Upgrade UK before its too late

[Pat494]

Just sickening to see Labour Peers wasting time and effort in the House of Lords recently.

High time Britain upgraded our political and economic systems imo

We barely compete around the world and only these days because some other countries are even more of a shambles than our lot at the top. The "greedy pigs" in business and politics hog too much of the country's wealth to themselves. They may own on average about 100 beds each but they can't possibly use them all themselves.

BA is about to try and tear itself to bits. I feel sure the workers would accept a fair solution on the distribution of company profits after borrowings, shareholders etc.

The average pay rise of 55% per year for FTSE100 company bosses is unjustified. Their average pay of £5 million per year plus pensions plus perks is way over the top for companies that pretty well run themselves.

The present set up is unfair and uncompetative. It is failing this country and should be upgraded as quickly as possible.

 

[Pazienza]

Just sickening to see Labour Peers wasting time and effort in the House of Lords recently.

High time Britain upgraded our political and economic systems imo

We barely compete around the world and only these days because some other countries are even more of a shambles than our lot at the top. The "greedy pigs" in business and politics hog too much of the country's wealth to themselves. They may own on average about 100 beds each but they can't possibly use them all themselves.

BA is about to try and tear itself to bits. I feel sure the workers would accept a fair solution on the distribution of company profits after borrowings, shareholders etc.

The average pay rise of 55% per year for FTSE100 company bosses is unjustified. Their average pay of £5 million per year plus pensions plus perks is way over the top for companies that pretty well run themselves.

The present set up is unfair and uncompetative. It is failing this country and should be upgraded as quickly as possible.

You make some good points. But I think it's too late for an upgrade, we're looking at a scrap job now.

 

[Pat494]

Labour seem to be picking up some support recently and they have only just been booted out for sheer incompetence. I agree the alternatives are really limited but surely ...................

The architect of Gordon's disaster has wriggled back into the higher echelons of shadow power. Already made one big Balls up. Can't they find someone at least untarnished by the last c*ck-up ?

 

[Pat494]

I would not be surprised if the Germans didn't demand guarantees from the PIIGS in return for all the money they are putting in. Like they leave the EU if they can't "hack-it".

 

[tomorton]

A new Labour administration should do a lot better than Brown and might do a lot better than the current coalition. However, the party is riddled with policies based in socialism: as citizens, we might well benefit but surely not as traders. In addition, I am personally repulsed by middle class leftists such as Ed Milliband, Ed Balls, Harriet Harman, Douglas Alexander etc.

 

[Shakone]

When you have a party in charge for 4 years, and then they have to win another vote, you're basically sayign that you want the country to be run for short term results and long term doesn't matter, that's the next guys problem. Build up huge debts, because we won't have to pay them off in 4 years mentality. Until you change that, we'll get crap politics.

 

[Pat494]

Don't fancy learning Mandarin much if the present clots screw up

Kung hai fat choi

 

[Trader333]

When you have a party in charge for 4 years

4 years is for the US in the UK it is 5 years.

I noted that the new leader of Labour has stated that the Lib Dems decision to join the Tories will be one that they will bitterly regret implying that they should have chosen to work with Labour.

However, this contradicts what he has said elsewhere and in reality is not in any way in his interest. Ed Miliband has gone on record to say that "New Labour" had lost their way and huge changes are needed and has even gone as far as distancing himself from New Labour in its entirely. Yet if the Lib Dems had decided to join Labour and form the new government then he would still be a "nothing" as he was before the election and Labour would still be pursuing the same old policies that he has stated were wrong for Labour and the Country.

In reality the fact that the Lib Dems joined the Tories has given Ed everything he could possibly have wanted, namely leadership of the party and the opportunity to change policies to what he wants. Saying that the Lib Dems made a mistake is nonsense for him both from a career perspective and what he wants the party to become and I am surprised that no other politician picked up in this and gave him a good trouncing.



Paul

 

[Pazienza]

4 years is for the US in the UK it is 5 years.

I noted that the new leader of Labour has stated that the Lib Dems decision to join the Tories will be one that they will bitterly regret implying that they should have chosen to work with Labour.

However, this contradicts what he has said elsewhere and in reality is not in any way in his interest. Ed Miliband has gone on record to say that "New Labour" had lost their way and huge changes are needed and has even gone as far as distancing himself from New Labour in its entirely. Yet if the Lib Dems had decided to join Labour and form the new government then he would still be a "nothing" as he was before the election and Labour would still be pursuing the same old policies that he has stated were wrong for Labour and the Country.

In reality the fact that the Lib Dems joined the Tories has given Ed everything he could possibly have wanted, namely leadership of the party and the opportunity to change policies to what he wants. Saying that the Lib Dems made a mistake is nonsense for him both from a career perspective and what he wants the party to become and I am surprised that no other politician picked up in this and gave him a good trouncing.



Paul

I'm trying to work out exactly which muppet he looks like, but I can't think of it at the moment.

 

[Pazienza]

It's OK, I've got it. It's Bert.

 

[Shakone]

4 years is for the US in the UK it is 5 years.

Paul

It has to be within 5 years, but in recent times, I'm pretty confident that it is more often 4 years.


If you want good government, you have to get the best and the brightest (there's no way this is the case), get them while they're reasonably young and care about the future and not just their retirement, and install them for a longer period, 10 years at minimum unless there is a massive majority vote against them in that time. This constant chopping and changing for public popularity and lying to everyone, just so you can win by a few % or so, is just pathetic.

 

[Pat494]

Politics is remarkable imho for the low calibre of the participants. No qualifications are needed. It usually comes down to "gift-of-the-gab", lies and half truths. It takes the general population about 2 years to see through the fog of politics and then 2/3 more years to get them out.

There have been so many scandals in the past, I think it is defined as usual how low the bar is on honesty and integrity too. Sadly such poor behaviour was associated with banana republics in the past but now thinking of the expenses scandal even our own politicians are thieving public money. Usually criminals don't get off if they pay back what they stole. We have to shrug it off I suppose.

 

[Pat494]

, 10 years at minimum unless there is a massive majority vote against them in that time. This constant chopping and changing for public popularity and lying to everyone, just so you can win by a few % or so, is just pathetic.

The thought of 10 years of Brown makes one shudder. Even the present Lefties could manage to bankrupt the country given 10 years. I hope not.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

4 years is for the US in the UK it is 5 years.

I noted that the new leader of Labour has stated that the Lib Dems decision to join the Tories will be one that they will bitterly regret implying that they should have chosen to work with Labour.

However, this contradicts what he has said elsewhere and in reality is not in any way in his interest. Ed Miliband has gone on record to say that "New Labour" had lost their way and huge changes are needed and has even gone as far as distancing himself from New Labour in its entirely. Yet if the Lib Dems had decided to join Labour and form the new government then he would still be a "nothing" as he was before the election and Labour would still be pursuing the same old policies that he has stated were wrong for Labour and the Country.

In reality the fact that the Lib Dems joined the Tories has given Ed everything he could possibly have wanted, namely leadership of the party and the opportunity to change policies to what he wants. Saying that the Lib Dems made a mistake is nonsense for him both from a career perspective and what he wants the party to become and I am surprised that no other politician picked up in this and gave him a good trouncing.

He probably should have been picked up on that, but the Lib Dems did have another possible choice, which was to stand aside, not join any coalition, and allow the Tories to form a minority government. Lib Dems would then have been free to support or oppose individual measures, and not sacrifice their core values.

The result would either have been that the Tories would have won support for their various measures on their merits and made a success, and later held an election that they could have won outright.

Or, that they would have struggled on, failed to carry their measures, and eventually being seen as a failure, would have been forced into an election they probably would have lost.

If in the meantime the Labour party had shown the country that it had changed sufficiently from the party that had lost the 2010 election, then it might have won outright, or there might have been an opportunity for a more realistic LibDem-Labour coalition

If the Labour party had not shown the country that it had changed, then we might have been back to square one, but it would have been a risk worth taking for those LibDems who didn't want to see an unbridled Tory Party in full flood (which would have been the normal stance of LibDems prior to the 2010 election). I think we now know that some high up in the LibDem party were probably quite happy for Tory policies to be enacted since it coincided with their own views, but were never honest enough to say so before the 2010 election.

 

[montmorencyt2w]

It has to be within 5 years, but in recent times, I'm pretty confident that it is more often 4 years.

True, but the first think the coalition did was to fix the next election to be 5 years hence.

If you want good government, you have to get the best and the brightest (there's no way this is the case), get them while they're reasonably young and care about the future and not just their retirement, and install them for a longer period, 10 years at minimum unless there is a massive majority vote against them in that time. This constant chopping and changing for public popularity and lying to everyone, just so you can win by a few % or so, is just pathetic.

That could be a recipe for dictatorship. I think the problem has been that there has been no genuine attempt at forming a national consensus, or if it has been attempted, it has not worked. Instead, we get polarised politics, so those in power do as much as they can to reverse what the last lot did, until they in turn get thrown out and the process repeats itself. First-past-the-post probably doesn't help, but I think more is needed than just reforming the voting system. I think it would help if we had more genuine democracy instead of 4 or 5-yearly pretence that we get now.

The last national consensus was probably formed during the war and lasted throughout the 50s (despite 2 major changes of government), but broke down some time in or after the 1960s.

People now say that the Swedish model ultimately failed, and perhaps it did, and perhaps there were always fault lines in it. But they managed to be more successful in doing what they were doing for far longer than we have been. If we had been more like Sweden throughout the post-war years, and less how we actually became, I think we would be in a better state now than we are.

 

[Pat494]

People now say that the Swedish model ultimately failed, and perhaps it did, and perhaps there were always fault lines in it. But they managed to be more successful in doing what they were doing for far longer than we have been. If we had been more like Sweden throughout the post-war years, and less how we actually became, I think we would be in a better state now than we are.

Remind us what the Swedish model is please

 

[Ted1983]

If you want good government, you have to get the best and the brightest (there's no way this is the case), get them while they're reasonably young and care about the future and not just their retirement, and install them for a longer period, 10 years at minimum unless there is a massive majority vote against them in that time.

So who decides on the "best and brightest"?
I'd prefer our shambolic system to this monolithic, qausi-tyranical nonsense. Do you really think that democracy would be improved by having less choice, less often?

we get polarised politics, so those in power do as much as they can to reverse what the last lot did, until they in turn get thrown out and the process repeats itself.

I see the exact opposite. There is basically concensus among the "big three" on the nature of government.
The stampede towards the percieved centre will collapse in on itself, into a political black hole, before long.

 

[Pat494]

Looks like at least 1 of Obama's aides are reading this thread.

Making America more competitive is his new catch-phrase

Hopefully our clots will wake up soon.

The ridiculous price of petrol in the UK gives the competition, like USA a huge edge. I think people are going motoring whatever the price.

 

[Trader333]

In my view tax in general in the UK has and continues to destroy our economy and any desire for companies outside the UK to invest here.


Paul

 

[scose-no-doubt]

depends on the business 333. not many large companies have an effective tax rate anywhere near the official levels so imo, on an nvp basis you can do well here as long as you get punters. It's all about structure of the system and cronyism at the top end.
Consider insurance for example. In how many countries worldwide do you have to insure each driver rather than the vehicle?