Political Crossfire Forums

[Lord Hargreaves]

While all national attention has been on the Conservative Party leadership contest and that party's need to decide what it should stand for and how it should re-invent itself for the 21st century, no one has much been noticing the debates taking place in the other two parties.

The Labour Party (and everyone else) seems to have assumed that Gordon Brown will be our next prime minister, but probably hasn't decided whether it still wants "Blair-ism" as its philosophical outlook. While Blair's realisation that Labour would never again gain power unless it dropped the absurd-and-boardering-on-insane Clause 4 of its constitutuon that by no means meant the backbenchers and grassroots were satisfied with what they got. The decision now must be whether they continue in the same vein under Brown, or whether Brown truly represents a different vision to Blair and would take the party back leftward - almost guarenteeing a conservative government next time round. Brown's happy tax-and-spend policies are starting to take their toll on the British economy - while the guy still has the audacity to tell Europeans to be less socialist. The economy could become a big issue at the next general election, and Labour needs to be confident on its position against a (hopefully) energetic Conservative Party.

Similarly, and more interestingly from my point of view, is the Liberal Democrats. Strangely enough the thing that will ultimately keep them from power is the same thing that they have benefitted from in the past 2 elections - namely, that they dosn't quite know what they stand for. Its the worst kept secret in politics that Lib Dems act more conservative in usually rural, traditional Tory areas, and more left-wing in usually urban, traditional Labour areas. Now many people in the party feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are ready to move to the next stage, from an opposition "protest vote" to a serious and credible alternative government. It is in this pursuit, however, that the Lib Dems may split.

At the Lib Dem conference especially, one could start to see the two sides of the debate emerging - those Lib Dems left of Labour, perhaps fairly labled socialist; and those Lib Dems who want to capitalise on their image as being anti-big government by following through on economic matters too, perhaps fairly labeled libertarian or classically liberal Lib Dems. One senses the Lib Dems have a big decision to make, and one which could either turn out brilliantly or disasterously.

So, while the conservatives and the no-so-conservatives battle it out in the Tory party, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind y'all..... we're not the only ones :wink:

[JDnCoke]

Eh, where did you get the absurb notion that the economy is doing badly? Unemployment has straddled 4-5% for almost 6 years now, 2.5% growth is not an unreasonable amount all things considered and inflation & interest rates have remained stable. The only problems we have are weak high-street sales and a dependance on foreign capital...

As for the Lib Dems, there will be no split. As far as I can see they know what they stand for more than the Conservatives who know what they stand against, but not what they're for. The Lib Dems are a typically postmodern party, unable to be rendered onto the oh-so-irrelevant left-right spectrum. Maximum liberty (which is a LIBERAL concept, duh, not some cheap conservative-Libertarian crap). In fact I reckon we could call the LibDems Jeffersonian in their ways, a healthy fusion of Enabled Liberals and Classical Liberals.

It's a shame they don't accept industry donations during elections to inflate their campaign like Labour & the Tories. God Damn FPTP.

[antonio62]

It may be growing but we are heading for a big recession.

[Chymical]

We are always headed for a "big recession"

It's a load of **** political strawman to scare the proles, only lately superseeded by the strawman of Terrorism.

[Chymical]

Lord Hargreaves wrote: While all national attention has been on the Conservative Party leadership contest and that party's need to decide what it should stand for and how it should re-invent itself for the 21st century, no one has much been noticing the debates taking place in the other two parties.:

Good to see they haven't been sitting on their hands since 1997 then... Should be a pretty comprehensive plethora of policies and new thinking coming any day now eh? I can't wait for the crashing thud of the Tory Manifesto to come crashing through my letterbox let me tell you, I mean the cat's litter tray is nearly overflowing ;)

Lord Hargreaves wrote: The Labour Party (and everyone else) seems to have assumed that Gordon Brown will be our next prime minister, but probably hasn't decided whether it still wants "Blair-ism" as its philosophical outlook. While Blair's realisation that Labour would never again gain power unless it dropped the absurd-and-boardering-on-insane Clause 4 of its constitutuon that by no means meant the backbenchers and grassroots were satisfied with what they got. The decision now must be whether they continue in the same vein under Brown, or whether Brown truly represents a different vision to Blair and would take the party back leftward - almost guarenteeing a conservative government next time round. Brown's happy tax-and-spend policies are starting to take their toll on the British economy - while the guy still has the audacity to tell Europeans to be less socialist. The economy could become a big issue at the next general election, and Labour needs to be confident on its position against a (hopefully) energetic Conservative Party.:

Shame that in our system no one really WINS elections rather it takes a government to lose it...hopefully Labour will keep on teetering and lose it before the no-smoking/terrorism and education bills come to pass.

I studied economics for too long and so forgive me if I have little to comment on Brown's supposed 'tax-and-spend' orgy...just to say we saw similar dallience with lack of prudence in the last days of the conservative Major governement. The conservatives need a good kick of reality that the welfare state is necessary and here to stay, what the people want to see is an administration that can really deliver value for money, which some see as an impossibility.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: Similarly, and more interestingly from my point of view, is the Liberal Democrats. Strangely enough the thing that will ultimately keep them from power is the same thing that they have benefitted from in the past 2 elections - namely, that they dosn't quite know what they stand for. Its the worst kept secret in politics that Lib Dems act more conservative in usually rural, traditional Tory areas, and more left-wing in usually urban, traditional Labour areas. Now many people in the party feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are ready to move to the next stage, from an opposition "protest vote" to a serious and credible alternative government. It is in this pursuit, however, that the Lib Dems may split.:

That's a indictment on your own reading and political knowledge, we know what we stand for thank you, and if we acknowledge more grey-areas of policy that is a testament to our humanity and humility. We work together with consensus and hope, we do not divide and narrow debate a la the tories and labour.

Saying the lib-dems don't know what they stand for is a hackneyed old slingshot from the cannon of the politically misinformed.

The Lib-dem's will not split, especially now the prize just keeps getting closer. Ideologically the Tories are more prone to splitting, yet never will for fear of losing their grip on power even more.

Also you say Lib-dem's tend more to represent the area they represent, surely this is only right proper and democratic. If we failed to ackowledge this for ourselves it would be disingenuous, however we do not, the party is decentralised and very locally based, and in the traditions of liberal democracy cares more upward rather then downward representation. If you wish me to explain this for you I will be happy.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: At the Lib Dem conference especially, one could start to see the two sides of the debate emerging - those Lib Dems left of Labour, perhaps fairly labled socialist; and those Lib Dems who want to capitalise on their image as being anti-big government by following through on economic matters too, perhaps fairly labeled libertarian or classically liberal Lib Dems. One senses the Lib Dems have a big decision to make, and one which could either turn out brilliantly or disasterously.:

hahahahahhahaha.... evidence, examples? We are a free market party that cares for the poor, if you cannot square those two then it's your problem not ours.

Lord Hargreaves wrote: So, while the conservatives and the no-so-conservatives battle it out in the Tory party, I'd like to take this opportunity to remind y'all..... we're not the only ones :wink:

Not the only one's what? Teetering upon self-destruction? Looking like Dinosaurs? Methinks you doth protest too much :)

[antonio62]

Chymical wrote: We are always headed for a "big recession"

It's a load of **** political strawman to scare the proles, only lately superseeded by the strawman of Terrorism.

Every period of growth is followed by a recession. Our economy is based on consumerism and if that slows down we are going to be in a very bad way.

Back on topic. I actually think the Tories will win a close election. I doubt the electorate will like Gordon Brown.

[bury]

Not a chance.

And what makes you think the public won't like Brown. He's serious, credible, well known, scandal free and has been the best Chancellor of the Exchequer in any of our lifetimes. When the public voted overwhelmingly for Labour in last general election they knew full well that Blair would hand over to Brown sometime during the next five years (by the look of things now sooner rather than later).
And who do the Tories have! Carlton club toff David Cameron or even worse the almost fatally boring David Davis.

[antonio62]

I just think that Gordon Brown is a bit boring also. Plus as I have stated I believe that a recession is going to happen soon that is the economic legacy of Gordon Brown. I doubt people will vote for him once they realise that.

[JDnCoke]

antonio62 wrote: I just think that Gordon Brown is a bit boring also. Plus as I have stated I believe that a recession is going to happen soon that is the economic legacy of Gordon Brown. I doubt people will vote for him once they realise that.

And what oh-so-woeful precursors have brought you to this conclusion?

The British economy is robust, we're merely going through a cyclical trough.

[antonio62]

http://www.marxist.com/Economy/brit_economy0304.html

Ignore where that one came from. I just did some quick research on google I only noticed where it was from after i finished reading it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,1370713,00.html

http://www.e-conomist.fsnet.co.uk/british-development.html

That is all I can be bothered doing at the moment.

[JDnCoke]

antonio62 wrote: http://www.marxist.com/Economy/brit_economy0304.html

Ignore where that one came from. I just did some quick research on google I only noticed where it was from after i finished reading it.

:lol:

antonio62 wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,1370713,00.html

... commercially and embark on a continuous upskilling exercise. The Labour government, surprisingly, has done much to foster an enterprise culture in which new companies can sprout to create jobs and goods to sell. What is now needed is a concordat with industry in which agreed obstacles to wealth creation are swept away, as long as industry pays its rightful taxes...


antonio62 wrote: http://www.e-conomist.fsnet.co.uk/british-development.html

That is all I can be bothered doing at the moment.

...Britain has ... competitive advantage in high-technology and financial expertise...

So we have 2 options, go protectionist to aid our ailing manufacturing base or shake of the shackles of our "industrial" base (its a relic, let's move on, please) and fully embrace post-industrialisation like the Nordic Countries have.

I'd prefer to have a population of research scientists and financiers than metal workers and factory hands.

[antonio62]

If you read after that he stated that in the technology field that we would soon be lagging behind India and China. Also it said we spent less on higher education than most 1st world nations. We also spent allot less on research and development than most 1st world nations. That is the key to our future economy. So basically what will happen will be that our economy will be full of people all giving services to other people giving services. Plus allot of the call centre type jobs are being offloaded so will we actually have enough service jobs for people providing services to sell there product to.

''Yesterday, it was revealed that the UK had a near-record trade deficit on goods and services in October of £3.8bn, reflecting the UK's increasing uncompetitiveness as a result of globalisation and a strong pound. It is fashionable to be unconcerned about the trade deficit - but it will not always be so. Although service industries dominate the economy, manufacturing still generates two-thirds of exports. We cannot yet live on services, which, in any case, are not immune to foreign takeovers.''

I thought that would be your reaction to the first link.

[Jajo]

JDnCoke wrote: antonio62 wrote: http://www.marxist.com/Economy/brit_economy0304.html

Ignore where that one came from. I just did some quick research on google I only noticed where it was from after i finished reading it.

:lol:

antonio62 wrote: http://www.guardian.co.uk/globalisation/story/0,7369,1370713,00.html

... commercially and embark on a continuous upskilling exercise. The Labour government, surprisingly, has done much to foster an enterprise culture in which new companies can sprout to create jobs and goods to sell. What is now needed is a concordat with industry in which agreed obstacles to wealth creation are swept away, as long as industry pays its rightful taxes...


antonio62 wrote: http://www.e-conomist.fsnet.co.uk/british-development.html

That is all I can be bothered doing at the moment.

...Britain has ... competitive advantage in high-technology and financial expertise...

So we have 2 options, go protectionist to aid our ailing manufacturing base or shake of the shackles of our "industrial" base (its a relic, let's move on, please) and fully embrace post-industrialisation like the Nordic Countries have.

I'd prefer to have a population of research scientists and financiers than metal workers and factory hands.

I don't quite understand why you say the nordic contries are better in respect of post industrialisation

Sweden - agriculture 2%, industry 24%, services 74% (2000)
UK - agriculture 1.5%, industry 19.1%, services 79.5% (2004)
UK Labour force composition
services 46%
government 28%
manufacturing/construction 24%
energy 1%
agriculture 1%

I know the dates are 4 years apart but it can hardly have changed that much can it? you will also find that Swedens GDP is 52% public sector which is not a very good thing in my view as it means funding by taxes from the small private sector is vunrable.

You will also find Norway at agriculture, forestry, and fishing 4%, industry 22%, services 74% but that was 1995 so i am not sure what it is at the moment.

Ditching an industrial economy all together is a bad idea as diversification is a good thing as it prevents downturns in a single market from having such wide reaching effects. The problem is we need people with a higher level of education to work in the industrial sector which has changed over the recent years, but contrary to popular belief it has not declined in a sense of volume just in a sense of work force size, over the past 20 years the number of cars produced in the UK has rose not fallen, just as an example. It is just that the people needed to make these cars need more training and it is no longer cut and dry where white collar workers are ill educated and the blue collar workers are university graduates in fact it is more the other way round now.