Should we introduce legislation to control the labour parties ability to overspend?

Discussion in 'The NAAFI Bar' started by headgear, Jul 13, 2010.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As we all know from 20th century history the conservatives will inevitably rebuild the economy and put some cash back into our very empty dusty cobwebbed national coffers however, in doing so they will have to take such radical steps that they will be hated for yet another generation and Labour with the advantage of having some cash to spend will come back into power promising to spread the wealth and dish it all out again with no regard to keeping some back for a rainy day.

    It strikes me that now is perhaps the time to introduce some legislation which limits the damage that the labour party(and others!) can do in the future. We cannot continue to ride the cycle of conservative/labour boom and bust, we must find a happy medium. Historically Labours spending spree every time they come to power ruins the national economy and increases the welfare state burden whilst the conservatives continually have to cut and rebuild therefore we do not have a consistent national economy such as you'd find in Germany.

    My big worry is Milliband, Balls, Burnham and Co in 5 years will get back into power on the back of populist issues that will inevitably lead to the wrack and ruin of the UK economy yet again - politicians should not be trusted with the allocation of funds unless there is some sort of independant review and audit process that will ensure the nations interests come first and not adopted simply for short term votes from the public.
  2. Governments can repeal legislation so what would be the point.

    NAAFI so Shit Bollocks Tits etc.
  3. I think its down to the electorate to determine who and what species of hominoid sits in a majority on the green benches. Labour were elected on a lie, they contined in office on a lie and eventually the public saw through the lie in sufficient numbers to get rid of them. I agree that the drastic surgery by the ConDems will hurt and that in five years time, they will not be popular at all among the thousands perhaps hundreds of thousands who are going to lose their jobs, but I think that the electorate will not be that keen to have taken all of that pain for nothing by re-electing Labour in 2015. It has to be remembered though that the Government do not control the economy. They do not control the banks - the markets do that. It is the markets who have power over governments and it is governments who tailor their polcies to accommodate the markets. Governments can only control how the money is spent.
  4. No, I don't think we should, for starters the NAAFI bar isn't a legislative body. I think the same deal should be extended to Ministers as councils get, over spend your budget, then bring your cheque book with you.

    It's not just a Labour problem though. the Tories dismantled all that nasty British dirty industry with all that horrid coal and steel and ships and stuff they didn't much like at Eton. Now those same hooray Henries and vile yuppies slime who stuffed wads in their pockets while Britains industrial assets were being stripped, are the people in charge. Unlike the last generation of mindless profiteering scum they have no warm feelings for the MoD, (and why should they they've never served anyone but themselves?) MoD assets will be stripped next while a new generation of maggots get richer and viler.
  5. I agree its not just the labour party and the tories have many many failings however as many people do you ve conveniently forgotten when Maggie Thatcher got into power in 1979 the country was teatering yet again on the edge of the abyss with the government supporting non econimacally viable industry with poor standards of workmanship whose unions were refusing essential reforms - basically Labour had emptied the coffers yet again and were too scared to address the issue lest it upset its voters. In regards to coal I believe in a decade or so the British coal fields will be re-opened with the reduction in oil availability but unfortunately in the earl 80s other countries were producing it much cheaper and more efficiently than the UK.
  6. You need electoral reform that will consistently deliver what most of us want, ie middle-for-diddle, steady as she goes, competent, political leadership.

    The first-past-the-post system has historically thrown up landslide majorities which have handed virtual dictator style powers to the incoming prime-minister.

    This lurching from left to right, with each party dismantling most of what the previous lot have put in place, is a real liability.

    We are not a politically extreme people and we need an electoral system that will reflect that.
  7. Everybody it appeared, seemed to know that there was going to be a recession except the Liebour Party.

    Continually spending more than you earn - and the earnings where always going up and the spending matched the rise - is beyond acceptable Governing.

    All parties should be set to the same rules though... as all MP's are lying, hypocritical egomaniacs.
  8. Good thread, but not in the NAAFI........Cernunnos, high prices in the UK forced buyers to the east for ships Korean shipyards can bang out a better quality product quicker, cheaper & more efficiant than the UK yards at the time also the Koreans dont strike so unions played a big part in there own work forces demise, equally in the Mines as well.

    If is costs the Tax payer money in its losses why should we bail out defunked industries......

    Lots of Tory MPs have served....unlike our lairbour friends
  9. I THINK we should introduce legislation to control the labout parties ability to exist
  10. It would be fundamentally undemocratic to legislate restrictions on how an elected government carried out economic policy and counter-productive in the long term to getting better governance. If our electorate are cretins then they will pay the price, if not they'll thrive. Simples.

    Think of it as the political equivalent of rubbing a puppy's nose in the puddle.
  11. Go back a little further. It was Labour who nationalised all the profitable industries and started the rot. Before you had the entrepreneur who strove to make his factory/mine as profitable as possible and you had the unions who strove to ensure that the owner paid his workers a reasonable sum and kept them in as safe conditions as possible. When you nationalise the industry you have unions and management both starting from the same ideological position so there were no checks and balances in the process. Consequently no-one kept their eye on the bottom line, it no longer a matter of manufacturing the goods as profitably as possible it was all about giving the workers more money and better conditions, good in itself but if you can't sustain it financially then ruinous. Compound that with a Labour Government which was funded by the Unions and controlled by their vote and you had a Government working to satisfy the Unions. Not one who, as the employer, was expected to take a stand and introduce change profitably.
    Thatcher's years were all about the common man making his mark. YUPPIES were all about the next generation, no background, no old boy networks just a brash belief in self and your ability to generate wealth in non-industrial settings. Heavy Industry had become vastly unprofitable because of the vicious cycle of high-cost nationalised utilities that were bleeding it dry. The fact is private owners don't look to close their means of making money. They adapt and they change very quickly because they are able to do so by not being encumbered by political masters.
    What we need to do is breed an altruistic generation that looks further than 'what's in it for me'. Curiously it was the great owners that introduced most of the great benefits to the workforce. Well-made affordable living accommodation in well set out healthy surroundings such as can be seen a Port Sunlight, Bournville, Saltaire etc.
    Unions and employers work far better when they approach a problem from opposite ends and find a common middle ground.
  12. I pretty much agree with most of that, apart from the fact that most industries were nationlaised either during the war or shortly afterwards, with the view to privatising them again once the job of rebuilding was done. This never happend. And as regards to the Thatcher years, she always held the 'barrow-boys' who made good in high esteem. They were excactly the kind of peopel she needed\wanted to generate wealth for the country. The Pet Shop Boys track 'Opportunities' summned up the time nicely: YouTube - Pet Shop Boys - Opportunities (Let's Make Lots of Money) (Version 2) (HD)
    I've just spent 10 days in teh US and I'm always amazed at the drive and inventiveness of our colonial cousens. They seem to posess a certain nous that we have largely lost in the UK as regards to getting off your arrse and following up on ideas and schemes. If they don't work, they don't sit at home complaining that they gave it a try, they simply try again. We sued to be like that here, but with no incentive to take risks and an 'easy' life to be had courtesy of the state the incentive is simply not there. Oh, and I saw more poor\homeless people in one weekend here in the UK than I did in my time over there!
  13. I think the easiest way to limit Labour's ability to get into power with a big enough majority to repeat their abuses of the last 13 years is to reform the electoral boundaries. At the moment the Conservative constituences (mainly in rural areas) are huge*, whilst most Labour seats (in cities) represent far fewer people.* Limit each seat to 100,000 voters, regardless of geographic location: then you get a much more representative system than the current one and a reduction in MPs (from 646 to 600) as well.


    *generalising, but you get the drift.
  14. I agree this shouldn't be in NAAFI, are any mods awake and able to move it...

    “This island is almost made of coal and surrounded by fish. Only an organizing genius could produce a shortage of coal and fish in Great Britain at the same time.” Aneurin Bevan

    That genius was a grocer's daughter and was married to an oil magnate! Spooky or what?