Thought Id start this one going because its rather dead on this board at the moment and I suppose all my usual muckers are either at the Stella tennis event watching Dim Tim (lose again) or at Henly Regatta eating cucumber sandwiches (they wish,...NOT).

Anyway please feel free to just talk to yourself blast away and let it go on any company or subject you wish. Just wish Id thought of this one before.

cheers GF.

Fred
I doubt that the Conervatives want a fixed term 5 year parliament. It looks like it is the Libs that want it. They would be worried that Cameron might see the economy going well at some stage and want to pull a quick election to increase their majority and ditch the Libs. I guess it was one of the conditions set by Clegg.

Fred, your explanation is not bad as far as it goes, but I think you're missing two important factors. The first is that what is desired and what is actually obtained through the chosen strategy are often two entirely different things. I think what you are confusing is what Gordon wants, which is probably not all that different to what all the other politicians want, i.e. a prosperous society where everyone is happy, and the way he chooses to go about it. Often the obvious way is not the best one. That is why there are many prosperous capitalist societies and few if any prosperous true socialist ones. I'd like a society where everyone's needs are fully met by the State, the only problem is that someone has to pay for it, and if you meet everyone's needs there are not enough working people left to pay for it and no incentive for anyone to work.

Or seen another way, if Gordon's ideas had been so successful, someone would have funded him for a second term.

Secondly, what you see of Gordon's ideas is what he chooses to show you. That is why the Bigotsgate episode was so hugely damaging personally to him - it showed what he really thought of the people he stood for. And OK, everyone is under pressure in their job, but if he thought that the lady's line of questioning was terrible then clearly he had chosen to ignore what the country was saying.

In summary, I think you're confusing what you think he believed in with what he was actually achieving.

Hilary,

Out of "necessity", the poorer spend a higher percentage of their income and that might account for a higher total of wealth spent. If this is so, then at some points in an economic cycle, it may lead to an increasing GDP, etc..

The problem with the theory, is where are the limits?
===,

Hays,

As, I think you confessed to being an insider, or at least wanting to be. check.

This is me,

Fully agree with your post, except I think the euro will not last another 12 months, mainly due to Greece either jumping the Euro ship or being pushed, but also because Spain will quickly follow, with Portugal trailing not far behind.
Once that happens, the remaining countries will leave like rats leaving the sinking ship.
The only way the Euro can survive is if they instigate monetary policy via a euro (federal) bank. This would obviously mean all aspects of finance with monetary budgets, taxed being levelled out. You can't have one currency pegged to more than one country and expect it to work. With differing budgets, policies, one country will want that currency to stay strong, Germany for example, whilst others will want it to weaken, Greece/Spain.
This is what the major Euro powers have always wanted, and will continue to push for, total rule
The euro is dead, and is being kept ticking over on life support, eventually it will have to be accepted, no amount of resuscitation (bail-outs) will revive it.

Note... I presume we all are aware The Bank of England issued a new-style 20 note on 13 March 2007. The note features Adam Smith, (Scottish) one of the fathers of modern economics, on the back and incorporates enhanced security features.

The new-style 20 notes will circulate alongside the old-style Elgar (English) note which will be progressively withdrawn from circulation.

So after the old notes are withdrawn, the only English 20 note will feature a Scotsman.
Can you imagine the uproar if the Scottish 20 featured an Englishman.

Another case of the English losing identity.

Probably on a par with Conservative Clubs and the mere sight of an England football shirt :o)

Fred,

The cricket's on right now, but you might find this link interesting.

Last among equals

Fwiw, I've got an open mind on the theories.

Greek.

What English identity.

Your ancestors were a mixed bunch of ruffians.

8-)

Hasn't changed much!

Fred
I don't know why you are against the Conservative. You are a Capitalist aren't you? If you are not, then what are you doing having a paid for subscription to a Finacial Website?

Here's here to give money away :-)

Kayak,

You are misreading what I have written.

I hope it is not deliberate.

I have never advocated the demise of a capitalist system, but I do think it needs to be regulated to prevent fiascos like the present economic situation.

(Actually, I often advocated the Industrial relationship, which Management, Unions and shareholders had in Germany in the 50s and 60s.)

However, I believe there should be a more even distribution of the "wealth"
produced by the whole of society, the correct balance is the difficulty.

That wealth can be syphoned into Education, Health Care and Social Services in order to raise the rearing standards of the "delinquent" families. After all not all families can afford Eton or Wellington and have to resort to the remand home in their locality.

To me, it is crazy that some intelligent, educated young people refuse to go to University, because of the fear of the debt at the end of their courses.

I wouldn't liked to have had a 20-30,000 debt at the age of 23-26.

(Ploughing money into education etc. would to my mind be a far better use of money, than ploughing money into something as outdated and outmoded as Trident.)

I don't think that the present Labour or Lib/Dem parties are anti-capitalist, just the extremes of it.

In the past many business friends have told me, that they have done better under a Labour administration than a tory one.

As far as red tape is concerned, the worst period I had for red tape was the tail end of the thatcher and Major governments, and added up to one of the reasons, or excuses, for my retirement earlier than was expected. ( I have something to thank them for.)

But, in a state, where resort to the courts for compensation, recompense, or criminal proceedings is more and more common, one can understand why increased record keeping is demanded.

Crazy society, or just the complexities of social development.

Where would Greek have been, without the gathering and filing of DNA data which was picked up 20 years before they were accepted as evidence in a court of law.

Being dyslexic, I didn't like writing and still don't like forms, but when I look more carefully, I can see the advantage of both of them in some cases..

(But strangely, I did and do like reading.)


Even Hays with his Darwinian posturing (hardly philosophy), would be nowhere without the data being collected and analysed at a later date.


8-)

'I wouldn't liked to have had a 20-30,000 debt at the age of 23-26.'

I frequently encounter many university students who rack up most of this debt by spending 7 nights a week drinking and spending most of their spare time lying in bed in hangover self pity instead of working to support themselves. Why should we/the state support them Fred?

If people are given things on a plate they become lazy. Why should they work for anything when the state will provide.

The absurd increase in students studying stupid subjects at poor universities has caused the removal of student grants. Students need to look at whether there is any point in studying their chosen subject and if it is wrth getting in debt for.

the churn rate says it all really

because of soft A's, they have expectations above their ability/potential

let the labour party pay for them if they think its sutch a good idea

oh yes, the labour party is broke as well

doh

Raw,

The majority of students probably do stupid things during the university lives.

The majority of students eventually get their degrees or other qualifications.

The majority of students go on to help "oil" society by their learning and function in society.

They should be able to give more back to society in various areas.

The majority of students,after leaving University, go on to be higher than average "earners".

Slight increase in taxation of the group or earners would adequately pay the
cost of "higher education" for the benefit of all.

Otherwise, because of "fears" about future "debt", only those whose parents are prepared to afford or indulge their offspring feel unable to go to university to higher education.

That is a loss to society as a whole.

I was lucky that my parents valued education and were able and prepared to finance their children's ongoing education.

I was able to do likewise for my children.

The grants given, do not have to be excessive and I would like to see the hall system regenerated and aimed at reducing the cost of accommodation etc..

But again it is what you value. It is not idealistic and was seen as an advancement in the 50s, 60s and later.

many degrees arent worth the mustard


when everyones someone then no-ones anybody

Hays,

For me, your education would seem to have been a complete waste of time.

I hope and thought reactionaries like you had died out.

"I was lucky that my parents valued education and were able and prepared to finance their children's ongoing education."

Yes, but did they finance your drinking for three years and was your degree in media studies? Because those are the degrees we are currently financing.

It "certainly" wasn't a degree in the "use" of "quotes", anyway :-0

My son is applying to sixth form colleges at present. His school makes him take some media courses. When he was interviewed at his choices of colleges they all said that they didn't want to know his results for Religious studies and Media courses as they were of no use to them. The only colleges that want pupils with media qualifications are those that accept pupils that fail to get into good colleges. the kids then go to college with all the other failures and study more media and some useless business courses. The final result is that they then enter rubbish universities and do more courses that no employer wants. By rubbish universiies, I mean the Tech Colleges and some of the Colleges of Advaced Technology (CATS) that were upgraded to universities.

Just looked at one "University" and in Computer Games it offers a choice between Computer Games Design (BA(Hons)) or Computer Games Programming (BSc(Hons)).

Now don't get me wrong, I'm sure that it is possible to work as a computer games designer or programmer, but I'm also sure that the number of jobs available every year is not going to support the output of two degree courses in it. Perhaps it is a little too specialised, or perhaps geared to interest those who otherwise wouldn't have bothered with university?

Should the state be paying for people to get degrees in Computer Games Programming?

What's Clem's degree?

;-)