What happens, if there is, (probably will be) a minority government and it's not working, so another election is called after 6 months.
Why should it have a different outcome ?
Are we going to have to vote every 6 months ?
PS Fiish what job do you do ? I can't comprehend how you can be posting on here all day & work as well. I'm not meaning to be rude and don't expect an answer tbh. I'm not questioining the others, because I believe many of them to be retired.
No offence taken. I'm a financial controller but I manage to fit in work in between CL sessions.
You moaned about Boris bullying Ed the Daffy Duck on Sunday; and here you are, 20 onto 1. What's happening to us? We used to be like a big family! I'm with AFKA on this, once the election is over and The Cons are still in power with Ukip ruffling a few feathers, we should have no more threads on politics.
Well it was 2 until I outed you as a Lib Dem voting Europhile WUM running a wine bar in Tours
The explanations for greater UK inequality and the 'rise of the super rich' are global in nature because every developed country is experiencing the same phenomenon, regardless of political hue.
For example (all highly linked factors):
- globalisation: wage deflationary for the less skilled yet very wage inflationary for the highly skilled (including footballers etc.) - the resultant newly wealthy from emerging markets meanwhile not surprisingly want to leave their homelands to settle in a handful of world class cities (ie. London or Paris not Manchester or Marseille);
- the internet: again highly deflationary for wages and margins unless you happen to be clever or rich enough to work for/own some of the leading companies;
- low interest rates: linked to the above deflationary trends - creates asset bubbles which accrue to those that own assets;
- education: as a result of the above, the 'return on education' has increased significantly - again accrues disproportionately to those who are born into families that value education (often the educated and thus richer segment of society though not exclusively so as certain immigrant cohorts have proved). At least here there is room for a real debate (eg. state vs private, selective vs comprehensive etc.).
None of the parties can affect these trends so the question is how far can they tilt the system before they risk social meltdown (Tory) or economic meltdown (Labour). The answer in both cases 'not very much' - hence my view that on election day we will see a swing to the devil voters know.
Could you show me please the evidence that the increase in inequality in Germany has anywhere near matched that in the UK?
The explanations for greater UK inequality and the 'rise of the super rich' are global in nature because every developed country is experiencing the same phenomenon, regardless of political hue.
For example (all highly linked factors):
- globalisation: wage deflationary for the less skilled yet very wage inflationary for the highly skilled (including footballers etc.) - the resultant newly wealthy from emerging markets meanwhile not surprisingly want to leave their homelands to settle in a handful of world class cities (ie. London or Paris not Manchester or Marseille);
- the internet: again highly deflationary for wages and margins unless you happen to be clever or rich enough to work for/own some of the leading companies;
- low interest rates: linked to the above deflationary trends - creates asset bubbles which accrue to those that own assets;
- education: as a result of the above, the 'return on education' has increased significantly - again accrues disproportionately to those who are born into families that value education (often the educated and thus richer segment of society though not exclusively so as certain immigrant cohorts have proved). At least here there is room for a real debate (eg. state vs private, selective vs comprehensive etc.).
None of the parties can affect these trends so the question is how far can they tilt the system before they risk social meltdown (Tory) or economic meltdown (Labour). The answer in both cases 'not very much' - hence my view that on election day we will see a swing to the devil voters know.
Could you show me please the evidence that the increase in inequality in Germany has anywhere near matched that in the UK?
Could you show us any evidence that the inequality in Germany isn't anywhere near that in the UK?
The explanations for greater UK inequality and the 'rise of the super rich' are global in nature because every developed country is experiencing the same phenomenon, regardless of political hue.
For example (all highly linked factors):
- globalisation: wage deflationary for the less skilled yet very wage inflationary for the highly skilled (including footballers etc.) - the resultant newly wealthy from emerging markets meanwhile not surprisingly want to leave their homelands to settle in a handful of world class cities (ie. London or Paris not Manchester or Marseille);
- the internet: again highly deflationary for wages and margins unless you happen to be clever or rich enough to work for/own some of the leading companies;
- low interest rates: linked to the above deflationary trends - creates asset bubbles which accrue to those that own assets;
- education: as a result of the above, the 'return on education' has increased significantly - again accrues disproportionately to those who are born into families that value education (often the educated and thus richer segment of society though not exclusively so as certain immigrant cohorts have proved). At least here there is room for a real debate (eg. state vs private, selective vs comprehensive etc.).
None of the parties can affect these trends so the question is how far can they tilt the system before they risk social meltdown (Tory) or economic meltdown (Labour). The answer in both cases 'not very much' - hence my view that on election day we will see a swing to the devil voters know.
This. Labour do scare me. They've come up with a plan but don't appear to have the rhetoric,know how or belief to back it up. For that reason a big factor on deciding whether to vote for them sends the mind back to their last time in office.
You moaned about Boris bullying Ed the Daffy Duck on Sunday; and here you are, 20 onto 1. What's happening to us? We used to be like a big family! I'm with AFKA on this, once the election is over and The Cons are still in power with Ukip ruffling a few feathers, we should have no more threads on politics.
Well it was 2 until I outed you as a Lib Dem voting Europhile WUM running a wine bar in Tours
The explanations for greater UK inequality and the 'rise of the super rich' are global in nature because every developed country is experiencing the same phenomenon, regardless of political hue.
For example (all highly linked factors):
- globalisation: wage deflationary for the less skilled yet very wage inflationary for the highly skilled (including footballers etc.) - the resultant newly wealthy from emerging markets meanwhile not surprisingly want to leave their homelands to settle in a handful of world class cities (ie. London or Paris not Manchester or Marseille);
- the internet: again highly deflationary for wages and margins unless you happen to be clever or rich enough to work for/own some of the leading companies;
- low interest rates: linked to the above deflationary trends - creates asset bubbles which accrue to those that own assets;
- education: as a result of the above, the 'return on education' has increased significantly - again accrues disproportionately to those who are born into families that value education (often the educated and thus richer segment of society though not exclusively so as certain immigrant cohorts have proved). At least here there is room for a real debate (eg. state vs private, selective vs comprehensive etc.).
None of the parties can affect these trends so the question is how far can they tilt the system before they risk social meltdown (Tory) or economic meltdown (Labour). The answer in both cases 'not very much' - hence my view that on election day we will see a swing to the devil voters know.
Could you show me please the evidence that the increase in inequality in Germany has anywhere near matched that in the UK?
Could you show us any evidence that the inequality in Germany isn't anywhere near that in the UK?
Well he is the one who made the claim, so he's got the facts at his fingertips. I doubt that the inequality in Germany has increased as much because:
1. Direct taxes and social charges are higher there 2. The unions are part of the business fabric and have a greater say in management pay as a result 3. The German property market is less frothy than the UK one 4. There is no zero hours nonsense in Germany. Ask Amazon
"Calls for a debate on population growth have come from a Kent Liberal Democrat election candidate. At a BBC debate, Russ Timpson called for a conversation about how many people could live "on this island"."
Even the Liberals are not what they seem these days!
"...Tories know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. .......I would prefer a hospital that tried to help me to get better after a crash in a Ford Pinto, than a hospital content to help me to the morgue after a crash in a Ford Pinto."
So a Tory voter is in favour of allowing corporate manslaughter if it leads to higher corporate profits for business.
Not sure many Tory voters would make that connection, not far short of an insult to the intelligence.
You present business and individuals as adversaries with no common interests. There is a world of difference between multi national corporates able to choose where in the world to pay any tax and small and medium business owners who in the UK employ over 90% of the workforce and pay business rates, corporation tax, national insurance (jobs tax) and income tax. Drive out our small and medium businesses with unreasonable tax burdens and you drive up unemployment.
Anyone with the balls to set up their own business has made sacrifices. Few successful businessmen have never had a failure and many have lost everything before starting all over again. Making a few million having risked everything and having Ed Milliband say he is not on your side he's on the side of "working people" and giving "working people a fair share" is an affront. There's a big difference between a small successful business owner who risks his own money and a city financier risking someone else's money. Labour makes no distinction and neither do its supporters only interested in fairness if it isn't for rich bastards. What might seem fair to those who haven't earned the right to be rich isn't seen as fair by those who've worked their balls off earning the right.
Labour is the party that maintains a class war, encourages inverted snobbery, envy of the successful and a myth of working class victimisation because it doesn't have any other rationale for its existence. If you take away the mythology the party is an irrelevance.
Let's get a few things in perspective. The national debt is £124 trillion and the interest on that is £52bn a year. On top we are having to borrow £100bn a year (the current account deficit) because we are spending more than we are earning. Total tax receipts are £430bn and the current policies being bandied about by Labour to tax the rich bastards might raise £3bn. Hardly going to make a dent in the £152bn we need, before we even start running down the £124 trillion debt (that's £124,000,000,000,000). It's 82% of our GDP compared to 30% in 2000 and Labour would have you believe that its all down to rich bastards not paying their tax. We should be afraid, very afraid, and should be worried about controlling debt, not over pre-occupation with the likes of Philip Green bunging some shares to his missus in Monaco to save a few million in tax.
Voting Labour means you don't need to worry about the cost of anything because you get someone else to pay for it with a never ending supply of borrowed money.
The explanations for greater UK inequality and the 'rise of the super rich' are global in nature because every developed country is experiencing the same phenomenon, regardless of political hue.
For example (all highly linked factors):
- globalisation: wage deflationary for the less skilled yet very wage inflationary for the highly skilled (including footballers etc.) - the resultant newly wealthy from emerging markets meanwhile not surprisingly want to leave their homelands to settle in a handful of world class cities (ie. London or Paris not Manchester or Marseille);
- the internet: again highly deflationary for wages and margins unless you happen to be clever or rich enough to work for/own some of the leading companies;
- low interest rates: linked to the above deflationary trends - creates asset bubbles which accrue to those that own assets;
- education: as a result of the above, the 'return on education' has increased significantly - again accrues disproportionately to those who are born into families that value education (often the educated and thus richer segment of society though not exclusively so as certain immigrant cohorts have proved). At least here there is room for a real debate (eg. state vs private, selective vs comprehensive etc.).
None of the parties can affect these trends so the question is how far can they tilt the system before they risk social meltdown (Tory) or economic meltdown (Labour). The answer in both cases 'not very much' - hence my view that on election day we will see a swing to the devil voters know.
Could you show me please the evidence that the increase in inequality in Germany has anywhere near matched that in the UK?
Could you show us any evidence that the inequality in Germany isn't anywhere near that in the UK?
Well he is the one who made the claim, so he's got the facts at his fingertips. I doubt that the inequality in Germany has increased as much because:
1. Direct taxes and social charges are higher there 2. The unions are part of the business fabric and have a greater say in management pay as a result 3. The German property market is less frothy than the UK one 4. There is no zero hours nonsense in Germany. Ask Amazon
I said earlier in the thread that much of the German social infrastructure was created by Brits after the War. It is a shame that we didn't sort our own society out at the same time.
According to the OECD, inequality isn't especially different particularly before taxes/transfers (my point on the slight room for leeway between left and right). The UK is bang in line with the rest of Western Europe (but understandably below the USA.
A relevant issue is the fact that the UK's competitive advantage happens to be in industries (eg. finance, media, fashion, ) which have huge economies of scale (and thus scope for great individual riches) whilst Germany's is in industries that don't (eg. engineering, autos, consumer goods etc.).
Germany also has a very limited concept of 'old money' since it was wiped out only three generations ago.
"...Tories know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. .......I would prefer a hospital that tried to help me to get better after a crash in a Ford Pinto, than a hospital content to help me to the morgue after a crash in a Ford Pinto."
So a Tory voter is in favour of allowing corporate manslaughter if it leads to higher corporate profits for business.
Not sure many Tory voters would make that connection, not far short of an insult to the intelligence.
You present business and individuals as adversaries with no common interests. There is a world of difference between multi national corporates able to choose where in the world to pay any tax and small and medium business owners who in the UK employ over 90% of the workforce and pay business rates, corporation tax, national insurance (jobs tax) and income tax. Drive out our small and medium businesses with unreasonable tax burdens and you drive up unemployment.
Anyone with the balls to set up their own business has made sacrifices. Few successful businessmen have never had a failure and many have lost everything before starting all over again. Making a few million having risked everything and having Ed Milliband say he is not on your side he's on the side of "working people" and giving "working people a fair share" is an affront. There's a big difference between a small successful business owner who risks his own money and a city financier risking someone else's money. Labour makes no distinction and neither do its supporters only interested in fairness if it isn't for rich bastards. What might seem fair to those who haven't earned the right to be rich isn't seen as fair by those who've worked their balls off earning the right.
Labour is the party that maintains a class war, encourages inverted snobbery, envy of the successful and a myth of working class victimisation because it doesn't have any other rationale for its existence. If you take away the mythology the party is an irrelevance.
Let's get a few things in perspective. The national debt is £124 trillion and the interest on that is £52bn a year. On top we are having to borrow £100bn a year (the current account deficit) because we are spending more than we are earning. Total tax receipts are £430bn and the current policies being bandied about by Labour to tax the rich bastards might raise £3bn. Hardly going to make a dent in the £152bn we need, before we even start running down the £124 trillion debt (that's £124,000,000,000,000). It's 82% of our GDP compared to 30% in 2000 and Labour would have you believe that its all down to rich bastards not paying their tax. We should be afraid, very afraid, and should be worried about controlling debt, not over pre-occupation with the likes of Philip Green bunging some shares to his missus in Monaco to save a few million in tax.
Voting Labour means you don't need to worry about the cost of anything because you get someone else to pay for it with a never ending supply of borrowed money.
Gosh, what a misrepresentation you have created taking those quotes from my post out of context and concluding:
So a Tory voter is in favour of allowing corporate manslaughter if it leads to higher corporate profits for business.
I discussed the Ford Pinto case and what it speaks to me about the extremities of the free market, and how it also has a resonance with the hinterland philosophy of a completely free marketer Conservative. I also made it clear that I was musing on a broader perspective than current detail. Perhaps you would like to read my post again, and reflect on the integrity of your out of context quoting, followed by your misrepresentation.
I have selected one quote from your post, but also include the whole post.
I am aware that enterprise and business making money ends up paying for everything, and the Conservatives are promoting a 'growing economy' as their main slogan. OK I get that, and the debate seems to be a) how to keep the economy growing and b) how to divvy things up. Now philosophically one may argue that Conservative free marketism is about the economy growing no matter what, and socialism is about the divvying up. I want to pause on the free market bit, and take a moment to consider the idea of making money, and ask if there is any hindrance to businesses being compelled to making as much money as possible, or ought there to be? I came across the Ford Pinto case, where freedom of business, and a notion called 'cost benefit analysis' was being applied. In a kind of nutshell it transpired that the big business (Ford) would rather not spend $10 per vehicle to ensure safety as there were so many vehicles needing the part, but that it would be cheaper to pay out compensation to the injured and those affected by bereavement for those vehicles that crashed due to the mechanical fault. In terms of cost benefit analysis, or as interpreted by me the machinations of big business where the numbers come first, then avoiding the vehicle upgrades, and paying out to the bereaved makes sense. However in terms of other values, human values if you like, Fords attitude of distain is in my world view reprehensible. My problem here is that philosophically I link the Tories to the big businesses, and by association I see them as (to quote Wilde) people who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. Yes a bit of a sweeping generalisation, but the underlying philosophies of the right, and the underlying philosophies (as understood by me) of the left, is that I would prefer a hospital that tried to help me to get better after a crash in a Ford Pinto, than a hospital content to help me to the morgue after a crash in a Ford Pinto.
An example of how some businesses (used to, and maybe still do) really think.
You might be interested to know that it's not just the automotive industry that has this strange, bean-counter attitude to deaths caused by (avoidable?) known issues. In the airline industry, safety issues are often measured in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, whereby, if the cost of the maintenance exceeds the (likely) cost of compensation for deaths, then the airline might consider making an "economic", rather than "safety" decision. Imagine that! You have to make a decision on whether to save costs by making changes now; or saving your money and hoping you pay a lower amount in compensation claims when people are killed.
But it gets even worse than that. Lives are more "valuable" in cash dollar terms than cargo. Which means the cost of making a passenger airline safer is "worth it"; but the cost of making a cargo flight safer to the same amount, is not "worth it" - fewer people die when a cargo flight ditches.
So, imagine if you are a cargo pilot. Your safety is less important, in cash dollar terms, than a passenger pilot's. No wonder the government has had to intervene.
Not really a response your post apart from the initial comment which is why I didn't link it. You could have just given it a LOL like others who don't agree with a different point of view.
According to the OECD, inequality isn't especially different particularly before taxes/transfers (my point on the slight room for leeway between left and right). The UK is bang in line with the rest of Western Europe (but understandably below the USA.
A relevant issue is the fact that the UK's competitive advantage happens to be in industries (eg. finance, media, fashion, ) which have huge economies of scale (and thus scope for great individual riches) whilst Germany's is in industries that don't (eg. engineering, autos, consumer goods etc.).
Germany also has a very limited concept of 'old money' since it was wiped out only three generations ago.
Thanks. Will take a closer look, when i have stopped celebrating tonight's football result. I think your relevant issue of the type of industry is especially worth considering. Is finance an "industry"?
Not really a response your post apart from the initial comment which is why I didn't link it. You could have just given it a LOL like others who don't agree with a different point of view.
...except I wasn't disagreeing with you, but showing concern about your misrepresentation of my post. A LOL is all well and good, but I have tried to show more respect than that considering how much you wrote.
According to the OECD, inequality isn't especially different particularly before taxes/transfers (my point on the slight room for leeway between left and right). The UK is bang in line with the rest of Western Europe (but understandably below the USA.
A relevant issue is the fact that the UK's competitive advantage happens to be in industries (eg. finance, media, fashion, ) which have huge economies of scale (and thus scope for great individual riches) whilst Germany's is in industries that don't (eg. engineering, autos, consumer goods etc.).
Germany also has a very limited concept of 'old money' since it was wiped out only three generations ago.
Thanks. Will take a closer look, when i have stopped celebrating tonight's football result. I think your relevant issue of the type of industry is especially worth considering. Is finance an "industry"?
Well it encompasses leading global (or at least European) presence in investment banking, asset management, insurance, commodities, hedge funds, private equity etc. plus all of the related services (legal, audit, consulting, IT etc.). All extremely scaleable and lucrative as a result.
The irony is that the 'bad eggs' in the crisis were a drop in the ocean but they caused enormous damage thanks to such a light-touch regulatory regime and mad permitted leverage levels.
According to the OECD, inequality isn't especially different particularly before taxes/transfers (my point on the slight room for leeway between left and right). The UK is bang in line with the rest of Western Europe (but understandably below the USA.
A relevant issue is the fact that the UK's competitive advantage happens to be in industries (eg. finance, media, fashion, ) which have huge economies of scale (and thus scope for great individual riches) whilst Germany's is in industries that don't (eg. engineering, autos, consumer goods etc.).
Germany also has a very limited concept of 'old money' since it was wiped out only three generations ago.
Thanks. Will take a closer look, when i have stopped celebrating tonight's football result. I think your relevant issue of the type of industry is especially worth considering. Is finance an "industry"?
Well it encompasses leading global (or at least European) presence in investment banking, asset management, insurance, commodities, hedge funds, private equity etc. plus all of the related services (legal, audit, consulting, IT etc.). All extremely scaleable and lucrative as a result.
The irony is that the 'bad eggs' in the crisis were a drop in the ocean but they caused enormous damage thanks to such a light-touch regulatory regime and mad permitted leverage levels.
However that doesn't make good headlines.....
It's probably a semantic point, but at least in the past an "industry" made things. Would you call "advertising" an industry? I would not dare to, but it is part of the media sector, which you characterised as a British industry (and of course we are world leaders at it). I guess the more important point is that the type of industries you describe in Germany are more long term in their presence in the country where they are active.
Rekcon Sinn Fein are going to be a major player in the next coalition...
Don't think so, they've ruled it out.
Only with FF and FG. Indo's are going to take a fair few seats, Labour and a few Greens. Don't get me wrong. I reckon they would make a total hames of it.
I'd argue the service sector is on average less prone to foreign competition than the manufacturing sector.
Emerging economies can already produce world class manufactured goods (eg. Samsung, Embraer, Lenovo, Hyundai....) but can't hope in the medium term to recreate the networks, trust, governance etc. and most importantly attract the talent required to compete in the sectors we excel in.
Germany in my view is getting squeezed by its Eurozone commitments on the one hand and foreign competition on the other (including the resurgence of Japan).
I said earlier in the thread that much of the German social infrastructure was created by Brits after the War. It is a shame that we didn't sort our own society out at the same time.
We did. We created the NHS, vast amounts of social housing, and introduced national insurance to support people through unemployment, sickness and old age. Problem is various governments have buggered it up since.
I said earlier in the thread that much of the German social infrastructure was created by Brits after the War. It is a shame that we didn't sort our own society out at the same time.
We did. We created the NHS, vast amounts of social housing, and introduced national insurance to support people through unemployment, sickness and old age. Problem is various governments have buggered it up since.
I agree , sorry I meant to say more about the issues that @PragueAddick was talking about . I used the wrong word in saying society . I should have made it clear what I meant .
For example the union / management relationships are much more productive in Germany and TU's are a respected part of the social consensus in a way that would be unimaginable here .
I am aware that enterprise and business making money ends up paying for everything, and the Conservatives are promoting a 'growing economy' as their main slogan. OK I get that, and the debate seems to be a) how to keep the economy growing and b) how to divvy things up. Now philosophically one may argue that Conservative free marketism is about the economy growing no matter what, and socialism is about the divvying up. I want to pause on the free market bit, and take a moment to consider the idea of making money, and ask if there is any hindrance to businesses being compelled to making as much money as possible, or ought there to be? I came across the Ford Pinto case, where freedom of business, and a notion called 'cost benefit analysis' was being applied. In a kind of nutshell it transpired that the big business (Ford) would rather not spend $10 per vehicle to ensure safety as there were so many vehicles needing the part, but that it would be cheaper to pay out compensation to the injured and those affected by bereavement for those vehicles that crashed due to the mechanical fault. In terms of cost benefit analysis, or as interpreted by me the machinations of big business where the numbers come first, then avoiding the vehicle upgrades, and paying out to the bereaved makes sense. However in terms of other values, human values if you like, Fords attitude of distain is in my world view reprehensible. My problem here is that philosophically I link the Tories to the big businesses, and by association I see them as (to quote Wilde) people who know the cost of everything, but the value of nothing. Yes a bit of a sweeping generalisation, but the underlying philosophies of the right, and the underlying philosophies (as understood by me) of the left, is that I would prefer a hospital that tried to help me to get better after a crash in a Ford Pinto, than a hospital content to help me to the morgue after a crash in a Ford Pinto.
An example of how some businesses (used to, and maybe still do) really think.
I don't believe any Tory would condone unsafe businesses practices.
113 Tories recently voted against the introduction of tobacco plain packaging. Not quite the same thing as Seth is referring to granted but essentially they voted against a law that is aimed at reducing the take up of smoking by youngsters. The Tory backbenches were also split on the imposition of a ban on adults smoking in a car with children in it last year.
I'm sure the lobbying done by the tobacco companies in the run up to both votes helped reinforce their free market ideology to the supply of an unsafe product shall we say.
And it's not just big tobacco that gets a sympathetic ear from politicians either...
I listened carefully again this morning to Nicola Sturgeon being interviewed on BBC Breakfast. She really does have almost no positive campaign messages: the Empresses' New Clothes?
Her mantra (consistently from the time of the independence referendum) was almost entirely: "block Tories, end austerity, keep Tories out, end austerity, Westminster, Westminster, Westminster, Westminster.... Presumably this last bit bit is used to convince the Scottish voters that they have no say in UK politics unless they vote SNP, despite the opposite being the case? Her party's policies appear to be no Trident, no Tories, no austerity, 50% tax band and tax bankers' bonuses. (Although the apostrophe position on the BBC graphic indicated that it was only one banker who was having a tax haircut! I wonder who it is?)
But there is no flesh on the bones and what does "end austerity" actually mean and how would you achieve it? Tax more, borrow more and increase the deficit presumably?
I've concluded that English voters in marginal seats who don't want to commit economic suicide, really should think very carefully about who they vote for. It is essential that the toxic SNP is kept out of Government.
I'd argue the service sector is on average less prone to foreign competition than the manufacturing sector.
Emerging economies can already produce world class manufactured goods (eg. Samsung, Embraer, Lenovo, Hyundai....) but can't hope in the medium term to recreate the networks, trust, governance etc. and most importantly attract the talent required to compete in the sectors we excel in.
Germany in my view is getting squeezed by its Eurozone commitments on the one hand and foreign competition on the other (including the resurgence of Japan).
I suppose that is true in the sense that you can reconfigure a service business to respond to threats more quickly than you can a manufacturing one.
Germany. Excuse me everyone that I keep banging on about the place, but having lived two hours from the border for the last 22 years, and thus having good sight of it without actually living there, I find it one of the most instructive experiences of my life. Just before I left the UK in 1993, there were lots of voices in the City scoffing that Germany was the "sick man of Europe" - they assumed the Thatcher reforms had created a leaner fitter Britain, whereas Germany had taken a deep breath and embraced the East, at a one to one deutschmark exchange rate.I almost started to believe them until a mate of mine who'd become a big shot in the brewery business, said to me "they laugh at the Germans, but you'll see. They will be back, bigger and stronger than ever". And by the heavens, it took a while but he was right. And it took a while because the Germans think long term. When they build a stretch of motorway you don't find it closed again six months later for "essential repairs". What they have achieved in the East is colossal. It has taken them time and the political blowback is still going on, but go there and then tell me you are not impressed, and that you don't see the potential of all this investment. Roland Duchatelet has certainly seen it.
I look around my house. Kitchen: the whole thing, both furniture and appliances, German, including the little cheap ones. Vacuum cleaner, Miele. Garden, Bosch mower, shredder, Gardena hose stuff. It wasn't a conscience decision and they all work. The Bosch washer dryer is nearly 20 years old and its been faultless. The only way the Brits and the Japs get a look in is in the hi fi (took the amp in for repair last month) and AV systems, and the Jap stuff is mainly old. Samsung TV. Funny enough my car is French, after 16 years of driving Toyota. Most Czechs aspire to a German car, and Skoda is essentially German,
But those are the big names. What people in the UK ignore is that the German economy is powered by small and medium size companies which often are the main employer in a similar size town. For example, Faber Castell who make pencils, still, just as they did when I was at school. Or the headphone brand Sennheiser.
Thats is why at the risk of being a broken record I exhort everyone to look at how the Germans do things and ask if that isn't better than how we do it in the UK. Starting with the administration of professional football.
In rural Midlands the number of UKIP posters on display in fields and hedgerows is amazing. In the market towns there are very few posters up. Certainly less than last election.
I wonder if that is significant?
PS Good point Prague - in Japan the same situation occurs - everything is Japanese. Though I recently took apart my Philips TV and on the CRT was a Samsung label!
Comments
Could you show me please the evidence that the increase in inequality in Germany has anywhere near matched that in the UK?
For that reason a big factor on deciding whether to vote for them sends the mind back to their last time in office.
1. Direct taxes and social charges are higher there
2. The unions are part of the business fabric and have a greater say in management pay as a result
3. The German property market is less frothy than the UK one
4. There is no zero hours nonsense in Germany. Ask Amazon
At a BBC debate, Russ Timpson called for a conversation about how many people could live "on this island"."
Even the Liberals are not what they seem these days!
.......I would prefer a hospital that tried to help me to get better after a crash in a Ford Pinto, than a hospital content to help me to the morgue after a crash in a Ford Pinto."
So a Tory voter is in favour of allowing corporate manslaughter if it leads to higher corporate profits for business.
Not sure many Tory voters would make that connection, not far short of an insult to the intelligence.
You present business and individuals as adversaries with no common interests. There is a world of difference between multi national corporates able to choose where in the world to pay any tax and small and medium business owners who in the UK employ over 90% of the workforce and pay business rates, corporation tax, national insurance (jobs tax) and income tax. Drive out our small and medium businesses with unreasonable tax burdens and you drive up unemployment.
Anyone with the balls to set up their own business has made sacrifices. Few successful businessmen have never had a failure and many have lost everything before starting all over again. Making a few million having risked everything and having Ed Milliband say he is not on your side he's on the side of "working people" and giving "working people a fair share" is an affront. There's a big difference between a small successful business owner who risks his own money and a city financier risking someone else's money. Labour makes no distinction and neither do its supporters only interested in fairness if it isn't for rich bastards. What might seem fair to those who haven't earned the right to be rich isn't seen as fair by those who've worked their balls off earning the right.
Labour is the party that maintains a class war, encourages inverted snobbery, envy of the successful and a myth of working class victimisation because it doesn't have any other rationale for its existence. If you take away the mythology the party is an irrelevance.
Let's get a few things in perspective. The national debt is £124 trillion and the interest on that is £52bn a year. On top we are having to borrow £100bn a year (the current account deficit) because we are spending more than we are earning. Total tax receipts are £430bn and the current policies being bandied about by Labour to tax the rich bastards might raise £3bn. Hardly going to make a dent in the £152bn we need, before we even start running down the £124 trillion debt (that's £124,000,000,000,000). It's 82% of our GDP compared to 30% in 2000 and Labour would have you believe that its all down to rich bastards not paying their tax. We should be afraid, very afraid, and should be worried about controlling debt, not over pre-occupation with the likes of Philip Green bunging some shares to his missus in Monaco to save a few million in tax.
Voting Labour means you don't need to worry about the cost of anything because you get someone else to pay for it with a never ending supply of borrowed money.
Some think inequality in Germany is highest in the Eurozone: https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/03/05/germ-m05.html
A relevant issue is the fact that the UK's competitive advantage happens to be in industries (eg. finance, media, fashion, ) which have huge economies of scale (and thus scope for great individual riches) whilst Germany's is in industries that don't (eg. engineering, autos, consumer goods etc.).
Germany also has a very limited concept of 'old money' since it was wiped out only three generations ago.
So a Tory voter is in favour of allowing corporate manslaughter if it leads to higher corporate profits for business.
I discussed the Ford Pinto case and what it speaks to me about the extremities of the free market, and how it also has a resonance with the hinterland philosophy of a completely free marketer Conservative. I also made it clear that I was musing on a broader perspective than current detail. Perhaps you would like to read my post again, and reflect on the integrity of your out of context quoting, followed by your misrepresentation.
I have selected one quote from your post, but also include the whole post.
You might be interested to know that it's not just the automotive industry that has this strange, bean-counter attitude to deaths caused by (avoidable?) known issues. In the airline industry, safety issues are often measured in terms of the cost-benefit analysis, whereby, if the cost of the maintenance exceeds the (likely) cost of compensation for deaths, then the airline might consider making an "economic", rather than "safety" decision. Imagine that! You have to make a decision on whether to save costs by making changes now; or saving your money and hoping you pay a lower amount in compensation claims when people are killed.
But it gets even worse than that. Lives are more "valuable" in cash dollar terms than cargo. Which means the cost of making a passenger airline safer is "worth it"; but the cost of making a cargo flight safer to the same amount, is not "worth it" - fewer people die when a cargo flight ditches.
So, imagine if you are a cargo pilot. Your safety is less important, in cash dollar terms, than a passenger pilot's. No wonder the government has had to intervene.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-06-25/airline-crash-deaths-too-few-to-make-new-safety-rules-pay
The irony is that the 'bad eggs' in the crisis were a drop in the ocean but they caused enormous damage thanks to such a light-touch regulatory regime and mad permitted leverage levels.
However that doesn't make good headlines.....
Don't get me wrong. I reckon they would make a total hames of it.
Vote Curbs for president.
Emerging economies can already produce world class manufactured goods (eg. Samsung, Embraer, Lenovo, Hyundai....) but can't hope in the medium term to recreate the networks, trust, governance etc. and most importantly attract the talent required to compete in the sectors we excel in.
Germany in my view is getting squeezed by its Eurozone commitments on the one hand and foreign competition on the other (including the resurgence of Japan).
I agree , sorry I meant to say more about the issues that @PragueAddick was talking about . I used the wrong word in saying society . I should have made it clear what I meant .
For example the union / management relationships are much more productive in Germany and TU's are a respected part of the social consensus in a way that would be unimaginable here .
I'm sure the lobbying done by the tobacco companies in the run up to both votes helped reinforce their free market ideology to the supply of an unsafe product shall we say.
And it's not just big tobacco that gets a sympathetic ear from politicians either...
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3059765/Ministers-shame-killer-salt-Government-sabotage-drive-cut-intake-cost-6-000-lives-say-doctors.html
Her mantra (consistently from the time of the independence referendum) was almost entirely: "block Tories, end austerity, keep Tories out, end austerity, Westminster, Westminster, Westminster, Westminster.... Presumably this last bit bit is used to convince the Scottish voters that they have no say in UK politics unless they vote SNP, despite the opposite being the case?
Her party's policies appear to be no Trident, no Tories, no austerity, 50% tax band and tax bankers' bonuses. (Although the apostrophe position on the BBC graphic indicated that it was only one banker who was having a tax haircut! I wonder who it is?)
But there is no flesh on the bones and what does "end austerity" actually mean and how would you achieve it? Tax more, borrow more and increase the deficit presumably?
I've concluded that English voters in marginal seats who don't want to commit economic suicide, really should think very carefully about who they vote for. It is essential that the toxic SNP is kept out of Government.
Germany. Excuse me everyone that I keep banging on about the place, but having lived two hours from the border for the last 22 years, and thus having good sight of it without actually living there, I find it one of the most instructive experiences of my life. Just before I left the UK in 1993, there were lots of voices in the City scoffing that Germany was the "sick man of Europe" - they assumed the Thatcher reforms had created a leaner fitter Britain, whereas Germany had taken a deep breath and embraced the East, at a one to one deutschmark exchange rate.I almost started to believe them until a mate of mine who'd become a big shot in the brewery business, said to me "they laugh at the Germans, but you'll see. They will be back, bigger and stronger than ever". And by the heavens, it took a while but he was right. And it took a while because the Germans think long term. When they build a stretch of motorway you don't find it closed again six months later for "essential repairs". What they have achieved in the East is colossal. It has taken them time and the political blowback is still going on, but go there and then tell me you are not impressed, and that you don't see the potential of all this investment. Roland Duchatelet has certainly seen it.
I look around my house. Kitchen: the whole thing, both furniture and appliances, German, including the little cheap ones. Vacuum cleaner, Miele. Garden, Bosch mower, shredder, Gardena hose stuff. It wasn't a conscience decision and they all work. The Bosch washer dryer is nearly 20 years old and its been faultless. The only way the Brits and the Japs get a look in is in the hi fi (took the amp in for repair last month) and AV systems, and the Jap stuff is mainly old. Samsung TV. Funny enough my car is French, after 16 years of driving Toyota. Most Czechs aspire to a German car, and Skoda is essentially German,
But those are the big names. What people in the UK ignore is that the German economy is powered by small and medium size companies which often are the main employer in a similar size town. For example, Faber Castell who make pencils, still, just as they did when I was at school. Or the headphone brand Sennheiser.
Thats is why at the risk of being a broken record I exhort everyone to look at how the Germans do things and ask if that isn't better than how we do it in the UK. Starting with the administration of professional football.
Tschuss!
The man in a prick of the highest order, he spouts nonsense amd drivel
In the market towns there are very few posters up.
Certainly less than last election.
I wonder if that is significant?
PS Good point Prague - in Japan the same situation occurs - everything is Japanese. Though I recently took apart my Philips TV and on the CRT was a Samsung label!