015-16.
All politicians are playing around...the blame game...an insult to the voters...nothing changes.
When Cameron was asked what he would do in 2010...he didn't answer....lets look at the figures first....in other words he didn't want to trip up..
Its time to leave the deficit out of things...everytime anyones questioned on TV...oh we can't do anything...its the deficit.
Why..why is this ??....everthings financed.. its being tackled and theres £700bn to spend one way or another.
What if there was no deficit...a balanced budget... what would politicians say then...the trouble is theres no growth worldwide so the wheels are stuck.. Trouble is they ALL want to borrow a bit more...put it on the national debt...they've all done it for decades.
The national debts been there a century...and always will be...just like a homeowner has a mortgage.
A balanced budget would only dent the interest payments of £60bn..not wipe them out...another myth..
What does a homeowner do...they make adjustments and get on with life...a second hand car ...holiday..new carpets...they just get on with it.
They don't blame a mortgage every day...but our politicians do if it gets them out of a corner...we need people who can lead and change things it doesn't all cost money...as I've said we're still spending £700bn a year.
Merry Xmas..;)

N1AK

BertieUK wrote: »

The collapse of the £5bn West Coast Main Line deal will come at "a significant cost to the taxpayer", a National Audit Office report says, this mornings headline.

Perhaps you'd like to find and quote the bit of the report that says the government is responsible; good luck finding it.

I take comfort in knowing they haven't managed to match the last Labour lots incompetency which ended up with us having to spend more to cancel aircraft carriers than they would cost to build!

BertieUK

N1AK wrote: »

Perhaps you'd like to find and quote the bit of the report that says the government is responsible; good luck finding it.

I take comfort in knowing they haven't managed to match the last Labour lots incompetency which ended up with us having to spend more to cancel aircraft carriers than they would cost to build!

Are you saying that the contents of this report are incorrect?

I think that dwelling on someone elses incompetency is not a good reflection on present policies if they are not working. Lead by example surely.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20634670

Wookster

drc wrote: »

It will be interesting if Labour are re-elected (which is quite likely). I wonder if they will continue with the cuts to the welfare state and public sector jobs or if they will go back to taking money from the magical money tree?

I don't think Labour is capable of pairing back spending. Their whole premise is based on an infinite supply of money from the miracle money tree. Its their DNA and it is never going to change.