What the tories really believe

[I1L2T3]

Speaking of countries I noticed how they went quiet about Sweden after some salient points were made...

 

No, I turned the question back and asked what countries we can learn from. I'm interested to know what people think the alternatives are? What should the UK economy be like? What should social welfare be like? Should we adopt the same model as the USA? Let's discuss it.

[MrSmith]

From neighbouring countries that have solid social welfare and free markets.

 

Where do you think we should learn from? Do you like the American model? That is what we seem to be moving towards after all, and that is not a criticism of just the Tories but of other parties as well.

 

 

Repeating we should learn from other countries doesn't answer the question.

 

Repeating we should learn from other countries doesn't answer the question.

Which countries?

What do you think we should learn?

What do you think they do better?

What do think they have that we don’t have?

[MrSmith]

No, I turned the question back and asked what countries we can learn from. I'm interested to know what people think the alternatives are? What should the UK economy be like? What should social welfare be like? Should we adopt the same model as the USA? Let's discuss it.

 

None, we should lead the way in reducing global population and cutting over consumption, we should move away from a welfare state that encourages laziness and use the public sector as employer of last resort. There is plenty to do and plenty of people to do it, there isn’t a need for anyone to sit at home doing nothing whilst everyone else works to support them. We should encourage our young to study in subjects that will lead to employment and encourage employed to offer training and education support.

[I1L2T3]

 

Repeating we should learn from other countries doesn't answer the question.

 

Repeating we should learn from other countries doesn't answer the question.

Which countries?

What do you think we should learn?

What do you think they do better?

What do think they have that we don’t have?

 

I think they have better social provision. Not perfect but better. Much of it delivered by private companies in partnership with the state. I like the idea of partnership and think it should be encouraged but not to the point where it becomes an exercise in the the private sector ripping off the taxpayer, like in the UK.

 

I think that should be combined with a commitment to free and fair markets. Again other countries do that better. They regulate where they need to, at the right times and in the right sectors.

 

Like I said there is no perfect system. Some are better than others. Ours is a complete shambles courtesy of a series of poor governments.

[I1L2T3]

None, we should lead the way in reducing global population and cutting over consumption, we should move away from a welfare state that encourages laziness and use the public sector as employer of last resort. There is plenty to do and plenty of people to do it, there isn’t a need for anyone to sit at home doing nothing whilst everyone else works to support them. We should encourage our young to study in subjects that will lead to employment and encourage employed to offer training and education support.

 

How do you reduce the population? What are your ideas for that?

 

How do you force people to work? What are your plans for that?

 

Are you suggesting that all educational subjects that are not directly employment-related are dropped?

[Obelix]

No, I turned the question back and asked what countries we can learn from. I'm interested to know what people think the alternatives are? What should the UK economy be like? What should social welfare be like? Should we adopt the same model as the USA? Let's discuss it.

 

Certainly not the same welfare model as the USA - that's far too easy for people to end up with no support at all it seems.

[MrSmith]

I think they have better social provision. Not perfect but better. Much of it delivered by private companies in partnership with the state. I like the idea of partnership and think it should be encouraged but not to the point where it becomes an exercise in the the private sector ripping off the taxpayer, like in the UK.

 

I think that should be combined with a commitment to free and fair markets. Again other countries do that better. They regulate where they need to, at the right times and in the right sectors.

 

Like I said there is no perfect system. Some are better than others. Ours is a complete shambles courtesy of a series of poor governments.

 

Which country does it better?

How do they fund it?

How is it better?

[I1L2T3]

Which country does it better?

How do they fund it?

How is it better?

 

Something that could be discussed endlessly because there are so many possible areas to learn from. Starting with a few areas:

 

1. Childcare/family. Sweden has very low childcare costs and strong support for families. Norway is the same. German childcare costs are a quarter of the UK. Providing more support for families would help get more people into work. We shouldn't go as far as Sweden because for us the costs would be too high but we do need to do more. Parents should not have the excuse of high childcare costs to avoid returning to the workforce. We hear this too often.

 

2. Transport. Prohibitively expensive and badly organised in the UK. Transport infrastructure powers the economy, or should do. Ours is a shambles. Germany is densely populated too but has much better infrastructure.

 

3. Environment. We pay lip service to it. Others do far better, e.g. With renewables.

 

4. Markets. We like to imagine we have free markets in the UK. We don't. We have a number of sectors that are heavily rigged and anti-competitive and a drain on other sectors. For example other countries have not allowed finance to become so dominant. This doesn't even require more regulation but rather the right regulation.

 

There's lots we can learn, and not just from the things that have gone well but things that have not gone so well too.

 

3. Markets

[MrSmith]

How do you reduce the population? What are your ideas for that?

 

How do you force people to work? What are your plans for that?

 

Are you suggesting that all educational subjects that are not directly employment-related are dropped?

 

Something that could be discussed endlessly because there are so many possible areas to learn from. Starting with a few areas:

 

1. Childcare/family. Sweden has very low childcare costs and strong support for families. Norway is the same. German childcare costs are a quarter of the UK. Providing more support for families would help get more people into work. We shouldn't go as far as Sweden because for us the costs would be too high but we do need to do more. Parents should not have the excuse of high childcare costs to avoid returning to the workforce. We hear this too often.

 

2. Transport. Prohibitively expensive and badly organised in the UK. Transport infrastructure powers the economy, or should do. Ours is a shambles. Germany is densely populated too but has much better infrastructure.

 

3. Environment. We pay lip service to it. Others do far better, e.g. With renewables.

 

4. Markets. We like to imagine we have free markets in the UK. We don't. We have a number of sectors that are heavily rigged and anti-competitive and a drain on other sectors. For example other countries have not allowed finance to become so dominant. This doesn't even require more regulation but rather the right regulation.

 

There's lots we can learn, and not just from the things that have gone well but things that have not gone so well too.

 

3. Markets

 

The UK population was reducing until recently, immigration increased it, this then enables the immigrant’s country of origin to continue increasing their population. Immigration would be stopped from all countries with an increasing population, migration between countries with stable or declining population would be permitted.

 

Foreign aid would be cut for any country with an increasing population and increased to countries with a decreasing population.

 

Attempts to reduce child poverty by giving free money out didn’t work, it just encouraged more children. Benefits would be linked to work in the community, more kids would then mean more money to support the kids but more work in the community to get the money.

 

If someone refuses to work they wouldn’t get any money.

 

Most pre-school childcare is provided by the private sector in the UK, Swedish nurseries are financed partly by central government grants, partly by tax revenue and partly by parental fees. Community and council nurseries do exist in the UK but they are not as commonplace as private nurseries.

 

Which is precisely how private nurseries and child care is funded in the UK.

 

I wouldn’t encourage everyone to work by giving them free childcare, because in many cases this just encourages more children and more consumption. Child care cost would only be met for the first two children, and parents and grandparents would be encouraged to care for their own children, just as they did 20 years ago.

Before and after school clubs would be expanded, and schools would be open all year.

Employers would be encouraged to employ local people, which would cut road use to and from work.

[I1L2T3]

The UK population was reducing until recently, immigration increased it, this then enables the immigrant’s country of origin to continue increasing their population. Immigration would be stopped from all countries with an increasing population, migration between countries with stable or declining population would be permitted.

 

So there would be a complex system of international agreements to control the populations of each country? This doesn't sound like the Tory ideal of not being dictated to by other countries.

 

Foreign aid would be cut for any country with an increasing population and increased to countries with a decreasing population.

 

Countries with increasing populations are usually the ones that need the most aid.

 

Attempts to reduce child poverty by giving free money out didn’t work, it just encouraged more children. Benefits would be linked to work in the community, more kids would then mean more money to support the kids but more work in the community to get the money.

 

If someone refuses to work they wouldn’t get any money.

 

This woon't work and you know it. Any party that tried to impose this would never get elected again.

 

Which is precisely how private nurseries and child care is funded in the UK.

 

No it's not precisely how it is funded un the UK. Many parents have to meet almost the entire cost of childcare except for a few years between 3 and 5 where some free sessions are provided. I have a mate with 2 very young kids and it's costing her £1300+ a month for full-time childcare so she can work. Nobody pays that kind of sum anywhere else in Europe .

 

I wouldn’t encourage everyone to work by giving them free childcare, because in many cases this just encourages more children and more consumption. Child care cost would only be met for the first two children, and parents and grandparents would be encouraged to care for their own children, just as they did 20 years ago.

Before and after school clubs would be expanded, and schools would be open all year.

 

If they're not caring for their own children what are they doing instead? Are they working or not?

 

Employers would be encouraged to employ local people, which would cut road use to and from work.

 

Yep, agree.

 

 

What is your optimum population? Keeping in mind that not all our growth is caused by immigration how are you going to get the population down? Who goes first?