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!
40 U Turnns On Economy-Now Alcohol
Comments
-
-
Thrugelmir wrote: »How often you do believe that the Cabinet is in 100% agreement on any subject?
I would be concerned if there wasn't differing opinion.
Certainly, that is what is meant to happen within our system of Government, but once a policy decision is made, then that should be that.
No Government minister should come to Parliament and make a Government policy announcement without full agreement. That is how our system of Government is meant to work.
The minister made a policy announcement in Parliament.
Now that very same minister is alleged to be one of those who is agitating against the very policy announced.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
Some say it's quite a good thing Gov't are able to make u-turns in response to general resistance to a new policy idea.
It is. If the consultation that was announced as part of the overall policy shows that there are reasons not to follow through with the original policy, then changing or dropping that policy is the only sensible thing a Government should do.
But that change in policy should be agreed within the Cabinet and Government, not played out as a soap opera in the media.
I repeat my original post.Originally Posted by purch
This does make the Government look even more pathetic and divided than ever.
Not for the possibility that after the consultation period, they might change their policy, that is the correct (and strong) course of action for any Government to take if required, but for the public disagreement and agitating that can only undermine the credibility of this Government.'In nature, there are neither rewards nor punishments - there are Consequences.'0 -
It is the nature of modern politics that nothing is secret for more than a day or so.
It is therefore impossible for the cabinet to develop policies in unison, as long before an agreement was reached the policies would be leaked.
So, governments fly lots of kites comprising half baked ideas.
It's difficult to see how it could realistically work otherwise.
In the end, the actual policies that are implemented, are the one's that count.0 -
Coalition Gov't are like this.
Some say it's quite a good thing Gov't are able to make u-turns in response to general resistance to a new policy idea.
Trouble is this is blue on blue, so to speak
'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 -
Certainly, that is what is meant to happen within our system of Government, but once a policy decision is made, then that should be that.
People say many things everyday. The practical implementation is often more complex than originally thought. Or other factors not previously considered come to light. In all my years of business I've rarely seen "policy" move in a straight line.0 -
Shame. looking forward for the dirty peoples habit to be cut.
Looks like the Supermarket lobbyists won.0 -
No.
This was a Government proposal, not a policy dictated by the Prime Minister.
If the proposal is dropped because of responses to the "consultation" then fine enough.
However the reports today, to which this thread refer are showing that there is a split within the Government over this policy.
So it does, in my opinion show that the Government is divided on
L a matter that should have been decided upon before making the previous announcements of a 45p minimum price and beginning a "consultation" process.
Quite why you feel the need to ask me if I want a is baffling.
Personally I consider the proposal to be ludicrous, and unlikely to achieve it's stated aims and as such I am against it.
However that does not stop me thinking that this change to the stated policy of the Government only shows it to be weak and divided on a policy that should have been agreed upon already.
Hopefully this has gone some way to explain "why" I made my previous comment that appears to have upset you.
Upset? I was just asking, i dont understand why people are against the cabinet changing its mind and blocking a policy. I think people are too used to Blairs presidential style government where the cabinet held little real power and so appeared 'united'Faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.0 -
Graham_Devon wrote: »Is it?
Could we have called the Thatcher government weak?
No strong government ever loses an election does it?0 -
http://www.standard.co.uk/panewsfeeds/article7800130.ece/ALTERNATES/w460/
I hope posh boy is looking over his shoulder?0
This discussion has been closed.
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply
Categories
- All Categories
- 352.4K Banking & Borrowing
- 253.7K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 454.4K Spending & Discounts
- 245.4K Work, Benefits & Business
- 601.2K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 177.6K Life & Family
- 259.3K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 37.7K Read-Only Boards