Cameron - a "shrewd & malevolent psychopath"?

Wasn't it Thatcher who got rid of Keynesian thinking?

The new law seems to be based on good Keynesian thinking Jen. I am no fan of GO; I think he is probably the most political of Chancellors so do not trust him. However, what he appears to be saying is that, in the good times we save and in the bad we draw on the savings in order to invest, not on borrowing. As I say, a view JMK would be very happy with and one all parties seemed to favour at one time or another. It would still leave each party to decide what they prioritised in the spending.

The elephant in the room is that we do not currently have a balanced economy and the question is how GO intends to get us to that point. He still hasn't explained although I expect the upcoming budget will enlighten us.

Thinking about Gideon's new law to be, the Micawber law, as the Guardian calls it, treasury figures show that in only seven of the past 50 years have governments run a surplus, and three of those were when Gordon Brown was chancellor.
Fancy Gideon wanting to emulate Gordon!

Re the point about Royal Mail. After 2010 postage prices rose quite significantly. There were increases in postal prices in 2012, 2013 and 2014 and at the end of March this year the price of a first and second class stamps rose again to 63p and 54p respectively.

On the news a couple of nights ago it was suggested that Royal Mail is increasingly looking as if it will be unable to honour its obligation to make deliveries to every address in the UK, even those off the beaten track, at a flat rate price.

In 2011 a Daily Mail article warned of possible problems if the Royal Mail was sold:

"Holland was the world's postal privatisation trailblazer, transforming its state-owned postal service to a private corporation in 1989."

"..........Privatisation in Holland has also led to the closure of around 90 per cent of the country's post offices ....... In the space of just one month in 2009, ten per cent of all Holland's post offices closed."

" .......Complaints about the reliability of Holland's privatised post are widespread."

".......The move was supposed to increase competition and lead to better services. But the opposite has occurred. New firms paying workers below the minimum wage have hit deep into the profits of TNT."

So if you're looking for a better value, more efficient service it seems that privatisation will not necessarily provide it.

A couple of very big problems for the Tories now which need debating.
Osborne said that pensions would be freed up; pension companies are saying no deal.
He is also trying to pass a new law to say that no future government can borrow money except in exceptional circumstances. That means he will not be able to borrow for infrastructure, or if there is another banking crisis or to pay our pensions.

Discuss. I'm off to bed.

Don't we debate because whichever party is in government they are acting on our behalf so we need to understand what the issues are without just agreeing automatically with said government [whoever they may be and whoever we actually voted for]. Just because someone votes for a party it doesn't mean they have to agree with everything that party does and should therefore listen to reasoned arguements against any policies that are going to be implemented. No one actually goes out of their way to disagree with a policy that they think is a good one or defend a policy because their party of choice thinks it's a good idea. Or am I missing the point [it is rather late and I am tired].

Because no-one is going to be listening to anyone else's points?

I've been a floating voter all along, and I'm interested in others' viewpoints. Anyone who is not interested can just ignore the threads.

But I am the undecided middle grumppa and I join in. I am pretty sure other gransnetters who are in the middle join in too.

I really dont get why head-banging makes people feel better! But whatever. If it does, it does.

[I didnt understand what the dialogue of the deaf bit meant]

What is the point of political debate? If it is not debate for its own sake, which can be fun if approached in the right spirit, then it is not to win over the opposition but to sway the undecided middle, who are not going to join in the actual debating process. Add to this the fact that at our age most of us Gransnetters are not going to "cross the floor of the house", then most of our political posts are going to be a dialogue of the deaf, whether we're Cameron-bashing, Blair-baiting, Clegg-kicking or Sturgeon-sniping.

So let's carry on head-banging if it makes us feel better!

Actually I think some of the posts here have anwered my question-Does the British public get the leaders they deserve? The answer it seems is "Yes"
Shrewd and malevolent psychopaths they may be but Dave, George and Tony have sold themselves to the electorate.

The reason I said that Labour increased their vote was because loopy said that lots of Labour voters voted Tory. I was just pointing out that they didn't. The Libdems voted for both. It had nothing to do with the Tory vote.
Go and bang your head again.

I only gave the Conservative voter numbers as I was trying to make the point that DJ was banging on about how labour increased their number of votes - so did the Conservatives

if you insist
nulabour number of votes
2010 8,606,517
2015 9,347,304
Conservative number of votes
2010 10,703,654
2015 11,334,576
wish there was a head banging against a wall emoticom
[head/wall]

Thanks!

Sorry to hear you take a defeatist attitude and won't give your views. Night-night.

Because I know that whatever I said would be pounced upon and torn apart however sensible and/or reasoned it was.

Like loopy, I will leave you all to it!

Ana why do you choose to bicker in your post when you could be giving me sensible reasons which I asked for, or you could even answer trisher's question although she asked it of soontobe.

Always saying...? Really?
You have a better memory than I have then, durhamjen.

soon we are not "venting" we are trying to decide why Cameron is behaving the way he is. My view is that he is there to make money for himself and his friends and I gave examples of how he has done this in the past and will continue to do this in the future. Do you really think that it's OK for him to do this?

Or a better idea than Gordon Brown selling the gold. Not every commentator thinks it was a bad idea.
You are always saying it was a bad idea, but do not say why.

Ana, Mr Cameron's possible psychopathic tendencies could be the reason for some of his government's actions- such as selling off Royal Mail and the Royal Bank, both at a loss.
That is one opinion only, of course, and I'd be happy to hear any reasoned views on why those things are a good idea.

Good answer, soon. Probably best to just let them vent on.

Sorry dj, no. Best I can do I am afraid.

Sorry, soon, I do not understand. Can you explain yourself a bit better?

Excellent article about Gordon Brown's gold sell off. There's a similar one in the Times but I'm not paying to read it all.

www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0CC8QFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mirror.co.uk%2Fnews%2Fampp3d%2Ffinal-word-gordon-browns-gold-5614853&ei=0SZ3Vaa8CYvA7Ab8-oOIDA&usg=AFQjCNGilpk6yvKgIy58eD6sB-zTAGKToA&bvm=bv.95039771,d.ZGU&cad=rja

trisher - I didnt necessarily mean you. I wasnt even particularly aware of which particular posters were tory-bashing bar perhaps a couple. I was just talking in general terms.

And no, dj, it was only when Ana said what she did with her first post, that I realised that it was that kind of thread.

All of it doesnt answer the question though. I realise that people are scared. And maybe venting. But that is all I can come up with.