Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Mikhail Liebenstein

Small businesses reject Conservative Manifesto

Recommended Posts

Business bemoaning an "assault on free markets"...is that a joke?  When did we have anything that looked remotely like a free market in respect to any of the markets that meet our essential needs?  Food, water, shelter...all grotesquely distorted to favour one group to the cost of another.  I don't think they know what a free market is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well unless I'm wrong that article reflects what small business owners don't like about the manifesto, as opposed to where the manifesto fails in terms of accommodating small business needs. Which are two slightly different things. For example, why would small business be interested in social care provision ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does rather feel like they are dependant on extremely compliant govt, zirp etc. So it's not unfriendly to small business in general, just the current crop drunk on stimulus. Maybe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So from analysing comments on social media they come to the conclusion that people don't like some policies.

No sh*t Sherlock. On my facebook page, all I ever see is people moaning about something.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, reddog said:

Not a fan of May's policies, but liberal and labour are even worse.

Well I'm not so sure. I think May is so left wing and authoritarian, it is quite ridiculous. Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave looking at the current Conservative manifesto.

May's approach is why choose laissez-faire when you can have a massive bodangle of a Government intervention instead!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Well I'm not so sure. I think May is so left wing and authoritarian, it is quite ridiculous. 

Could you cite examples?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Si1 said:

Could you cite examples?

Curbs on executive pay, restrictions on foreign takeovers and workers on boards. Supporting new Grammar Schools at the potential expense of private schools. With Hammond totally failing to address the deficit.

Draconian surveillance policies. Allowing increased fines for motorists.

She is definitely left of Brown/Blair.

In fact she is basically a Christian Democrat on the European model.

 

A fun article here comparing her to Castro: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservative-general-election-manifesto-2017-theresa-may-general-election-forward-together-fidel-a7743616.html

Perhaps she even makes Corbyn look right wing what with his free market defence policy.

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Well I'm not so sure. I think May is so left wing and authoritarian, it is quite ridiculous. Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave looking at the current Conservative manifesto.

May's approach is why choose laissez-faire when you can have a massive bodangle of a Government intervention instead!

may's brand of state intervention is just slightly less than corbyn's and tim nice-but-dim's/

she was a remainer after all,as was bojo.

I don't think they've really got it yet..we want them to stop meddling and get out of the bloody way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Well I'm not so sure. I think May is so left wing and authoritarian, it is quite ridiculous. Mrs Thatcher must be turning in her grave looking at the current Conservative manifesto.

May's approach is why choose laissez-faire when you can have a massive bodangle of a Government intervention instead!

May is a classic conservative.

Thatcher wasn't, she was a neoliberal. 

"Another colleague had also prepared a paper arguing that the middle way was the pragmatic path for the Conservative party to take .. Before he had finished speaking to his paper, the new Party Leader [Margaret Thatcher] reached into her briefcase and took out a book.  It was Friedrich von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.  Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see.  'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table."  (John Ranelagh, Thatcher's People:  An Insider's Account of the Politics, the Power, and the Personalities.  London:  HarperCollins, 1991.)

 

 

"This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since [conservatism] distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority" 

- F A Hayek

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Curbs on executive pay, restrictions on foreign takeovers and workers on boards. Supporting new Grammar Schools at the potential expense of private schools. With Hammond totally failing to address the deficit.

Draconian surveillance policies. Allowing increased fines for motorists.

 

Ok, I did clock some of those things. I believe the pendulum will swing the other way in due time and I'm happy and robust enough to cope with those. I do believe that free markets have their limits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Mikhail Liebenstein said:

Oh dear, looks like May might be ousted before the election:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/conservatives-election-campaign-relaunch-party-lead-polls-cut-labour-theresa-may-jeremy-corbyn-a7756976.html

Total and utter campaign meltdown.

Tories Cancel election relaunch.

I must say i was quite shocked reading the manifesto.Labour want to give free money to their client state and grow it.Nothing new there.The Tories though seemed to promise to do nothing to cut the free handouts,but instead take more from people who have worked all their lives.Iv read a lot of manifesto's in my time,and it was probably the worst iv ever read.Nothing in there to tackle the problems we face.A disaster of a manifesto.Hit our own voters,keep handing out free money to Labour voters.Bonkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, durhamborn said:

I must say i was quite shocked reading the manifesto.Labour want to give free money to their client state and grow it.Nothing new there.The Tories though seemed to promise to do nothing to cut the free handouts,but instead take more from people who have worked all their lives.Iv read a lot of manifesto's in my time,and it was probably the worst iv ever read.Nothing in there to tackle the problems we face.A disaster of a manifesto.Hit our own voters,keep handing out free money to Labour voters.Bonkers.

Yep.....100%

The Labour and Lib Dem Manifestoes are at least costed, and whilst they'd up tax at least there is a ceiling. The Tories could put up NI 20% as theirs isn't.  

My gut feeling is they genuinely weren't going to have an election so hadn't prepared anything, and then the file on election expenses was passed to the CPS, so the panicked and called an election for fear of losing 30 seats.

Meanwhile the Lib Dems and Labour had to be on standby for a snap election.

Again this shows how flip floppy and panicky Theresa May is - totally unsuited to being PM.

 

 

Edited by Mikhail Liebenstein

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, WinstonSmith said:

Conservatism didn't begin with Thatcher. Difficult concept to grasp maybe but true nonetheless.

 

 

Indeed, historically laissez faire free market economics has been the hallmark of liberalism. The Conservative party has often followed interventionist policies in areas such as trade and the economy going back to the time of the Corn Laws. Stanley Baldwin used Parliament to create a national electricity grid in 1926. In the history of the Tory party Thatcher is the aberration not May, though to be honest the formers laissez faire credentials when in power don't really stand up to close examination. The banking bailouts after 2007 and the endless props thrown at the housing market subsequently pretty much proved that most of the free market rhetoric the British were subjected to in the previous 25 years was just self serving b"llocks. When faced with potential bankruptcy the financial sector and the City of London proved to be just as keen on taxpayer handouts as any heavily unionised nationalised industry of the past.

Edited by stormymonday_2011

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, stormymonday_2011 said:

Indeed, historically laissez faire free market economics has been the hallmark of liberalism. The Conservative party has often followed interventionist policies in areas such as trade and the economy going back to the time of the Corn Laws. Stanley Baldwin used Parliament to create a national electricity grid in 1926. In the history of the Tory party Thatcher is the aberration not May, though to be honest the formers laissez faire credentials when in power don't really stand up to close examination. The banking bailouts after 2007 and the endless props thrown at the housing market subsequently pretty much proved that most of the free market rhetoric the British were subjected to in the previous 25 years was just self serving b"llocks. When faced with potential bankruptcy the financial sector and the City of London proved to be just as keen on taxpayer handouts as any heavily unionised nationalised industry of the past.

I agree with this. The conservatives had every opportunity to instill a free market in finance and property but instead set about promoting transfers of wealth to the financial elite. In the absence of a non interventionist option (which turned out to be a Trojan horse), May's option seems reasonable from my perspective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hotairmail said:

The Tories grew from being the Party of the Monarch and Church of England, historically the Party of the Land which is inextricably linked with rentierism and finance related rentierism.

It was the Whigs who wanted a more modern form of government, to curtail the power of the monarch and the Established Church, to open markets to free trade (Abolition of the EU-like protectionist Corn Laws to put money in people's pockets and stimulate manufactures and consumption). Their extreme laissez-faire attitude and beliefs in 'positive population corrections' had a great role to play in the needless Irish and Indian famines.

It was only a result of the third Factor of Production getting its electoral voice (Labour) did our first past the post system squeeze one of the 3 electoral Factors out of the equation and result in a subsequent overlap in policy. Thatcher was really responsible for stepping into Whig territory where a gap had opened up.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production

 

 

In a two party system each party will inevitably cover a lot of ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, DrBuyToLeech said:

May is a classic conservative.

Thatcher wasn't, she was a neoliberal. 

"Another colleague had also prepared a paper arguing that the middle way was the pragmatic path for the Conservative party to take .. Before he had finished speaking to his paper, the new Party Leader [Margaret Thatcher] reached into her briefcase and took out a book.  It was Friedrich von Hayek's The Constitution of Liberty.  Interrupting [the speaker], she held the book up for all of us to see.  'This', she said sternly, 'is what we believe', and banged Hayek down on the table."  (John Ranelagh, Thatcher's People:  An Insider's Account of the Politics, the Power, and the Personalities.  London:  HarperCollins, 1991.)

 

 

"This fear of trusting uncontrolled social forces is closely related to two other characteristics of conservatism: its fondness for authority and its lack of understanding of economic forces. Since [conservatism] distrusts both abstract theories and general principles, it neither understands those spontaneous forces on which a policy of freedom relies nor possesses a basis for formulating principles of policy. Order appears to the conservative as the result of the continuous attention of authority" 

- F A Hayek

https://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/articles/hayek-why-i-am-not-conservative.pdf

 

May: Classical Tory

Corbyn: Classical Labour

no wonder the neoliberals hate them both.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thatcher was a radical who bought wholeheartedly into neo-liberal, free markets Ideology. 

Theresa May is on the right path here in anticipating a desire for a more traditional conservatism among the people, but she is making I some powerful enemies.

Political parties rarely keep to their manifestos, she should have just made the whole thing less specific and focused on attacking Corbyn, which is very much the new strategy by the looks of it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, thisisthisitmaybe said:

Thatcher was a radical who bought wholeheartedly into neo-liberal, free markets Ideology. 

Theresa May is on the right path here in anticipating a desire for a more traditional conservatism among the people, but she is making I some powerful enemies.

Political parties rarely keep to their manifestos, she should have just made the whole thing less specific and focused on attacking Corbyn, which is very much the new strategy by the looks of it. 

I do wonder what a re-nationalised UK would look like, but I won't be voting to find out.. both parties pledge nothing towards financial responsibilities.. just unaccountable gimmicks ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, maverick73 said:

I do wonder what a re-nationalised UK would look like, but I won't be voting to find out.. both parties pledge nothing towards financial responsibilities.. just unaccountable gimmicks ?

What did she say she was going to nationalise?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   34 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.