The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[EFCNIK]

What level of criminal do you draw the line at?

Anyone with a serious criminal background less than 10 years preious should be refused entry and after that individual cases should be heard and discretion used. Anyone with a rape or a murder conviction should NEVER be allowed in.

It's common sense. Being in Europe means we can't control who he hell comes in and threatens the security of our population. As that poor girl is very likely to have found out along with countless others who have been the victim of European crime in some format.

 

[roydo]

Context isn't really the issue, laissez faire capitalism is laissez faire capitalism, it's an ideology that is centuries old - and it's perfectly clear that neither Reagan or Thatcher ever implemented laissez faire policies. They were capitalists, but they were capitalists who also believed that the state had a necessary role to play in employing people and regulating markets. That isn't laissez faire capitalism, no matter what context it is looked in.

It's not an 'idea' that we don't have laissez faire capitalism now, it's a fact. Anybody who thinks we live in anything like a laissez faire capitalistic system clearly has no idea what laissez faire means. We have a corporatist system, which is basically an ugly mix of Capitalism and Social Democracy.

In a laissez faire system, governments wouldn't be in the pockets of big business, because they wouldn't have any power over big business.

Globalisation had consigned the idea of laissez faire capitalism to the dustbin. Sort of. Also, our economic power was probably as the global super power when the phrase was coined by Palmerston in 1870 something.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Was cutting out needless travel one of the solutions dreampt up?

Many came together virtually from their homes. Technology innit.

 

[Mrk]

Globalisation had consigned the idea of laissez faire capitalism to the dustbin. Sort of. Also, our economic power was probably as the global super power when the phrase was coined by Palmerston in 1870 something.

That is quite possibly true. However, globalisation has definitely consigned socialism to the dustbin of history (thankfully).

 

[roydo]

That is quite possibly true. However, globalisation has definitely consigned socialism to the dustbin of history (thankfully).

History has consigned Socialism to the dustbin. Insofar it doesnt actually work, despite being an attractive ideal.

 

[Mrk]

History has consigned Socialism to the dustbin. Insofar it doesnt actually work, despite being an attractive ideal.

Indeed!

 

[The Esk]

It wasnt that great though, was it?

You see this is another Tory myth.

Admittedly the economy was de-railed by the credit crunch, but then which economy was not, and would any other Government have performed better in the period following?

Let's look at some facts for the period 1997-2010:


GDP per capita grew faster in the UK than in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US
Productivity growth – GDP per hour – was second only to the US
Improvements in UK employment rates were superior to the US
Finance only contributed 0.4% of the 2.8% annualised growth in GDP in the period, destroying the myth that it was all because of a banking bubble. Distribution and business services were the leading contributors to economic growth.
Year on year increases in employment
Low inflation and interest rate environment
Highest levels of foreign direct investment ever in the UK
Standard of living measures improved relative to the EU throughout the period
Record levels of corporate profitability
Record investment in public services, in particular health and education

There's plenty more if you need convincing lol

 

[magicjuan]

Context isn't really the issue, laissez faire capitalism is laissez faire capitalism, it's an ideology that is centuries old - and it's perfectly clear that neither Reagan or Thatcher ever implemented laissez faire policies. They were capitalists, but they were capitalists who also believed that the state had a necessary role to play in employing people and regulating markets. That isn't laissez faire capitalism, no matter what context it is looked in.

It's not an 'idea' that we don't have laissez faire capitalism now, it's a fact. Anybody who thinks we live in anything like a laissez faire capitalistic system clearly has no idea what laissez faire means. We have a corporatist system, which is basically an ugly mix of Capitalism and Social Democracy.

In a laissez faire system, governments wouldn't be in the pockets of big business, because they wouldn't have any power over big business.[/QUOTE]

Don't even know what you mean by that?

Governments do what they are told, that is the reason there is no contest to a laissez faire system.

What exists is basically a cartel of business with enablers acting out a pantomime

lais·sez faire also lais·ser faire (l

s

fâr

, l

z

)
n.
1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

so if the 'governments' are doing the bidding of the corporations on what basis can they be interfering? Hence a laissez faire system

 

[Mrk]

Don't even know what you mean by that?

Governments do what they are told, that is the reason there is no contest to a laissez faire system.

What exists is basically a cartel of business with enablers acting out a pantomime
lais·sez faire also lais·ser faire (l

s

fâr

, l

z

)
n.
1. An economic doctrine that opposes governmental regulation of or interference in commerce beyond the minimum necessary for a free-enterprise system to operate according to its own economic laws.
2. Noninterference in the affairs of others.

so if the 'governments' are doing the bidding of the corporations on what basis can they be interfering? Hence a laissez faire system

It's quite simple really - in a laissez faire system there would be no (or very little) regulation, no business taxes and no minimum wage - so 'big business' would have no reason to try and influence government policy.

This is how it (currently) works: Government imposes regulation and tax -> Businesses dislike this so lobby the government to lower regulation and tax -> Political parties need money to survive, so they do what big business want.

In a laissez faire system, the government doesn't impose regulation and tax, so there's no reason for businesses to lobby the government, so the whole sordid affair doesn't even start.

But again, we do not have a laissez faire economic system - that's not an opinion, it's a fact.

 

[Donald Twain]

That is quite possibly true. However, globalisation has definitely consigned socialism to the dustbin of history (thankfully).

Thankfully it hasn't ! good old globalisation eh?

 

[Mrk]

Thankfully it hasn't ! good old globalisation eh?

I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic or not (I assume you are...)

 

[Donald Twain]

I can't even tell if you're being sarcastic or not (I assume you are...)

well you started it.

 

[roydo]

You see this is another Tory myth.

Admittedly the economy was de-railed by the credit crunch, but then which economy was not, and would any other Government have performed better in the period following?

Let's look at some facts for the period 1997-2010:


GDP per capita grew faster in the UK than in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US
Productivity growth – GDP per hour – was second only to the US
Improvements in UK employment rates were superior to the US
Finance only contributed 0.4% of the 2.8% annualised growth in GDP in the period, destroying the myth that it was all because of a banking bubble. Distribution and business services were the leading contributors to economic growth.
Year on year increases in employment
Low inflation and interest rate environment
Highest levels of foreign direct investment ever in the UK
Standard of living measures improved relative to the EU throughout the period
Record levels of corporate profitability
Record investment in public services, in particular health and education

There's plenty more if you need convincing lol

And after all that, they didnt have any money. You are a businessman, its a good idea to keep some back isnt it?

 

[roydo]

You see this is another Tory myth.

Admittedly the economy was de-railed by the credit crunch, but then which economy was not, and would any other Government have performed better in the period following?

Let's look at some facts for the period 1997-2010:


GDP per capita grew faster in the UK than in France, Germany, Italy, Japan and the US
Productivity growth – GDP per hour – was second only to the US
Improvements in UK employment rates were superior to the US
Finance only contributed 0.4% of the 2.8% annualised growth in GDP in the period, destroying the myth that it was all because of a banking bubble. Distribution and business services were the leading contributors to economic growth.
Year on year increases in employment
Low inflation and interest rate environment
Highest levels of foreign direct investment ever in the UK
Standard of living measures improved relative to the EU throughout the period
Record levels of corporate profitability
Record investment in public services, in particular health and education

There's plenty more if you need convincing lol

Oh, and sold a huge chunk of our gold reserve close to the bottom of the market.

And destroyed the the UK private pension system. Or did a pretty good number on it at least.

 

[The Esk]

And after all that, they didnt have any money. You are a businessman, its a good idea to keep some back isnt it?

Of course, and when the rainy day came they had sufficient borrowing power to support the banks and maintain investment in public services.

Brown led the response globally out of the credit crunch, that should never be forgotten.