Originally Posted by
KerrAvon
@ ragingpup
I think you are too kind in suggesting that people who switched to UKIP did so out of concerns for their jobs. Some would have done so, but for a good many others it was good old fashioned xenophobia.
You misunderstood the purpose of my boiler room fraud comments. I wasn’t suggesting that The Great Leader is a con-man (or at least no more so than the average politician) . I had intended to convey that with my comment about Labour supporters wanting a better Britain. My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell.
On the something for nothing point, it is clear from the other thread that is running that you don’t accept that there is a price to be paid for simultaneously increasing corporate tax rates and the minimum wage. There clearly is and it will be paid in jobs.
In much the same way that I think that the majority of Labour supporters want a better Britain, I think the majority of Tory supporters do too. My profession sends a lot of people to Parliament and I know several MPs from both sides of the house and of various levels of seniority. They are like every other bunch of people and generally decent irrespective of their politics. You say that I hate it when people use comments such as likening Tories to ‘sewer rats’ or similar. That is not the case. I think such behaviour demonstrates that the person making the comment has a closed mind, which annoys me. I don’t like bigotry and it matters not to me whether such behaviour is based upon race religion or political persuasion.
I’m aware of the ‘priming the pump’ argument advanced in resect of some of Labours borrowing plans. Some investment spending of that type is desirable, particularly when interest rates are low. Where I part company with Labour is on the scale of the borrowing that they propose, firstly because I doubt their ability to spend wisely (government generally has a poor record on that) and secondly because the sums involved are so great that they will create inflation (by boosting the demand side of the economy).
Your argument for nationalisation of the utilities and Royal Mail is, my opinion, fallacious. The notion that there will be profits available to invest ignores the fact that we will be paying interest on the costs of acquisition. The article that you have linked to suggests that the key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other. It quite rightly suggests that question should be answered upon an empirical basis, but then ignores the evidence available in the UK from our previous experience with nationalised industries. As a regular (daily) train user, I can say without fear of contradiction that we are streets (or should that be tracks) ahead of the nightmare of British Rail.
Your apparent belief that things would be somehow different today is not evidence based. The imperative to make a profit inevitably drives efficiencies. The lack of such a need inevitably leads to excessive staffing levels, weak management and a lack of innovation.
Whilst I would agree that the energy market doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, that is down to a failure of regulation (and, by extension, political will) rather than a flawed system.
I’ve never said that I would to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. I would change many things, but not in a way that you would necessarily like. As an example, for me, education is the greatest tool available for seeking to level the social playing field and one of the main routes to prosperity, but I don’t think we do it at all well in the UK. In part that is because of our ridiculous commitment to the one size fits all comprehensive system. We need to start recognising the existence of difference in aptitude and ability and start providing more options to recognise that some children have an academic bent whilst others have stronger practical/technical abilities. It won’t happen because people are too scared to acknowledge that reality in part because of prejudice towards a technical education which will be seen as being inferior. It isn’t - it’s just different. Sadly (or not), nobody has asked me to write UK education policy.
I’m loving the way that you say that we should debate without quoting references to links in a post that contains two links. Alanis Morissette would have loved it too.