David Titan wrote:... Under this Liberal Conservative coalition government this country is a better place now than it was in 2010 - ...
Borrowing and debt are up (hugely), long term unemployment is up, youth unemployment is up, wages and incomes of the bottom 95% have stagnated or depreciated against inflation, part-time working is up, zero-hours contracts are up, child poverty is up. And growth was 0.7% last quarter, whoop-de-doo, take London out of the equation and large parts of the country are still in negative figures. Yep, this country is a better place now, yes sirree.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
David Titan wrote:No. Actually I have been reading the Telegraph. Historically both parties have been as bad as each other. At least now though one party is willing to give the British people a say over whether they wish to remain part of the EU.
Regarding David Cameron personally, although I have many ideological differences with him it is completely unfair to refer to him as an overgrown schoolboy. Under this Liberal Conservative coalition government this country is a better place now than it was in 2010 - crime is down, immigration is down, the economy is growing, taxes are down, investment in infrastructure is up, the number of speed cameras is down, the deficit is smaller, job creation is up, education standards are improving for the first time in 40 years - and for me personally I am able to better reap the benefits of the fruits of my labour.
The test of a good government is whether it leaves office with the country in a better shape than when it entered into office. The Attlee government, the subsequent Tory governments in the 50s/early 60s, the Thatcher government and this Coalition government (assuming it breaks up in 2015) have all achieved it. Credit should be given to Clegg and Cameron - they have proven far more capable in leading this country than Major, Blair or Brown.
Excellent post.
Don't forget welfare reform and more private sector jobs.
This is not a government achievement. Crime has been on a downward trajectory all across the developed world, It's ridiculous to give the government credit for this.
David Titan wrote:immigration is down
Net immigration is slightly down, but it's still 75% above the government's target, and last year it increased.
David Titan wrote: the economy is growing
This is not a government achievement. The economy spends most of its time growing, that doesn't mean we should congratulate the government for this fact of life. The important question is, are the government having a positive or negative impact on growth? To which the answer is: The government's measures are slowing economic growth because they are overseeing huge spending cuts, at a time when the country is in a liquidity trap and the fiscal multiplier is much larger than normal.
David Titan wrote:taxes are down
This is not a government achievement. Maybe if they weren't cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals, and large corporations, they would have enough money to avoid some of the cuts to services and benefits that are devastating some of the country's poorest and most vulnerable people.
David Titan wrote:investment in infrastructure is up
David Titan wrote: the number of speed cameras is down
This is not a government achievement. If you don't want to be fined for speeding, don't speed.
David Titan wrote:the deficit is smaller
This is not a government achievement. The government has spectacularly missed its own targets on this one. The deficit is higher than it was going to be under Labour plans which Osborne derided for not cutting the deficit fast enough.
David Titan wrote:job creation is up
This is not a government achievement - yes that is what tends to happen after a recession. It would probably be higher had the government not ruined economic growth with their self defeating austerity measures.
David Titan wrote:education standards are improving for the first time in 40 years
This is factually incorrect. Exactly what quantitative evidence have you seen which suggests this? Do you genuinely think education standards didn't increase at all from 1970-2010? If so then you are a moron.
David Titan wrote:The test of a good government is whether it leaves office with the country in a better shape than when it entered into office. The Attlee government, the subsequent Tory governments in the 50s/early 60s, the Thatcher government and this Coalition government (assuming it breaks up in 2015) have all achieved it. Credit should be given to Clegg and Cameron - they have proven far more capable in leading this country than Major, Blair or Brown.
So the test of a good government isn't have they defended the weakest most vulnerable in society? Have they made the country fairer? Have they laid the foundations for a prosperous future for the country? Have they enhanced Britain's position on the global stage?
Instead it roughly translates as: if a government comes in power just after a global recession, then regardless of the government's policies the country will be in a better position when they leave, therefore they have been successful. Can you genuinely not see a problem with that?
David Titan wrote:crime is down
This is not a government achievement. Crime has been on a downward trajectory all across the developed world, It's ridiculous to give the government credit for this.
David Titan wrote:immigration is down
Net immigration is slightly down, but it's still 75% above the government's target, and last year it increased.
David Titan wrote: the economy is growing
This is not a government achievement. The economy spends most of its time growing, that doesn't mean we should congratulate the government for this fact of life. The important question is, are the government having a positive or negative impact on growth? To which the answer is: The government's measures are slowing economic growth because they are overseeing huge spending cuts, at a time when the country is in a liquidity trap and the fiscal multiplier is much larger than normal.
David Titan wrote:taxes are down
This is not a government achievement. Maybe if they weren't cutting taxes for the wealthiest individuals, and large corporations, they would have enough money to avoid some of the cuts to services and benefits that are devastating some of the country's poorest and most vulnerable people.
David Titan wrote:investment in infrastructure is up
David Titan wrote: the number of speed cameras is down
This is not a government achievement. If you don't want to be fined for speeding, don't speed.
David Titan wrote:the deficit is smaller
This is not a government achievement. The government has spectacularly missed its own targets on this one. The deficit is higher than it was going to be under Labour plans which Osborne derided for not cutting the deficit fast enough.
David Titan wrote:job creation is up
This is not a government achievement - yes that is what tends to happen after a recession. It would probably be higher had the government not ruined economic growth with their self defeating austerity measures.
David Titan wrote:education standards are improving for the first time in 40 years
This is factually incorrect. Exactly what quantitative evidence have you seen which suggests this? Do you genuinely think education standards didn't increase at all from 1970-2010? If so then you are a moron.
David Titan wrote:The test of a good government is whether it leaves office with the country in a better shape than when it entered into office. The Attlee government, the subsequent Tory governments in the 50s/early 60s, the Thatcher government and this Coalition government (assuming it breaks up in 2015) have all achieved it. Credit should be given to Clegg and Cameron - they have proven far more capable in leading this country than Major, Blair or Brown.
So the test of a good government isn't have they defended the weakest most vulnerable in society? Have they made the country fairer? Have they laid the foundations for a prosperous future for the country? Have they enhanced Britain's position on the global stage?
Instead it roughly translates as: if a government comes in power just after a global recession, then regardless of the government's policies the country will be in a better position when they leave, therefore they have been successful. Can you genuinely not see a problem with that?
Joined: Dec 22 2001 Posts: 14395 Location: Chester
Stand-Offish wrote:Call me cynical, but I suspect the more we try to cut down the more the price will rise to maintain profits.
This thought crossed my mind as well. If we all went solar and ground sourced heat pumps etc demand would drop so theoretically so should prices but I think that would only occur if there was over production and a surplus of supply. I can't ever see that being the case because as demand drops production of things like gas and oil is scaled back.
I see one MP was lamenting the fact there isn't true competition within the market such that when one energy provider ups prices they all do and not one of them holds fast and tries to attract more customers by undercutting the rest.
I am not sure if they could given they all price gas two years in advance and adopt hedging strategies to try and get a good deal for themselves. So they are all paying more or less the same price so unless any of them are particularly good or bad at hedging there won't be much variance.
So this is just another reason why it makes me think every way you look at trying to get to the capitalist nirvana of competition driving prices down it's never going to happen with gas production.
The only things you can do apart from nationalise it all again (which would get my vote) is ensure they aren't acting as cartels, aren't profiteering and also try and reform the entire wholesale market or maybe even nationalise that if you have natural gas resources yourself as a country. It seems bonkers to produce the stuff if you can, sell it onto a market then have energy companies buy it back.
Last league derby at Central Park 5/9/1999: Wigan 28 St. Helens 20 Last league derby at Knowsley Road 2/4/2010: St. Helens 10 Wigan 18
DaveO wrote:...The only things you can do apart from nationalise it all again (which would get my vote) is ensure they aren't acting as cartels, aren't profiteering and also try and reform the entire wholesale market or maybe even nationalise that if you have natural gas resources yourself as a country. It seems bonkers to produce the stuff if you can, sell it onto a market then have energy companies buy it back.
Let's see what the Energy company bosses come up with when questioned in Westminster today. I can't a cartel being provable as it's most likely not a classic cartel where they agree amongst themselves what price to rig at. Rather it's that they are happy to copy each other and put prices up way more than cost rises.
What is the regulator doing about all this? I agree with you, as the notion of genuine competition is demonstrably proven not to exist in this market, it's time to re-nationalise.
Freedom without Socialism is privilege and injustice. Socialism without freedom is slavery and brutality.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 40 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
