That is, provided someone like Godders or Daniel Hannan influences UKIP's economic policy. The problem is, whichever party takes control, the real obstacles to change are the entrenched bureaucracies (civil servants, academics etc.) who benefit from the current system and those feeding at the trough of the government. So moving away from this TBTF culture would require a root and branch upheaval of the current political system in ways that may be infeasible for a democracy to allow for. Particularly one as stagnant as the British one.
It's a struggle to get anachronisms like IR35 changed, let alone more fundamental flaws in the system.
Regarding Labour and Milliband, he has no real political acumen. He has alienated many of the core 'feeders' at Labour's trough and also wishes to alienate the banks (which I think can see through his hollow rhetoric; who is going to bankroll his no doubt expensive policies otherwise?) He is stuck up and worse than Cameron in many ways in terms of how out of touch with the electorate he is. I can't see him winning, and I hope that I am right. The only thing that would concern me about a reformation of the system is that whoever carries it out would be stuck with the legacy costs and muck left by the other three parties, which they will very cynically try to blame on whoever is in power at the time, to make it seem like any pain that must be endured is their fault.
Even if UKIP doesn't win enough seats to influence a coalition, if it forces the conservatives to up their game and shift "rightwards" economically, that'll be a good thing.
Originally posted by Platypus
View Post
That being said, the 'austerity' in question concerns reductions in the rate of growth of government, not actual cutting back. And even then, it is laughable.
Leave a comment: