David Cameron preaching austerity from a golden throne.

[pcstru]

because does what they do actually matter?

I fail to see how from a personal level im better or worse off with this lot of chimps in power compared to the last lot

How hard have you looked (and did you look down the back of the sofa)?

[witch]

I suspect theres more power with the civil servants tbh they are the ones who pass on the information and we all know how you present the info determines the outcome

Not really. My dad was a top civil servant and he remembered watching Mrs Thatcher talk nonsense about something and nobody around her had the guts to try and correct her, because they were all scared of her.

The Lords are an anachronism in the modern age. They have some power, but not enough to run the government.

"The House of Lords scrutinises Bills that have been approved by the House of Commons.It regularly reviews and amends Bills from the Commons. While it is unable to prevent Bills passing into law, except in certain limited circumstances,it can delay Bills and force the Commons to reconsider its decisions. In this capacity, the Lords acts as a constitutional safeguard that is independent from the electoral process."

I've always thought that peers who inherit have no place in a democratic process and those who get awarded peerages should lose them the INSTANT they are convicted of any crime as it is a privilege to get such a thing (Jeffrey Archer, anyone?)

[sted]

Not really. My dad was a top civil servant and he remembered watching Mrs Thatcher talk nonsense about something and nobody around her had the guts to try and correct her, because they were all scared of her.

 

fair point but is anyone scared of Cameron/clegg (or milliband for that matter) whereas Maggie like or hate her was imposing

[witch]

Not so much scared of, as unable to influence or get to understand the facts (or why telling people to tighten their belts on such an occasion might not be such a good idea )

[jamesb]

because does what they do actually matter?

 

I fail to see how from a personal level im better or worse off with this lot of chimps in power compared to the last lot

 

I can see from a personal matter exactly how much worse-off I am. Currently it's to the tune of about £400/month compared to last year, despite a reasonable pay rise through changing jobs. This is down to the wonderful tax policy changes.

 

In fairness on the banquet front though, it was funded by a private company (the Corporation of London, possibly the oldest company in the world and almost certainly one of the richest) rather than the taxpayer. Not that a four-course banquet with gilded chairs is ever an appropriate place to talk about how we all need to tighten our belts.

 

But hey, at least he didn't trash the place and do a runner.

[CHR1S]

Yet they wonder why the general public is disillusioned with politics.

 

I consider myself to be at 30, well off (as in I dont struggle to make ends meet), other than my recycling bins going missing I find I have no need to involve my local MP/Councillor (who happens to be a good friend of mine).

 

I have absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever, to the point that I cant even be bothered to vote (yes that may annoy some of you). Why? Because in my eyes, whoever I vote for - nothing changes.

If your picking the best of a bad bunch, why pick at all?

 

I realise that my friend being a Councillor (and probably an MP soon) makes my views a little strange, hes a good honest man, who I believe will make a difference and be the start of a new generation of politics. However, if I ever did vote for him, it would still only be because he was my mate.

[Sdrawkcab]

But hey, at least he didn't trash the place and do a runner.

 

No, he and his Bullingdon mates only do that to restaurants where normal people are eating. It's okay though, they throw £200 in cash on the floor to compensate the proles for their trouble.

[Sdrawkcab]

I have absolutely no interest in politics whatsoever, to the point that I cant even be bothered to vote (yes that may annoy some of you). Why? Because in my eyes, whoever I vote for - nothing changes.

If your picking the best of a bad bunch, why pick at all?

 

Absolutely agree with this, though I would urge you to go to the polling booth and spoil your ballot if this is how you feel. Rather than just apathetically doing nothing, get in there and make your voice heard, even if what you're saying is "I don't want any of these people".

[CHR1S]

 

Seems quite fitting

[pcstru]

I fail to see how can anyone can genuinely have no interest in politics. Mostly that's just a failure by people to consider the implications of the word - politics is of or relating to government or governance. Even not liking the political parties or believing there is no difference between them betrays an interest in politics (and the more you can point out the number of policies where you can 't get a cigarette paper between the parties policies, the more interested you must be). Someone who genuinely had no interest simply wouldn't know or care what the difference was. They wouldn't care if Stalin or Ghandi was head of state and whether they were elected or not - they wouldn't even know to ask the question.

[localzuk]

@pcstru - its a mixture of selfishness and ignorance being bliss...

[tmcd35]

It's all an illusion, this democracy. Our choice of parties ranges from identikit "grab what they can while they have the power" to stark raving bonkers "if we get in everyone else can get out!" nutters. If they don't get the outcome they want, they just form a new party and take your votes with them. Ultimately the country is run by House of Lords, none of which were voted for by Joe Public. But so long as we get to put a little tick in a box every few years we can proudly call ourselves a democracy

 

I refuse to buy into this kind of anti-political cynicism, maybe that makes me naive - I don't know.

 

Although at times you can't put a fag paper between the main two parties, there are real differences and they are noticable. To a certain degree they are all Eton educated toffs, in it for themselves - but I do believe most are doing what they do out of some sense of righteousness and ideology. The bedroom tax is a quick and simple example.

 

The problem from the voting booth is one of numbers and scale. Your one voter out of tens of thousands in a constiuency so it's easy to become disillusioned in your vote counting, especially if your preference isn't in line with the local majority. The first past the post system means the party with the most votes doesn't necersarrily win power. Andthe job and decisions of central governement are often not the ones that effect you locally, yet we take even less interest in local politics.

[Earthling]

It's the same the whole world over,

It's the poor that get the blame,

It's the rich that get the pleasure,

Ain't it all a bloody shame.

 

 

 

 

That's it.

 

That's all it is.

 

 

No political system, flavour or -ism will ever change it. It's been happening for millenia, I'm sure the Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt (for example) weren't particularly keen on 'distribution of wealth', and I'm positive the old Soviet Politburo didn't eat beetroot soup all the time just to show solidarity with the 'Comrades'.

 

 

Occasionally, you get the odd enterprising soul who manages to make a million.....but, pragmatically, what's a million these days? When the median starting price of a three-bedroom house in some Shire Counties towns is over half a million, the answer is 'Not much, really', even though I wouldn't turn my nose up at a million quid.

 

 

That's how I see it, anyway.

 

 

Better luck next lifetime, I guess

[pcstru]

No political system, flavour or -ism will ever change it. It's been happening for millenia, I'm sure the Pharoahs of Ancient Egypt (for example) weren't particularly keen on 'distribution of wealth', and I'm positive the old Soviet Politburo didn't eat beetroot soup all the time just to show solidarity with the 'Comrades'.

That's right. Nothing changes. Children still die up the chimneys, slaves in the fields, women don't have the vote, average life expectancy is mid 40's, most people fear their mandatory years of national service, few people will ever experience the luxury of owning a car, having an indoor toilet, sending their children to school, employers can just fire you on the spot and you have no rights, etc. Nothing changes.

 

I'm so disillusioned with the UK I'm going to emigrate to North Korea. It's not as if politics has any bearing on life. They are all the same.

[LosOjos]

I refuse to buy into this kind of anti-political cynicism, maybe that makes me naive - I don't know.

 

Although at times you can't put a fag paper between the main two parties, there are real differences and they are noticable.

 

I wouldn't say you're naive but let me ask you this; can you hand on heart say you support any of our political parties? There are aspects of each I agree with and many I don't. The problem is, what they say they'll do and what they actually do when they get in to power are very, very different things. That's why I'm disillusioned by it all. IMO, they should be held to account for all the promises they make during election time and should give schedules. If they get in to power, they should be expected to deliver those promises within 6 months of when they said they would and if they don't, we should hold a re-election. At the moment they could tell you they'd buy each and every one of us a golden chair and a 5 course meal if they got in and there's not a damn thing we could do when they didn't deliver.

 

To a certain degree they are all Eton educated toffs, in it for themselves - but I do believe most are doing what they do out of some sense of righteousness and ideology. The bedroom tax is a quick and simple example.

 

I don't believe they do. The vast majority are career politicians. They've never worked in the environment they're in charge of (hell, most of them have never worked anywhere!) so how on Earth do they think they know what's best? We wouldn't trust someone with no experience to manage a shop yet we're happy to let them run the country!

 

The problem from the voting booth is one of numbers and scale. Your one voter out of tens of thousands in a constiuency so it's easy to become disillusioned in your vote counting, especially if your preference isn't in line with the local majority. The first past the post system means the party with the most votes doesn't necersarrily win power. Andthe job and decisions of central governement are often not the ones that effect you locally, yet we take even less interest in local politics.

 

No, what makes me disillusioned with politics (or at least our current parties) is the constant false promises, the failure to take responsibility for any wrong doing, ridiculous hashed out ideas like bedroom tax (you have to pay a tax if you have "spare" bedrooms in a council property, but there are no smaller properties available for you to be moved in to; may as well have just upped council rent for all the good that has done), ideas like only counting the first seating of an exam in school results (yeah OK the kid can resit and it will count for them, but how many cash strapped schools are going to pay for a second chance for a child when it is of no benefit to the school?). I'm disillusioned because we are being run by a party that were never elected - I know it's all above board and legal and whatnot but who the hell decided that was OK?! Two parties who disagree on so many issues it's laughable forming to get just enough votes between them to claim the majority wanted them in power - BS! They weren't on my ballot paper!

 

Maybe I'm the naive one for thinking it could work any other way, all I know is this system stinks.

[Earthling]

The problem is that the prime objective of any government is to get re-elected.

 

If a government can 'Do Some Good' along the way, fine. If not, well, that was never the objective, anyway.

[pcstru]

If they get in to power, they should be expected to deliver those promises within 6 months of when they said they would and if they don't, we should hold a re-election. At the moment they could tell you they'd buy each and every one of us a golden chair and a 5 course meal if they got in and there's not a damn thing we could do when they didn't deliver.

I'm sympathetic to that view but there are a couple of problems. What if you make a promise and a) circumstances change or b) the previous government was telling porkies, so your information was wrong? In either case, doing what was promised might be disastrous.

 

Also it's not quite true that we can can't do a damn thing, at the very least we can vote them out next time round. The problem then is the limited options for what to replace them with.

[tmcd35]

I wouldn't say you're naive but let me ask you this; can you hand on heart say you support any of our political parties? There are aspects of each I agree with and many I don't.

 

Having read around and looked at the different parties, I'd say my believes are most closely aligned with the Liberal Democrates. It's not an exact fit, but close enough. I tend to agree with Labour policies more than Tory policies. Looked at some of the fringe parties but none have grab my attention as being vote worthy.

 

I don't believe they do. The vast majority are career politicians. They've never worked in the environment they're in charge of (hell, most of them have never worked anywhere!) so how on Earth do they think they know what's best? We wouldn't trust someone with no experience to manage a shop yet we're happy to let them run the country!

 

Oh I agree, totally. Note, I didn't say anything about experience - just righteousness and ideology. When you actually look at politicians wages, and then look at their qualifications, I think you'd be hard pressed to argue that most are really doing it for the money. Not when a career in Law, Banking or Accounting could easily net them more...

 

Maybe I'm the naive one for thinking it could work any other way, all I know is this system stinks.

 

I agree the current system does stink. But it's something that's never going to change while the majority are brainwashed into thinking there are only two parties worth voting for and voting for anyone else is a waste. The rise of parties like UKIP and the Greens suggest to me that the nation is getting disallusioned of two party politics. Sure, it's not something that's going to change quickly, like at the next election, but I think if more people took an interested and used their vote for what they actually believed in rather than "got to be one of the main two" we'd see the kind of change you are after.

 

Either that - or we are just a Tory nation and those of us who complain really are in the minority?

 

 

Back on topic - That was a twat move by DC. Seriously, 4 course meal, gold chairs and a lecture on austerity. Beggers believe. I'd like to say Labour wouldn't have made such a bone head move (oh, they'd have had the 4 course meal and gold chairs mind), but that's just because their answer is stuff austerity and throw it all on the credit card - eek.

[pcstru]

Yes and no. As far as I can see *growth* of the debt peaked in 2011, with debt growing by £150 billion, from £760bn to £910bn. This year debt is forecast to grow by £120bn, from £1.04trillion to £1.16tn.

So, in the interests of discussion, is that good or bad?

I wish someone would bite on this and give some kind of opinion. I keep seeing that this kind of debt is bad, unacceptable and we must respond with austerity measures. Now I personally owe about several hundred % of my GDP, but I'm not laying off the chickens [*1] and begging the German neighbours to bail me out. Economics is fundamental to politics and governance and is one of the main political areas where we feel the effects where it hurts. But it seems extremely difficult to sort the wheat from the chaff - there's more bollocks than a white paper on cloud computing sponsored by Amazon.

 

[*1] - Ok, I will get me coat.

[tmcd35]

@pcstru - reduction of deficit is very much a good thing. In an ideal world we wouldn't have a deficit and might actually, heaven forbid, start paying off some of the debt. The problem is the other side of the coin. Things like the NHS are not free, the money has to come from somewhere. What we don't borrow we have to make up for in taxes. What we can't make up for in taxes gets sold off to the highest bidder (Royal Mail).

 

All I know is there is a word that would describe my personal finances if they mirrored the states - bankrupt.

[sted]

@pcstru - reduction of deficit is very much a good thing. In an ideal world we wouldn't have a deficit and might actually, heaven forbid, start paying off some of the debt. The problem is the other side of the coin. Things like the NHS are not free, the money has to come from somewhere. What we don't borrow we have to make up for in taxes. What we can't make up for in taxes gets sold off to the highest bidder (Royal Mail).

 

All I know is there is a word that would describe my personal finances if they mirrored the states - bankrupt.

 

while reducing the deficit is undoubtedly good at what point does the cuts hurt more than the debt though?

[pcstru]

@pcstru - reduction of deficit is very much a good thing. In an ideal world we wouldn't have a deficit and might actually, heaven forbid, start paying off some of the debt. The problem is the other side of the coin. Things like the NHS are not free, the money has to come from somewhere. What we don't borrow we have to make up for in taxes. What we can't make up for in taxes gets sold off to the highest bidder (Royal Mail).

Colour me confused.

 

1. We have income - which largely comes from taxation.

2. We have expenditure - the costs of running public services and buying things that go bang.

3. If we have more expenditure than income, that is deficit and we get into, or further into debt. We have to borrow to pay the bills (2).

 

Now, I can see that it wise not to run a deficit but there do seem to be factors that mean that zero deficit all the time might be unwise. We have other factors :

 

4. Growth : specifically year on year increases in income and possibly expenditure. The most common measure of a healthy economy seems to be growth.

5. Investment : Short term capital expenditures which might be aimed at stimulating growth or sustaining income over long periods of time.

 

These might suggest that incurring a deficit and borrowing to stimulate or sustain growth is not a bad thing. HS2 will be expensive but over long periods of time might generate revenue that make the investment sensible.

 

We have another related item :

 

6. Inflation : The enemy of growth in a sense, inflation wipes out growth but also has the potential to reduce debt or specifically to reduce the debt to GDP ratio which seems to be used as some meaningful measure of a countries ... 'worth'.

 

So reducing deficit seems reasonable except when you need to stimulate growth, at which point you may need to borrow to invest which means an increase in debt. We are told we need austerity (layoffs, efficiency, wage freezes) to help reduce the deficit and halt th eincrease in borrowing but we only own 90% of GDP - which seems pretty average. The USA has 100% debt to GDP and Japan is over 200%. Even the Germans aren't much better than us at 85%. We certainly don't have much (if any) growth so perhaps the last thing we want is to reduce the deficit if doing so risks that?

[Gibson335]

As with most things, it is always far easier to suggest from the sidelines than do when you hold the reins of power. The key thing here is striking the right balance between reducing deficit and restricting growth. Not sure how many here are economists, but even they can't agree on the best way forward. It may be considered good business to find money to do something that will increase revenue, but not to find money just to service an increasing debt. There is no concencus from the professionals, so the rest of us are really just guessing and going with a gut feeling that may or may not be fed by our politcial leanings. So far, neither of the two main parties have got it right - Labour said no growth, no jobs, the Tories predicted too much of both. Somewhere in the middle lies reality. Reality seldom wins elections.

[Sdrawkcab]

Who exactly do we owe the money to!? And more to the point, what would happen if we just said "we're not going to pay it back, sorry."

[Gibson335]

Who exactly do we owe the money to!? And more to the point, what would happen if we just said "we're not going to pay it back, sorry."

Mainly the Chinese I'd guess. And if you said we're not paying it back you'd get no more, and we can't survive without debt - if we tried then you'd see some REAL austerity!