h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This post has been removed.

FTR, I yikesed pinniped's post. Typical snide insult.

I don't think you can write off Brown's contribution to the problems so easily.

The FSA was his baby and he made sure it remained toothless, the borrow to encourage spending was led from the top with his budgets, spending, and policies - how long will we be paying for PFI for hospitals, and schools ? (25 years actually - at least)

Then there's the dithering over Northern Rock - would a more assured hand have steadied the market and prevented such a serious crash ?

Of course there's our new nationalised banks as well - how much confidence do you have there ? Northern Rock are upping re-possessions - Will HBoS do the same ?

Now that the Govt have a majority share in some banks, will we see people being thrown out of their homes by the Labour party?

Grow up pedro.

Typical snide insult? Gentle wind up of a pedant, actually. Whether it was funny or not, others should judge. By yikesing it, you not only prevented that, you also proved that the dig was true, didn't you?

I'll watch your call on this one with interest, Mods.

I can see your problems with public-sector pensions Pinniped but it must be complicated to work out the liability.

For a start, most, if not all, final-salary schemes have been stopped for new (the last five years or so) public-sector employees. Then there are factors such as the age profile of public-sector final-salary employees, the likely final-salary of said employees, the state pension these employees forego, the income tax and NI contributions (employee & employer) they pay when there are millions who pay neither.

I don't disagree with you per se but it is more complicated than your posts have suggested.

It is probably worth considering that even if, as was stated in the Today link, public-sector pay has matched/outstripped equivalent private-sector pay, for how long has this been the case? A final-salary, public-sector employee with twenty years' service has probably not been paid an equivalent salary for half of his or her working life. And why punish the prudent? If someone chooses to take a public-sector job because the pension is good, clever him or her.

And the disparity of resources and facilities between private and public jobs is another issue that could, and possibly should, be factored into the equation.

To pick up a few previous points, Conservative fiscal policy (call it Thatcherite if it makes you feel more comfortable) was based on the ideal that reducing government borrowing was a good thing; less borrowing = less interest = an eventual reduction of revenue from the tax-payer. The aim being zero government borrowing (or, at least, "manageable" government borrowing.) This entails cuts in public spending but it doesn't mean cuts in public services. It also leaves more money in the pockets of tax-payers and the impetus is then on tax-payers (ie "society") to channel money to where it is needed. And there lies the philosophical conundrum

As for a national government: the prime minister will dissolve parliament and call a general election. After the election, the leader of the party that has won the most seats in the House of Commons will then be invited by the Queen (or the King) to form her (or his) government (though, in theory, the monarch can invite whomever he or she wishes!) It is then up to that leader to decide how she or he will form her or his government (minority government is a possibility.) Given the likelihood that it will be Brown or Cameroon that the Queen invites, I leave it to your good selves to debate each man's probable decision.

Van