1) It took so long, because the ridiculous policies were coupled with a ridiculously excessive taxation regime. Government spending/taxation accounts for just under 50% of GDP. Compare this with the Rahn curve, which suggests that for optimum economic activity/prosperity, Government activity should account for between 15-25% of GDP (and, closer to the 15 than the 25... so, let's say 20% ).

2) They may have paid into taxes all their life, but they also received unprecedented levels of Government help during those times. It's the taxes being collected today that are paying for these bus passes and current Government services, just as it was the taxes collected whilst the pensioners were working that paid for the services of those days. Expecting one generation to pay taxes to help pay for an older generation is unfair. Oh, wait...

3) I agree with this. I am of the belief that aid money is not only wasted, but it's actually detrimental to the developing world. Frankly, I believe that foreign aid makes both the givers and receivers worse off, in the long run. I see no genuine reason as to why this is being ringfenced... except, of course, political reasons: the international aid campaigners seem second only to the trade unions in terms of making a noise when they get angry.

4) I have a fundamental, ideological opposition to this view. The way I see it, we either completely open the boarders, and embrace full migration from the world over (and, indeed, the rest of the world should do it, too). After all, if it's beneficial for the economy for pan-European migration, then pan-Globe migration should be of even more benefit.... or, we propose the same boarder controls between the EU and non-EU countries. Why should somebody born in France, Poland, or Greece have any more right to come here than someone from USA, India, Cameroon, or China? There is no strong argument for having both limited out-EU, and unlimited intra-EU migration policies. Migration is either a good thing, or a bad thing, it doesn't matter where the people migrate from, at the end of the day.

5) I am of the understanding that full tax credits/benefits are only available to the first born child, anyways, and a reduced amount for all children beyond that. I question the child benefit/tax credit system, anywho... I mean, my parents don't even need them, and yet they still get them. Hell, they have to have them - my dad even got into some hassle with them a year ago or so - he had filled some paper work out wrong, which he had to do, and was on the phone to whoever it is that deals with this stuff. And they were treating him like he was trying to do them out of money, I remember him complaining afterwards, "I don't even need the bloody things, and now I'm being treated like a criminal because I filled something out wrong, which I had to fill out. It's not right."

6) How about........... completely changing the NHS so that it's more in the hands of the private sector, and is paid for via savings accounts, rather than an insurance scheme... that would solve both the financial and ethical problems of providing controversial health services.

7) That's ok... a thread devoted to a speech wouldn't go very far, expanding it lets it survive for longer.

Good lord, making that post was a complete pain in the arse.

Thanks. Good informative post.

However...with immigration in mind, I think we need sustainable levels as it stands our population is growing at a fast rate. At a time when jobs are at a premuim (I should know just being refused 14 times) the last thing we need is more competition. Also the private sector has been shrinking for years, the government has fully outlined their intentions to literally attack the public sector so that will put already rare jobs further in jepardy. Maybe I'm just looking it from a 15/16 year old view point who needs any old shelf stacking job to earn a few quid.

If immigration from the EU is adequate and fully flowing (enough per year basically) then there will be a constant mix of younger people ready to contribute to society. If the balance is tipped (ie massive overflow) then housing market also rises (to my knowledge) through a surge in demand which again only benefits the rich as they are the only ones who can afford to buy property. It seems like a double edged sword to me in some ways...

Word from the wise, FootballFan: you should always be able to get a job at McDonald's...

The issue with unlimited immigration from the EU is that the kind of migration that it attracts the most is the migration that attacks the jobs most vulnerable during recession (with the exclusion of bankers this time around). If you want to protect the most amount of jobs during times of recession, you want to have as much control over your borders as possible, so that you only let in people who skilled in areas that you need.

This isn't my personal view, by the way, as I few limits on migration as just another barrier on free trade. The way I see it, more open borders everywhere will have the same benefits, in the long run, as the lowering of tariffs, or the allowance of FDI ever had.

An American who wants to pay taxes to the British Govt, a right winger from Wales and a Scouser who wants to work?

Goodness, what next?

Who's the American? Badgenome? He might still move here, but claim non-dom status, or whatever it's called/is.

Like James Kahn all over again. Except, likeable.

Oh you're a missionary, that's great.

It's always funny how much different the definition of Liberal is in the US and UK.

In the US being more Liberal would be the opposite of most of that.

Also... i'd say the only problem with devolution is that when you deal with extremists you end up getting extremes.

For example in the US.  California is mostly run by Democrats.

It's constantly going bankrupt because it's local governments spend way more then they can afford, end up raising taxes on anyone with any money forcing those people to feel the state.   It's in GIANT trouble and needs a lot of fiscal responsibility.

On the other hand, you've got Nevada.  No state taxes except sales tax and a VERY small casino tax.  Desperatly needs more money, needs to raise taxes... won't do it.   As such they face horrible budget crisises have to cut essential services and suggest things like a charity to pay salaries.

I dunno, I've always thought about it as "Liberal" meaning the same thing, but the US and the UK being on the opposite ends of this thing. So the Liberal parties of the US strive in one direction to achieve, and Liberal parties in the UK go the other way way.

I mean, there are some obvious differences in concepts, but one example would be the decentralisation. The UK is far more centralised than the US, and the Liberals have a certain idea of what it should be, which is in the middle of the US and UK. This would mean that Liberals in the UK would be moving towards decentralisation, whilst Liberals in the US will be moving towards Centralisation, and both stopping at that middle ground.

This is obviously wrong, but it's how it plays out in my head.