David Cameron

Dissident Congress · 08-10-2008, 02:38 PM

Nasty nasty economic policies. Read about them here.

Baron von Lotsov · 08-10-2008, 05:37 PM

"Banks must be manageable, of a sustainable size and responsibly run. "

&

"Leaving things to the "free market" better known as the corporate fat-cats and City spivs and moneyspinners will create a repeat of the 1930s style depression."

At the moment there is not a free market, it is something different and generally known as an oligopoly, much like the oil business. The reason being the players are too few and too large, and this means any one of them can exert influence over the market. A free market proper is where each player is too small to exert any tangible influence and in this way it is self regulated. I think you might have the concept of a free market wrong, it's not the beast that it is popularly known to be, generally because most people fail to understand the technical conditions required to define a market as free.

British-Conservatism · 08-10-2008, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Baron von Lotsov

"Banks must be manageable, of a sustainable size and responsibly run. "

&

"Leaving things to the "free market" better known as the corporate fat-cats and City spivs and moneyspinners will create a repeat of the 1930s style depression."

At the moment there is not a free market, it is something different and generally known as an oligopoly, much like the oil business. The reason being the players are too few and too large, and this means any one of them can exert influence over the market. A free market proper is where each player is too small to exert any tangible influence and in this way it is self regulated. I think you might have the concept of a free market wrong, it's not the beast that it is popularly known to be, generally because most people fail to understand the technical conditions required to define a market as free.

Libertarians defending this mess by saying "it wasnt a real free market" are begining to sound very like the Socialists who say "the Soviet Union wasnt a real Socialist state".

Gregory Lauder-Frost · 08-10-2008, 08:20 PM

Prior to WWI the Tory Party went for a regulated economy. One where they would at least have some say on behalf of the population. It was the Tories (excluding Peel) who were opposed to Free Trade and instead used the Imperial Preference system. Within Great Britain they were generally in favour of free markets but again they had things like the Milk Marketting Board (abolished by M Thatcher) and 'recommended retail price' (also dropped by Conservatives).

If the present non-Conservative Party is pursuing the unregulated free trade line where "everything finds its natural levels" they are turning on its head traditional Tory philosophy and will do to our remaining industries, businesses etc., what has happened already in the financial sector.

We need legislation outlawing extortion and we don't need any more free-for-alls. I often wonder how we will feed out people in 30 years time and how on earth the government will be able to pay pensions. They are no longer in control of our country.

gc · 08-10-2008, 10:36 PM

"Prior to WWI the Tory Party...."

If you want to know why right-wing politics have failed, then one might consider their position of perspective, and their subsequent total disenfranchisement.

Yep. At the dawn of the 21st century we need to worry about what the Tories were thinking "prior to WW1".

Actually, those of us who, like our children, live in a different age, might consider this to be not politics, but history!

British-Conservatism · 08-10-2008, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

"Prior to WWI the Tory Party...."

If you want to know why right-wing politics have failed, then one might consider their position of perspective, and their subsequent total disenfranchisement.

Yep. At the dawn of the 21st century we need to worry about what the Tories were thinking "prior to WW1".

Actually, those of us who, like our children, live in a different age, might consider this to be not politics, but history!

Do prefer the economics of 19th century Liberals to that of 20th century Tories?

gc · 08-10-2008, 10:44 PM

No, I prefer 21st century economics and politics.

Thats because I, and my children, live in this century, and we don't confuse history with politics.

Dissident Congress · 09-10-2008, 10:08 AM

It just goes to show how a party has sold out on its principles and adopted the policies of a rival party - namely the 19th century Liberals.

Thatcherite economics is just a new name for Manchester Liberalism.

Little Englander (sour) · 09-10-2008, 11:02 AM

Yesterday at PMQs and later the statement by Darling, I thought that Cameron and Osborne were made to look like rank amateurs, they were wrong footed at every turn, the first hit was the .5% interest rate cut slipped in at the beginning by Brown, from there on the Tories looked like rabbits caught in the headlights of an on-coming juggernaut.

Who the FF do we vote for now?

British-Conservatism · 09-10-2008, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gc

No, I prefer 21st century economics and politics.

Thats because I, and my children, live in this century, and we don't confuse history with politics.

Ahh 21st century economics and politics! Nationalism!.
As shown in practice by Korea, China, Russia and Japan.

08-10-2008, 02:38 PM	#1 (permalink)
Dissident Congress Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 750	David Cameron - a Thatcherite and opponent of populism Nasty nasty economic policies. Read about them here. __________________ Dissident Congress Promoting Populist Patriotism Our Nation - Our People - Our Heritage - Our Future

08-10-2008, 05:37 PM	#2 (permalink)
Baron von Lotsov Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 1,133	"Banks must be manageable, of a sustainable size and responsibly run. " & "Leaving things to the "free market" better known as the corporate fat-cats and City spivs and moneyspinners will create a repeat of the 1930s style depression." At the moment there is not a free market, it is something different and generally known as an oligopoly, much like the oil business. The reason being the players are too few and too large, and this means any one of them can exert influence over the market. A free market proper is where each player is too small to exert any tangible influence and in this way it is self regulated. I think you might have the concept of a free market wrong, it's not the beast that it is popularly known to be, generally because most people fail to understand the technical conditions required to define a market as free. __________________ "A government big enough to supply you with everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have..."

09-10-2008, 10:08 AM	#8 (permalink)
Dissident Congress Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 750	It just goes to show how a party has sold out on its principles and adopted the policies of a rival party - namely the 19th century Liberals. Thatcherite economics is just a new name for Manchester Liberalism. __________________ Dissident Congress Promoting Populist Patriotism Our Nation - Our People - Our Heritage - Our Future

09-10-2008, 11:02 AM	#9 (permalink)
Little Englander (sour) Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Portsmouth Posts: 949 Party: English Democrats	Yesterday at PMQs and later the statement by Darling, I thought that Cameron and Osborne were made to look like rank amateurs, they were wrong footed at every turn, the first hit was the .5% interest rate cut slipped in at the beginning by Brown, from there on the Tories looked like rabbits caught in the headlights of an on-coming juggernaut. Who the FF do we vote for now? __________________ Little Englander (bigoted)

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-10-2008, 08:20 PM	#4 (permalink)
Gregory Lauder-Frost Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: U.K. Posts: 671 Party: UKIP	Prior to WWI the Tory Party went for a regulated economy. One where they would at least have some say on behalf of the population. It was the Tories (excluding Peel) who were opposed to Free Trade and instead used the Imperial Preference system. Within Great Britain they were generally in favour of free markets but again they had things like the Milk Marketting Board (abolished by M Thatcher) and 'recommended retail price' (also dropped by Conservatives). If the present non-Conservative Party is pursuing the unregulated free trade line where "everything finds its natural levels" they are turning on its head traditional Tory philosophy and will do to our remaining industries, businesses etc., what has happened already in the financial sector. We need legislation outlawing extortion and we don't need any more free-for-alls. I often wonder how we will feed out people in 30 years time and how on earth the government will be able to pay pensions. They are no longer in control of our country.

08-10-2008, 10:36 PM	#5 (permalink)
gc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 569	"Prior to WWI the Tory Party...." If you want to know why right-wing politics have failed, then one might consider their position of perspective, and their subsequent total disenfranchisement. Yep. At the dawn of the 21st century we need to worry about what the Tories were thinking "prior to WW1". Actually, those of us who, like our children, live in a different age, might consider this to be not politics, but history!

08-10-2008, 10:44 PM	#7 (permalink)
gc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 569	No, I prefer 21st century economics and politics. Thats because I, and my children, live in this century, and we don't confuse history with politics.