The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Idaho]

last year one left every three minutes. try harder. ;)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...rt-the-UK.html

And yet the same paper will gripe about immigration two pages later.

[Furunculus]

And yet the same paper will gripe about immigration two pages later.

and yet the point stands; 200,000 people a year........

Vaccuum of wealth. If they leave, it leaves a protential source of wealth generation untapped to be taken up by some one else...

while that is true in some part, entrepeneurs do not grow on trees, the loss is felt i'm sure.

[edit]

interestingly enough, property tycoon ronson on the coming social unrest, and the need to keep entrepeneurs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...r-Britain.html

Property tycoon Gerald Ronson warns of social unrest in a two-tier Britain
Britain faces “social unrest” over rising unemployment outside London according to Gerald Ronson, the property tycoon.


By Graham Ruddick
Published: 6:30AM BST 14 Apr 2010

Speaking at his annual lunch, the chief executive of Heron International said Britain was becoming a “two-tier country”.

“I spend 12 hours, once a week, driving around the country. I don’t like what I see,” he added. “We are creating a two-tier country where I fear that the consequential effects of significant unemployment will be social unrest.”

Mr Ronson, who is estimated to be worth £180m, is developing the Heron Tower, the highest building in the City of London, and owns petrol stations across the UK.

He said it was vital that the next Government, in its efforts to reduce the UK’s debt, is “careful not to put too much pressure on the people who can make a difference”.

The Government must act like any organisation in a downturn, Mr Ronson insisted, by cutting costs and finding new sources of revenue.

“Entrepreneurs should not be the targets,” he said. “Entrepreneurship needs to be encouraged – not penalised and driven out of the country. Entrepreneurs take personal and financial risk and create employment and enterprise. We have to be careful because it wouldn’t take a lot for us to slip back into recession and that’s before the effect of inflation on the economy.”

Mr Ronson warned that, amid talk of new taxes against banks, the City of London must be maintained as a “vibrant and attractive environment for international business”.

“The next Government must tread carefully when making decisions on regulation and the commercial regime,” he said. “The UK is highly dependent on professional and financial services which have replaced the manufacturing industry we once had.

“The time zone, language, financial infrastructure and legal system all contribute to it being the financial centre of the world.”

Speaking about the property industry itself, Mr Ronson said developers were “on the endangered list” because of a lack of bank finance.

The Heron Tower is one of the few City developments under construction, and Mr Ronson said it was “very difficult for the development industry to function”.

[/edit]

[rory_20_uk]

Even if the Tories did have a Cunning Plan to cut the Civil Service (which I doubt - asking Canada how they did theirs would be a goo start) odds would be the Civil Service would hear of it.
If we're talking serious cuts, that's a lot of the non-jobs going. Great, but those non-jobbers all have votes. Some might have insight that the whoile is better off without their employment, but moth in the face of a tough job market and the ending of their final salary pension will fight it tooth and nail - by voting for someone else - "cuts are required, but not me"

If there was a Cunning Plan that did increase efficiency and not damage front line staff, the other parties would steal it within seconds. Labour of course would use the money on other departments.

The Tory lot seem competent enough. Well, let's face it, the competition isn't hard: the PM has self belief oozing out of him, and it is the world's fault his policies aren't working. Balls tries to reduce whatever he's in charge of to a morass of mediocrity and red tape. The deputy PM is determined to cut balls off any man she can find in her toxic, androphobia. Lord Sugar? Mandleson? Sooner out the better.

Humans are naturally risk averse. Sadly that means we fear change more than we fear what we've got. Whoever wins the next 5 or so years are not going to be nice. The Tories are butchers, but one is required. Labour will suck the last vestiges of life out of the country and expect us to thank them

[Idaho]

I think both Labour and Tory are as similar as in anytime in the last 50 years. It's just that Labour filter money to cronies on the sly, the Tories are bare-faced about it.

All elections come down to "Time for a change" versus "You can't trust the new guys". Personally I think the "Time for a change" momentum isn't quite there. Similar to the 1992 election.

[Furunculus]

hmmm, i take the point from BG and others that Dave and his cuddly conservative crew may not have the stones to drive through their manifesto reforms, but as far as welfare reform goes we really need it, because this article makes grim reading:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance...the-same-boat/

[Idaho]

Welfare reforms are fairly irrelevant. No good pushing people off benefits when there are no jobs to go to. Why do you think no government since the 60s has had 'full employment' as an election pledge? If you aren't committed to full employment, how can you get people off benefits?

Likewise the only people who suffer from the macho posturing on benefits are legitimate claimants who will get bullied off their entitlements by civil servants chasing quotas. People who scam will always scam. They won't be daunted. And the amount of benefit fraud is massively outweighed by people not claiming for what they are due.

It's an easy tick box for politicians. The government probably gives more money to director bonuses of private-public finance initiatives than it ever gives to benefit fraudsters.

[rory_20_uk]

There's a massive difference between reducing benefits and 100% employment. But it's a great strawman.

Only ones to suffer are legitimate claimants? How did you dream that one up?

If the whole benefit system was massively simplified it would be easier to apply for money, and easy to see those who were trying to work the system. As it is, the money comes from several different places for a variety of different reasons.

It should be linked to the tax one pays - very simple, straightforward, and money coming and going to one place in the government, not dozens.