Cameron wants another seven years as PM...

Thrugelmir

Zero_Sum wrote: »

BTW I don't actually recall the Tories saying what they'd do in power up until about March 2010

So the Tories have had little time to address the issues. Going to take time to find solutions to the problems. Not helped by the uncertainty in other parts of the world. The global economy is slowing. So there's no quick fixes.

BertieUK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

those threads were posted in the house buying / renting forum, asking specific questions about something. they weren't intended to provoke a lengthy discussion. i say this just in case you were labouring under the misapprehension that every forum on this site is for discussing how much better things would be with socialists running the place and david cameron and george osborne being thrown in a well. (for the avoidance of doubt i'm with you on throwing george in the well [you must grab him by his horns]).

but anyway, back to your point. were you actually surprised that david cameron wants to win the next election and be PM for another term.

Getting back on track for a moment I would like the PM and his team forge a policy that we, sorry I and the ground force, could be confident in getting the country back on course again by using stiffer measures that would curb wastage of tax payers money.

David Cameron may have lost many voters with his benefit reductions ie the higher earners losing benefits, but in doing so he could attract twice as many voters than he has lost.

I vote for the party that I believe is good for the country and for me. Sefish I may be, but you cannot spend what you have not earned. Hope you get my drift.

Zero_Sum

Thrugelmir wrote: »

So the Tories have had little time to address the issues. Going to take time to find solutions to the problems. Not helped by the uncertainty in other parts of the world. The global economy is slowing. So there's no quick fixes.

The Tories have made that many twist & u-turns in last couple of years, it just looks like they're making it up as they go along. The child benefit farce, being a current example.

zagubov

A._Badger wrote: »

But if it doesn't work in state hands (British Rail, Royal Mail etc) , or in private hands (the water companies, British Gas etc) then what?

Both systems clearly have their problems and those problems stem from a lack of competition. Without a constant stimulus to get better, most operations get worse.

Well if businesses won't work in state or private hands there's other alternatives ownership models such as
Crown Corporations
The Labour Movement
Co-ops such as Mondragon or John Lewis Partnership or the Building Societies
Communes such the Kibbutz movement
or no-real-ownership models such as the Airdrie Savings bank (the UK's last "real" TSB)

Maybe the big problem isn'tthe fact that there's one type of ownership but more the fact that there are monopolies in the first place. How competition can be introduced might be more important (although I don't believe that competition is necessarily the magic cure for everything).

Much of the industry in China's economic boom is owned via state banks, IIRC.
Is the capitalist element causing growth or is it the free(ish) mraket competition aspect?

chewmylegoff

BertieUK wrote: »

Getting back on track for a moment I would like the PM and his team forge a policy that we, sorry I and the ground force, could be confident in getting the country back on course again by using stiffer measures that would curb wastage of tax payers money.

David Cameron may have lost many voters with his benefit reductions ie the higher earners losing benefits, but in doing so he could attract twice as many voters than he has lost.

I vote for the party that I believe is good for the country and for me. Sefish I may be, but you cannot spend what you have not earned. Hope you get my drift.

Yes I understand completely, but what does this have to do with the question, or this thread. We all want the government to sort the country out. We also all hope a comet doesn't collide with the earth. Neither is relevant to the question - were you surprised to learn that Cameron wants another term?

grizzly1911

BertieUK wrote: »

Inheritance Tax .. You have lost me now

In 2007 the then Chancellor Gordon Brown confirmed changes to Inheritance Tax in his last Budget address as Chancellor. In this last Budget speech he thoroughly dumbfounded critics who believed that he would make a poor inheritor of the Premiership (as he was then waiting in the sidelines to take Tony Blair’s job) by effectively slashing inheritance tax for a percentage of the population.The Changes

After a long drawn out debate over the years in which the Tories pointed out the failings of an Inheritance tax system that seemed liable to catch more and more people in the Inheritance Tax trap as house prices rose and their estates increased in value, the Labour Party finally buckled and stole the light from the dumbfounded Tories by announcing for themselves a cut in the tax.


http://www.inheritanceissues.co.uk/changes-to-the-law.html

grizzly1911

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yes I understand completely, but what does this have to do with the question, or this thread. We all want the government to sort the country out. We also all hope a comet doesn't collide with the earth. Neither is relevant to the question - were you surprised to learn that Cameron wants another term?

I agree with the point you are making but does it matter, there are lots of inane threads on here. Beats Dancing on Ice or whatever.

A._Badger

zagubov wrote: »

Maybe the big problem isn'tthe fact that there's onetypoe of ownership but more the fact that there are monopolies in the first place. How competition can be introduced might be more important (although I don't believe that competition is necessarily the magic cure for everything).

No, it isn't. But as Adam Smith observed, its absence is invariably against the interests of the customer.

The one thing that is self-evident is that large government likes large business. It's much easier to control. In that regard, there may be little difference, from the customer's perspective, between dealing with a state owned monopoly and a privately owned one.

zagubov wrote: »

Much of the industry in China's economic boom is owned via state banks, IIRC.
Is the capitalist element causing growth or is it the free(ish) mraket competition aspect?

It's far too early to say anything much about China. The more I learn, the less I feel I know (and I'm professionally involved). I just have a sense of perpetually shifting sands.

zagubov

A._Badger wrote: »

No, it isn't. But as Adam Smith observed, its absence is invariably against the interests of the customer.

The one thing that is self-evident is that large government likes large business. It's much easier to control. In that regard, there may be little difference, from the customer's perspective, between dealing with a state owned monopoly and a privately owned one.



It's far too early to say anything much about China. The more I learn, the less I feel I know (and I'm professionally involved). I just have a sense of perpetually shifting sands.

Decades ago a mate went to a lecture given by an ex-military expert who showed how economies would change in the future. He predicted that capitalist countries would develop consumer goods early and that the infrastructure would grow later making things cheaper. In communist coutries the money would go into the infrastructure and industry first and then the consumer good production would expand later.

He predicted that the two curves would eventually converge which sounded unlikely to us, as it was the 80s and there was a big differnential between consumer good availablity between the Western and Eastern blocs. It seemed almost standard that consumer goods were shoddy and scarce behind the Iron Curtain.

The only communist country I ever visited for long was Yugoslavia which did have decent stuff for sale but to be fair I don't think it was behind the Iron Curtain.

I don't always think big business is good for acountry. One thing that bothers me when I visit Scotland is how it's dominated by giant private monopolies. Ask any Scottish relatives or friends what's the no. 1 car dealer /dairy/ bank/ bus company. There's always one big giant one- the no. 2 wll be a long way behind.

BertieUK

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Yes I understand completely, but what does this have to do with the question, or this thread. We all want the government to sort the country out. We also all hope a comet doesn't collide with the earth. Neither is relevant to the question - were you surprised to learn that Cameron wants another term?

To answer your relevant question, I thought that given his popularity, he was only going to get some very rude comments from the many thousands of people that have suffered under his Governments measures. This comment will then give his supporters on here a chance then to blame it all on Labour.

I am coming to the conclusion that there are many on this Forum that do not wish to hear the truth spoken about them by the grass roots population, but at the end of the day without us how boring the Forum would become.

As Grissly1911 says to you there are many insane threads on here and if you do not wish to read them then just pass them by. If truth be known you enjoy being able to give your comments which at times are just as insane as the ones you complain about.