The Tories say..

[TomCat84]

I suppose my view is grounded in the belief that to ascend to the highest point means hard work and sacrifice, when all QEII had to do was be born. How is it cheaper than a Presidential system, and how would it be any cheaper if Britain stuck with just a Parliament and PM?

 

[dandelion]

You know, being an American citizen, I don't know how much water my opinion carries, but a good start would be getting rid of the monarchy. The idea that anyone deserves to be head of state because of his/her birth is repugnant really.

The monarchy has two great benfits. One is that its a great tourist draw and people, noteably americans, like to come and watch. The other is that she is a rubber stamp for the prime minister. This last is particularly considered a benefit by the prime minister, who coincidentally is the only person in a position to change the setup.

The US system of gevernment was modelled on the british. Three centres of power in tension. The monarch who ran the government, the house of lords which represented powerful individiduals and warlords, the commons which represented the common people. Unfortunately, however you are gettin on, our system fell to pieces. The lords lost their position in society over the years until finally the house of lords was not representative of anything much and was emasculated of its powers. The monarch has lots of powers, in fact nowadyas they grow every year, but is only permitted to exercise them on the instructions of the prime minister. Total reverse of the historical position where the monarch chose the prime minister and gave him orders. So basically the current position suits the political parties perfectly. The party which has 1 more than half votes in the house of commons gets to pick the prime minister, who then has absolute power to do pretty much everything, and if there isnt a power already can soon enough create one.

I think this is *#£$%^&. For my money id be much happier with a monarch who did what she was paid for and said 'no' sometimes. Whats the point of a monarcical veto on legislation if it is never ever used? The house of lords represents no one and the house of commons represents paid up members of the labour and conservative parties. None of it represents me. The sooner anyone is elected who might change this system the better, which has always been the best reason for voting lib dem. Thank god for the EU, which is the only institution able to moderate some of the worst excesses of westminster.

 

[dandelion]

Much of the macroeconomic policy will be the same whoever is in charge. There must be reductions in the debt. The rule of thumb with any country, anwhere, any politics is that you have to do this about 20% through increased tax and 80% through public sector cuts. If you increase tax more than about 20% you kill the recovery (and trying to target taxes on certain groups is not particularly effective).

So thats 130 billion of spending cuts, or sacking 1 million government employees. Its this argument which demonstrates the nonsense of the conservative cut in NI contributions. Whether or not this in itself has a marginal effect on reducing employment, the immediate effect of cutting government spending on such a scale is very stark and even worse.

The problem is how the markets will react. They will have no confidence in a hung parliament. Hung parliaments cause uncertainty and markets hate uncertainty. The uncertainty risks our credit rating and could well tip us into a debt spiral.

Elsewhere I asked you to justify this statement, give us some examples of hung parliaments which have had bad outcomes. Both world wars were conducted by coalition governments which acted by consensus.

Absolute parlimentary majorities are something of a modern invention. Markets reacted well to the last liberal-labour coalition government, probably because they though people were sitting down and sorting their differences rather than bickering endlessly. It would be much the best outcome if we got 1/4 lab 1/4 con 1/3 lib plus the various other small parties and they decided together how to fix this mess. Furthermore, the Queen ought to refuse any suggestion of a further dissolution until they came to their senses and agreed what to do. Perhaps she should appoint nick clegg prime minister and refuse to give the job to anyone else unless they could agree an alternative. Several people have joked lately about the unlikelihood of his becoming prime minister, but it just might make sense.

 

[D_Relentless Original]

You know, being an American citizen, I don't know how much water my opinion carries, but a good start would be getting rid of the monarchy. The idea that anyone deserves to be head of state because of his/her birth is repugnant really.

None at all .

In 2001 the British tourist industry received an estimated 148 million pounds of revenue due to the Monarchy. One only has to go to London to see the swarms of tourists gathering round all the Royal landmarks like Buckingham Palace and the Tower of London. In addition to the money brought in by tourists, various members of the royal family have founded or are involved in charitable organisations such as The Prince's Trust and Save the Children of which Princess Anne is the president.

How much does the President bring in?

 

[superbot]

I bet HM laughed and laughed and laughed herself stupid over the MP's expenses row.All the years those sanctimoneous Socialist MP's banged on about the expense of the monarchy whilst they were using the tax payer to pay into their John Lewis accounts.Sodding MP's,what a f**k**g nerve they've ALL got,making out that everything's now all ok.We need a REVOLUTION!!!!

 

[Jason]

Elsewhere I asked you to justify this statement, give us some examples of hung parliaments which have had bad outcomes. Both world wars were conducted by coalition governments which acted by consensus.

The UK has few examples of hung parliaments, and the war-time coalitions were not comparable - rather they were national unity governments. The Lib-Lab pact was a pact, again a bit different. Indeed there would be economic logic in Lab and Lib Dems fighting this election campaign together as a pact.

The justification for the assertion that a hung parliament would be a major problem is through the views given by entrepreneurs and economists in the UK and overseas, and which are found throughout the FT day after day. Yes it is possible to find the very occasional entrepreneur or economist who says a hung parliament would be a good thing (some of them probably believe the world is flat as well) but they are very, very few. Most of the people with financial power think a hung parliament would be a bad thing. It is in keeping with the market view that just about any uncertainty is a bad thing, and this is just what a hung parliament causes. The likes of George Soros would move against Britain - and there are plenty like him. And such people have power. It would not be a verdict on how well or badly a hung parliament performed, but simply that it was a hung parliament.

If we get this catastrophe we are all going to get poor, even if the politicians make the best possibile decisions at every stage. We would be better off with a strong government even if the government makes mistakes.

The present popular idea that we all hate politicians and think a hung parliament would be a good thing is economic illiteracy. Instead fear a hung parliament. Have nightmares about it. A hung parliament is a hung Britain.

 

[Jason]

We need a REVOLUTION!!!!

I can't resist it! We had a glorious one in 1688 kicking out a nasty and corrupt king. We need an equally glorious one in 2010 to kick out a nasty and corrupt socialist government. :biggrin1:

 

[Incocknito]

I think a lot of people are disillusioned with Government and the political system in general (in the UK) after the expenses row; if they weren't disillusioned before it.

To be honest, Cameron just irritates me. All he ever does is put Labour down. He couldn't put the Lib Dems down so he actually said:

'If you're going to vote Lib Dem you may as well vote Conservative'

That is the kind of party the Tories are. They have no substance and no great ideas of their own.

If anything I'm more persuaded by and have more faith in the Lib Dems. And that shocks me.

 

[superbot]

Bring back the Duchess of Dulwich!She didn't care whether people loved her or not.What you saw is what you got.Can you imagine ANY party leader today brave enough to put themselves 'out there' like she did?? The Brown creature was apologising today for not doing more to curb the excess's of the banking industries bonus culture.Well lets face it Mr Brown,you were only Chancellor for 10 years,you probably didn't know it was all going on!!!!!!!!!!!!!?

 

[dandelion]

The UK has few examples of hung parliaments, and the war-time coalitions were not comparable - rather they were national unity governments.

as far as I can make out WWII was a conservative majority but WWI was a well and truly hung parliament.

The Lib-Lab pact was a pact, again a bit different.

Two parties in a parliament where none had overall control agreed to cooperate? Not hung?

Indeed there would be economic logic in Lab and Lib Dems fighting this election campaign together as a pact.

Why? they are separate parties with separte views who are in competition for votes. What I find difficult to understand is why parties once elected should not make the best of the electorates choices and cooperate instead of squabbling. Knockabout opposition simply for the sake of disagreeing with other parties is what we electors all hate.

The justification for the assertion that a hung parliament would be a major problem is through the views given by entrepreneurs and economists in the UK and overseas, and which are found throughout the FT day after day.

You mean bankers hate the idea of liberals having any influence on government, when the libs have said they will sort out the financial system as a priority? gee, thats a surprise. Rather like company managers saying they prefer the party which promises to tax them less. Wow.

The likes of George Soros would move against Britain - and there are plenty like him.

And you reckon bankers are not the enemy and do not need firmer controls???

If we get this catastrophe we are all going to get poor, even if the politicians make the best possibile decisions at every stage. We would be better off with a strong government even if the government makes mistakes.

As I already said, at times in history when we most needed strong government politicians have voluntarily formed coalition governments. Right now neither lab or con seems to think this is necessary, so we have to force them to it by engineering a hung paliament.

Instead fear a hung parliament. Have nightmares about it. A hung parliament is a hung Britain.

As I also already said, give us an example or two when it has caused any problem for the country. Someone is having nightmares, certainly, but I think its conservative and labour supporters.

 

[Jason]

An interesting hung parliament outcome would be if the Conservatives are the largest single party but unable to make a minority administration work and ................














.................. do a deal with Labour so that Darling is Chancellor.

The Lib Dems have nothing to offer the Conservatives. They have no experience of government. Their proposed budget is not worth taking seriously. Their political discussion seems stuck at the level of "a plague on both your houses". They would apparently want a Lib Dem chancellor and electoral reform, which is way to high a price for a party that might poll 20%, if that. Why should the Conservatives deal with them?

Darling by contrast has the exerience of doing the job. He has a degree of sense - it's a shame Brown unleashed the "dogs of hell" on him and won't let him put through sensible budgets. Darling also has a cohort of supporters within Labour, certainly enough to support a coalition government.

I suspect it would depend on Darling. I imagine he will have been sounded out. Is it just me or is he being very quiet in Labour's campaign? What he apparently wanted to do (as opposed to what Brown made him do) in the last three budgets is pretty close to Conservative ideas.

 

[Drifterwood]

I suppose my view is grounded in the belief that to ascend to the highest point means hard work and sacrifice, when all QEII had to do was be born.

I don't disagree with you and the truth is that in modern Britain, the aristocracy is all but finished, save those who earn their way.

You do though get the odd gem like her Maj whose life has been mostly about hard work and sacrifice. Even us republican sympathisers recognise this.

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

HM is timeless figure. I can see why you'd want to keep her, and the title. I had no idea (thks Dandy) that she had the power of the veto. Makes sense as our Exec branch wields the same.

All the conservative-liberal arguments always hinge on variations of the present; slightly more here, less there. Wouldn't it make more sense to agree upon what is the appropriate size of government and tax and spend accordingly? Isn't that how most of us manage our own finances?

One thing I do think about your national position, and here I'm probably in agreement with Jason, is that excessive taxation on the financial sector will rob the UK of it's principal money maker. You know the EU is sharpening their knives at the thought of wresting more of the financial markets onto the continent. Whatever you think of Anglo-Saxon capitalism, surely this would not be a great development for the UK. Witness how our Sarbanes-Oxley handed back to London, with it's more liberal regulation, the crown of world financial center. Your new banker's tax is surely causing a financial diaspora of sorts.

No doubt, given his background, being descended from stock brokers, and the former head of HSBC, Cameron is very sensitive to all this, and judging by his scholastic rep, the guy's no fop. His position on Iraq seems a bit John Kerryesque double speak, as I was against the war before I was for it. I would not know what to make of his idea of measuring economic well being by a happiness metric. And lastly what about this Lord Ashcroft business where money is being funneled to Cameron through his company?

 

[Drifterwood]

One thing I do think about your national position, and here I'm probably in agreement with Jason, is that excessive taxation on the financial sector will rob the UK of it's principal money maker.

This situation is completely predictable and is just like when a business partnership goes wrong between people who weren't right for each other in the first place. Gordon is like a petulant child who now thinks he didn't get enough out of the deal and wants to blame the other side. It doesn't wash with me.

 

[dandelion]

HM is timeless figure. I can see why you'd want to keep her, and the title. I had no idea (thks Dandy) that she had the power of the veto. Makes sense as our Exec branch wields the same.

She has enormous powers. Once upon the time parliament spent centuries robbing the monarch of powers, but its spent the last century giving them back...on the understanding that she will only ever do what the prime minister says. Wanna appoint a bishop?

One thing I do think about your national position, and here I'm probably in agreement with Jason, is that excessive taxation on the financial sector will rob the UK of it's principal money maker.

well thees a question. How much is too much? Theyre hardly going to 'well actually we like it here so we wouldnt go if you dibled the tax'. Aside from that, if we didnt have such a reliance on finance we would not now be in such a sustained recession. If there was a lot less available money, we would unquestionably have vastly less personal debt. Share prices would be lower, but yields would be the same. House prices would be nuch lower, and most people spend most money on housing costs, which is totally wasted.

 

[dandelion]

An interesting hung parliament outcome would be if the Conservatives are the largest single party but unable to make a minority administration work and ............................. do a deal with Labour so that Darling is Chancellor.

Gordon Brown, surely

The Lib Dems have nothing to offer the Conservatives. . They would apparently want a Lib Dem chancellor and electoral reform, which is way to high a price for a party that might poll 20%, if that.

20%? so if the cons got 40%, the libs would be bringing to government 1/3 of its support, so should get their way 1/3 of the time. Chancellor is generally reckoned the number 2 spot in government, so obviously the second party would deserve it if it wanted.

Now electoral reform, so that we had fair elections. Wouldnt the conservatives as true servants of the people want that?

Why should the Conservatives deal with them?

I cant think. Maybe because thats what the voters wanted?

 

[D_Tully Tunnelrat]

She has enormous powers. Once upon the time parliament spent centuries robbing the monarch of powers, but its spent the last century giving them back...on the understanding that she will only ever do what the prime minister says. Wanna appoint a bishop?

Fascinating. In truth, America never really killed the King/Queen, either, unlike the French. That's a hell of a tacit understanding. One can only hope the next wearer of the Crown is as compliant.

well thees a question. How much is too much? Theyre hardly going to 'well actually we like it here so we wouldnt go if you dibled the tax'. Aside from that, if we didnt have such a reliance on finance we would not now be in such a sustained recession. If there was a lot less available money, we would unquestionably have vastly less personal debt. Share prices would be lower, but yields would be the same. House prices would be nuch lower, and most people spend most money on housing costs, which is totally wasted.

All points well taken. Who knows the correct answer? The issues for the UK are that without finance, and an ever diminishing flow from the North Sea, and with chronic underinvestment in manufacturing, and infrastructure, where will the growth come from? Th goosing of private profits, via lax regulation, low rates, and taxes has swung to the other end of the pendulum - it's taken 60 years. How to re-balance without giving up the Golden Goose?

The dilemma all developed countries now face is how to contend with the deflation of a full employment model in Asia. This over capacity of labor has pushed down wages across the developed world, at the same time making manufactured goods less expensive. At some point the balance tips - does the West modify tax laws, god-forbid tariffs, or does China become wealthy enough, just in time, to consume more of what they produce?

60% of all Chinese exports are produced by Western owned companies. We are importing deflation, and offsetting it with ridiculously low rates, increased debt - god forbid rates rise. The UK Gov spends 50% of every pound of GDP, and borrows 25% of every pound spent. Those are scary numbers.

 

[Sergeant_Torpedo]

One can always tell the party political individual (if that isn't an oxymoron), right wingers call Labour party supporters socialists, the word tory is pre Labour party and refers to 18th century Irish ruffians (quite accurate I think) so using it doesn't mean you are a Labourite. You will get the government you deserve.

 

[superbot]

One can always tell the party political individual (if that isn't an oxymoron), right wingers call Labour party supporters socialists, the word tory is pre Labour party and refers to 18th century Irish ruffians (quite accurate I think) so using it doesn't mean you are a Labourite. You will get the government you deserve.

Why does someone have to be a right winger to call the Labour 'shower of shite' Socialists? That's what the are,mind you if they were REAL Socialists of the old school they'd be totally unelectable! They're basically following Thatchers policies....

 

[Levi]

She has enormous powers. Once upon the time parliament spent centuries robbing the monarch of powers, but its spent the last century giving them back...on the understanding that she will only ever do what the prime minister says. Wanna appoint a bishop?


well thees a question. How much is too much? Theyre hardly going to 'well actually we like it here so we wouldnt go if you dibled the tax'. Aside from that, if we didnt have such a reliance on finance we would not now be in such a sustained recession. If there was a lot less available money, we would unquestionably have vastly less personal debt. Share prices would be lower, but yields would be the same. House prices would be nuch lower, and most people spend most money on housing costs, which is totally wasted.

The Queen in reality has no power whatsoever and quite rightly, she would never attempt and she would never be allowed to use her power of veto, for her to do so would in all likelyhood spark massive civil unrest.