The UK General Election Poll

[dandelion]

The currency speculators are sensing a feeding frenzy - there's some interesting chatter out there. The Euro is under threat, and if the UK elects a hung parliament so too is sterling.

Well now, the libs today pointed out that there was no problem while they had a coalition with labour, only when it ceased. You seem to be arguing that 'markets' dislike the idea of a hung parliament. This is nonsense, as you must know being pretty clever. What they could dislike is the notion of a parliament paralysed because there was no majority to accomplish anything. Virtually no one is suggesting that this will happen. At present the money is on a comfortable working majority for a lib-lab agreement of some sort. The failure aluded to before was basically because the two big parties, labour and conservative, refused to work together to form a stable government. So i would suggest blaming them? Right now it is the conservatives who have said they will refuse to work with anyone else to carry out the wishes of the people. So maybe the lesson is do not vote conservative, they are dangerous, vote anyone else.

Of course, an alternative interpretation is that money markets reckon they will make a lot more if the conservatives get into power. That would explain their dislike of the alternative.

Everything I can see in the financial press both printed and on-line is that Kenneth Clarke is correct. The problem (it seems to me) is that the majority of the electorate is unable to understand the financial press. It is much easier and much more comfortable to say that Ken Clarke is lying than to accept the economic reality.

I dont recall exactly what he said, so I wouldnt call him a liar. If he honestly believed that what some people have been suggesting is false, do you really believe he would say so? besides, Alistair Darling said what Clarke said was absolute rubbish. The chancellor ought to know, shouldn't he?

 

[798686]

Suggests that to attack the libs on their euro policy, it would be necessary to admit that Brown has done well.

To a certain degree, at least.

I would have thought you might be more impressed by their commitment not to pass any legislation deepening our commitment to the EU without having a referendum. Or do you think there would be public support for joining the euro if it was put to the test?

That's commendable, but aren't the Tories offering the same guarantee? And no, I don't think there would be huge support for it - but since I don't agree with it (or his pro-european views in general) I don't plan to assist in giving him the chance to follow those inclinations up.

I would remind you that every step in our entering europe has been done either by conservatives or labour, whatever they say officially and both parties reserve the right to go further without asking the people what they think.

True - and not surprising, since all our governments since we joined the EEC, have been either Labour or Conservative. :tongue: I don't agree with their decisions to align us with Europe over the past 30 years, but voting for a party that's still firmly in favour of it would just make things even worse.

I remember this from last time, when Polaris was replaced by Trident. Sheer waste of money? The UK nuclear weapon, not to mention the UK nuclear power program which was always mixed up with nuclear development work and the 'acceptable' face of fuel enrichment, has always been exceedingly costly and as much a matter of national pride as practicality. Come to that, we are probably planning to buy new power stations from abroad.

I think it's more as a deterrent than anything else - the hope that possessing it ourselves, will deter other nations from gaining/using theirs - therefore making nuclear war less likely, rather than more. Also, it hopefully gives us the scope to influence less-stable regimes into slightly more moderate behaviour.

Our new power stations are being planned/built by foreign-owned energy companies such as E.on, RWE and EDF. We did have a world class company (Westinghouse) that specialised in building reactors, but for some reason sold it to Toshiba about 4 years ago (just before deciding nuclear power was, in fact, the solution to our future power-generation shortfall) - meaning we slipped to the bottom of the queue in terms of waiting for plants to be built.

Depends if your pro or anti EU. But I would have thought whichever side you were on, understanding your enemy from the inside would be a benefit.

I suppose - unless you agree with them...

 

[dandelion]

They are not available. No party that is not in government has access to the figures they need to formulate a budget.

This is cobblers. No one in the country believes they could not say exactly what they plan to do if they wanted. They choose not to. The libs seem to have made the best stab at it, and considering they never imagined they were likely to be in a position to carry it out as a majority government, thats pretty good going. However, the conservatives claim they intend to form a majority government without having to make deals over this and that. Youd think they would know what they plan to do. If they don't, why elect them?

All we have is an indication of direction.

No we don't. All we have is a few examples deliberately intended to make a certain impression. Which are meaningless if the cons reserve the right to rip up the whole thing after the election.

In the event of a hung parliament there is no expectation of unpopular decisions being pushed through.

I thought everyone had agreed on 'efficiency savings'? It is labours official position that other cuts in the current financial year would be counter-productive, so they will have a year to decide what to do. The cons official position seems also to be no other cuts now. So what unpopular decisions are we talking about?

Because the Conservatives will not go along with more spending they really cannot do a deal with Lib Dems

The conservatives have not said that any other cuts are needed, and I'm not convinced either lab or lib is planning any net increase in spending. I may be deluded, but I have the definite impression everyone agrees spending cuts are needed, though the conservatives seem to have amassed quite a shopping list of tax cuts. Maybe the others will not be able to agree to these?

, so a hung parliament is a Lib-Lab parliament with more spending and borrowing.

Well not if the cons carry out their tax cuts, which would seriously destabilise the budget and could amount to even more borrowing than lib-lab spending increases.

someone on here on a US thread said the democrats like to tax and spend, whereas Rebuplicans dont like taxes. Sound familiar?

 

[dandelion]

True - and not surprising, since all our governments since we joined the EEC, have been either Labour or Conservative. :tongue: I don't agree with their decisions to align us with Europe over the past 30 years, but voting for a party that's still firmly in favour of it would just make things even worse.

You mean, the libs admit to (or even revel in) being pro-EU. That the others dont admit this, does not mean they arent also. Europe is an issue which divides all parties and always has been, yet as I said both lab and con have from time to time advaced the EU. They will do so again.

the hope that possessing it ourselves, will deter other nations from gaining/using theirs - therefore making nuclear war less likely, rather than more.

I dont know how it started out, but the libs dont seem to be against having nuclear weapons, only against having expensive ones launched from dedicated submarines. Newsnight just said that in 1973 (1963?) a government report said the same result could be acieved for 1/7 the cost using land based missiles. Now we already have submarine launched cruise missiles on non-dedicated and thus more versatile submarines.

 

[798686]

Europe is an issue which divides all parties and always has been, yet as I said both lab and con have from time to time advanced the EU. They will do so again.

Yep, they probably will, unfortunately (possibly by free-will, but more likely as a result of being out-manouevred or bounced into something, or as a trade off for keeping more national control somewhere else). But I'd still rather vote for someone who at least entertains the idea of taking stock of the situation, and trying to regain some national control if at all possible.

Newsnight just said that in 1973 (1963?) a government report said the same result could be achieved for 1/7 the cost using land based missiles. Now we already have submarine launched cruise missiles on non-dedicated and thus more versatile submarines.

If that's true then it would be worth looking into. Although, I guess submarines are a lot easier to move where you need them, and possibly less vulnerable than land-based weapons. It's the nuclear deterrent I'm particularly interested in, and the best balance between cost-effectiveness and functionality (and perceived power too, I guess).

 

[dandelion]

Its always not about what you might like, but what is just good enough.All the ICBM systems have the potential drawback that someone might create effective anti-missile missles. They also suggested on newsnight that China had been proposed as the most realistic target for such weapons. I think, come on, are we really going to build some subs to shoot nuclear missliles at China instead of having some troops to land somewhere and boss people about? The Polaris/Trident systems were designed to saturation destroy an enemy firing like missiles at us. Is it realistic that anyone would want to do this? Perhaps if they were rabidly insane, but in that case just how much security is there in Mutual Assured Destruction. Last time round I questioned what was the point of having a weapon to use against Russia which we would never use unless the US used theirs too, in which case ours would make a negligible difference. There are other ways to deliver a nuke or two so long as its not required within half an hour.

If europe offered to pay the cost, then maybe we could justify them as the EU nuclear defence, but in current financial circumstances its icing on the cake and well be lucky to keep the cake.

 

[dandelion]

By the way, Peter kellner from you Gov polling company was being intervied today and said that when peple were asked who they would really like to win, 49% said liberal. Cant remember the other two but it was 20-something each.
That equates with a liberal majority government.

 

[tomthelad91]

You can't seriously believe articles in the Times about the Lib Dems.
The Times and The Telegraph are the Tories personal newsletters.
In the same way the Guardian might aswell be the New Labour herald.

The fact of the matter is Britain DOES need to join the euro, of course not right now - the lib dems aren't advocating for an immediate application. But have you any idea who much not being in the Euro costs our economy?
It's simple economics. The risks involved for businesses are immense.

60% of UK trade is with the Eurozone. When the Pound rises and falls against the Euro it can add / wipe off MILLIONS from a companies books. This is why the automotive industry is fleeing, they can't take the risk. So Multinational companies operate within the euro zone to minimise their exposure to the risks of exchange rates.

The Euro isn't some big conspiracy - it's there to secure jobs, eliminate risk and essentially strengthen our economy.

 

[Jason]

You seem to be arguing that 'markets' dislike the idea of a hung parliament. This is nonsense, as you must know being pretty clever.

You will make me blush :redface:

But I meant what I said. The money markets would react to a hung parliament. Not a failed hung parliament, just a hung parliament.

There are enormous sums of cash being pushed around by speculators. Right now they are exceptionally volatile. There is unease about the Euro (certainly a feeling that it could be trending down for a long time) and has been for a while, and this may be coming to a head. But what is new is that we are now seeing serious unease about sterling. Ken Clarke - former chancellor - has spoken of a possible sterling crisis. He is simply repeating views which are expressed by the speculators. The scenario is as follows:

* 7th May. Hung parliament.
* Around 14th May. One or more of the three credit ratings agencies downgrades UK.
* Cost of servicing UK debt soars making default look possible.
* Either government introduces austerity programme with humungous public service cuts or cost of debt further soars.
* If they don't make savage cuts, and possibly if they do, sterling devalues sharply.
* IMF intervention needed in about a year.

Floating over this is a possible run on streling. If there is downward pressure it is quite on the cards for currency speculators to trade against sterling - as George Soros did. It could happen on 7th May. Or 6th May. Or tomorrow. Or in a few months time (probably more likely). Or if we get a clear outcome maybe it won't happen.

The point is that it has nothing to do with the quality of government. Rather the very fact of being a hung parliament will trigger the problem.

A good question for voters is "do you want the IMF to set the budget of the UK?"

 

[798686]

You can't seriously believe articles in the Times about the Lib Dems. The Times and The Telegraph are the Tories personal newsletters.

It was mainly about the negative implications about joining the euro. Did you read it, btw (just out of interest)? I generally find the Times one of the most informative and least-biased of the papers I've tried - as far as any of them are, anyway (plus euobserver.com if you want honest, non-biased reporting of EU developments...you're left to draw your own conclusions).

The fact of the matter is Britain DOES need to join the euro, of course not right now.

Why? It has helped tremendously over the past decade to give us control over our own economy, and to respond to the pressures that affect Britain specifically. Also has helped during the current crisis to be able to control our own interest rates, devalue to boost exports, and indulge in quantititive easing, etc.

But have you any idea who much not being in the Euro costs our economy?

Have you? It's very hard to put an exact figure on the economic benefits/penalties of joining/not joining. Various figures have been bandied about.

This is why the automotive industry is fleeing, they can't take the risk.

Is it? That example was used quite a few times before and since the euro was introduced (as an argument to scare/convince us to join) - but it doesn't seem to have impacted the car industry so far. Many companies continue to invest heavily in UK production: Peugeot, Nissan, Honda, Toyota, plus UK-based manufacturers such as MINI, Jaguar/LandRover and GM, plus various niche manufacturers.
Nissan and GM have both recently announced new investment for the production of new models in the UK (Nissan Leaf and Vaux Astra plus hybrid).

The Euro isn't some big conspiracy - it's there to secure jobs, eliminate risk and essentially strengthen our economy.

There are economic arguments for it, and a lot of people are sincerely convinced by them - but a major reason for the euro's introduction was political rather than economic (as with much of european integration) to encourage and further bind together a united Europe. This has been admitted by leading EU figures. A large part of the building of the EU was based on disguising political measures behind an economic pretext (was explained by one of the EU's main founding fathers, Jean Monnet, in his memoirs, and is a well-known method among most EU insiders).

Sorry to be so contrary, btw - just issues I feel strongly about.

 

[dandelion]

Also has helped during the current crisis to be able to control our own interest rates, devalue to boost exports, and indulge in quantititive easing, etc.

How exactly does the government control the exchange rate and therefore devalue its currency? It seems this is often stated, but most countries have a floating exchange rate which does its own thing. Including the euro. On which subject, had we been inside it, presumably it would have devalued more as the poor state of the Uk economy affected its aggregate value. Which would have helped Greece? (yes, I know, the 'Greece' thread is all about the UK and now in this one I bring up Greece) So the difficulties with the euro are in part because we are not in it?

I have also seen (probably Jason) arguments that the quantitative easing we have done is simply trouble stored up for later. Which of course it is, but its all a question of degree.

And similarly, how are euro interest rates determined, and what interest rate would apply to UK euro debt? Not necessarily the same as anyone elses euro debt.

Is it? That example was used quite a few times before and since the euro was introduced (as an argument to scare/convince us to join) - but it doesn't seem to have impacted the car industry so far.

I noticed as a couple of examples that Cadburys is moving production to Poland, and the recent car recalls semed to centre on parts made in....Poland? Whether thats because they were officially planning to join the euro and we arent, or simply because labour is cheaper, I couldnt say. They did say cadburys was having problems because of bad water supplies and obviously the car parts dont work, but who cares?

A large part of the building of the EU was based on disguising political measures behind an economic pretext (was explained by one of the EU's main founding fathers, Jean Monnet, in his memoirs, and is a well-known method among most EU insiders).

Certainly ive seen it several times on here. Just because that was his reason and he considered the economics a pretext, does not mean the economic arguments are false and do not make a compelling case in their own right. I thought the main reason for bulding the EU was to stop France and Germany shooting at each other, but perhaps that is what Monnet meant. Still seems a good reason?

 

[tomthelad91]

I did read the article, and I agree with you the Times is one of the best papers out there; I read it myself, but I don't take any of their political commentaries very seriously, you have to remember it's owned by Murdoch. It's no surprise that in sync both the Times and the Sun go into anti-lib dem overdrive.

As an economics student, I think everything weighed up the Euro IS positive. This is why the only reason most people will give you against the Euro is 'It's not British'.

The point that it would take away Britains ability to regulate its own finances is a valid one, but not necessarily important at all. All the other countries lost their monetary independence too and it hasn't had any negative consequences.

Multi National car industries will usually only have a few plants in Europe. They're not inclined to invest too much here because of the lack of euro.
Let's take Honda as an example. If Honda built all their European cars here, and the Pound suddenly rose, in order to keep prices the same and affordable they'd have to lower the Euro sales price, which would be around 90% of sales.
If they build their cars in the Eurozone, and the pound falls, they have to adjust their pound price which is only around 10% of the European Market.

The classic example of this is Nissan. They're not expanding because of this.

BBC NEWS | Business | Nissan warns on Sunderland's future 2002 News Article which illustrates my point.

It was because of not being in the Euro why our recession was so much worse than the Eurozones. Imagine it like water, if it rained 100 gallons of water into a small lake, it would flood massively destroying the coast.. If it rained 100 gallons of water into a large lake, the rise would be so incremental and the flood therefore smaller that it'd cause much less damage. If all the rot and bad debt in our economy had been part of a greater EU economy, it would have spread out more due to the intertwined nature of Eurozone businesses.

Last year £4.5 billion was spent by businesses, banks and individuals in charges fees and rate differences changing Pounds into Euros, which would be saved immediately (Adding it all back to the Economy)

The UK is now a tiny insignificant state worldwide, we will never be able to compete on the same level as India, China and the USA - where as the Eurozone CAN.

60% of our trade is with the Eurozone, meaning 60% of trade lost through currency rises/falls would dissapear.

Many companies will only operate in one European Country, and Many companies (especially American ones) prefer English speaking countries. This is why so many American companies are based in Ireland (Apple, Dell etc) - they have the language and are in the Euro.

The only real reason for not joining the Euro before was that the UK outperformed the other Euro countries so why dilute this performance and profit?
Now the boot is on the other foot - we could have dilued all the failure and losses.

As for cost, yes, it would cost around £36 Billion to implement the changeover, but the amount of money gained by the increase in business, trade and reduction-in-fees would be massive (As for a exact figure; this is impossible, Opportunity Cost cannot be put into a Monetary Value easily)

Most economists will tell you - We need to Join the Euro.
The Tories have a habit of wrapping things up in Nationalism (which is totally unrelated).

 

[798686]

How exactly does the government control the exchange rate and therefore devalue its currency? It seems this is often stated, but most countries have a floating exchange rate which does its own thing. Including the euro.

I have also seen (probably Jason) arguments that the quantitative easing we have done is simply trouble stored up for later. Which of course it is, but its all a question of degree.

Not sure of the exact mechanics. Doesn't having an independent currency mean we can allow the markets to devalue the pound if concern mounts over our economic situation, helping to boost the competitiveness of our exports, etc? Also, we're free to lower interest rates to kick start the economy if it's sluggish, or to raise them to curb inflation - which we wouldn't be able to do independently if we were in the euro (and would have to hope ECB policy was advantageous to us at the time, which it wouldn't always be). Quantititive easing also helps to devalue the currency (does this reduce the amount we owe at all, by lowering its value?). You'll have to ask Jase for the details though, not really my specialty.

I noticed as a couple of examples that Cadburys is moving production to Poland, and the recent car recalls semed to centre on parts made in....Poland? Whether thats because they were officially planning to join the euro and we arent, or simply because labour is cheaper, I couldnt say.

Hmm, not sure - but a lot of relocation/outsourcing does have to do with cheaper labour, materials and production costs. It could be because supplies can be sourced cheaply from the eurozone, but there's also the fact that the Eastern European countries attracted a lot of investment after joining the EU, by slashing business taxes (corporation tax?) to make it attractively cheap to set up business/production there. Think this has been clamped down on now, though - after protests from Germany, etc.

Certainly ive seen it several times on here. Just because that was his reason and he considered the economics a pretext, does not mean the economic arguments are false and do not make a compelling case in their own right.

That's probably true - but I was responding to Tomcat's comment that the euro wasn't a big plan with any hidden agenda, but a purely economic measure, which isn't quite the case...

As far as Monnet goes, yes, the plan was for a united Europe was primarily to prevent war between the individual nations from ever happening again. The problem was that Monnet was convinced this could only be achieved by integrating the countries in certain areas (steel and coal to begin with, which were essential at the time for weapons production), and creating a supranational entity overruling the individual nations, rather than an intergovernmental approach.

It didn't stop here either, as he (and other visionaries such as Spinelli) dreamt of a fully united - and peaceful - Europe, but realised (after various setbacks) that many weren't in favour of this, and it could only be achieved by hiding the true aim from most of the people, and creating Europe behind their backs, with each successive step disguised as an economic measure. Whether they were right about what they were aiming for is a different question - but it seems pretty evident the plans were a lot loftier than were admitted at each stage.

Tomthelad91: Thanks for the reply m8, will attempt to respond to it, tomorrow. :smile:

 

[Jason]

The level of a floating currency is set by the markets. But there are quite a few buts!

There is usually some level of intervention. in the markets A nation can make its currency go up by itself buying that currency on the world markets. It can make it fall by selling it. Nations trade in their own currency to avoid destabilising fluctuations. They may also defend a certain level, perhaps for a political reason.

Governments can put into effect measures that they know will alter the value of their currency. A powerful tool is base rates. If you increase the interest you are paying on deposits from 4% to 5% then you make your currency attractive to investors, people seek to buy it, and it goes up in value.

You can have a floating peg - as for example the Irish punt for years had against the pound sterling. Here a government in effect defends a range for their currency. You can have a fixed peg where it suits a country to shadow the currency of another country for a while. Fixed pegs tend not to last long unless a full political and fiscal union follows.

 

[798686]

Cheers Jase!

 

[tomthelad91]

I think a good idea might be to fix the Pound to the Euro for a while, to see how we cope, to prove to people it's positive, and to do all that without removing physical pounds out of peoples wallets because that seems to be the biggest issue with the public.

 

[Jason]

I think a good idea might be to fix the Pound to the Euro for a while, to see how we cope, to prove to people it's positive, and to do all that without removing physical pounds out of peoples wallets because that seems to be the biggest issue with the public.

We did this with the ERM. It was a disaster. George Soros traded against Britain and won. We crashed. :frown1:

A fix with the Euro is a prerequisite of joining. With the Euro so unstable it would be a struggle to make a fix work right now. With both the Euro and the pound unsteady I think it is just not possible.

Of course Denmark has a fixed peg with the Euro but uses Danish crowns. One of the longest fixed pegs in the world is the Pound Scots to the Pound Sterling. Three Scottish banks issue Pounds Scots and one English bank Pounds Sterling (Ireland is more complicated). The currency union between England and Scotland is an example of one that worked because there was full political and fiscal union.

 

[798686]

It's no surprise that in sync both the Times and the Sun go into anti-lib dem overdrive.

You might like today's cartoon. :wink:

As an economics student, I think everything weighed up the Euro IS positive. This is why the only reason most people will give you against the Euro is 'It's not British'.

The point that it would take away Britains ability to regulate its own finances is a valid one, but not necessarily important at all. All the other countries lost their monetary independence too and it hasn't had any negative consequences.

Hmm, not sure I agree with this. If everything pointed towards the Euro being the best thing for Britain, then the case would've been put more strongly. Gordon Brown doesn't believe it's been right economically for us so far (and neither does Mandelson, oddly, in the current economic climate). There are both pros and cons towards joining.

The 'British' argument is only one part of it. There's also economic independence which has already been mentioned: the ability to devalue/revalue as suits our needs and to implement economic policies that are suited to us personally rather than a one-size-fits-all Europolicy which doesn't usually suit anyone perfectly (except possibly Germany). I would also argue that not having fiscal independence HAS hurt countries within the Euro - especially Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain, etc. Having to follow strict ECB policies and decisions that didn't suit them individually has made it very difficult for them to dig their way out of their current difficulties.

There's also the question of loss of economic sovereignty if we join the euro (especially with current plans for a single economic government in the eurozone), and would also open us to partial responsibility for bailouts/loans to struggling countries such as Greece.

I think you also have to remember many Uni courses secure vital EU funding by presenting things in a positive way towards the EU - that may not be the case with your economics course...but it is with a lot of courses. :redface:

If Honda built all their European cars here, and the Pound suddenly rose, in order to keep prices the same and affordable they'd have to lower the Euro sales price, which would be around 90% of sales. If they build their cars in the Eurozone, and the pound falls, they have to adjust their pound price which is only around 10% of the European Market.

The classic example of this is Nissan. They're not expanding because of this.

It was because of not being in the Euro why our recession was so much worse than the Eurozones. If all the rot and bad debt in our economy had been part of a greater EU economy, it would have spread out more due to the intertwined nature of Eurozone businesses. 60% of our trade is with the Eurozone, meaning 60% of trade lost through currency rises/falls would dissapear.

The points about losing money through exchange-rate fluctuations is interesting - but I'm not sure how much of an impact it has overall?

Not sure our recession was so much worse than the rest of Europe? We seem to be recovering quicker - and being in the eurozone hasn't helped the PIIGS countries - rather hindered them. Who's to say the same situation wouldn't apply to the UK, had we been in the euro?

The Nissan example is good (altho the article is a bit old) - they do need to find a financial argument for building cars here each time they reinvest due to our not being in the single currency, but so far (8 years after the article) they are still awarding big contracts to their UK plant. Also mentions in the paper today, car production is up significantly in the UK this quarter.

Most economists will tell you - We need to Join the Euro.

Some will, some won't. Anatole Kaletsky is actually a pretty well-respected economic analyst.

 

[B_crackoff]

I think a good idea might be to fix the Pound to the Euro for a while, to see how we cope, to prove to people it's positive, and to do all that without removing physical pounds out of peoples wallets because that seems to be the biggest issue with the public.

Ah to be that young & naive.

My economics tutor was Dr Rudi Vis (an eccentric Dutchman who when you didn't understand said his dog could do better, & when you did called you a c*nt!), who suddenly abandoned us when he won Thatcher's old Finchley consituency in a shock that nearly made him drop the several pints of Guinness he was carrying.

He was quite hob nobby with a raft of backroom boys behind the Euro, & insisted it was a fait accompli, even though the Italians,Spanish & Greeks all failed the criteria. It would be fixed, forced, obfuscated. It wasn't monetary union, but political. F*ck the future endemic problems with different countries requiring different interest rates @ different times.

So you have the problems with Greece, soon to be followed by Spain, Italy, & Ireland (exacerbated by receiving less EU money). Dramatic cuts have to be made to continue in the Union, & the riots in Greece will turn worse soon, & probably be followed by Spain, & Italy.

What people seem not to understand, is that we would have to make dramatic cuts too. Indeed we do. 20% would be a start, Ireland did more.

Could you imagine what would happen if all public sector employees were told to take a 20% pay cut?

So the UK has a way out of this. The truly profligate Brown, who sold off our gold, & doubled the national debt IN THE GOOD YEARS, only option is to print more money - which will lead to higher interest rates because of the higher risk of investing in the UK & currency devaluation.

That will lead to greater wage, goods & services inflation.

People always forget the lessons of the past. I'm fortunate that I actually co-wrote a PP Broadcast once -forgive my prose here, I'm neither seeking to convert, nor being paid (and I won't say who for - the parties are literally the same now) - and the political expediency deployed by all was astonishing.

Short termist, career orientated mediocrities all looking for a little power, & a nice comfy network of bureaucratic friends to give them a nice little earner pushing paper in the years to come.

Power without responsiblity. It's a wonderful thing.

The EU is a thickly veiled corrupt institution, & not democratic.

Unlike the rest of our EU compadres, 50% of our trade is external; manufacuring more of our own products would reduce our balance of trade deficit.

If our membership is so beneficail why do we have a £60Bn a year trade deficit. How much longer can we keep spending more than we have?

None of the parties want out. Globalization is the globalization of poverty, but they're all for it. With regard to scarce resources & draconian emmissions targets, can you make everyone in the world equal unless its by a dramatic reduction in living standards for the majority in the West.

Talk of efficiency measures, especially from the EU is laughable!

I can't understand why this never is discussed - oh wait I can, the political & media will is not to enlighten, but to coerce & distract.

It would be nice to have a vote weather we sail on the Titanic or not.:smile:

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

So you have the problems with Greece, soon to be followed by Spain, Italy, & Ireland (exacerbated by receiving less EU money). Dramatic cuts have to be made to continue in the Union, & the riots in Greece will turn worse soon, & probably be followed by Spain, & Italy.

That's a strong statement to make with so little to back it up, there's no strong evidence that Italy and Spain will face anything like the kind of civil disquiet Greece is facing.

What people seem not to understand, is that we would have to make dramatic cuts too. Indeed we do. 20% would be a start, Ireland did more.

Could you imagine what would happen if all public sector employees were told to take a 20% pay cut?

Well if you're saying that all public sector employees in Ireland have taken a 20% (or more) pay cut you're wrong.

Short termist, career orientated mediocrities all looking for a little power, & a nice comfy network of bureaucratic friends to give them a nice little earner pushing paper in the years to come.

You could be referring to any middle management type in any area of the economy, public or private.

Power without responsiblity. It's a wonderful thing.

Opinions without knowledge are a dangerous thing.

The EU is a thickly veiled corrupt institution, & not democratic.

No more or no less so than most national democracies anywhere in the world. Anyway, it's not like Britain is some beacon of democracy, they don't use PR meaning that the vast majority of votes cast in their elections are squandered and pointless, they have an appointed second chamber of peers who serve for life, the executive within their parliament funcitons like an elected dictatorship, and the House of Commons doesn't even vote to elect the Prime Minister, because guess what? They have a Queen (!?!) to call him instead LOL

Unlike the rest of our EU compadres, 50% of our trade is external; manufacuring more of our own products would reduce our balance of trade deficit.

What are you talking about here? The Germans are one of the worlds largest exporters, far outstripping the UK in that regard. If you're saying the UK could learn a few things from the Germans you might be right, their economy is holding up much better than most other EU economies, even if it is facing its own problems.

Talk of efficiency measures, especially from the EU is laughable!

Nearly as laughable as David Cameron's talk of efficiency savings making tax rises unnecessary, especially since he's advocating massive tax cuts for millionaires and seems in love with the grotesquely expensive Trident Missile program, among other things, and then has the cheek to call Gordon Brown a liar when Labour pamphlets point out that the Tories wont have any money to pay for vital assistance to pentioners.