Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Dolph]

The financial crisis was caused by a deregulated financial centre, deregulated by Thatcher.

Then all you needed was the greed of the very wealthy.

Erm, the current regulation system was put in place by Labour. Prior to Labour, banks were regulated by the BoE...

And the financial sector wasn't deregulated, there were plenty of regulations, they just weren't effective, especially after the shift to the tri-partite regulation system that Brown introduced.

Incidentally, what does this have to do with the quote of Brown recognising the need for fiscal responsibility right up until he hit power? He was burning through public debt long a good 6 years before the recession started, even as the economy was growing.

 

[Slam62]

Thank god all the major parties disagree with such a stupid move then...

Raising taxes won't actually increase the revenue raised by a meaningful amount (because Brown has been milking the limit anyway), the only solution is to bring spending down to an affordable level.

No it isn't Thatcher proved beyond doubt that can't grow an economy by cutting it to the bone, you have to invest in the future.

Also the welfare of people is the most important thing in society.

 

[Slam62]

Erm, the current regulation system was put in place by Labour. Prior to Labour, banks were regulated by the BoE...

And the financial sector wasn't deregulated, there were plenty of regulations, they just weren't effective, especially after the shift to the tri-partite regulation system that Brown introduced.

no it wasn't, it was all done by Maggie, what a disaster she was for the uk.

If she had invested in the future instead of giving away tax reductions we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

 

[Dolph]

No it isn't Thatcher proved beyond doubt that can't grow an economy by cutting it to the bone, you have to invest in the future.

Thatcher did invest in the future, she changed the UK economy massively in the long term for the better. It was just a painful process because lots of pointless fat had to be chopped out first. Pretty much like now.

Also the welfare of people is the most important thing in society.

It is, so why punish those who take responsibility for their own welfare with authoritarian redistribution policies designed only to drag everyone down to the same crappy bottom?

 

[Fusion]

I really do think we should adopt proportional representation, the current system is so flawed and is a bit of a mockery in a supposedly one of the world's most stable, free democracies. Only Labour or the Lim Dems have a chance of getting in in my constituency, so voting for anyone else is effectively wasted. We would have more coalition governments yes, but it seems to work well overseas. I fully understand that it isn't in the interest of our big two parties to change things though, and so we'll be struck with first past the post.

 

[Slam62]

Why? Do you not think that the private sector employers, the ones who will ultimately bring us out of a recession and secure good employment figures, are qualified to speak out?

oh do come on you have to be very naiive to think these 'businessmen' care about anything else other than their pay packets

 

[Dolph]

no it wasn't, it was all done by Maggie, what a disaster she was for the uk.

If she had invested in the future instead of giving away tax reductions we wouldn't be in the mess we are.

Yes, it was. the tripartite regulatory setup (BoE, FSA and Treasury) was announced in 1997 by one Gordon Brown...

The SIB that became the FSA created by Thatcher was a very, very different beast.

The legislation you are looking for, specifically, is the Financial services and markets act 2000

I also suggest reviewing the History of the FSA

 

[Slam62]

Thatcher did invest in the future, she changed the UK economy massively in the long term for the better. It was just a painful process because lots of pointless fat had to be chopped out first. Pretty much like now.



It is, so why punish those who take responsibility for their own welfare with authoritarian redistribution policies designed only to drag everyone down to the same crappy bottom?

If you are below about 45, thatcher destroyed your future, it wasn't painful for Thatcher and her chronies. They did very well out of it.

What about the genuine people who really cannot fend for themselves such as the old, the weak etc Society exists to provide for the people, not the other way around.

 

[Slam62]

Yes, it was. the tripartite regulatory setup (BoE, FSA and Treasury) was announced in 1997 by one Gordon Brown...

The SIB that became the FSA created by Thatcher was a very, very different beast.

The legislation you are looking for, specifically, is the Financial services and markets act 2000

I also suggest reviewing the History of the FSA

can't be bothered to check so I'll accept your statement. So why wouldn't the boe and the fsa be capable of regulating the city. Oh because they're full of load of old chronies with their fingers in the trough.

The whole system is wrotten to the core.

 

[Dolph]

If you are below about 45, thatcher destroyed your future, it wasn't painful for Thatcher and her chronies. They did very well out of it.

Really? Are you sure? Would we have been better carrying on as the 'sick man of europe'?

What about the genuine people who really cannot fend for themselves such as the old, the weak etc Society exists to provide for the people, not the other way around.

There are ways to sort that out, but you appear to be confusing the state with society as if they are the same thing, they aren't. The state can't make society through force, which is what Labour tries to do.

You also forget that society needs to have genuine wealth creation in order to be able to afford to help people, and wealth creation doesn't come from state spending in the vast majority of cases (the few exceptions aren't very popular with the left, such as military spending).

 

[Dolph]

can't be bothered to check so I'll accept your statement. So why wouldn't the boe and the fsa be capable of regulating the city. Oh because they're full of load of old chronies with their fingers in the trough.

The whole system is wrotten to the core.

Fundamentally, because the system was badly designed, and hence they could both point at the other one and claim they should have spotted it.

With a single point of responsibility, it's a lot harder to shirk that responsibility if things do go wrong, which in turn makes things more likely to be controlled.

Don't ascribe to malice or conspiracy what can be explained adequately by simple government incompetence.

 

[Mr Jack]

Of course, but they have other backing, too.

Oh, yes. I'm certainly not saying we should dismiss their views out of hand, but - none the less - it's worth considering the interests of the groups backing particular political parties.

Was it not Obama who recently said increasing employment taxes would be a "stupid thing to do"?

Let me be quite clear: I think raising VAT borders on the unforgivable - it is probably the worst tax in the UK tax system and we should be seeking to abolish it not raising it. I do, however, think the Tories promise to "cut" it should have been backed either by a real proposal to cut spending or raise alternative taxes not yet more tenuous claims of efficiency savings. In reality it is very unlikely that Labour's efficiency savings will actually meet their targets let alone the additional Tory savings. That's a big hole in our deficit reduction plans.

And as for Camerons plan to reduce head count by not filling vacant posts - of all the stupid ideas! That's great: rather than working out which posts should be cut we'll leave to the vagaries of who retires or leaves for another job when. Cunning

 

[Slam62]

Really? Are you sure? Would we have been better carrying on as the 'sick man of europe'?



There are ways to sort that out, but you appear to be confusing the state with society as if they are the same thing, they aren't. The state can't make society through force, which is what Labour tries to do.

You also forget that society needs to have genuine wealth creation in order to be able to afford to help people, and wealth creation doesn't come from state spending in the vast majority of cases (the few exceptions aren't very popular with the left, such as military spending).

The state controls society.

Thatcher destroyed uk industry and failed to invest in infrastructure. Whilst giving away the oil revenue, flogging of state assets and reducing taxes.
Mind you labour haven't done any better.

Cameron is going to be another Thatcher just without balls

 

[Dolph]

The state controls society.

No they don't, it's that sort of thinking that's got us into the mess of the last 13 years.

Society is the result of individuals, not the state. The state can fake it, by threatening people to do what it demands, but that's not the same thing at all.

Thatcher destroyed uk industry and failed to invest in infrastructure. Whilst giving away the oil revenue, flogging of state assets and reducing taxes.
Mind you labour haven't done any better.

The 'destroyed' UK industry was mostly destroyed before Thatcher came along, don't confuse turning off the life support with the damage that required it in the first place.

Cameron is going to be another Thatcher just without balls

Maybe, but it could be worse, it could be Brown.

 

[meghatronic]

Cameron is going to be another Thatcher just without balls

It's a start. He can grow them.

 

[Hatter The Mad]

The state controls society.

Thatcher destroyed uk industry and failed to invest in infrastructure. Whilst giving away the oil revenue, flogging of state assets and reducing taxes.
Mind you labour haven't done any better.

Cameron is going to be another Thatcher just without balls

Where do you think this country would be now, on the world stage, with major industries still entirely or at least part-nationalised?

We'd be flagging and spending ourselves into a hole (well, we did the latter anyway - but that is down to Labour incompetence).

 

[Fusion]

It's a start. He can grow them.

He lacks substance, and balls aren't something you acquire. He's trying to be everything to everybody- posing outside Salford Lads' Club and being seen with a pint of cider isn't fooling many.

 

[Naffa]

Anyone that describes themselves as a progressive Conservative is quite blatantly trying to be all things to all people.

 

[Fusion]

Anyone that describes themselves as a progressive Conservative is quite blatantly trying to be all things to all people.

Exactly, oxymoron much?

 

[Dolph]

Anyone that describes themselves as a progressive Conservative is quite blatantly trying to be all things to all people.

No worse than the liberal democrats to be honest, because true liberalism and 'social' democracy tend not to gel that well, as their policies increasingly show. I'd love for the Lib dems to actually be liberal.