The TV Debate

[Mick Mac]

How could you....its his own thread.

[bil]

jimmy two times Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Gordon Brown was the only one who looked

> statesmanlike and had gravitas. The other two do

> not look like men who have the character or

> sufficient experience of life to lead a country.

> I hope people don't have short memories and forget

> what the Tories did to this country when they were

> in power.

I haven't forgotten what Gordon brown and labour have done to this country in recent years!

[Marmora Man]

The rest of Hugenot's post is the familiar left wing myth of Britain 1979 - 1997, also re-iterated by jimmy two times and others. Particularly "Why don't Tories just come clean? They're rich, and they don't want to support public services because they go private to stay away from the proles".

What Tories do believe in, and have generally always believed in, is balanced spending, smaller government, lower taxes and greater self sufficiency. The government isn't the answer to all ills - in many cases it is the problem.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Big business doesn't ask for smaller government when it "discusses" HQ and relocation plans - its asks, nay demands, hefty hefty incentives (paid for by the taxpayer, unachievable with small government)

It is a fallacy that countries can survive on "small" governments

[Marmora Man]

SeanMacGabhann Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

"Big business doesn't ask for smaller government when it "discusses" HQ and relocation plans - its asks, nay demands, hefty hefty incentives (paid for by the taxpayer, unachievable with small government)

It is a fallacy that countries can survive on "small" governments"

Sean:

a. Businesses of all kinds, big or small, would be illogical not to take advantage of, or lobby for gov't cash if it's on offer. It doesn't mean that they wouldn't prefer lower taxes and no government subsidy. That option hasn't been on offer for over 60 years.

b. Where is the fallacy in the concept of small government? A small government does not mean no government. A small government could simplify the taxation system to one designed to deliver the required sums for gov't spending but without the current complex tax breaks and tax hikes to encourage / discourage approved / disapproved types of behaviour. A small government might:

1. Simplify law & order legislation

2. Reduce bureaucracy

3. End the target culture

4. Get rid of ID card schemes

5. Minimise the need for national databases

6. Simplify levels of local government.

A small government would concern itself with essentials:

1. Health - to the extent that it needs funding but not managing

2. Education - ditto,

3. The economy - recognising that, on the whole, government doesn't drive the economy it merely creates the environment for an economy to thrive or not

4. Foreign affairs

5. Policing, law and order

6. Defence,

A small government might let individuals, businesses, organisations and everyone else get on with their life, business with minimal interference. That does not mean leaving everyone to sink or swim according to their resources - but it does mean reducing the vast sums spent on matters far better handled outside of government. A few exanples:

1. The National Curiculum

2. Swathes of employment legislation

3. Regional development agencies

4. Strategic health authorities

5. The Appointments Commission

6. The Department of Trade & Industry (or whatever this month's title is) and so on.

c. I think the last 13 (or perhaps more accurately the last ten) years have tested the concept of "big government" to destruction - on the way creating a major structural deficit with almost 25% of government spending being funded by borrowing - something that cannot continue forever.

[SeanMacGabhann]

It can only be "on offer" if it exists. It can't exist without "big government"

By your logic, business would be compelled to go to countries with big government and the incentives to match

You examples of what governments should involve themselves with and what they shouldn't is arbitrary to the point of ... something

Swathes of employment legislation? What's wrong with that, as a concept? Sure you can point to bad legislation but given where we were before govts involved themselves in legislation (children up chimneys, 7 day weeks, few holidays, no minimum wage etc etc) I'm all for it

Without the last 13 years of government, come day of reckoning (sep 2 years ago - lehman bros et al), this country would be DEAD in the water

It goes on. Soundbites such as "simplify law and order legislation" sounds wonderful. But what does it MEAN? Nothing that I can see - I'm pretty sure you could provide examples but you don't have to follow any of them through. Given teh diverse nations of the planet however, I'm open to examples of countries with simplified examples?

get rid of ID card schemes? I'm all for it.. but it won't happen no matter who gets elected and what they promise. It's coming. You may as well ask for a return to pounds, shillings and pence

You mention health needing "funding not managing" - that sounds like the dream of every individual, every business and every conman in the world

[Marmora Man]

Sean,

I won't attrempt to rebut your points one by one - Hugenot would slay me.

However, if business was offered the chance to operate in a country with a low corporation tax rate and low tax rates for employees and freedom to conduct its business as it wished (and I do not mean ignore health & safety / environment etc) where it was not alternately directed, cajoled, bullied or encouraged and had its tax rates adjusted up / down / sideways or as an alternative was offered the chance to go to a spot where gov't offered a great subsidy but none of the freedoms listed - most would opt for the low tax regime.

It is, I agree, a libertarian argument and one that the centre and left (and I'd include today's Tories in this) instinctively recoil from. You know my politics - villages getting together to save the pub, raise funds for the church steeple, help neighbours flooded out, tidying up the village green, popping in to see that Elsie or Fred are OK are to my mind, a small scale model, of how neighbourhoods should be and could be if we hadn't all been indoctrinated over 60 years with the pervasive idea that "they" the gov't are responsible for these sort of things.

As just one example - can you really argue that the introduction of the Criminal Records Bureau checks and the implementation of other, even more onerous checks on all that might, just possibly, come into contact with children have led to any significant decrease of child abuse? That came about when government went for the "big" solution that then grew like Topsy and developed new ramifications, regulations and legislation. It still remains true that most children are safe - and that most child abuse occurs within the family network. It has certainly led to a significant decrease in the number of volunteers putting themselves forward to help and a major added cost, with associated delays to appointment of new staff, to many businesses, schools and hospitals. All of which might be considered a tax on helpfulness.

Funding not managing means - a state funded / directed health insurance rather like the system found in France & Germany, both of which seem to manage their health system better than the NHS - while allowing private doctors, clinics and hospitals to operate independently of the government (except for necessary regulation of standards - but not centralised micro management). Similar principles could apply to education.

We've had the argument before about small government. Just because there are few obvious examples it does not mean it cannot work.

For a slightly more detailed argument you could look here. You might consider Hong Kong as an example of small government, the Canadians - faced with a major budget deficit also opted, more or less, willingly for a smaller government (and lower costs of government) with some success. New Zealand is another country that attempts to adopt the principle - Denmark has some politicians in favour. I'm not, totally, alone in my argument - however much I may be an outlier on the EDF.

Edited to give an example of "big" government that hasn't worked.

[mockney piers]

Well, new zealand is beginning to think seriously about becoming part of Australia which rather suggests that in some respects it's a failed state.

Whoops.

Ideally I'm with you MM, that's why I keep voting for the anarcho-syndicalista in Spanish elections (he'll, just because I can). But 'small' government will never again exist as lo g as the concept of government as we know it continues to be useful, the world is just too big, too complicated.

The degrees by which we seperate out concepts of big and small are so tiny as to be almost meaningless which just makes me chuckle as wee all bicker.

To a certain extent it makes me symapthise with Sean's much criticised 'not much will change' position.

Of course no has ever come up with an expression that describes this...plus ?a change etc...(baddamtish)

[peckhamboy]

Marmora Man - if you stood for election, you'd have my vote...

[Huguenot]

I just don't think there's any evidence that what MM says is true.

I think HK is a poor example. Government (not regulation) has shrunk there because they've had their democratic rights curtailed.

The apotheosis of libertarian thinking re. low subsidies and low regulation can be found in failed East African states amongst the robber barons in their SUVs and the starving population driven to savage acts of self-defence.

I realise I'm exaggerating to the point of absurdity - but what it proves is that 'libertarians' actually do want some regulation, just not all of it. Mainly they want to keep the regulation which suits them.

The interesting thing is that the 'regulations' MM picks are a combination of lowered business regulation (which increases the wealth of the already wealthy) and lowered social regulation (which reduces the rights of the less fortunate).

Aside from that, MM contradicts himself. He claims he wants simpler regulation, but actually in practice he requires more complex ones. My example of this is the 'Pen Knives' thread, where MM criticises a catch-all knife legislation of 3 inches (which is 'simple'). He says there should be exceptions - which makes the law more complicated, not simpler.

Unless he was proposing that there should be no knife law at all, which would be just crazy.

[Jeremy]

I was going to say the same thing about HK - surely the lack of democracy or opposition parties means that the government can be smaller. Not exactly a price worth paying, is it?!

Although interestingly, I believe their civil service is proportionately larger than ours.

I definitely think there is something to be said for reducing complexity in our government, local councils, civil service, etc. But I don't think there are any valid examples of a radically lighter, yet fully functional democratic government.

[Marmora Man]

Hugenot,

AS ever you misrepresent me.

I decried the knife law - yes. I haven't suggested any further complication of it at all. I would argue for a simplification to "Carrying an offensive weapon, with intent". This would allow cooks to carry their knives home from work, boy scouts to continue to wear sheath knives and my fellow SWiss Army knife fans to carry on in cars and briefcases.

Reduced business regulation - allows businesses to expand, benefiting all those that work in the business. If the owner / entreprenuer benefits to a greater extent that, to me, is reward for the risk taken. It's not about the "wealthy becoming wealthier" - that's just spouting student union level gibes, its about the economy benefiting.

Equally, I cannot remember arguing for reduced social legislation to reduce the rights of the less fortunate. Tho' I do, and have always, argue for greater self responsibility and greater local charity and support to wean us all off the almighty government can solve all attitude.

[Brendan]

We?ve had a libertarian ideal before. It led to tribalism, feudalism, peasants, gentry monarchy, classy stratification, revolutions and the eventual emergence of representative government. It?s called history.

The only way libertarianism could work now would be in a society where everybody was equally placed to benefit from it. But speak to libertarians about allowing people equality and they screech injustice.

[Brendan]

Marmora Man Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What Tories do believe in, and have generally

> always believed in, is balanced spending, smaller

> government, lower taxes and greater self

> sufficiency. The government isn't the answer to

> all ills - in many cases it is the problem.

Which is all very well and good but you can?t then not also believe in empowering people and giving them the opportunity to be self sufficient.

But those ideals are curiously lacking from tory dogma and policy. .

[Huguenot]

I do enjoy arguing with MM :)

I just think it's consistently wrong: greater local charity is called patrony! You have to rely on your local wealthy bloke to bail you out, it's feudal! "Oooh Guv'nor *tips hat*"

Tax and business is just not honest either. My business size is defined by 'customer reach' and 'demand' and the inertia of employment strategies (nothing to do with government taxes, just finding and training the right person). Reduce my tax bill and I won't build my business, I'll just stick it in the bank and pay myself a dividend.

So that may be small business - but big business for the last few years has been a net tax beneficiary - the government is paying them to keep the wheels of employment turning!!!

[SteveT]

SeanMacG wrote:- It is a fallacy that countries can survive on "small" governments

I think you will find that Japans balance of payments is in the 'plus' lane and they have a small government for their turnover.

[????]

The next ones on Foreighn policy I believe. This could be fun.

DC - supported the war in Iraq and has to be careful on Europe so as not to upset the Daily Mail members in the shires. Don't see here he wins.

GB - supported and then underfunded Blair's war (also his shot at making it big on the US after dinner speach circuit). He's a decent position on the Euro as he's always been sceptic and thank god we're not in it at the moment, however a lot of his party ae far more pro.

NC - Iraq is a real point of difference (and plus for him) for obvious reasons and he'll make the point a lot I presume. Europe could be a real weak point and he'll be targeted on it.. he himself admitted that he was keen on the entry to the euro but that was a mistake in hindsight...a premt?

[HAL9000]

I thought for a moment Nick Clegg was going to offer 'Free Chocolate For All" - damn!

[katie1997]

I'm missing this because I'm *working*

Did someone say 'free chocolate'.....?

[Keef]

Thought GB was best last night. Still unlikely to vote labour, but think he spoke well.

Have voted Lib Dem in the past, and I feel I should be over the moon that for once they stand a chance of getting somewhere, but I just don't like these MP's like Blair, Cameron, an now Clegg, just can't trust them.

[SeanMacGabhann]

If this isn't true, I really want it to be

"In turn, the Independent newspaper ran a front pager yesterday with the headline ?Rupert Murdoch will not decide the outcome of the election. You will,? challenging the Murdoch coverage of the race.

Later in the afternoon, in a coming-apart-at-the-seams scenario, Rebekah Wade/Brooks and Murdoch?s son, James?who will both face the wrath of Murdoch senior if they don?t produce a winner?stormed over to the Independent, breached its security systems, barged into the offices of the Independent?s editor-in-chief and top executive, Simon Kelner, and commenced, in Brit-speak, a giant row. Their point was that newspaper publishers don?t slag off other newspaper publishers in polite Britain, but also the point was to remind Kelner that he wasn?t just slagging off another publisher, he was slagging off the Murdochs, damn it. Indeed, the high point of the screaming match was Wade/Brooks, in a fit of apoplexy and high drama, neck muscles straining, saying to Kelner: ?And I invited you to Blenheim in the first place!?"

[*Bob*]

Mrs *Bob* and I were both in firm agreement last night.

If you concentrate on David Cameron's mouth whilst he's speaking, it looks exactly like a talking anus; were such a thing to be possible. Also highly appropriate, considering what was coming out of it.

Go on.. try it. You'll see exactly what I mean.

[SeanMacGabhann]

Oh goody it is true

more here

[mockney piers]

Outnumbered just keeps getting better is all I have to say about the debates.

Ok, caught some of it, and there was no daylight between the three. I know what you mean about Clegg, it's like the lib dems grew him to order in a vat or something. Actually there was, I thought Brown was the worst. I'm not convinced he's human, but at least he isn't a stepford politician; plus every other line felt pre-prepared and he'd grin idiotically whenever he delivered one of these, and it all stank of Campbell if you ask me, has he been employed on the sly?

[matthew123]

Thought all 3 leaders impressed in the TV debate last night - with David Cameron making the biggest improvement from week 1.