Can the Conservatives possibly win the next election?

I certainly think they can win

Even with the polls, no matter who had won at the previous election, the government will have been unpopular at the moment due to the past actions of Labour and current issues within the EU

Personally I think that given time, the Tories will come around to show their true conservative nature and will start implementing some proper Tory policies. Just give them a while longer :)

I do agree through, the Lib Dems are history. I personally voted for them in the last election because their pledges and policies seemed genuinely good. However, since being in coalition all of their pledges have been completely broken - nobody will trust Clegg ever again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

I agree in part about what you say about the lib dems but that is not how the majority of the public is going to see it. :) Also I predict that the debt is going to be a lot worse with the tories plans. The tories cannot keep making this excuse either they have been in for 18 months. Labour - low inflation, growth - can you say that the people of this country are not moaning daily about the cost of food etc etc. They are now blaming the EU crisis LOL. Seriously one day some of them will admit that the global banking crisis of 2008 did hit the world hard and stop blaming Labour for it all.

---

The cause of the global banking crisis was due to the Austrian Business Cycle, caused by central banks such as the Federal Reserve and Bank of England - both Labour and the Conservatives are guilty of supporting this fiat currency which creates a credit boom resulting in the end result, a bust. Had the Conservatives of been in (they supported Labour's moronic spending plans until 2008) we would have had the recession resulting from the ABC (above) and we would have had the same debt levels.

So your right in one sense, the Tories have just as much blood on their hands too.

Thoughts?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by .Tom.

Personally I think that given time, the Tories will come around to show their true conservative nature and will start implementing some proper Tory policies. Just give them a while longer

---

But David Cameron has already shown he has no intention of doing this, look at the other night when he showed (with a three line whip) that he has more in common with Ed Miliband and Nick Clegg concerning our independence and sovereignty than he does his own backbenchers.

The time is over for the Conservative Party, lets kill this dreadful party off once and for all at the next election.

will be voting the same as i did last time (labour) unless some new party that seems to 'get me' appears. i'm not fully in support of labour anymore, not in the way i was before, either. but they're the party still closest to my beliefs. can't stand ed, and i hope he goes before the next election because i reckon he could lose it for us.

would never, have never, will never vote conservative.

Tories won't get in, I think their reputation has been damaged slightly from hooking up with the Lib Dems, something which the very right-wingers of the party think is a disaster (as do most of the country) and they're sitting on the fence left right and centre, not bringing about change at all.

Lib Dems haven't got a hope in hell and would be surprised if they could get 5 seats.

Labour will most likely get in and hopefully Ed can pull something out of the bag at election time...

It makes me laugh all these people going 'I will always vote Labour' and 'I will never vote Tory' or the worst one 'My great grandfather, my grandfather and my father voted Labour so I'm voting Labour etc'

The Labour Party is doing worse than the Conservative party is, its on the up. If you look at opinion polls your notice that the Tories are the most favoured party. I see it as you vote whichever party is best at the time. Local and nationally. Its a proven fact that Conservative Councils are the best and nationally the Tories don't do a to bad job.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

The cause of the global banking crisis was due to the Austrian Business Cycle, caused by central banks such as the Federal Reserve and Bank of England - both Labour and the Conservatives are guilty of supporting this fiat currency which creates a credit boom resulting in the end result, a bust. Had the Conservatives of been in (they supported Labour's moronic spending plans until 2008) we would have had the recession resulting from the ABC (above) and we would have had the same debt levels.

So your right in one sense, the Tories have just as much blood on their hands too.

Thoughts?

---

Well I agree partially but the real problem was 'greed' and started in the states i.e. bankers lending sub prime mortages at excessive rates with house prices at wholly unrealistic prices and selling these accounts to other banks and the bubble burst again exactly as it did under the last Tory government. It is not just the rise in public spending that caused this it is people being encouraged to live beyond their means and expecting a never ending rise in living standards. We will never agree about public spending. My view is that when they privatised british rail it has been probably more of a tax burdon than it was when public and the standard is well below what it was. The same can be said of the energy companies. They estimate that 5ml people are in fuel poverty and there were 3000 deaths directly attributed to it last winter. The Tories seem to only be interested in the finance centre which quite honestly is a 'paper' industry. What we need is a proper manufacturing industry and I believe Labour had the right balance in tackling the deficit in stages and investing in infrastructure. I do not believe we would be in the position now which is worse with unemployment shooting through the roof again and the benefit bill will just go up because of it. They are now crowing about their regional grant system which has made 2 grants in a year. The difference now is that people in the street are constantly complaining about it because they are being hit the hardest which is always the same when there is high inflation and VAT goes up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Well I agree partially but the real problem was 'greed' and started in the states i.e. bankers lending sub prime mortages at excessive rates with house prices at wholly unrealistic prices and selling these accounts to other banks and the bubble burst again exactly as it did under the last Tory government. It is not just the rise in public spending that caused this it is people being encouraged to live beyond their means and expecting a never ending rise in living standards.

---

As Milton Friedman says, of course none of us are ever greedy ourselves - its the other fellow. The Banks which took risks took the risks because of the excess credit caused by government printing money. It did start in the States because thats where the Federal Reserve is which prints the supreme currency of the world - but the Bank of England is just as to blame as the Federal Reserve.

Until we understand that this is why we have bubbles and bursts, it will continue under any government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

We will never agree about public spending. My view is that when they privatised british rail it has been probably more of a tax burdon than it was when public and the standard is well below what it was. The same can be said of the energy companies. They estimate that 5ml people are in fuel poverty and there were 3000 deaths directly attributed to it last winter.

---

But surely this is partly the fault of Ed Miliband and the European Union? Ed Miliband as Climate Change and Energy Secretary implemented the £18bn a year Climate Change Act along with EU directives which demand that energy companies use 'renewable sources' - they only do what any business has to do, pass the cost on to the consumer.

I also note that the Conservatives support these measures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

The Tories seem to only be interested in the finance centre which quite honestly is a 'paper' industry. What we need is a proper manufacturing industry and I believe Labour had the right balance in tackling the deficit in stages and investing in infrastructure. I do not believe we would be in the position now which is worse with unemployment shooting through the roof again and the benefit bill will just go up because of it. They are now crowing about their regional grant system which has made 2 grants in a year. The difference now is that people in the street are constantly complaining about it because they are being hit the hardest which is always the same when there is high inflation and VAT goes up.

---

But government can't invest - government hasn't a clue about investment. When government takes money out of the real economy (from the pub landlords, from the small business owners, from Tesco who may be planning another store) - that removes money from the economy. I ask this question, if investing by government works - why doesn't government just take out a 100% loan and 'invest'?

I also ask, how are we supposed to compete with producing goods against China/India etc when we have minimum wages, high taxation to support a welfare state, high stealth taxes on fuel, multiple health and safety regulations, workers tribunals, powerful Unions, paternity/maternity leave - how can we possibly compete in production when we have these measures?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by -:Undertaker:-

As Milton Friedman says, of course none of us are ever greedy ourselves - its the other fellow. The Banks which took risks took the risks because of the excess credit caused by government printing money. It did start in the States because thats where the Federal Reserve is which prints the supreme currency of the world - but the Bank of England is just as to blame as the Federal Reserve.

Until we understand that this is why we have bubbles and bursts, it will continue under any government.

---

But Dan, the banks have not been asked to pay for the mistakes they made. It is the 'ordinary Joe' in the street.

Quote:

---

But surely this is partly the fault of Ed Miliband and the European Union? Ed Miliband as Climate Change and Energy Secretary implemented the £18bn a year Climate Change Act along with EU directives which demand that energy companies use 'renewable sources' - they only do what any business has to do, pass the cost on to the consumer.

---

Don't know enough about this to make a good judgment tbh but what I do know is that they rise the prices excessively just before winter about 15/20% and blame it on price rises but do not lower their prices when prices or raw materials drop and they have. I feel it is quite niave to say they are only 'a business' when at least 3 of them this year have been fined for unfair practices and they were basically all found to be in cohoots with each other. If it was proper private enterprise I would not have a problem with it because it would be naturally competitive. This is just taking the piss to me ( excuse my language) LOL.

Quote:

---

But government can't invest - government hasn't a clue about investment. When government takes money out of the real economy (from the pub landlords, from the small business owners, from Tesco who may be planning another store) - that removes money from the economy. I ask this question, if investing by government works - why doesn't government just take out a 100% loan and 'invest'?

---

Your evidence for this? Also I was thinking about infrastructure and construction - work for the private sector.

Quote:

---

I also ask, how are we supposed to compete with producing goods against China/India etc when we have minimum wages, high taxation to support a welfare state, high stealth taxes on fuel, multiple health and safety regulations, workers tribunals, powerful Unions, paternity/maternity leave - how can we possibly compete in production when we have these measures?

---

We shouldn't be in competition with countries like that whose work conditions are normally appalling and who don't even give their workers a living wage. What ever happened to buying 'British'. It just seems to be to buy whatever is the cheapest. Attitudes need to change. Businesses should start taking some moral reponsibilities for the state of the world too. It is not all about 'the bottom line'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

But Dan, the banks have not been asked to pay for the mistakes they made. It is the 'ordinary Joe' in the street.

---

I couldn't agree with you more! thats why the Banks should not have been bailed out!

Anything that cannot make money/is insolvent should never be bailed out by unwilling taxpayers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Don't know enough about this to make a good judgment tbh but what I do know is that they rise the prices excessively just before winter about 15/20% and blame it on price rises but do not lower their prices when prices or raw materials drop and they have. I feel it is quite niave to say they are only 'a business' when at least 3 of them this year have been fined for unfair practices and they were basically all found to be in cohoots with each other. If it was proper private enterprise I would not have a problem with it because it would be naturally competitive. This is just taking the piss to me ( excuse my language) LOL.

---

That is a part of it what I mentioned (about a third of our energy costs are due to renewable subsidies), however the part you mention is also a big issue, I agree - and the way to bring this down is via competition. This means no subsidies for energy companies, no special favours to each company by government and a complete knockdown of regulations regarding how we get our energy.

Get the government out of it and we can have this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

Your evidence for this? Also I was thinking about infrastructure and construction - work for the private sector.

---

I gave the evidence; if this were true (that government could create work by spending) then each government would simply spend (or 'invest' as you term it) and we'd have the most powerful economy in the world. It isn't a coincidence that the economies with least government intervention are the strongest. A private sector that relies on government 'investment' to survive isn't a private sector.

http://www.iaza.com/work/111101C/iaza18844689447000.bmp

Government is the pink box, it gets the least value for what it spends.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Catzsy

We shouldn't be in competition with countries like that whose work conditions are normally appalling and who don't even give their workers a living wage. What ever happened to buying 'British'. It just seems to be to buy whatever is the cheapest. Attitudes need to change. Businesses should start taking some moral reponsibilities for the state of the world too. It is not all about 'the bottom line'.

---

Then you will not be in competition with them and these jobs will not be created. There isn't an argument here to go back to the workhouses and slums, my argument is simply - if you want British business and production to become a success and start producing then we need to rid ourselves of government meddling such as the minimum wage (which youth unemployment has since spiked), maternity leave (which is why smaller businesses are wary of hiring any young women) etc.

Your intentions often are noble and I have no doubt you want to help people, but as they say - the path to hell is paved with good intentions.

Well I don't know where you got the 'third' from as any targets I have seen would never add up to that. Have you got any links for this? I agree that the Railway and Utility 'privatisations' are a complete mess as they are. I do believe in a mixed economy just not as much as you do in respect of privatisation. I do not actually think the bank bail out will cost us anything in the long run but they should be made to pay for their mistakes as well. They do seem to get off scott free. In times of trouble government investment does help to keep the private sector growing. I am not suggesting that it should be done in times of prosperity just to avoid more unemployment. I do not feel young women should be sacked for being pregnant and should have maternity leave after working for the company for a reasonable time but I do think it has gone too far and I see very little reason for paternity pay. Employees should be paid a living wage so I have no argument with the minimum wage at all. There is high youth employment because there is high unemployment overall and companies are obviously going to favour those with experience. I do feel though that there is an excessive number of NEATs who should do something in return for their benefits.