Comments on: Cameron is disowning Thatcher’s economics

By: Nick

Nick — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 22:40:17 +0000

I am pretty ambivalent about limited liability companies registered by the state in the first place and I am not sure what the least worst legislation for covering their liquidation would be. But if this policy will insulate business people from the consequences of their own actions, then I am against it! Thanks for pointing it out.

By: MatGB

MatGB — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:55:55 +0000

Synergy? Did you read the whole post, or just stop at the bit you disagreed with and fail to notice the later paragraphs pointing to evidence that this attitude was wrong? Including links to economic theory showing that Chris, at least, does understand it?

By: Charlieman

Charlieman — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 21:22:18 +0000

Scott, you provide some great information, so thanks. However, I think that the answer to your final question is covered in the OP’s last two paragraphs.

By: Scott

Scott — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 20:04:12 +0000

Could someone explain to me how the policy objectives set out by Cameron differ from the policy objectives underpinning the law of administration – as amended by the Enterprise Act 2002 – which was originally introduced by the Tory party in the mid-80s in response to the Cork Report on Insolvency Law and Practice. The current administration regiume gives a moratorium for restructuring and to rescue the business if feasible. What does this not do that Cameron’s proposals would achieve? And for the original poster do you think that administration doesn’t work in allowing otherwise failing businesses to buy time to turn around?

By: Synergy6

Synergy6 — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:18:51 +0000

Does this blog have to crowbar Thatcher into every post due to an unwritten rule, or just desire?

“And the notion that bankrupt firms can be restructured is pish…”

That’s just incorrect. I don’t think you quite understand economic theory in this area, “neoliberal” or otherwise.

By: Darrell

Darrell — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 18:17:24 +0000

Of course if you read the Evening Standard on his comments about bringing an end to redistribution then you could take the opposite point of view…

By: sally

sally — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:54:48 +0000

Ah ah, Socialism for the rich, hey? It is the right wing way, particularly in America. Socialise the costs, and privatise the profits. That is what is going on in Iraq. The whole cost of acquiring the oil fields will be paid for by the tax payer, and then the profits will be skimmed off by the oil firms.

As for chapter 11, this allows company’s to go bust, and still trade. Bush today said of his latest piece of socialism for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae….”This is not a bail out ……the shareholders will still own the company” Too right George, we must not let the rich elite pay for their failures. Let the plebs pay out of their taxes instead.

By: thomas

thomas — Tue, 15 Jul 2008 17:39:26 +0000

I’m sure the CBI will lap this up while it looks certain that the economy is headed into a recession, though I’m not sure they’ll think the same when the green shoots start showing.

There’s nothing like a good bit of protectionism heading into an election, its just like padding the balance sheet prior to a potential takeover.

What other pork barrels can we expect to be rolled out next?