The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Subotan]

Or the British Barrier :beam:

[drone]

Chunnel cooling system.

[InsaneApache]

I always liked the headline...

'Fog in The Channel, Europe cut off'.

:laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Fog in The Channel, Europe cut off'.

:laugh4:Soon this will be: 'Frog in La Manche, Britain cut off'.

Because, did I mention yet that the French Marine for the first time in three centuries replaced the British Royal Navy as the biggest European Naval power?

Behold these Weapons of Mass Destruction, ready to strike England in 45 minutes. And there is notHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT:

https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5282/marinel.jpg (https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5282/marinel.jpg)

Look at all those shiny new ships, Furunculus, that we can, and you can't, afford!! ~;p



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


Edit: It has begun!!1!


Nuclear subs collide in Atlantic

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, the MoD has confirmed.

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month.
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the submarines came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported.
Both the UK and France insisted nuclear security had not been compromised.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the incident was "incredibly embarrassing" for the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
HMS Vanguard returned to its home base Faslane on the Firth of Clyde under her own power on 14 February.

"Very visible dents and scrapes" could be seen as tugs towed her in to the port on the final stage of the journey, our correspondent said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7892294.stm

Clearly, the Atlantic is not big enough for both our navies. Let this be a forewarning of what's to become of what little there is left of your fleet, or British pride, should the Royal Navy cross our path again. :knight:

[Boohugh]

Umm, you do realise that article is a year old Louis? You know...when our navy was still bigger than yours? :clown:

I miss those days...

[Furunculus]

Soon this will be: 'Frog in La Manche, Britain cut off'.
Because, did I mention yet that the French Marine for the first time in three centuries replaced the British Royal Navy as the biggest European Naval power?
Behold these Weapons of Mass Destruction, ready to strike England in 45 minutes. And there is notHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT:
https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5282/marinel.jpg (https://img691.imageshack.us/img691/5282/marinel.jpg)
Look at all those shiny new ships, Furunculus, that we can, and you can't, afford!! ~;p

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


Edit: It has begun!!1!
Clearly, the Atlantic is not big enough for both our navies. Let this be a forewarning of what's to become of what little there is left of your fleet, or British pride, should the Royal Navy cross our path again. :knight:

lol, you're a funny man Louis, i'll never deny it. :laugh4::clown:

of course its embarrassing, unlike the continent, we tend to give our guys a sound thrashing when they prang their countries warships, it's not taken as given that half your fleet will naturally lie at the bottom of the harbour whether from fair means or foul. its why we titter and you mutter when brest is mentioned.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Planning to revisit Beachy Head eh Louis?

[InsaneApache]

Aye, well, you Frenchies might have a head start but we do still have rum sodomy and the lash. Just goes to show, you can't be too careful. :whip:

[Furunculus]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7055923/If-disturbing-eggs-is-illegal-someone-fetch-me-a-carton.html

If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

[CountArach]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:
I don't see anyone here claiming that NewLab are trying to create some sort of liberal paradise. They are an authoritarian party and I don't think that anyone could possibly contest that theory.

I've noted a lot of people who think that being more anti-immigration would win either Party a lot of votes from disgruntled people who have moved over to the BNP. This blog (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2423) isn't so sure.

Every day during the campaign Populus asked 250 people what they recalled the Conservative party saying recently. Over 30% of people recalled the Conservative message on immigration after Michael Howard announcement at the end of January that the Conservatives would impose an annual limit on immigration. Apart from 3 days after the council tax announcement, it remained the most recalled message when people were asked about the Conservative party for the rest of January and February. In March it remained amongst the most recalled issues, but was topped for a while by opposing anti-terrorism legislation, sacking Howard Flight and cracking down on travellers. Once the election was actually called, on every single day throughout the whole of the campaign the most recalled Conservative message was anti-immigration. Immigration is indeed a very salient issue, and it completely swamped Conservative messages on health, taxes, policing and so on. At the end of the campaign Populus asked people to characterise this Conservative campaign which people had recalled as being almost wholly about immigration. The most popular options were negative and aggressive.
There is no denying that Immigration is a huge issue, and that more people want tighter Immigration laws, however it also cannot be denied that a campaign of picking on Immigrants is characterised as inherently aggressive.

[InsaneApache]

I don't think that anyone is picking on immigrants, except the BNP that is. The influx of immigrants has been unprecendented in our history and many parts of the country are struggling with housing, schools, hospitals etc. etc. Especially in the south-east.

That it was a deliberate policy by Blair and Brown, "to rub the noses of the right in it", has come back to bite them on the bum. Many of the white working classes are moving towards the BNP and away from Labour because of this. Too late the realisation has dawned on Labour ministers that they can no longer rely on the white working class vote, hence recent announcements from the politburo. Stable doors and horses springs to mind.

[Subotan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7055923/If-disturbing-eggs-is-illegal-someone-fetch-me-a-carton.html

If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

That's a terrible article. I hate journalists who use "At this rate X is going to happen", as they make it look like X is actually real, and it's lazy journalism.


Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.
How is that authoritarian? That's just common sense, to prevent looting.

I highly doubt that if either the Tories or the Lib Dems get in that they will fail to stop this "legislative diarrhoea".


The influx of immigrants has been unprecendented in our history
Really?


and many parts of the country are struggling with housing, schools, hospitals
I highly doubt this, especially the last two. Immigrants are usually young men, who have no need of the latter.


That it was a deliberate policy by Blair and Brown, "to rub the noses of the right in it", has come back to bite them on the bum.
I'm not sure if you're talking about EU immigrants or otherwise. If it's the former, then that is the result of other European countries closing their doors to Poles etc, and a communication failure by the government. If it's the latter, again, I highly doubt it.


Too late the realisation has dawned on Labour ministers that they can no longer rely on the white working class vote, hence recent announcements from the politburo. Stable doors and horses springs to mind.
Immigrants are just a scapegoat. The real reason the white working class are defecting from Labour is because Labour's economic policies have disproportionally favoured the rich/Middle England, and because the working class are no longer as influential as a voting bloc as they were in the past.

[Furunculus]

That's a terrible article. I hate journalists who use "At this rate X is going to happen", as they make it look like X is actually real, and it's lazy journalism.

I highly doubt that if either the Tories or the Lib Dems get in that they will fail to stop this "legislative diarrhoea".



what you need to focus on is:

[snip]This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. [snip]

oh really, i have to confess i think the cons might have created a whole lot less new offences during their last period of government....

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't see anyone here claiming that NewLab are trying to create some sort of liberal paradise. They are an authoritarian party and I don't think that anyone could possibly contest that theory.

Most political parties, especially those on the left, are authoritarian. The whole platform is based on forcing people to behave - they are told how they can go about business, how they should raise their children, what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.


"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the
Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers
of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters."






-Daniel Webster

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/7055923/If-disturbing-eggs-is-illegal-someone-fetch-me-a-carton.htmlBollox, the lot of it. Populist nonsense. Written by somebody without the faintest clue about laws, regulations and legal matters. Or, more worryingly, as I shall argue in the post below, written by somebody with an insidious political agenda.


Here we go:

1)

However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.
I suggest any Briton goes to a supermarket tomorrow, armed with his copy of the Daily Outragograph, and insists he must be given something for free with his purchase.
Watch yourself being laughed out of the shop. Watch yourself being laughed out of your lawyer's office when trying to get your due based on this misreporting.


2)

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion.

Legislation was brought in after 9-11, to close loopholes that might prevent terror suspects from being prosecuted. 'Illegal to cause a nuclear explosion' - nothing wrong with that law. In fact, it is so bloody obvious that perhaps previous governmets forgot to mention it, leaving room for crafty lawyers to get terrorists of the hook, even when caught red-handed with a nuclear device on the London Underground.



3)

disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer

Spreading salmonella by interfering with eggs declared as contaminated with it?

4)

Others:

Switching the ear tag of an animal which has been declared disease-free to one which hasn’t?
Fishing out endangered species and hiding what you’ve done in an “unsorted” batch?
Gaining some advantage by claiming qualifications you don’t have?


'Legal diarrhea'?
Not at all. I say the people who are laughing at these silly laws, outraged at the Labour 'police state', are either unaware of, or haven't thought through, the underlying issues behind these laws/local regulations/court decisions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do you know that genius postmodern text generator? It is a program that automatically produces an interesting (at first glance) postmodern text. Out of just a few words and concepts, endlessly mixed and re-arranged, the programs manages to produce an infinite number of texts.

I say the Telegraph has managed the same. The paper is filled by spambots, several programs written by the Telegraph, which automatically create daily, endlessly repetitive articles based on just a few concepts and phrases, written into a new daily outrage article simply by tossing about the order of these handful of concepts.

I feel like Groundhog Day when reading the Telegraph.



Here you go, if one wants to have a real laugh, instead of laughing at legislation that actually makes Britian safer for British people, read how the Telegraph simply repeats its own articles with intervals of eighteen months. The trick behind this is, the reader vaguely remembers he has read it all before, so thinks to himself that what is written is probably true - since he has heard it from multiple sources.

This is how you are being taken for a ride.

This is the real problem of British politics: the media moguls, the clique of billionaires in London, their lackeys in Westminster.
In the case of the Torygraph, the two billionaire tax exiles who run their channel island - made into and kept a s a private tax haven by London - as feudal barons. And who hold a disproportionate stake in British media, to spew an endless daily diarrhea of false or misleading information to the British people.


Labour has created 3,600 new offences since 1997.

The Government has created more than 3,600 criminal offences since it came to office in 1997, almost one for every day in power.

By Chris Irvine
Published: 7:40AM BST 04 Sep 2008




Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, will reveal the statistic as he sets out a fresh initiative to cut crime.
Critics of the new laws blame a government addicted to pushing complicated legislation through Parliament, and keen on grabbing a cheap headline.

A total of 3,605 offences have been introduced since May 1997, an average of 320 a year.
They include 1,238 brought in as primary legislation, which means they were debated in Parliament, and 2,367 by secondary legislation, such as orders in council and statutory documents.

The worst offender is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has created 852 new offences.
This is followed by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and its predecessor the Department for Trade and Industry, which between them have created 678 offences.
Meanwhile the Home Office is responsible for 455 offences.

Among some of the more bizarre criminal offences created in the past five years include disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer, or offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day.
Under Tony Blair, Labour introduced 160 new offences in his first year, but in 2003, 493 offences were created.

Mr Huhne said "In what conceivable way can the introduction of a new criminal offence every day help tackle crime when most crimes that people care about have been illegal for years.
"This legislative diarrhoea is not about making us safer, because it does not help enforce the laws that we have one jot. It is about the Government's posturing on punishments."

Here is a list of some of the new criminal offences brought in under Labour:
- Creating a nuclear explosion
- Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
- To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
- Disturb a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officers
- Obstruct workers carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
- Offer for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
- Allow an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
- A ship's captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board



If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

[Strike For The South]

Europe is like....different.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Europe is like....different.That's what you get when you let an entire continent be run by atheist homosexuals. :smash:

[Strike For The South]

That's what you get when you let an entire continent be run by atheist homosexuals. :smash:

I didn't realize they had put you in charge :kiss:

[Furunculus]

Bollox, the lot of it. Populist nonsense.

as i said to subotan, concentrate on the bolded text:

[snip]This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. [snip]

[CountArach]

2)

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion.

Legislation was brought in after 9-11, to close loopholes that might prevent terror suspects from being prosecuted. 'Illegal to cause a nuclear explosion' - nothing wrong with that law. In fact, it is so bloody obvious that perhaps previous governmets forgot to mention it, leaving room for crafty lawyers to get terrorists of the hook, even when caught red-handed with a nuclear device on the London Underground.
Actually that law was brought in in 1998. Other than that I don't disagree with much in the post. On the other hand I get what Furunculus is saying in that it is indicative of an approach to crime that just reeks of Authoritarianism.

Most political parties, especially those on the left, are authoritarian. The whole platform is based on forcing people to behave - they are told how they can go about business, how they should raise their children, what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.
Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not. Given that difference any arguing by either of us would just be banging our head against a wall.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not. Given that difference any arguing by either of us would just be banging our head against a wall.

Of course it does. Social conservatism is generally authoritarian, just as left-wing economics are authoritarian. You just support fiscal authoritarianism. That's fine, we allow different opinions here, but at least come out and admit it.

[CountArach]

Of course it does. Social conservatism is generally authoritarian, just as left-wing economics are authoritarian. You just support fiscal authoritarianism. That's fine, we allow different opinions here, but at least come out and admit it.
Nope, I simply view Authoritarianism as a solely social descriptor. I would say that I support Collectivism, absolutely, but I don't see that as Authoritarian because it seeks to do away with perceived coercive institutions - as opposed to Authoritarianism, which I see as the active use and reinforcement of coercion.

I don't want to turn this into another my-system-is-better-than-your-system thread so I won't say more.

[Beskar]

Nope, I simply view Authoritarianism as a solely social descriptor. I would say that I support Collectivism, absolutely, but I don't see that as Authoritarian because it seeks to do away with perceived coercive institutions - as opposed to Authoritarianism, which I see as the active use and reinforcement of coercion.

I don't want to turn this into another my-system-is-better-than-your-system thread so I won't say more.

I agree with CountAnarch, and his points.

Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), it is the most anti-authoritarian realistic system. How in anyway can it be considered Authoritarian.

On the otherhand, having a monarchy, that is an authoritarian aspect to a system.

[Furunculus]

I agree with CountAnarch, and his points.

Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism), it is the most anti-authoritarian realistic system. How in anyway can it be considered Authoritarian.

On the otherhand, having a monarchy, that is an authoritarian aspect to a system.

i'm not aware of ever meeting anyone who'd subscibe to that particular ideology.

[Subotan]

what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.


I should be able to have the freedom from the negative externalities that those activities will create.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Did I include "how much pollution they should spew out"? No, I did not. :wall:


Well that depends on if your definition of Authoritarian extends to economic matters as well. Clearly yours does, and mine does not.

How could it not? Authoritarianism is the government telling you what to do, or what not to do, in some aspect of your life.

I see no logical reason to exclude any aspect, especially work, from being possible authoritarianism, only the political reason allowing one to claim socialism isn't authoritarian.


Read the definition of Libertarian Socialism,

That's a stupid definition of libertarian.

CR

[CountArach]

I consider my view completely valid because otherwise you are making the term Authoritarian so reductionist as to say that any Government that has ever existed and could conceivably ever exist is, in some way or another, Authoritarian. Just as I don't like people labelling Bush as a Fascist because it reduces the term Fascist to an epithet of everything that you hate whilst ignoring the actual definition of the word. If we label everything as Authoritarian then we forget what Authoritarianism is.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

EDIT: Never mind.

[Beskar]

That's a stupid definition of libertarian.

CR

Looks like that definition and your definition of "free market" have a lot in common then.

Beskar.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Really, Beskar? My definition of the free market is shared by nobel-prize winning economists (Or more accurately, they expounded on it and I agree with it).

That definition of libertarian-socialism means libertarianism without natural human rights, like the right to property. Why not just call it 'decentralized socialism'?


I consider my view completely valid because otherwise you are making the term Authoritarian so reductionist as to say that any Government that has ever existed and could conceivably ever exist is, in some way or another, Authoritarian.

Perhaps that view was overly broad, but even a narrower view would include work place regulations as the possible purview of an authoritarian government. Even if you say a an authoritarian government is one more like the Wikipedia definition, that leaves open the possibility for economic authoritarianism.

Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.

And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.

CR

[Brenus]

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

[Furunculus]

true, but i think CR's point is that the right to own property is a accepted and expected right whose legitimacy is without question in the society we exist in.

the concept of the natural right is not the be all and end all of rights.

[Beskar]

You still have property and accomendation in that model and again, you can wallpaper it how you like, it. So it is not as if you are missing anything.

So the argument is redunant.

[Furunculus]

i'm not argueing that, merely trying to disentangle Brenus's knickers over the point about whether the right to property is a natural right or not, because i believe the importance of CR's statement was that owenership of property was a fundamental right (as defined by the society he lives in), regardless of whether it is natural or not.

[Beskar]

If you talk about nature. Humans were quite normadic. They used to go around in packs, settling in an area, sharing the resources between them. Working together as a community...

Wait.. it is natural to be communist?

[Furunculus]

read the first paragraph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights

[InsaneApache]

Wait.. it is natural to be communist?

Don't equate co-operation with collectivism. So the answer is plainly no.

[Subotan]

Did I include "how much pollution they should spew out"? No, I did not. :wall:

Negative Externalities != Pollution :rolleyes2:

[Ironside]

Given the nature of Authoritarian governments, and the huge role the economy plays in a state, it seems natural and expected for an authoritarian government to have authority over the economy.

And it seems prevalent in left wing economic issues because both left wing economics and authoritarianism oppose individualism.
CR

I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ (http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54)

And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~scan/berggren.pdf)

[Furunculus]

in an effort to further the defence oriented election debate i give you a link to the BBC series empire of the seas, and episode 2 is now showing on iplayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=empire%20of%20the%20sea

the army head is making the case for an expanded counter insurgency army (global guardian), so it seems fair to make the case for why the Royal Navy made and sustained the wealth and institutions we enjoy today, and how this might prompt a more navy oriented defence in future (strategic raiding). ;)

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ (http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54)

And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity (http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Escan/berggren.pdf)Genius link. Thanks for that.



in an effort to further the defence oriented election debate i give you a link to the BBC series empire of the seas, and episode 2 is now showing on iplayer:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/...of%20the%20sea (http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/search/?q=empire%20of%20the%20sea)Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.

When a nation controls the seas, it controls trade, and consequently it's law and political ideology will favour open seas (See: Paul Kennedy).
The UK was neither the first nor the last country on top.

Assuming - and I know this is strictly hypothetical so please take no offense - but assuming that the UK is no longer the world's biggest power, ruling over an Empire on which the sun never sets, perhaps it is time to move on and re-invent means of generating British wealth.
(No need to worry, the UK has not fallen for the trap that crippled several previous top-dogs for centuries after their relative decline. The UK already re-invented itself, London already is the global financial and services hub.
Britain's position in the centre of international trade and institutions is where it's at, where Britain generates its wealth. No need to cripple the UK and its taxpayers to build a navy to fight last century's war. The Hong Kong firm has it's exports to all of Europe insured in London not because of some British guns pointed at him)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I'm gonna dispute that since the most individualistic nation in the world looks to be Sweden... http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/ (http://margaux.grandvinum.se/SebTest/wvs/articles/folder_published/article_base_54)

Unless I have misread something, the idea of self-expression, as he defines it, does not seem very individualistic to me at all. He seems to define it as "diversity" and "tolerance", and raising children to be part of his multicultural idea, not as actual freedom or individualism.

Nonetheless, that's only social. Once you factor in economic freedoms, Sweden shoots down the scale.

[Boohugh]

Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.

Pity indeed! A significant portion of the 2nd episode was dedicated to explaining how, after we duffed up the Spanish, we duffed up the French even more! I feel this series should be shown to all Frenchman, just so they know we can always put them in their place if need be... :beam:

Haven't even gotton to Nelson and Trafalgar yet either...that's saved up for episode 3 :clown:

[Furunculus]

Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.

Assuming - and I know this is strictly hypothetical so please take no offense - but assuming that the UK is no longer the world's biggest power, ruling over an Empire on which the sun never sets, perhaps it is time to move on and re-invent means of generating British wealth.
(No need to worry, the UK has not fallen for the trap that crippled several previous top-dogs for centuries after their relative decline. The UK already re-invented itself, London already is the global financial and services hub.
Britain's position in the centre of international trade and institutions is where it's at, where Britain generates its wealth. No need to cripple the UK and its taxpayers to build a navy to fight last century's war. The Hong Kong firm has it's exports to all of Europe insured in London not because of some British guns pointed at him)

the first episode was pretty good, covering the birth of the royal navy, the second which i have not yet seen should be the really interesting episode as it covers the period when royal navy was a global force, and how it was necessary to bring about indusrtialisation and a professional civil-service in order to manage a global navy.

lol, i am well aware that the UK no longer has an empire and nor too is it a superpower by any stretch, but given that there is the beginnings of an election defence debate going on which is centering on which strategic capabilities the UK can afford to keep, i feel it necessary in the name of balance to stop the army hogging the debate by constantly pointing to afghanistan and saying; "Look, dirty men with beards and kalashnikovs, everywhere! We need more feet on the ground, think of our Tommies for the love of God!"

Under current funding Britain can only maintain Great Power* status via two means**:

Prolonged and theatre level army operations of high intensity - aka Global Guardian
Brief amphibious and expediationary warfare of high intensity - aka Strategic Raiding

Given that we remain and island nation, as well as a trading nation, only the latter of the two options makes sense.











* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_power
** http://rusi.org/downloads/assets/FDR2.pdf

[Furunculus]

Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)

Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:

1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20

Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.

For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.



http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_debt_chart.html


using your own link i see a different picture:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1970_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

besides which, labours financial competance is already starkly obvious:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2415326&postcount=129

[Ironside]

Unless I have misread something, the idea of self-expression, as he defines it, does not seem very individualistic to me at all. He seems to define it as "diversity" and "tolerance", and raising children to be part of his multicultural idea, not as actual freedom or individualism.

Nonetheless, that's only social. Once you factor in economic freedoms, Sweden shoots down the scale.

The abillity to be yourself and achive your induvidual goals without being forced to comprimise them for the greater good of the group? No laws, but massive social pressure isn't actual freedom or individualism either.

We're nr 21 in economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx). Funny link in some cases.

I was thinking of calling that linking as pulling a Louis. Link that shows contradicting data to general perception.. I think you'll like this one as well.

Won't be pulling a case of calling Sweden the freest country in the world, but main point was that left-wing economics doesn't oppose individualism by default.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The abillity to be yourself and achive your induvidual goals without being forced to comprimise them for the greater good of the group?

I don't think that it how he defined it. :inquisitive:


We're nr 21 in economic freedom (http://www.heritage.org/Index/Ranking.aspx).

I know.


I was thinking of calling that linking as pulling a Louis. Link that shows contradicting data to general perception.. I think you'll like this one as well.

Louis didn't actually show data that was contrary to the general perception. In my opinion he abused the statistics to try and prove a point that was tenuous at best, once outside factors are taken into account. Whether he does it to get a reaction or to stimulate thought, or both, I don't know.



Won't be pulling a case of calling Sweden the freest country in the world, but main point was that left-wing economics doesn't oppose individualism by default.

No, it does not. I don't disagree with that. But left-wing economics does oppose individual freedom, at least in that one area, more than free market economics does. Everything is on a scale.

[Ironside]

I don't think that it how he defined it. :inquisitive:


No, but it's certainly a part of what individualism means. It can't possibly mean the opposite.

And Louis has been pulling that stuff before, part of his posting style. Not sure if he actually always agrees on what he posts when doing that.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

No, but it's certainly a part of what individualism means.

Indeed it is, but to use his data we must also use his definitions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

using your own link i see a different picture:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1970_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDPNo, your/mine link unequivocally shows that, until the current international crisis broke out, Labour managed to decrease debt as percentage of GDP. :book:

1997 815.881 43.76
1998 865.71 40.87
1999 911.945 38.84
2000 958.931 33.32
2001 1003.3 32.06
2002 1055.79 33.06
2003 1118.24 34.00
2004 1184.3 35.62
2005 1233.98 37.40
2006 1303.92 38.41
2007 1343.75 44.80
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20





besides which, labours financial competance is already starkly obvious:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpo...&postcount=129 (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2415326&postcount=129)
The Financial Times, Britain's foremost source of financial news and analysis, by no standard a leftist institute, ran an interesting debate about Britain's performance in the past decade. A host of Britain's foremost economists, bankers, financial experts, captain's of industry debate the UK's performance in the last decade. Specifically, the question whether British strong economic performance was illusory.

The consensus, if not unanimous, is that the strong British economic performance in the past decade was to a large extent real, and structural. :book:

One needs to be a registered member to read the FT, so I shall link the debate in full.

End of the decade: To what degree was Britain’s strong economic performance over most of the last decade, relative to other major developed economies, an illusion? What has been the most surprising economic event or trend of the past decade? What do you think will surprise others in the decade to come?

Published: January 4 2010 04:22 | Last updated: January 4 2010 04:22

The following economists’ answers appear in no particular order.

Dr Tim Leunig, London School of Economics



Almost all of Britain’s strong economic performance is real (whatever Martin Weale may say!). Britain is better educated, and we have made significant progress in moving away from sectors in which we have little competitive advantage into sectors in which we do. Our labour markets are in many ways superb – look how little unemployment has risen, a tribute to how workers “get it”.
At one level the most surprising event has been the crash, but for me the surprising thing is that growth could be negative to the extent that it has been with such small employment effects.
In ten years time we will look back and wonder about the suggestions made circa 2009. Some said it was the end of capitalism, and it wasn’t. Even sane people like Adair Turner said that we should cut back on finance on the grounds that most people buying it don’t get good value for money. (Does the French equivalent of Adair Turner say that France should cut its profitable champagne business on the grounds that more people who drink it can’t tell it from Cava, and therefore don’t get good value for money?)


Patrick Minford, Cardiff Business School


No; UK performance was based on solid services growth, consumer spending was in line with GDP more or less. Banking/financial services remain a key part of UK comparative advantage and remain a growth point worldwide, crisis apart, as markets resume trend towards ‘completeness’.
Capitalism is necessarily crisis-prone since it permits decentralised agents to invest in ‘trends’ that are highly uncertain; they are ‘random walks’.
The current crisis involved banks as did the ‘roaring 20s’ in the US because the productivity growth of the last decade and a half was sustained and strong, thus sucking banks in.
No crisis is predictable by definition. That is why this one was not predicted in general and why I cannot tell you what/when the next one will be!
George Magnus, UBS
It was an illusion to think boom and bust had been terminated when we were running a large structural fiscal deficit at the top of the boom, and when 60 per cent of our GDP growth was sourced to the bloated financial services and housing sectors. We weren’t alone, but the most brazen example. The most surprising event in the West was surely the near collapse of the financial system, after a decade of official and regulatory neglect and bravado. Elsewhere, it was the unprecedented trendline in China’s economy, and sneaking up behind, India. In the next decade, the next surprises are likely to include a recession in China, India’s demographic and economic catch-up, the re-awakening of America’s technological prowess, and decision-time for the Euro Area regarding fiscal transfers and political integrity.


Paul Mortimer-Lee, BNP Paribas
Britain’s better than competitors’ performance in the first half of the last decade was pretty solid. For the last five years it has been anything but that. To too great a degree, out performance was based on ephemeral and unsustainable demand side forces rather than the durable supply side improvement that can be the only lasting basis of out-performance. The main contributor to the mirage was public policy. First was a monetary policy regime that has big holes in the framework; second there was a very poor implementation of the regime by the Bank of England. Finally, fiscal policy was a disaster.
The monetary policy framework of inflation targeting pretty much takes for granted that all is well as long as inflation remains under control. The problem is that if the monetary policy inflation target is credible inflation tells us nothing about whether monetary policy is appropriate or not – the mistakes all show up elsewhere, for example in leverage, asset prices and the growth of money and credit. All these things the Bank of England largely ignored or downplayed.
Second, even within the context of inflation targeting, monetary policy was too soft. From January 2005 to date inflation has been at or below the 2 per cent target in 19 out of 58 months: 11 of those were either at the very start of the period or at the very end. From June 2005 to June 2009, inflation was at or below target only 8 out of 48 months. Even in the UK’s exam marking system, getting the answer right 17 per cent of the time does not count as a pass mark. Real interest rates were too low for too long and the result was an unsustainable boom in house prices and domestic demand for which the BoE must take a great deal of the blame.
An unsustainable boom in domestic demand meant that the tax revenues were flowing freely. Responsible fiscal policy would have moved the fiscal accounts into surplus and would have potted up funds for a rainy day. In fact, was what happened was that Gordon Brown did the best possible imitation of pools winner Viv Nicholson: “spend, spend, spend” was the byword. Public sector employment mushroomed and the public finances slipped into a deep structural deficit. The fiscal rules were bent; the goalposts were frequently moved to make irresponsible fiscal policy look responsible. It had to end in disaster and it has. The fiscal black hole now facing us is not mostly cyclical, it is mostly structural and is the result of the government engaging in the self delusion that credit financed boom times can last forever.
The most surprising trend of the last decade was that central banks and governments deluded themselves that massive global imbalances and an excess of savings in emerging markets could be more or less permanently offset by creating excess demand in the west. They looked only at flow equilibrium and forgot that demand can collapse under the weight of too much debt.
The single most surprising event – not to mention costly in dollars, lost output and jobs – was when Hank Paulson put the gun to the head of the financial system and pulled the trigger with the bullet labelled “Lehman” in the chamber.
What will surprise others in the years to come?
• how appalling is the UK’s economic condition
• the degree of pain that has to be suffered to put fiscal policies back on track
• how high will be the prospective retirement age
• the almost inevitable sovereign debt crisis in the west
• how low inflation goes in the next few years in the west
• how many economies turn Japanese
• how globally unimportant as economic powers will European countries be seen to be
• how high oil prices go
Ross Walker, Royal Bank of Scotland
The combination, over the last cycle, of an expansionary fiscal stance and an environment of ultra-abundant/artificially cheap credit combined to exaggerate the UK’s economic performance (both relative to other economies and historical trends). Depictions of the economy are always prone to hyperbole, both on the upside and the downside. The UK was, is and will remain a mediocre economic performer. It is less that the UK is about to move to a drastically lower trend rate of growth, more that economic reality is reasserting itself – trend GDP is probably closer to 2 per cent than 2.75 per cent.
The biggest surprise was obviously the scale of the financial meltdown. Economic policy frameworks, like political careers, usually end in failure – policy regimes emerge in response to previous problems and are eventually swamped by new events. The blinkered approach of narrow (CPI/RPIX) inflation targeting appears to have suffered the same fate (though some central banks remain reluctant to accept the contribution policy error made to this crisis). Greater monetary policy discretion, with a wider focus on credit and financial variables, augmented by a new ‘macro-prudential’ regulatory framework is the main challenge.
Peter Dixon, Commerzbank
There is a popular view in parts of Europe that the UK’s growth over the past decade was debt fuelled, that the economic debate was focused only on house prices and that the economy produces nothing of value other than financial services. There is thus an element of schadenfreude in the debate. There is certainly a danger is that the UK has squandered part of the legacy of the 1980s reforms in a consumption binge which will require dramatic cutbacks in spending/higher taxation, which will make the UK a less attractive business location and reduce the relative performance of the UK vis-à-vis the euro zone. Indeed, we have long warned that a debt fuelled surge in growth – as engaged in by households – was merely borrowing against future income and to that extent, part of the strength of the UK’s economic performance was illusory. But so long as high taxes do not act as a disincentive, the UK (i.e. London) is still a better bet to attract high quality human capital compared to other European locations which may help the trend growth rate to rebound more quickly. Unlike the late 1970s, many of the reforms needed to allow the economy to respond in a flexible manner to changed conditions have already been put in place, and although the next decade may be a slower haul than we have become used to, the situation in 10 years time may be rather brighter than it currently appears. There is a tendency to see only the downside after a major recession – look at the plethora of titles published in the US in the early-1990s or in Germany in the early-2000s about how the economic outlook will be grim forever. The only thing I will predict about the next decade is that it will probably turn out very different from any prediction I can make today.

Chris Saunders, adviser to Vince Cable
A huge amount of the UK’s growth in the last decade has been on the basis of increased levels of debt and booming property prices, neither of these are a recipe for sustainable growth. It is critical that the UK finds new industries if it is not to enter a malaise.

John Muellbauer, Oxford University
What has been the most surprising economic event or trend of the past decade? The biggest surprise has been the extent of the ramifications of the crisis that began with US sub-prime. This exposed a whole range of fundamental weaknesses in the global economy.
What do you think will surprise others in the decade to come? Climate change will probably generate the biggest surprises and the biggest changes in policy and technology, as the flat-earthers are contradicted more and more by increasingly alarming trends in nature.
Giles Wilkes, Centreforum
I do NOT believe that Britain’s growth was a mirage. Once the whole 1992-2012 period is taken into account, Britain will have easily outpaced its Continental rivals. You cannot employ extra millions on a mirage, and financial services are a valuable activity, in general. Furthermore, they are only 8 per cent of the economy, and only half of that is the City. If I was to pick a future surprise, I would go with Edward Chancellor’s recent warning in the FT that a great deal of its recent activity looks Dubai-esque. China’s growth model will ultimately need to be changed, and the transition will not be easy. Predicting when or how this will emerge as a threat is even more difficult.
The most surprising event of the last decade: I choose the election of Barack Obama, even above the financial crisis. Who would have thought that someone denied entry to the 2002 Democratic convention could lead the free world six years later?
David B Smith, University of Derby
Britain’s strong performance partly reflected the ‘crowding in’ benefits of the tight fiscal discipline of the 1997-2000 ‘Prudence’ period, and also the fiscal stabilisation carried out by the Conservatives after ERM withdrawal in 1992. As a small open economy, Britain also benefited from the benign global backdrop and the rapid growth of world trade. The two pluses that Britain has had have been its openness to immigration and its relatively high level of social freedom, which have made it an attractive place in which to be based. These benefits have now been outweighed by the loss of economic freedom caused by Labour’s tax, spend, and regulate policies. It was indeed an illusion.
The most surprising event of the past decade was not the rise of China but the fact that China has tried to behave like an established ‘conservative’ power in its foreign relations. This is a relief, because normally rapidly industrialising countries throw their weight around (e.g. Imperial Germany in the 1890s or Britain in the 1850s). One possible surprise could be that China’s growth may start slowing by the end of the decade, just as Japan went from a 10 per cent growth economy in the 1960s and early 1970s to the much slower expansion of recent years. Another surprise could be a collapse in the role of the US dollar as the premier international reserve currency.
Keith Wade, Schroders
The UK’s economic performance did owe much to the banks and the growth of debt, but the underlying driver was an open economy with an attractive political and regulatory system. London has been a symbol of that success. Obviously changes are needed going forward, but as long as the UK maintains that environment the gains will not be illusory. Most surprising event – few foresaw the failure of the banks and none got the timing right, which certainly meets my definition of a surprise. Barack Obama becoming President was a more pleasant surprise.
John Philpott, Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
It is clear that the UK was one of the countries at the heart of the Noughties bubble economy. This exaggerated our relative economic performance. However, while the consequences of the bubble bursting will diminish our relative performance and standing for some time the critique of the British version of the Anglo-Saxon model is overdone. UK performance on most of the economic fundamentals is at the very least better than a generation ago and I’m confident that we will look reasonably strong by the end of the coming decade and continue to be a major player in the G20. One of the fundamentals which has clearly improved in the past decade has been the labour market. The structural reforms implemented since the 1980s have given us a low sustainable unemployment rate and productivity growth in the private sector is also better than before. A reasonably open approach to immigration also enabled us to sustain a very high employment rate in the Noughties by international standards without a return of the ‘British disease’ of rampant wage inflation. The Noughties recession is the first in the post second world war period in which the labour market has been pure victim rather than implicated as a causal villain of the piece. Moreover, wage and hours flexibility has enabled us to limit the employment cost of the recession to only around a third of the output cost. While the lagged effect of the recession may result in further job losses before unemployment peaks (probably in summer 2010) the UK’s flexible labour also has the potential to enable a faster fall in unemployment than seen following the recessions of the 1980s and 1990s. Realising that potential, however, will depend critically on demand for labour – which makes it imperative that we get the stance of monetary and fiscal policy right during the course of the recovery.

Karen Ward, HSBC
We never reached a conclusion as to whether the combination of strong growth yet low inflation in the noughties was down to good policy or whether it was simply good luck – due to the disinflationary tailwinds from Asia and temporary immigration which kept a lid on inflation. Over the next few years we might really test this hypothesis. One of the potential surprises might be how persistent inflation is, even if a recovery is fairly lacklustre.

Martin Weale, director, NIESR
The most surprising trend before the crisis was the way in which Britain seemed to have overtaken both Germany and France in income per head. This felt too good to be true because both our neighbours seemed to be much better managed as economies. The crisis has made me think that much of the income from the financial sector arose from capital gains or from charging commissions which allowed people to realise capital gains. Since we normally make a distinction between capital gains and income, activities driven by capital gains should probably not be counted as contributing to income. But I have made no progress in quantifying this.

James Carrick, Legal & General Investment Management
The widening trade deficit was a clear symptom the UK was spending more than it was earning. It was ignored by policymakers because inflation was suppressed because of cheaper imports from depressed emerging economies. The surprise of the last decade was therefore that you could have strong expansion of consumer and public spending without triggering inflation. This might change over the next decade as developing economies overheat and/or revalue their exchange rates, boosting import prices. Given the UK is a small open economy it could surprisingly rebalance quicker than the US.

Dr Oliver Marc Hartwich, The Centre for Independent Studies
Britain’s economic model before the financial crisis was unsustainable. Its economy was more a mirage than a miracle. Built on private debt, public spending, rising house prices and strong inward migration, it simply could not last. The only surprising thing was that most people believed that it would.
Unfortunately, the past decade has turned the United Kingdom into something more akin to the UnitedSovietRepublics of Great Britain and Northern Ireland with the government’s share of GDP just under the 70 per cent mark in some regions.
The economic future for Britain looks grim. It would be a big surprise indeed if it managed to recover quickly. Beyond that, surprises are inherently unpredictable. Having said that, I would watch out for the early signs of sovereign debt crises around the globe.

Samuel Brittan, Financial Times
Not really an illusion. But growth rates per capita tend to converge in medium term.

Dhaval Joshi, RAB Capital
End of decade: Britain’s strong economic performance was a complete illusion. The long period of above trend growth from the mid 1990s to 2008 that Gordon Brown frequently boasted about was simply down to a plunge in the savings rate from 5 per cent in the mid 1990s to an unsustainable -9 per cent in 2007, facilitated by a borrowing boom, which gave UK consumption a massive 14 per cent boost. But if the savings rate is now headed back to 5 per cent, the outlook for the UK economy is a prolonged chill.
The Noughties defining economic characteristic was the sequence of three massive borrowing booms and two intervening busts in the space of just one decade – first, corporates (dot com boom), then households (housing boom) and now governments.
The decade’s mantra was “borrow and spend”; next decade’s might be “save and reduce debt”. So the surprise will be about how low, and how persistently low the numbers are: for growth, inflation, interest rates, and investment returns.

Pierre Cailleteau, Moody’s
A material part of Britain’s economic over-performance has been related to higher leverage. However, the underlying story based on the very high ability to allocate resources flexibly in the economy is probably robust.
One surprising trend has been the fragility of the financial construct – but another, more reassuring surprising trend, has been the exceptional balance-sheet flexibility of governments in the midst of the crisis.
The surprise, good or bad, in the next decade will come from the ability of advanced societies to cope with lower growth and rethink the social contract between individuals and the state. That will be a test of cohesiveness and fortitude.

John Hawksworth, PricewaterhouseCoopers
I think some of the UK’s relative success was solidly based, for example in terms of our relatively flexible labour market and strong clusters of expertise in financial and business/creative services. But apparent success was exaggerated by high levels of indebtedness and an illusion of increased wealth due to rising house prices. UK may well underperform other major economies in the next decade due to the need to pay back public and private debt.
The most surprising event has been the speed of the rise of the China and other emerging economies. The fact that China is now the second most important economy in the world on many measures would not have been predicted by many back in 1999.
It may not be all that surprising, but I think there is a good chance that India will overtake China as the fastest-growing large economy by the second half of the next decade and will be seen as increasingly important in political and business circles as a result.

Richard Jeffrey, Cazenove Capital
The illusion from which we have suffered over much of the last decade is that we could determine the requisite policy by reference to one number: inflation. From a relatively balanced position in 1997, this has taken us into an unsustainable position characterised by a high level of excess demand. A policy path that ignored the fact that, for most of the period, domestically generated inflation was running at almost twice the rate of the inflation target, was accommodated by official estimates of the trend growth rate that were substantially too high. The result was a steady rise in the external imbalance; in other words, we spent much of the last decade accommodating demand overheating. Meanwhile, watching public sector finances has been akin to watching a train crash in slow motion. The irony is that although we now find ourselves saddled by huge and still rising levels of debt and there is evidence that we have done little to contain excess demand, the achieved level of GDP growth has been comparatively unexciting – just 2.6 per cent per annum between 1999 and 2008 and only 2.2 per cent between 2004 and 2008. Meanwhile, as the FT has pointed out recently, the productive base of the economy has become significantly narrower.
The surprise, looking ahead, is a negative one: that it will take at least the first half of the next decade to rectify the problems that have built up over the past 10 years. In essence, the borrowing that took place in the period leading up to the financial crisis and recession was ‘borrowing’ from future growth; unfortunately, the cost of servicing that borrowing will prove to be exceptionally high.

Ruth Lea, economic adviser, Arbuthnot Banking Group
Britain’s relative strong economic performance was to some extent an illusion – bolstered by unsustainable public spending increases, a credit binge and a housing boom. The economy will pay the price for the next decade. Large-scale immigration masked the poor productivity performance. The most surprising “event” was the continuing powering ahead of China and, to a lesser extent, India – though some will not have been so surprised. Concerning the decade to come, the US’s relative position will probably weaken further – but whether this will surprise people I don’t know. We are witnessing the shifting of the tectonic plates of the global economy.

Howard Archer, IHS Global Insight
I am not sure I would call it an illusion. But it was certainly built on shaky foundations. The strong economic performance was far too reliant on the UK financial services sector. The dependence was two-fold. First, the sector oversaw a decade of very loose credit conditions, helping consumer spending growth to outpace real household disposable income growth in the second half of the decade. This helped to underpin rising housing equity, soaring consumer debt levels and a steady fall in household savings rate, hardly a sustainable model.
One of the most surprising UK economic events of the past decade was the length and extent of the housing market upturn.
I would love to think that the surprise for the next decade is that the UK economy rebalances quickly and performs way above current expectations – but I have my doubts.

Colin Ellis, Daiwa Securities
I don’t think the macroeconomic performance was an illusion – low inflation and steady GDP growth was genuine, what we missed were the problems building up as leverage climbed in the banking sector (leading to a repricing of risk etc). I still think trend growth will be 2.5 per cent and inflation can be kept close to target once we get through all this (though obviously getting through it will take some time). The most surprising economic event of the past decade has to be the biggest global recession in most people’s lifetimes – though for a single shocking day, Lehman’s collapse will still take some beating, I will remember that for the rest of my life. I think when people look back at us in the future, they will wonder why, if policymakers were warning about the mis-pricing of risk and over-leverage in the years before the crisis hit, we didn’t do anything about it before it blew up in our faces.

Stewart Robertson, Aviva Investors
Not an illusion, but perhaps a bit bubbly. Most surprising? If you had said 2 or 3 years ago that we would have 0.5 per cent base rates and a 12 per cent of GDP budget deficit, (and heading to 80 per cent to 100 per cent debt to GDP) you’d have been laughed at. Surprise to come? Who knows! Perhaps that new jobs will eventually be created and that we grow again. Perhaps that interest rates are lower for longer. A nation leaving the Eurozone? I don’t think the full impact of the growing importance of Asia on the world stage has yet been appreciated. Back in the 1200-1500 period, Asia is estimated to have accounted for up to 75 per cent of world GDP. Probably heading back that way, but it will take more than a decade!

Ian Mccafferty, CBI
The “nice” decade was driven by a combination of the emergence as global consumers of a significant part of the world’s population and disinflationary conditions allowing a long period of easy money. To that extent, it was not illusory, though it will probably turn out to have been unique, in that the confluence of factors is unlikely to re-emerge so strongly in the foreseeable future. The UK used this period to generate rapid growth in an industry in which it has a clear global comparative advantage – financial services – providing benefit to both GDP and the public finances over the period. With the end of the nice decade, and the credit crunch, not all of those gains have proven sustainable, but the benefits to the economy as a whole were real.
In terms of surprises: event – the sheer pace of the contraction in world trade in the six months following the Lehmans collapse; trend – the marked change in the nature of the (private sector) labour market in the UK that has resulted from the success in stabilising and controlling of inflation under an independent central bank.
Next decade: the success with which the UK will develop new industries and technologies as sources of growth to rebalance its areas of comparative advantage. We may be a mature economy, but we have a good number of existing and emerging success stories unrelated to financial services, which will help drive growth over the coming decade.

Philip Booth, Institute of Economic Affairs
In the mid-later part of the decade, the strong economic performance was sustained by a transfer of resources into the public sector (the impact of which on the private sector was lagged) and by loose monetary policy. In that sense, the strong performance was an illusion. The most surprising trend has perhaps been the way in which real wages responded to the crash (by falling in many sectors) this has limited the impact of the crash on unemployment.

Tony Dolphin, Institute for Public Policy Research
It was an illusion because it was built on an unsustainable accumulation of household debt. The best that could have happened was that debt stopped increasing (relative to incomes/GDP) and our economic performance reverted to mundane. The worst that could happen … well it has happened. There have been lots of surprises in the last 10 years. Among the most striking have been the extent to which China (and other economies) have been prepared to transfer capital to the west, particularly to the US, given the almost inevitability that it will earn poor/negative returns and the fact we managed to squeeze two major asset price bubbles and busts into one decade – a trend and an occurrence that were not unrelated.
Since everyone seems now to be convinced that China is going to grow at an annual rate of 8-10 per cent for the next decade (at least) and has – much to Gordon Brown’s envy no doubt – really abolished the economic cycle, a big surprise in the decade to come would be a period of weak growth in China. I can’t think why this should happen, but then it would not be a surprise if I could.

Phil Thornton, Clarity Economics
Strong UK growth was built on debt, both private and public, and excessively on one sector – financial services. The lack of long-term sustainable sources of wealth generation left it vulnerable to a shock, so that sense it was illusory and much of that wealth has gone for good.
Big surprise? The consensus around the Great Moderation as being the end of economic history in some way. The lack of serious debate – with the honourable exceptions of Bill White at BIS and Andrew Smithers – perhaps allowed policymakers to ignore the threats of a long tail/black swan event for too long. Too much consensus can be bad for economic health.

Geoffrey Dicks, Novus Capital Markets
Getting inflation down and keeping it down was not an illusion. To the extent that this enabled the economy to grow steadily for 17-odd years, this was no illusion either. I may still be in denial myself over the events of the last two years but I don’t think there was anything inevitable about what happened as a result of the credit crunch (which I still think was visited on us by the US rather than home-grown.
The most surprising event (apart from the spectacular way it ended) was that the UK grew for those 17-odd years – if anyone had stood up in 1992 and said that this would happen, they would have been laughed out of court. Maybe we are where we were in 1992 all over again and another decade of growth is about to start.
The least surprising event is that hubris eventually is visited on corporate bosses who think they can do nothing wrong and who brook no criticism – there are countless examples of this throughout corporate history.

Douglas McWilliams, chief executive, CEBR
The Treasury has been catastrophically overoptimistic about long term tax revenues based on bizarre growth extrapolations – for example assuming that east European immigrants would continue to flood in at the pace that they did when admitted to the EU and on assuming a permanent bull market. CEBR has argued for many years that the underlying rate of productivity growth in the UK was well below 2 per cent and that spending growth needed to be based on cautious assumptions.
I was personally most surprised by the persistence of the financial boom beyond about 2005 – the last two years of this made the scale of the necessary correction much bigger than would otherwise have been the case. I was also surprised by the fact that the bankers decided suddenly not to lend to each other. Finally, I should not have been, but was surprised that globalization had left much more inventory in the world economy than I had previously expected, which made the scale of the 2008/09 worldwide inventory correction much bigger than had previously seemed likely.
I suspect that many people in the decades to come will be surprised by how little pain (except for the providers of services) will result from public sector cutbacks – many of the things cut back will turn out not to have been necessary in the first place.
Jonathan Haskel, Imperial College Business School
In hindsight, the banking crisis, since no-one saw it coming (except Nouriel Roubini). strong performance only very partly an illusion since in practice financial services accounts for less of GDP then people think, especially since it was so badly mis-measured for most of the period.

Michael Dicks, Barclays Wealth
Perhaps two-thirds illusion and one-third reality? The most surprising trend is China’s performance – and the fact that almost everyone takes it as a given, unquestioningly. So, perhaps it will also be the big surprise in the next decade too? So might the presumption be that volatility will remain fairly low. Usually a bout of economic volatility, as has happened in recent years, sparks a bout of political volatility – and the resultant tensions create new uncertainties and costs.

George Buckley, Deutsche Bank
The reason that the Bank of England was able to grow the economy at such strong rates without generating inflation over the past decade (1997-2007) was because of goods price deflation. With many goods being imported, there was little the BoE could do to influence goods prices. So in order to achieve overall inflation at 2 per cent it had to run the domestic economy more quickly than otherwise to raise domestically generated inflation. This then offset goods price deflation to keep overall inflation at 2 per cent.
Now goods prices are rising again. When the negative impact of high levels of spare capacity eventually wanes, in order to produce overall inflation of 2 per cent in the future we will need to see a less favourable combination of interest rates and economic growth. In other words, the next decade is payback for a period of excessive growth over the past 10 years.

Ray Barrell, NIESR
A boom fuelled by loose fiscal policy and excessive consumer borrowing financed by a housing market bubble induced strong growth in the UK for most of the last decade. However, there is evidence that increased levels of training and education have raised our growth rate by a quarter to a half a per cent as compared to our European neighbours. The most unexpected event, apart form the crisis, was the scale of New Member States migration to the UK. The number expected to leave was OK, it was just that we did not expect to be the only destination. This helped stave off the inflationary consequences of loose fiscal policy and excessive borrowing.

Andrew Hilton, Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation
The tragedy of this crisis for the UK is that it has given open markets, competition and limited government a bad name. We had it broadly right – though I would still like to smack DeAnne Julius for convincing us all that manufacturing is not “special”. Maybe there was some truth in what she (and Bob Lawrence) wrote – but “tradeables” are special. And we have ignored them.

Martin Gahbauer, Nationwide Building Society
There is no hiding the fact that Britain’s economic expansion during this decade has depended at least in part on a large expansion of credit to households and a structural increase in public sector borrowing that the markets were willing to tolerate and finance at low interest rates. These trends were pushed to the limit and the next few years will be pay back time.

Nick Bosanquet, Reform
Britain’s growth performance mainly due to debt financed boom and to the rise in public spending.
Most surprising economic event of last decade has been rise in public expenditure – from £418.8bn in 1997-98 to £627.8bn in 2008-09 a rise of 49.9 per cent from 38.2 per cent to 43.8 per cent of GDP without thorough reform. Record very different from Australian Labour and Clinton administration in US ... UK has had the Last Hurrah of tartan Stalinism.
NHS outcomes could have been improved for £30bn less by more use of competition and choice.
Surprise will be low level of UK growth over next decade. Government and household spending will not be driving GDP growth as up to 2008 and much investment spending will be offshore.

Nick Barr, London School of Economics
At the start of the decade raising retirement age was not a suitable subject for polite society, and even student loans, though they had been in place for 10 years, were regarded as rather dodgy. Today retirement age is part of policy discussion and, though tuition fees remain controversial, some sort of contribution by graduates is taken for granted.
By the 2020, people will be surprised that raising retirement age and charging graduate contributions were ever controversial.

Brian Hilliard, Societe Generale
It was certainly exaggerated by the growth of financial assets as a share of GDP but much of the growth was a gift from globalisation which allowed the BoE to run relatively loose monetary policy.
There can only be one choice for the surprise – the shock into near Depression – as we all under-estimated the mis-pricing of risk and the insidious geographical dispersal of those risks around the globe.
The coming surprise is likely to be the long duration of slow growth in the west after the initial post-recession bounce
Stephen King, HSBC
Trend growth in the UK will be lower, there will be a persistent fiscal squeeze, there will be no old-fashioned “crowding-in” benefits and we’ll be wondering what on earth happened. We are facing a period of political introspection triggered by a failure to understand properly the ultimate causes of the crisis.

Peter Spencer, Ernst & Young Item Club
To the extent that this was based upon international borrowing it artificially propped up UK living standards – these would otherwise have come under pressure from competition from the East. However, I believe that the UK’s supply side performance, and in particular the flexibility of the labour market was impressive. Inflation and unemployment remained remarkably low, and are likely to remain so going into the next decade.
The seizure of markets in the credit crunch. It was obvious to many people that the imbalances and the expansion were unsustainable. I think most of us thought in terms of a gradual rebalancing as the debts built up and house prices became unaffordable and so on, gradually applying the brakes. We also saw a fall in the dollar as part of a general adjustment. Economists usually expect things to turn round gradually, moving in a cyclical way. However, this time the international banking markets simply froze. So what we got was more like a car crash.
Provided that the global imbalances start to unwind we will see a return to the low volatility of the ‘Great Moderation’. That may seem surprising but it is actually an easy call. That is because this is the normal state of affairs – the high volatility of the 1960, 1970s and 1980s was an aberration caused by high rates of inflation. Just as Milton Friedman predicted in his 1977 Nobel acceptance speech, the low volatility of the early post-war years returned as inflation came down. The only problem was that financial deregulation and low volatility led borrowers and lenders to expand balance sheets excessively. With inflation remaining very low, we only have to resist that temptation and all will be well. Future econometricians will then see the recent crisis as a couple of massive negative inflation and output shocks (in Q3 and Q4 2008) in an otherwise benign macroeconomic environment.

Andrew Scott, London Business School
Britain has at the top end a skilled and flexible workforce. Combine that with low tax and a light regulatory environment and you get economic success. Skilled and flexible workers can shift out of finance into other areas and don’t have to stay in finance. To that degree there was nothing illusory about Britain’s relatively strong economic performance. However with an increase in global regulation the products the UK financial sector produces will be less in demand and with low taxes and a light regulatory touch ceasing to be such an attractor there will need to be a period of transition whilst the financial sector grows more slowly and resources shift into other parts of the UK economy. The more skilled and flexible these workers are the more swiftly that transition will occur


John Van Reenen, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE
I think that people have been too negative about the post 1997 period under the current doom and gloom. There was a long period of sustained growth and low unemployment. This was underpinned by productivity growth that was strong over this period relative to other main OECD nations, keeping up with the US productivity acceleration and addressing the UK’s long-run productivity gap. And this all remains true if you drop finance from the picture.
Britain enjoyed a massive increase in the proportion of young people going to college, building our human capital and a policy framework that broadly kept to open and flexible markets (bolstered by tougher measures to improve product marker competition).
At the beginning of the decade as the Internet bubble burst, we thought the income distribution might stabilize in the US and UK. In fact, the proportion of income going to the very rich (e.g. top 1 per cent) increased tremendously over the last decade, even as inequality in the bottom 50 per cent of the distribution stabilized or even narrowed. In many other countries where inequality had not risen in the 1980s (e.g. Scandinavia and Germany) inequality has also been rising.

Melanie Baker, Morgan Stanley
I don’t think it was an illusion, but low volatility in growth and inflation meant that the ground for a crisis was fertile. For example, households likely took on more debt thinking that their incomes were now less volatile and businesses likely took on higher levels of leverage that they otherwise would have done.

Peter Warburton, Economic Perspectives
Sadly, most of it was illusion, based on increased economic leverage and an accompanying erosion of the national saving rate. The surprise was the length of time it took for the reckless over-expansion of credit to blow up economic performance and the breathtaking audacity of the leading central banks in prolonging the flight from economic reason. In the coming decade, the key surprise will be the return of a high single-digits global inflation rate and the sickening realization that we have to fight this dragon all over again.

Gerard Lyons, Standard Chartered
The lesson of the last decade was not that the UK’s strong growth was an illusion. The lesson was to learn the lessons of previous cycles: the Maudling Boom, the Barber Boom, the Lawson Boom – and now the Brown Boom. All these booms were followed by busts because the authorities were unable to curb excess growth in credit and debt.
One implication of the crisis for the UK – as for the world – is the need to ensure balanced and sustained growth. External deficits matter and large ones cannot be sustained.
Not sure about the most surprising but the most significant has been the emergence of China. It is now a powerful economic force.
The world economy boomed in the last decade and we should not forget that. The world economy grew in size from $31,500bn to $61,000bn.
Surprise in the decade to come? An arc of growth from China to India and then on to Africa, as the centre of global manufacturing shifts to regions with large and growing labour forces, and to economies rich in resources. As I touched on above, the first few decades of this century could be a super growth cycle for the world economy.
Howard Davies, London School of Economics
Much of Britain’s superior performance was attributable to rapid growth in household debt, which could not go on. There was no growth miracle. Productivity growth was unexceptional, and we have not closed the output per hour gap with the US, France and Germany.
One major surprise (to me) has been the lack of convergence within the euro area, with marked shifts in competitiveness between members, whose consequences are now being seen in the crises in Greece (and probably Portugal shortly)
If I knew what the next surprises would be, they wouldn’t be surprises.

Robert Barrie, Credit Suisse
I’m not sure it was an illusion. The economy really was very stable. The problem was that money, credit and asset prices weren’t very stable. It would be good to think that the authorities have learned to take the latter more seriously as a result of recent experience – but beyond the calls for a new macro prudential instrument – I’m not sure that’s the case.
Sushil Wadhwani, Wadhwani Asset Management
Some of the growth in the UK earlier in this decade looks to have been unsustainable, and part of a bubble. Over the past decade, I was astonished that policymakers were so slow to recognise the bubble and do something about it. Indeed, some policymakers were still preaching the merits of securitisation as late as the autumn of 2007 and were telling us that the global banking system was well capitalised as late as January 2008.

Henrik Braconnier, OECD
This is a difficult question. Many other economies in the OECD area also seems to have been affected by a similar “boom and bust”, raising doubts about the long-term potential (think of the car industry, property markets and public finances in general). But these tendencies were a bit more pronounced in the UK due to the large financial sector and a weaker initial structural fiscal position.
The most surprising development must be the inability of the global financial system to handle the financial stress initiated in (largely) US housing markets. This rightly has raised concerns about financial markets stability and changed the game for economic policy (especially monetary and macroprudential policy). A second surprise was the developing world’s resilience (especially China) in the face of the crisis.
Looking forward it is not unlikely that things in terms of expectations on economic policy will revert surprisingly quickly back to normal (just look at the banking sector). It means that policy makers need to address underlying structural issues (Fiscal policy, macroprudential, etc) as quickly as possible.

Diane Coyle, Enlightenment Economics
It wasn’t illusory. The era of liberalisation did increase productivity outside financial services, and even in finance, and high immigration boosted growth as well. It would be regrettable if the backlash against finance – actually extensively but badly regulated – led to a reversal of some of the flexibility so hard won in the UK economy.
The surprises come in an appreciation of what the shape of the economy actually is. The role of finance has been exaggerated – its share of GDP was somewhat higher in the UK than in France or Germany but not massively so. Likewise, the demise of manufacturing is hugely overstated. The UK has highly productive manufacturers in many areas of technology, although seriously hampered by a shortage of suitably skilled UK graduates. The creative sector is bigger than the financial and exports very successfully. I hope we will be surprised by how well some of the unsung heroes can do in the decade ahead, if we stop obsessing about the City.
Alan Budd, Queen’s College Oxford
I don’t think that our strong performance was an illusion. The credit crisis was the most surprising event (to me, at any rate). I think that the future event that surprises others will also surprise me.

Lucrezia Reichlin, London Business School
Probably yes, but this does not mean that the UK will do worse than other developed economies in the future. The success of the Chinese model. That the “lessons from the great crisis of 2008’’.

Trevor Williams, Lloyds TSB
Big surprise of the last decade was that the UK grew for 16 years uninterrupted. That was bound to end, and it was not all debt. It took a global recession and a global financial crisis to end it. Debt played a part in the last decade, but it not just abut that; the UK played to its strengths, and became more flexible as a result. The challenge for the next decade is to one again reinvent itself. A big change would be if the UK became more export oriented after a decade of domestically driven growth. It would also mean that it has proved successful in meeting the challenge posed by the coming decade, of more open markets and even greater globalisation than seen so far.

Gary Styles, Hometrack
It now looks likely that the UK’s underlying performance in the last decade is not dissimilar to previous periods and although average growth has been slightly higher in recent periods, the very long term trends have hardly changed. If anything the structural issues we faced in the early 1990’s are even more pertinent as over reliance on consumer spending growth and personal borrowing remain critical issues. The huge trend decline in our manufacturing, production and export industries only add more complications to any economic remedy for poor trend economic growth.
Most surprising event: Collapse of HBOS and Lehman’s. This has shattered the confidence of consumers, bankers and policymakers alike. We have entered a new world where accepted norms, implicit assumptions and expectations have changed permanently. The genie cannot be put back into the bottle.
What will surprise in the decade to come: How little politicians and policymakers can effectively achieve when economic fundamentals and global markets are against them.

Ian Plenderleith, former Bank of England head of markets
I don’t subscribe to the view that the UK’s performance over the past decade was a flash in the pan: the capacities that drove it are still in place, and much less damaged by this recession than by previous ones.
Biggest surprise of the past decade: two of them – (i) that markets can fail (ie suddenly cease to function) – not new, but we had forgotten that it can happen; and (ii) the market’s failure to price risk properly.
Surprise for the next decade: the next bubble (maybe in the bond market) and the realization that, despite best present intentions, we do not have any really effective instruments to deflate bubbles in advance. Macro-prudential management is one of the big challenges for policy-makers over the next several years.
David Blanchflower, former MPC member
I wouldn’t argue it was an illusion. The UK benefited from having a large financial sector which gave it benefits but then exposed it to greater risk in the face of a financial shock. The optimal size and structure of the financial system, and the optimal amount of regulation and who does it is yet to be determined. But inflation targeting with a single target of the CPI failed and needs to be replaced. Having unemployment as a specific goal of macroeconomic policy also seems important. Unemployment hurts more than inflation.
Andrew Simms, policy director, New Economics Foundation
To a degree all major developed economies have been living beyond there means, both economically and environmentally. A reckoning was inevitable, sooner or later. In one sense we are lucky that the banking system went into crisis before the ecosystems upon which the economy ultimately depends. The taxpayer was there to bail out the banks, whereas nature doesn’t do bail-outs. So, as part of the Anglo-Saxon club that privileges the finance sector, relatively, to a larger degree, Britain ‘s performance was merely more illusory than others. Having clearly warned, in some detail, of both the nature and scale of the banking crisis in our 2003 book, The Real World Economic Outlook, we cannot, however, say that the banking crisis was a ‘surprising economic event.’
Perhaps the most surprising recent trend in developed economies is the speed with which many people have taken the opportunity of the recession to redefine their lives and goals. Given the opportunity of working less and having more time, people are taking it and enjoying the consequences. For example, in Utah, in the US, where the local municipality put people on a shorter working week, they found that absenteeism went down, morale went up, and they achieved a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. This perhaps is the future: less work, more fun, less carbon.
Julian LeGrand, London School of Economics
It is not an illusion that Britain’s GNP increased by 50 per cent since 1997. Even in the worst case scenarios, this recession will not put a major dent in that.
Lena Komileva, Tullet Prebon
I guess the most surprising economic trend of the past decade has been the extent to which wholesale market finance has become a major driver of the global economic cycle, alongside traditional bank credit. It’s not surprising that this crisis began with the breakdown of capital and money markets and it is no surprise that signs of the crisis ending emerged with a record-volume capital markets recovery. Yet still, the disrupted link between capital market liquidity and borrowers in the real economy is having an effect on unemployment, house prices, pension values and many other factors affecting everyday life. With hindsight, quantitative monetary policies ought to have been employed as a symmetric policy tool during both booms and busts throughout the past decade.
Jonathan Loynes, Capital Economics
The UK’s strong economic performance over the last decade or so was certainly flattered by the unsustainable buoyancy of the City and the public sector, but it was not entirely an illusion. The economy is in a much better structural shape than it was several decades ago, with a more flexible labour market and a strong international position in certain fast-growing business sectors. So we are not heading back to the 1970s. Still, the UK may well continue to lag behind its major competitors over the next year or so.
The most surprising event of the last decade must surely have been the deepest global recession in modern history. Even those who warned of the dangers, including Capital Economics, were surprised by the severity of the downturn and the associated crisis in the financial sector. Others believed that boom and bust had been eliminated!
In the decade to come, the biggest surprise might be just how rapidly the global economy bounces back – but I doubt it. I think it is more likely to be just how long the legacy lasts.
Bridget Rosewell, Volterra
To the extent that it was bought with taxation and debt (both public and private) it was indeed an illusion which has come home to rood. The most surprising economic event was the willingness of the US to engage in quasi public ownership of financial institutions. In the decade to come, many may be surprised by the resilience of capitalism and its capacity to withstand shocks.
Ben Broadbent, Goldman Sachs
It was not an illusion – but then the relative strength wasn’t that marked either. Per capita GDP has been slowly converging with that in other parts of Europe for the past 25-30 years and that gap didn’t close any faster over the last decade than over the previous decade. The surprising event has been (until recently) the strength of the currency, although that – we believe – was in part the result of the dramatic growth in government consumption. I think the decade to come – or at least the first few years of it – will look a bit like the mid-1990s. A contraction in the public sector, outperformance by those bits of the economy sensitive to the exchange rate and reasonably good rates of economic growth overall. Otherwise, most of the surprises (one hopes) will be outside the UK, and probably outside the developed world altogether.
Brian Coulton, Fitch Ratings
UK growth was undoubtedly ‘pumped up’ by the global credit boom in the middle decade. You need look no further than the speed with which household savings have risen through the recession to understand that prior trends in consumption – fuelled by house price gains – were unsustainable. But despite these cyclical excesses there have also been long term fundamental improvements in the flexibility of the economy and in the monetary policy framework since the 1970s and 1980s which should ultimately render the economy more robust and resilient over the medium term.
One of the more surprising developments through this recession has been the mild increase in unemployment – whether this is truly a reflection of greater labour market flexibility or it is just a matter of time before unemployment catches up with the economy will be very interesting to see.
Michael Saunders, Citi
The UK did have genuine economic advantages at the start of the decade: relative strength in knowledge intensive services, flexible labour markets, good credit availability, sound fiscal position and low tax rates, plus openness to foreign direct investment. These made the UK the country of choice for global firms and global talent, leading to a period of strong productivity growth and higher potential growth. But policymakers tolerated and encouraged by their actions a massive surge in private and public debt and spending that has now left the economy enfeebled. Moreover, the UK’s advantages in labour markets, market openness, favourable tax system, and public finances are now being lost through policy neglect and pre election political gestures. It will take many many years of hard work and hard policy choices if the UK is to regain its top tier global rank of the middle of the decade.
Peter Westaway, Nomura
No, I don’t think this was an illusion. Even after the financial crisis, financial services will continue to play a significant role in the growth and development of the UK as a financial centre, even after Mr Darling’s “supertax”. And it is a fallacy to characterise UK growth as reliant on booming consumer spending. Certainly the share of domestic demand has increased in the last decade, but the exchange rate has been strong as a consequence and net trade and manufacturing has suffered. Looking forward, the economy will rebalance, but this won’t mean that medium-term growth is slower. Rather, UK growth will continue to be largely determined by continuing productivity improvements spurred on by an increasingly flexible labour and product markets; the benign performance of the labour market during this downturn provides evidence of this.
Perhaps the most surprising event of the last decade is how a consensus could exist on the unsustainability of house prices (residential and commercial) in the UK but most notably the US, and this could sit alongside a financial system which could collapse once same house prices returned towards those fundamentals.
Another surprise is the return of financial economics and economics of banking. For a while, macroeconomics had been dominated by a view that interest rates (possibly plus or minus a spread) contained all the relevant information about monetary conditions and the world could be explained by efficient markets and optimising agents. We all knew that view was too simplistic but no-one said it very loudly. Now we all know different. Danger going forward is that the pendulum swings too far the other way and economist return to ad-hoc theorising.
New surprises? Could this be the lost decade for the world economy? Despite our best attempts, we really don’t have an accurate idea on how powerful deleveraging forces are. If this downside risk were to materialise, and if we reach a point where the ability or willingness of governments to loosen fiscal policy simply reaches its limits, then the world could remain at or near the zero interest rate bound for much longer than is currently priced in.
The other surprise would be a world where a new system of macroprudential surveillance is agreed upon and the credit cycle is abolished for ever. This is what policymakers are striving towards. But previous generations have tried and failed before to tame the forces of optimism and pessimism. Perhaps this time, we’ll get it right!?
Charles Goodhart, former MPC member
Less than most now think (the UK will recover better than eurozone or Japan). What has been the most surprising economic event or trend of the past decade? The rise in income inequality. What do you think will surprise others in the decade to come? Possibly a fall in income inequality?
Philip Shaw, Investec
Yes. At least it was certainly flattered by the increase in public expenditure and by strong consumer spending growth over most of the period.
The way that supposedly well capitalised financial institutions were ravaged by the credit crisis.
Not sure. More small banks and building societies opening and some return to “traditional” banking? A waning of the “west’s” economic power being mirrored in their relative political decline?
Danny Gabay, Fathom Consulting
That is a very good but difficult set of questions. We would have to say that far more of the past decade’s performance now looks like luck or illusion than genuine improvement – even our much vaunted flexible labour market appears o be more spin than reality. We still believe that an independent inflation-targeting central bank is the right institution for economic management. But its practise has been a let down. In particular, the inability to see the linkages between asset markets, debt and the economy was as big a policy error as the UK has endured over the past century. That said, compared to the medium term fiscal ‘rules’, monetary policy has been a real success. And as for the push for stronger productivity growth ...
The most surprising trend over the past decade must be China’s emergence, as well as India and Brazil. A close second must be the build up of household debt alongside housing market bubbles, and the way it was allowed to happen, again.
In the decade to come we may find out whether China’s emergence is for real or yet another illusion – though Japan’s and the Asian miracle took four decades to unravel. Meanwhile British consumers will probably spend a good deal of the first half of the decade paying back the debts they accumulated during the previous one, against a background of persistent unemployment. But hopefully, they will spend the second half living within the means afforded by the country’s actual as opposed to its imagined trend rate of growth, same goes for the government.
Finally, a wish/hope. We hope that the next decade does not bring forth yet another ‘new new’ idea. We could do with some old fashioned, boring but affordable growth.
An economic adviser to the Conservative Party
To a very large degree, especially since about 2003. The most surprising thing was that everyone believed the myth for so long when in retrospect so many dials were flashing red. In the decade to come people will be surprised at how persistent the legacy of the crisis remains.
James Knightley, ING
UK trend growth has been around 3 per cent, but I think we will see it being closer to 2 per cent for the next decade for the reasons mention above in Q1
For me one of the most surprising has been the failure of emerging markets to significantly ramp up their domestic demand (or certainly not as much as I had thought possible). Maybe this decade will see that happen.
Mark Cliffe, chief economist, ING
The biggest surprise of the decade was the boom and bust in structured credit, which precipitated the biggest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Our thinking about economic theory, practice and policy has been transformed as a result. Among many things that have been overturned is the naïve faith in efficient markets and the notion that risk can be managed.
On possible surprises for the coming decade, the structural damage in the wake of the financial crisis, coupled with excessively cautious regulation presents obvious downside risks. More positive surprises could be:
1) Outperformance by the US economy
2) Major technological breakthroughs in green technology and health care may spur unexpectedly strong growth later in the coming decade
3) Cyclical upswing and the use of green taxes, especially in the US, might lead to unexpectedly rapid falls in budget deficits
4) Financial services grow unexpectedly rapidly, especially in the emerging world
Sir John Gieve, chairman Vocalink and former deputy governor of the Bank of England
I think the UK’s performance genuinely was pretty good relative to the US, Japan and EU over the last decade and, despite the hits of the last two years, it is well placed to do relatively well in the next decade too. Obviously the biggest surprise was the financial collapse of 2007-09 and the way that the credit markets which had been designed to hedge risk had created powerful new channels of contagion in a downswing.


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b05bf79c-f8d6-11de-beb8-00144feab49a.html
Far from Louis' posting nonsense, Louis seems to be right on top of things and rather aware of the verdict of the cream of British economists and captains of industry.



Louis didn't actually show data that was contrary to the general perception. In my opinion he abused the statistics to try and prove a point that was tenuous at best, once outside factors are taken into account.Which data do you have in mind? I'll be happy to go over it again.

I myself am under the solid impression that I've substantiated every claim I've made in this thread with numbers and sources.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Which data do you have in mind? I'll be happy to go over it again.

Specifically the British defence budget, and the supposed "myth" of Conservatives being better for defence than Labour. While I would argue that neither has been especially good for defence, the statistics don't show Labour doing better.


I myself am under the solid impression that I've substantiated every claim I've made in this thread with numbers and sources.

Indeed. The problem, in my opinion, was in how you used them.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Specifically the British defence budget, and the supposed "myth" of Conservatives being better for defence than Labour. While I would argue that neither has been especially good for defence, the statistics don't show Labour doing better.It is not possible to say how the Conservatives would've handled the defense budget in the past twelve years.

It is possible to go over the numbers of what Labour and Tory governments have spend on defense in the past decades. These numbers show that the past two Tory governments have halved the defense budget, that the majority of this decrease happened before the end of the Cold War, and that the past two Labour governments have overseen the biggest defense spending increase since the Second World War.

Links in this post: https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showpost.php?p=2418346&postcount=212


The problem remains that Labour underfunded the military for all the tasks it set for it, at least for what the British public expects*. The UK defense budget, despite the massive increase, was not sufficient to wage two high-intensity conflicts and maintain its core missions.


('Best for defense' is a matter of political preference. If I were a British taxpayer, I'd demand the defense budget be brought down to the level of Canada or Germany. There are better destinations for these billions of pounds than Blairite warmongering.)


*But: sometimes these expectations are unreasonable. It is understandable that any military casualty would be the subject of close public scrutiny. But is it reasonable to spend another billion pounds for ten less casualties, when this same billion could save a thousand lives if spend on healthcare instead of yet more helicopter support?

[Boohugh]

No, your/mine link unequivocally shows that, until the current international crisis broke out, Labour managed to decrease debt as percentage of GDP. :book:

Umm...those figures you posted show that debt as a percentage of GDP has been increasing since 2001, well before the current international crisis broke out...so they only decided to stay prudent until they got elected for a second time after which they went on a spending binge.

Alternatively, you could view it as them benefitting from the previous Conservative economic policies, allowing them to reduce debt as a % if GDP for a few years, until their own economic policies started to have an effect and things went wrong from there...



It is not possible to say how the Conservatives would've handled the defense budget in the past twelve years.

It is possible to go over the numbers of what Labour and Tory governments have spend on defense in the past decades. These numbers show that the past two Tory governments have halved the defense budget, that the majority of this decrease happened before the end of the Cold War, and that the past two Labour governments have overseen the biggest defense spending increase since the Second World War.



Alternatively, you can look at the fact the previous Conservative government ordered almost all the Navy's new ships and a fair number of the RAF's new aircraft, they just weren't around long enough to see them delivered, whereas Labour hasn't bothered to even fulfil the ordering requirements set out in it's own Strategic Defence Review.

[Furunculus]

I myself am under the solid impression that I've substantiated every claim I've made in this thread with numbers and sources.

1997 815.881 43.76
1998 865.71 40.87
1999 911.945 38.84
2000 958.931 33.32
2001 1003.3 32.06
2002 1055.79 33.06
2003 1118.24 34.00
2004 1184.3 35.62
2005 1233.98 37.40
2006 1303.92 38.41
2007 1343.75 44.80
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20




oh yes, you have indeed, your figures show the deficit being 43.76% of GDP in 1997 going down to 43.24% of GDP in 2008*.

good FT article by the way, cheers.

* generously ignoring the onset of the worst of the recession in 2009 from the point of view of public finances.

[Subotan]

Pity, the episodes don't play outside of the UK.


Use a British based proxy server.

[Crazed Rabbit]

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

Gah. Yes, it is. Nomads have property rights; they may not have owned land but they had horses and yurts and weapons. Even then, you can't call anything that doesn't allow the right to property 'libertarian'.

You don't have to give property to people for them to have a right to property; you're conflating the right to own property with being given property by others.


And here's a note on why Is the Swede Human?
Radical Individualism in the Land of Social Solidarity

Interesting, thanks for the link, but I am not swayed. The authors say that removing traditional ties of society like family and religion increases individualism. this may be true, but the authors say also it is substituted by increasing the power of the state and making the individual powerless next to the state. Considering cultural and traditional ties like family and churches do not carry force of law to impose themselves, and the state does, I do not see how overall individualism is increased.

CR

[Furunculus]

Britain has grown more conservative under Labour:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7072710/Britain-has-grown-more-conservative-under-Labour.html
Britain has become a more conservative country in the past two decades, both politically and socially, an official study of public attitudes shows.

By Tom Whitehead, Home Affairs Editor
Published: 6:30AM GMT 26 Jan 2010

For the first time in 20 years more members of the public consider themselves Tory voters than Labour, according to the NatCen British Social Attitudes survey, which has been conducted annually since 1983.

The study concludes that Britons have become more conservative in their views towards welfare and benefits since Labour was elected in 1997, with a majority believing that the poor should do more to look after themselves.

The public has concluded "enough is enough" for increased taxation and raised spending on key services such as health and education, with support at its lowest for almost three decades.

It comes as the battle to fix Britain's economy by reducing the public defecit becomes the central theme of the election. Mr Brown will hope that growth figures to be released today, which are expected to show Britain has finally emerged from the recession, can form the basis of an unlikely comeback in the polls.

However, last night a poll for Channel 4 News showed most people, 72 per cent, say their vote will not be affected by the new figures and just 20 per cent will attribute the recovery to the Government.

Gordon Brown yesterday attempted to portray himself as someone who was prepared to cut public services to pay off the deficit despite taunts from David Cameron that he was guilty of “moral cowardice”

The Prime Minister has been accused of failing to accept before the election that he needs to explain how widespread Labours cuts will be.

But he said that he would not be afraid to make cuts, although he warned that Tory plans to cut the deficit more quickly would jeopardise the recovery.

Despite the anticipated return to growth, workers are reporting plummeting job satisfaction, believing they are being made to work harder, have fewer chances of promotion and are becoming more stressed. The research for the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development also showed that fewer than one in 10 people believe their standard of living has improved in recent months.

The social attitude report’s authors attribute New Labour’s policies for the shift to the right because the party's repositioning under Tony Blair towards the centre has pushed the public to become more conservative.

The wide-ranging report, which is funded by several Government departments is based on figures for 2008, the most recently available, but will still come as a boost for David Cameron, the Tory leader, in the run up to the next General Election.

It underlines the sharp swing in British opinion over the past few years. In 2007, one in four people supported the Conservatives compared with 34 per cent in support of Labour. In the survey, the Tories now have 32 per cent support, compared with 27 per cent for Labour.

But the shift in mood goes beyond voting preferences as attitudes have also hardened towards attempts to cut inequality and spread wealth more fairly.

Only two in five people support increased taxes to fund higher spending on health and education, down from 62 per cent in 1997, while half say taxes and spending should remain the same as they are now, the highest level since 1984.

A minority of one in five (21 per cent) think unemployment benefits are too low and cause hardship, compared with over 53 per cent in 1994.

And there is growing support for lone parents to have a duty to find work attached to benefits entitlement if their children are of school age.

However, there is increased social acceptance of homosexuality, cohabitation and “non-traditional” family structures.

Report co-author John Curtice, a politics professor at Strathclyde University, said the shift to the right is mainly a result of the changing mindset of Labour supporters.

Support for wealth distribution among such voters has dropped from two thirds to less than half since 1994 while it has remained broadly static among Tory voters.

Prof Curtice said: "In repositioning itself ideologically New Labour helped ensure that the ideological terrain of British public opinion acquired a more conservative character.

"Winning elections may not necessarily be any easier for the Conservative Party as a result – but, if and when they do secure power, they will find themselves governing a country that is more at ease with markets and economic freedom than it ever was when Margaret Thatcher was in power.

"The wind of change blown by New Labour has proven to be powerful indeed."

He said the increased spending on health and education was an astute move by Labour at the time but "now that spending has been increased, the public's thirst has been satisfied".

He described "an electorate that is now much further away from traditional Labour attitudes than was the case little more than a decade ago", adding that the "more conservative tune of restraint in spending on public services and keeping a lid on the tax burden would now seem to provide a closer fit to the climate of opinion."

The British Social Attitudes report also revealed the number of people voting out of a feeling of civic duty has plummeted in the last 20 years.

Traditionally, large numbers of voters went to the ballot box because they felt it was their duty to do so.

But the survey revealed that just over half of those quizzed (56 per cent) now believe everyone has a duty to vote in general elections.

This figure is down from 68 per cent in 1991.

Political disengagement is most marked in those aged under 35.

[Boohugh]

But the survey revealed that just over half of those quizzed (56 per cent) now believe everyone has a duty to vote in general elections.

This figure is down from 68 per cent in 1991.

Political disengagement is most marked in those aged under 35.

Considering I'd classify myself as very politically aware and even I feel there has been no attempt to engage people my age in politics, this comes as no surprise at all. I've had the vote for almost 8 years now but I have never seen any election promises or other attempt to gain my vote in any election.

It is a vicious circle, in that the political parties don't bother appealing to my age group to engage in politics and vote for them, as statistically we have the lowest voter turnout, hence what is the point for them? However this leads to the same group becoming more disaffected and so even less likely to vote in the future as they don't see the political parties as appealing to them or representing their views.

The only time I have seen any sort of significant political activity from my age group was over the issue of tuition fees at university and the result was the Government ignored all our views and went ahead with their plans unchanged anyway. When they don't even bother engaging us over an issue that clearly caught the attention of my age group, what hope do we have over any other issue? Problem is none of the political parties really seem to care about it and so aren't making any real effort to promote a change in attitude.

[Subotan]

We can't have these young people attempting to protest the allegations that they're all boozing, vandalising thugs with no respect for their betters ecetera.

[Kralizec]

“Like the right to property”:
Err, the right of property is not a natural human right.
This one is a cultural right (as nature oppose to culture), as nomad will not impose property right in the same meaning than sedentary…
If you want property as natural right you have to give property (of what by the way) to each newborn baby.

I think the vast majority of rights are simply products of civilization. In many primitive societies, women could not, or were in no position to refuse sex with alpha males. I think women should be able to withhold consent, but it's not a natural right in the sense of universally occurring.
Another, slightly more useful definition of natural rights:
Pretty much every civilisation wich endures for a significant period of time outlaws murder, theft and whatnot. So right to life and property could be considered "natural rights" as they're practically universally found in civilizations across the globe. Now, in the Soviet Union there was no (private) property and everyone's life was uncertain in Democratic Kampuchea but they're the exceptions wich don't endure for long :beam:

So, one could argue that the emergence of property rights as we know them is a result of humanity progressing forward, "civilizationally" speaking. As is equality of men and women :juggle2:

[Brenus]

"So, one could argue that the emergence of property rights as we know them is a result of humanity progressing forward, "civilizationally" speaking. As is equality of men and women" Yeap. And the freedom etc...
I predfer "cultural" right than natural anyway

[Louis VI the Fat]

A timely report was released today.

A detailed and startling analysis of how unequal Britain has become offers a snapshot of an increasingly divided nation where the richest 10% of the population are more than 100 times as wealthy as the poorest 10% of society.
Gordon Brown (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown) described the paper, published today, as "sobering", saying: "The report illustrates starkly that despite a levelling-off of inequality in the last decade we still have much further to go."

The report, An Anatomy of Economic Inequality in the UK, scrutinises the degree to which the country has become more unequal over the past 30 years. Much of it will make uncomfortable reading for the Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) government, although the paper indicates that considerable responsibility lies with the Tories, who presided over the dramatic divisions of the 1980s and early 1990s.
Researchers analyse inequality according to a number of measures; one indicates that by 2007-8 Britain had reached the highest level of income inequality since soon after the second world war.


Commissioned by Harriet Harman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/harrietharman), minister for women and equality (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/equality), the National Equality Panel has been working on the 460-page document for 16 months, led by Prof John Hills, of the London School of Economics. The report is more ambitious in scope than any other state-of-the-nation wealth assessment project ever undertaken.

It concludes that the government has failed to plug the gulf that existed between the poorest and richest in society in the 1980s. "Over the most recent decade, earnings inequality has narrowed a little and income inequality has stabilised on some measures, but the large inequality growth of the 1980s has not been reversed," it states.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/jan/27/unequal-britain-reportLevelling off is not enough if you are Labour. The trend ought to be reversed.



~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~


Labour ought to be Labour, to represent the British working and middle class, those 98% who did not attent Eton and Oxbridge.
Will Brown, Milliband et all do away with NuLab, just in time for the elections?


Gordon Brown's entertaining performance during prime minister's question time (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/blog/2009/dec/02/pmqs-gordon-brown) this week might not have been as strong a statement of intent as that of the miners, but his attack on Eton-educated David Cameron was the closest he has come to a declaration of class war against the Tories since he took over as PM.

With only six months or so to go before the general election it could be seen as a bid to win back some of the traditional working class heartlands to the Labour party. It could also be interpreted as an effort to recruit some of the thousands of disillusioned and principled constituency activists who have given up the good fight, particularly during the Blair years of war and privatisation.
Labour attacks on "Tory Toffs" haven't always paid off, but the fact is that Gordon Brown has a point.

Seldom can the Conservative frontbenches have been stuffed with such a motley array of Eton- and Oxbridge-educated millionaires.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/dec/04/labour-class-war





New Labour:
It is time now to put on my Leftist battle gear and uniform: These social traitors just did the same policy than Thatcher and consort (and yes I think of Major).
In fact, it is so obvious than Cameron can not decide what he could have done different from Brown:
- Selling all the factories to private and foreign companies: done.
- Deregulations of bankers: done
- Taxing the middle-classes and exoneration of taxes for the richest: done
- Transformation of the Anglo-Normans Islands in a fiscal paradise: done
- Privatisation and mutation of energy, transport, water companies in machine to make money for friends: done
- Declaring few wars to prove whatever: done
- Laws in favour of the employers and destabilisation of unions: done
- Sabotage of free education: done

Same things can be said for the French Social Traitors known as Socialist Party.

All of them just forget what work means: It was to be proud of a job, to earn by your sweat and labour your money and to raise your kids. To be able to hope they will be better than you thanks to the Public School open to every body and giving the same opportunities without discrimination. To defend our freedom against internal and external oppressors, to dream of a better world where people would have dignity, even the less fortunate by luck or gift.
They sold their souls (if they still have one) to the Market, and exchanged the DREAM for ACTION PLAN.
J’irai cracher sur vos tombes: I will go to spit on your graves.

Ouf. I feel better.
:yes:Great rant.

[InsaneApache]

I'm one of the 98% who didn't go to Oxbridge or Eton, (only 98%?), and I wouldn't vote for the Labour party if my life depended on it. I've worked with too many members of the onanists Labour party and wouldn't give them the steam off my ****.

If you think about it, Labour has a vested interest in keeping poor people poor and the working class downtrodden. After all if there was no poor people or downtrodden working classes they would not get any votes.

In light of this, it makes perfect sense why they tank the economy everytime they get their mucky little paws on the levers of power.

I am Labours worst nightmare. A working class libertarian. :whip:

[Louis VI the Fat]

Not even a wee little sniff of the steam of your ****...? :beam:

[Subotan]

What's wrong with Oxbridge?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What's wrong with Oxbridge?

Nothing at all, and Eton is a very fine school. People who complain about Public schools are really complaining that they can't afford a good education for their children without paying for it.

The disgusting thing is that they want to drag those who can pay down to the level of the poorest, rather than raising the quality of state education.

[Furunculus]

Nothing at all, and Eton is a very fine school. People who complain about Public schools are really complaining that they can't afford a good education for their children without paying for it.

The disgusting thing is that they want to drag those who can pay down to the level of the poorest, rather than raising the quality of state education.

quite so.

[al Roumi]

The disgusting thing is that they want to drag those who can pay down to the level of the poorest, rather than raising the quality of state education.

pff. yeah, exactly like Pol Pot. :thumbsdown:

[Beskar]

The disgusting thing is that they want to drag those who can pay down to the level of the poorest, rather than raising the quality of state education.

No they don't, they want to raise the quality of state education.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Nothing at all, and Eton is a very fine school. People who complain about Public schools are really complaining that they can't afford a good education for their children without paying for it.

The disgusting thing is that they want to drag those who can pay down to the level of the poorest, rather than raising the quality of state education.The problem is not social envy. Britons are quite accepting of difference in talent.

No, the problem is social mobility. Class, not talent or a willingness to work hard is the deciding factor in the UK.
Talented Swedes who work hard progress in life, manage a better life for their children. Talented, hard working Britons will remain poor.* Then have to suffer insults for it from their social 'superiors' - brats with half their brains but twice as wealthy parents. Or, possibly even worse, suffer insults from self-delusional people who suffer from the widespread syndrome of 'I am really one class higher up than by any objective measurement of my social position'.



A central theme of the report is the profound, lifelong negative impact that being born poor, and into a disadvantaged social class, has on a child. These inequalities accumulate over the life cycle, the report concludes. Social class has a big impact on children's school readiness at the age of three, but continues to drag children back through school and beyond.


"The evidence we have looked at shows the long arm of people's origins in shaping their life chances, stretching through life stages, literally from cradle to grave. Differences in wealth in particular are associated with opportunities such as the ability to buy houses in the catchment areas of the best schools or to afford private education, with advantages for children that continue through and beyond education.


*Disclaimer against the inevitable 'I am / I know some people who...': social mobility as a general statistic, not anecdotal. Social mobility, today's major report learned again, is exceedingly low in Britain. The continent has meritocracies, especially the North. Britain is a class society. It has regressed since Thatcher back to the level of the beginning of the 20th century.

[Furunculus]

No they don't, they want to raise the quality of state education.

lol, which entirely explains the continuous attempts to destroy those elements of the school system that are consistently successful, such as using infrastructure funding to force selective schools into non-selective regimes, and removing the charitable status from private schools unless byzantine quota rules are accepted.

[al Roumi]

lol, which entirely explains the continuous attempts to destroy those elements of the school system that are consistently successful, such as using infrastructure funding to force selective schools into non-selective regimes, and removing the charitable status from private schools unless byzantine quota rules are accepted.

I suspect those measures are intended to reduce the exclusive elitism both selective/grammar schools and private/public schools engender. The simple fact which today's report re-iterates is that overall, middle-class people do better than working class people -purely because of their parent's class.

I imagine your "byzantine quotas" are designed to ensure that private schools feature a balanced proportion of working and middle class children.

Ultimately this is a moral argument about whether you think people should accept their lot (and for some the ceiling to their ambitions), due to the shear accident of fate that bore them to the familly it did -and not one down the road or, why not, in Mogadishu or Port-au-prince.

Labour seems to have arrested or stabilised the trend to increasing inequality, whether the buckets of cash thrown at the problem have had the best effect they could have as resources is another matter. It is a long term issue, felt through generations. I hope it has been money well spent!

[Furunculus]

and yet you fail to realise that the grammar school was the vehicle that allowed so many working class kids to get ahead in life.

i wouldn't say i was ever from a working class background (though my dad was), but a teacher and a nurse supporting four kids is hardly a 'privileged' background.

actively crippling selective schools is a viscous and chippy way to 'help' those who are under-privileged, and that is exactly what has been done.

[Subotan]

Nothing at all, and Eton is a very fine school. People who complain about Public schools are really complaining that they can't afford a good education for their children without paying for it.

I doubt that somewhat. My college gets better results (AAA's) than Eton, yet wayyy students from Eton go to Oxford than they do from my college. It's not the quality of the education, or the cost that they're complaining about. It's the fact that it's effectively buying yourself an advantage over people who are brighter than you.

[al Roumi]

and yet you fail to realise that the grammar school was the vehicle that allowed so many working class kids to get ahead in life.

Yes, it did allow some kids to get ahead. However, what grammar schools also do is "skim the cream" off and leave the less able children to wallow in what effectively become sink schools. To give you an example, I grew up in a town with 1 grammar school and 2 comprehensives. The grammar school produced kids with grades much higher than the comprehensives, which were basically sink schools.


actively crippling selective schools is a viscous and chippy way to 'help' those who are under-privileged, and that is exactly what has been done.

There is an argument for keeping a mixture of kids with different academic apptitudes in a class, it helps improve the level of those struggling, provides an example and makes the job of the teacher easier. There's no hiding from the chance that a more general class won't push the brighter children as much as a set class of the best would though. For those in favour of mixed classes, the view is that the needs of the least capable are greater than those of the more capable -in a cheesy way: the strong help the weak and the strong need less help.

Whatever side of the elite/lowest common denominator equation you favour, everyone (and each party) will argue it's paramount to improve the general standard of the state system.

For my part, I think that in an ideal world you need a system that helps the least able whilst also producing high standards of excellence. Now, how to do that is of course another matter than just typing eutopic ideals. :help:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem is not social envy. Britons are quite accepting of difference in talent.

I dissagree, Class envy is a big issue in the UK, as is Class prejudice. Class prejudice in the UK makes an academic education the preserve of the Middle Class, so that working-class parents don't support their children nearly enough for them to get ahead.


No, the problem is social mobility. Class, not talent or a willingness to work hard is the deciding factor in the UK.
Talented Swedes who work hard progress in life, manage a better life for their children. Talented, hard working Britons will remain poor.* Then have to suffer insults for it from their social 'superiors' - brats with half their brains but twice as wealthy parents. Or, possibly even worse, suffer insults from self-delusional people who suffer from the widespread syndrome of 'I am really one class higher up than by any objective measurement of my social position'.

An interesting idea, but "Class" is not wealth. My parents are poor, yet they are also Middle Class, and because of this I have two degrees from a good university, a reasonably well paying job (which I got before even handing in my second dissertation) and good prospects. I have these things because, in part, my parents saved from before I was born and supported me so that I could overcome the handicap of going to a bad school and thence lacking the advantages of a superior education; particularly felt in my late learning of Latin.

You are right that Class in the UK is very important, but that Class is a social construct, not a function of wealth or success.


I suspect those measures are intended to reduce the exclusive elitism both selective/grammar schools and private/public schools engender. The simple fact which today's report re-iterates is that overall, middle-class people do better than working class people -purely because of their parent's class.

Well, Grammar Schools are only intellectually elite, and they are a major engine for changing your social class. Any child can recieve a near-Public School education for free. They should be encouraged. Attacking intellectual merit is a prejudice against those who do well, and it merely de-values education as a whole and engenders the belief that you should be able to do well regardless of how hard you work or how clever you are.


I imagine your "byzantine quotas" are designed to ensure that private schools feature a balanced proportion of working and middle class children.

These schools are businesses, Labour's quotas either lose them charitable status or force them to raise fees, often pricing out only the very rich, and making them socially more exclusive than they wish to be. Public Schools provide scholarships to poor but intelligent students, I so no reason why they should be forced to accept poor avergae students. The best schools require a basic level of attainment and behaviour in all their pupils.


Ultimately this is a moral argument about whether you think people should accept their lot (and for some the ceiling to their ambitions), due to the shear accident of fate that bore them to the familly it did -and not one down the road or, why not, in Mogadishu or Port-au-prince.

Money and brains are two natural ways to get ahead, as is hard-headedness, all three work. Look at our Leaders, Cameron and Blair both had money and brains, Brown had brains, and John Prescott had a heroically solid head.

I see no reason why those who are none of the above should be on the same level, or why the best should be dragged down to the level of the average.


I doubt that somewhat. My college gets better results (AAA's) than Eton, yet wayyy students from Eton go to Oxford than they do from my college. It's not the quality of the education, or the cost that they're complaining about. It's the fact that it's effectively buying yourself an advantage over people who are brighter than you.

Eton is still a fine schools, because it teaches more than just how to pass government exams. Given that Oxford basically bins every non AAA application now, Eton offers candidates who will not only be bright, but also driven and will fit into the College system and partake of activities like rowing and rugby.


Yes, it did allow some kids to get ahead. However, what grammar schools also do is "skim the cream" off and leave the less able children to wallow in what effectively become sink schools. To give you an example, I grew up in a town with 1 grammar school and 2 comprehensives. The grammar school produced kids with grades much higher than the comprehensives, which were basically sink schools.

I'm ok with this, because once the best are taken care of you can work on impriving the standards in the Comps. At the end of the day, only the best will go to Oxbridge etc. anyway, and getting them ahead is important for our society.

Whatever side of the elite/lowest common denominator equation you favour, everyone (and each party) will argue it's paramount to improve the general standard of the state system.[/QUOTE]

On this we agree, but currently we have a system which discriminates against both the wealthy and intellectually gifted. The fact is that the popularity of Grammar and Public schools merely demonstrates that the Comprehensive is not good enough.

[Myrddraal]

Yes, it did allow some kids to get ahead. However, what grammar schools also do is "skim the cream" off and leave the less able children to wallow in what effectively become sink schools. To give you an example, I grew up in a town with 1 grammar school and 2 comprehensives. The grammar school produced kids with grades much higher than the comprehensives, which were basically sink schools.

Of course the Grammar school produced kids with better grades. The motivated/able go into the grammar school, the motivated/able come out of the grammar school.

Put an hard working child into a class of less motivated kids and that child will not inspire hard work in the others. Exactly the opposite will happen, that child might be bullied, and is quite likely to loose motivation.

I disagree with better education being provided on the basis of your parent's income, but in general I agree with better education for those who are motivated. Because of that I feel it's a shame that the Grammar School system has disappeared from large swathes of the country. There are valid debates to be had about whether 11 is too young an age at which to decide which school you go to, and whether there should be more mobility between Comps and Grammars, but at the end of the day I think the principle of grouping students by their motivation (which, perhaps regrettably, is best measured by their success) is a good one.

One thing I am sure of is that the Grammar schools should not have been removed without a ready replacement which provided the same level of education for the able and motivated.

[Subotan]

Eton is still a fine schools, because it teaches more than just how to pass government exams. Given that Oxford basically bins every non AAA application now, Eton offers candidates who will not only be bright, but also driven and will fit into the College system and partake of activities like rowing and rugby.

So those things are the solve preserve of the public school? If Oxford is meant to be about academic excellence, then statistically, more students from my college should go to Oxford than Eton.

[Boohugh]

If Oxford is meant to be about academic excellence, then statistically, more students from my college should go to Oxford than Eton.

If university (any university, not just Oxford and Cambridge) was just about a purely academic education, then employers wouldn't be asking about all the extra-curricular activities you get up to at university when you apply for a job. What Oxford and Cambridge do is combine all those other activities with academic excellence, so why is it surprising they want students who have shown they can manage those activities alongside their studies in the past?

Now, the bigger question is why students who go to state schools don't get similar extra-curricular opportunities that those at private schools enjoy? Of course there is a financial element, they probably won't get the same range for this reason. However, the fact Labour has been selling off all the playing fields and banning competitive sports shows that, not only have they failed to improve the situation or even keep the status quo, they have actually managed to make things worse than before in this regard. What's worse is Labour don't even seem to recognise it as a problem, rather blaming all the private schools for providing these extra activities and saying they make it unfair on state pupils when they apply to university. It's same old Labour, trying to reduce everyone down to the lowest level rather than aiming to bring as many people as possible up to a higher level.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So those things are the solve preserve of the public school? If Oxford is meant to be about academic excellence, then statistically, more students from my college should go to Oxford than Eton.

It's about more than better grades, everyone at Oxford gets in with good grades and they are swamped with applications, so the colleges choose people they want; schools like Eton are good at producing people they want. Also, Eton probably better supports and prepares it's candidates than your college does.

[InsaneApache]

The funny thing is the people who kicked away the ladder for the working classes, all send thier kids to fee paying schools. So money and not talent is effectively rewarded. Very council house.

Here's a quiz for you.

What do Dianne Abbot, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have in common?

Answer: They went to and/or sent their kids to public school where they would recieve an education much better than the children of the idiots who voted for them. Amazing chutzpah, you have to hand it to them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The funny thing is the people who kicked away the ladder for the working classes, all send thier kids to fee paying schools. So money and not talent is effectively rewarded. Very council house.

Here's a quiz for you.

What do Dianne Abbot, Harriet Harman and Tony Blair have in common?

Answer: They went to and/or sent their kids to public school where they would recieve an education much better than the children of the idiots who voted for them. Amazing chutzpah, you have to hand it to them.

On the other hand; at least they aren't twisted enough to screw up their own children's lives for votes.

:wall:

[rory_20_uk]

On the other hand; at least they aren't twisted enough to screw up their own children's lives for votes.

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

~:smoking:

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

[rory_20_uk]

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

~:smoking:

[Myrddraal]

by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

[Furunculus]

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

~:smoking:

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establisment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

[rory_20_uk]

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establishment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

I personally don't think that the way education has been addressed has been good, but I don't think that this has anything to do with attending Private Schools. Labour as a rule like to monitor everything centrally and half the mess is the attempt to do this; getting more to Uni has helped stoke exam result inflation with A levels now requiring a vintage to be adequately compared.

Labour does a far better job of dragging people and institutions down than it ever does of giving people a leg up. To give a real leg up would be to acknowledge that people are different, with different abilities and needs and that is Heresy. No! We are all the same, and thus must all have an equal sludge of "education" with any wealth being redistributed as fast as the taxes can be written to do so.


That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

And for the ultra rich banker / broker / hedge/vulture fund manager this is often extended a lot further to having a Private GP and Private Health Insurance so although they're paying a vast amount in tax, their use of the money is relatively low - . It might not be fair, but it takes a small army of people like me to give the government the same amounts.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7010508.ece
Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.
fantastic news! :D

[Subotan]

Sounds cool.

Vive le engagement mutuel!

[Boohugh]

Good news indeed, Mr Brown has just gone up a notch in my books by committing to some of those bigger projects, although I'll be interested to see what the cost is in terms of other lower profile projects being cancelled. Will be interesting to see if the Conservatives are willing to make any such committment too...

Edit: Although not so sure about increased cooperation with the French (sorry Louis!), there hasn't been a great history in that area.

[Furunculus]

in many ways Brown is doing nothing more than creating a trap for the Conservatives by forcing them into unattractive compromises on their deficit reduction plans and their public 'perception' as the party that is strong on Defence, but from my point of view its great either way as it traps both parties into defining Defence as a key electoral issue.

and no, i don't buy the euro-defence idea either, and nor i suspect will much of the electorate either.

[al Roumi]

Edit: Although not so sure about increased cooperation with the French (sorry Louis!), there hasn't been a great history in that area.

Oh? I must (honestly) plead ignorance on this...

Is France as interested in cooperating with the UK though? Or is this R&D cooperation, e.g where both countries share the development costs for a similar/identical product (like the JSF deal), mostly likely on large purchases eg Carriers, subs etc.

[Furunculus]

Oh? I must (honestly) plead ignorance on this...

Is France as interested in cooperating with the UK though? Or is this R&D cooperation, e.g where both countries share the development costs for a similar/identical product (like the JSF deal), mostly likely on large purchases eg Carriers, subs etc.

would you trust them if they said they were?

[Boohugh]

Yeah, there is a history of trying to cooperate on defence procurement projects but there isn't exactly a string of success stories. Some notable failures include a Frigate replacement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFR-90) in the late 80's and, after that failed, another attempt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horizon_class_frigate) in the 90's which the UK again abandoned and pursued the Type 45 destroyer instead. Then there is the rather infamous Eurofighter, with the French eventually pulling out and pursuing their own Rafale. The A400M military transport aircraft is mired in technical difficulties, cost overruns and delays and may still be cancelled completely. The French were also involved in the development of the new British carriers with a view to ordering their own based off the same designs, however Sarkozy suspended cooperation in 2008 as they weren't happy with the way it was being designed (specifically they weren't happy it wasn't going to be nuclear-powered).

So yeah...not really any success on the large project front!

[rory_20_uk]

Brown is also going to go to the Chilcot Enquiry and explain why he didn't provide money for the Armed forces. Now he's a changed man as he's throwing money hand over fist at it. Obviously not at boots or body armour that will get used all the time, but some nice new Aircraft carriers as putting all one's eggs into one basket is a strategy!

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

it's a sensible strategy, if he really intends to fund Britain sufficiently to remain a Great Power, however i sense mere politiciking in order to let the Cons dig themselves into a hole re deficit reduction.

[Myrddraal]

I do find the decision to go for two aircraft carriers a little confusing. I am under the impression that the same level of investment aimed at ground forces / helicopters would have a greater effect in our areas of conflict.

I was also surprised to read in the Times that we have almost twice as many soldiers in Germany as in Afghanistan.

[Furunculus]

if we wish to project power in amphibious and expeditionary warfare (i.e. short sharp and effective), then we need carriers and expeditionary forces, but, if we want to be able to conduct independant theatre level opertions of extended duration (like iraq and afghanistan), then we need to inest in the army and air support.

arguably britain is sick of extended and nasty ground wars.
arguably a naval centric doctrine plays to britains strengths.
arguably are most 'succesful' wars as percieved by the public are the falklands and sierra leonne.
arguably it is a scarce and thus valuable capability.

the author of the RUSI report happens to agree with those points. :)

[Subotan]

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

[Louis VI the Fat]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7010508.ece
Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.
fantastic news! :DI am most pleased for you that defense should move up on the agenda in this election.

I am afraid I myself am mostly uninterested in military matters. Regardless, yes, I would heartily welcome a rapprochement bewteen the UK and France in defense. There is a lot of synergetic advantage to be had. Basically, more bang for our bucks, or the same bang for less bucks. (<- my preference)


The larger political framework is to me what defense is to you: a long-standing pre-occupation. My three mantra's: European co-operation is not anti-Atlantic. A further integration of the UK within Europe benefits both. The UK's double status as EU member plus the special relationship with America benefits Europe, the US, and most of all the UK itself.

I am happy that Brown is welcoming of Sarkozy's overtures. You may find the following article interesting, which gives a good analysis of French motives, especially those of Sarkozy's 'project', of which I am so fond.


Sarko the Brit
The French gave Sarkozy the nickname Sarko l’Américain. But it would be better to call him ‘Sarko the Brit’. Sarkozy’s rapprochement with NATO has other reasons than just those to please the Americans. The French President has learnt the lessons of Chirac’s two failed efforts of the 1990s. He knows that France’s splendid isolation does not work. And he knows that there is one country in Europe that is ‘the indispensible nation’ when France wants to build a credible European defence: Britain. All attempts to bind Britain closer in a European defence project, however, have failed until now because of Britain’s deep distrust of a partner that is suspected of wanting to undermine the Atlantic Alliance. Sarkozy’s return to the NATO fold is, in fact, a powerful charm offensive to woo London. Britain will no longer have to distrust a country that is a full fledged member of NATO. This means that closer defence cooperation between the two countries is no longer jeopardised by France’s ‘special position’. The former French Defence Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, alluded to this motive (without, however, mentioning Britain) in an article in Le Figaro (17 February 2009), when she wrote: ‘The unwillingness of certain European countries to make the necessary efforts to reinforce European defence will be easier to overcome when they will be assured that this will not be built against NATO’.

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/wps/portal/rielcano_eng/Content?WCM_GLOBAL_CONTEXT=/elcano/elcano_in/zonas_in/defense+security/ari40-2009

[Furunculus]

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

are you serious?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Palliser
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barras


I am most pleased for you that defense should move up on the agenda in this election.

I am afraid I myself am mostly uninterested in military matters. Regardless, yes, I would heartily welcome a rapprochement bewteen the UK and France in defense. There is a lot of synergetic advantage to be had. Basically, more bang for our bucks, or the same bang for less bucks. (<- my preference)


The larger political framework is to me what defense is to you: a long-standing pre-occupation. My three mantra's: European co-operation is not anti-Atlantic. A further integration of the UK within Europe benefits both. The UK's double status as EU member plus the special relationship with America benefits Europe, the US, and most of all the UK itself.

I am happy that Brown is welcoming of Sarkozy's overtures. You may find the following article interesting, which gives a good analysis of French motives, especially those of Sarkozy's 'project', of which I am so fond.



I agree with the last mantra at least.

And I am delighted it is no longer Frances policy to lever us away from our anglophone roots, but i still don't see the need for Britain to get all cosy with EU defense, just because splendid isolation doesn't work for France does not mean that straddling the Atlantic is not perfectly viable and satisfactoey for Britain. :)

[Furunculus]

How the boy george wants you to judge him:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100024717/how-to-judge-george-osborne/comment-page-1/#comment-100155902
How to judge George Osborne

By Benedict Brogan Politics Last updated: February 2nd, 2010

With luck today we’ll get away from the confusion of the past few days and back to the difference between Labour and the Tories on the economy. CCHQ’s best efforts to muddy the waters should not allow us to lose sight of the substantial gap between what Labour proposes – profligacy coupled with pandering to sectional interests – and what the Conservatives are committed to achieving – sound money, rebuilt society etc.

That at least was where the debate was until last week. Since then the Tories have shifted the ground and left us scratching our heads. Are they afraid? Are they confused? Are they slacking? Today is their chance to get back on track.

In the lead is George Osbornem, who is showing a bit more ankle with the publication of eight benchmarks by which he would like us to judge him and a Tory government if we give them a chance on May 6. He describes it as a ‘new economic model for Britain’ which will create the growth we desperately need and which won’t come if we carry on trashing the competitiveness of the City and don’t tackle the debt millstone. He’s also announcing a number of endorsements.

Crucially the benchmarks are measures against which the British people “can judge the success or failure of their Chancellor and their government over the next Parliament. We will be accountable.” They are:

* Ensure macroeconimic stability by protecting Britain’s credit rating.
* Create a more balanced economy – ensuring higher exports, business investment and saving as a share of GDP
* Get Britain working by reducing youth unemployment
* Make Britain open for business by improving our international ranking on tax competitiveness
* Ensure the whole country shares in rising prosperity – by raising the private sector’s share of the economy in all regions of the country, especially outside London and the South East.
* Reform public services to deliver better value-for-money by improving productivity in the public sector
* Create a safer banking system that serves the needs of the economy
* Build a greener economy by reducing carbion emissions and improving our share of green technologies


Top Civil Servant: "Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget six months into the iraq war":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/industry/defence/7145709/Iraq-inquiry-Gordon-Brown-guillotined-defence-budget.html

Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget
Defence chiefs had to cut projects for helicopters, warships and Nimrod spy planes after Gordon Brown ''guillotined'' their budget, the Iraq inquiry has been told.


Published: 10:37AM GMT 03 Feb 2010
Former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence Sir Kevin Tebbit gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London's Queen Elizabeth II conference centre: Iraq inquiry: Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget
Former permanent secretary at the Ministry of Defence Sir Kevin Tebbit gives evidence to the Iraq Inquiry in London's Queen Elizabeth II conference centre Photo: PA

The former top civil servant at the Ministry of Defence spoke of the ''crisis period'' when Mr Brown as Chancellor suddenly slashed military spending six months after the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Sir Kevin Tebbit said the MoD had to launch an ''across-the-board major savings exercise'' to meet the Treasury's ''arbitrary'' cuts.

Projects affected included helicopters, Nimrod spy planes, Royal Navy destroyers, frigates, minesweepers and patrol vessels, Challenger tanks, AS90 artillery and Jaguar aircraft, he told the inquiry.

The MoD also had to reduce numbers of Armed Forces personnel and civil servants.

Sir Kevin, who was MoD permanent secretary from 1998 to 2005, stressed that defence chiefs saved resources needed for Iraq but admitted the cuts had a long-term impact.

He said: ''I was running essentially a crisis budget rather than one with sufficient resources to be able to plan as coherently, as well for the long term, as we would have liked.''

[Boohugh]

Don't know if anyone else saw PMQ's today but defence dominated the questions (I'd say over half of all the questions related to defence), but with the Green Paper (http://www.mod.uk/NR/rdonlyres/790C77EC-550B-4AE8-B227-14DA412FC9BA/0/defence_green_paper_cm7794.pdf) on defence coming out today perhaps that isn't so surprising, although it wasn't actually mentioned in any questions. Only had a chance to glance over it so far but it doesn't seem to say much of substance, rather just helps set the scene for the Strategic Defence Review that will follow the election (which is basically the purpose of a Green Paper so not surprising).

Brown's only reply to all the questions was that he had increased defence spending, which doesn't look great when an increasingly long list of civil servants and military chiefs have been telling the Chilcot Inquiry that the armed forces were underequipped for Iraq and Afghanistan, as all it shows is Brown is either fibbing or has misspent all that extra money he's apparently thrown at the military.

[Furunculus]

excellent news, thank you.

i am as happy to the Cons forced to adopt pro-Defence positions that will 'haunt' them after a general election as i am to see Labour flayed for their mistreatment of the the Forces.

imho, the damage has been allowed to happen because Defence wasn't considered worth the air necessary to discuss it, well now that has changed.

[Boohugh]

i am as happy to the Cons forced to adopt pro-Defence positions that will 'haunt' them after a general election as i am to see Labour flayed for their mistreatment of the the Forces.

Haha well umm...don't think the Conservatives really adopted a pro-defence position as such, they just got to point out Brown's failures. Unfortunately there was no mention of the Conservatives actually doing anything about fixing Labour's failures should they win the election (no mention of even meeting the Labour position on the aircraft carriers and JSF projects), so it wasn't all good news. I'd say the one criticism that Brown got right in his responses was that of the Conservatives not really clearly stating any policies recently, only causing confusion as to what they actually are.

[Furunculus]

Will Cameron be a radical when in office, or is his current timidity a sign of things to come?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100024959/100024959/

Will Cameron cast off his Clark Kent disguise on entering Downing Street and become Super Tory?

By Toby Young Politics Last updated: February 4th, 2010

In last night’s Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture, Spectator editor Fraser Nelson urged David Cameron to embrace a more radical Conservative agenda. He’s worried that the cautious tone of the Party’s recent announcements on the health service, foreign aid and fiscal policy are symptomatic of an intellectual timidity that will hamper Cameron’s premiership. Instead of reducing state spending as a percentage of GDP, which Fraser fervently believes he ought to do, it’ll be more of the same, with Gordon Brown continuing to dictate the agenda long after he’s been defeated:

From global warming targets to the Equality Bill, Mr Brown is passing legislation intended to tie the hands of the Tory government. He has established a network of quangos, choc full of Labour placemen, who will act as his government in exile; hoarding both power and money.

Fraser joins a long list of people who are hoping against hope that, on entering Downing Street, Cameron will cast off his Clark Kent disguise and emerge as a kind of Super Tory, imposing the very same “swingeing cuts” that he decried on the Politics Show last Sunday. They want him to be the opposite of Barack Obama: instead of campaigning in poetry and governing in prose, they grudgingly accept the need for him to campaign in prose but fervently hope he will govern as a true blue, movement Conservative.

I can offer one small crumb of comfort to Fraser. I was two years above Cameron at Brasenose, also studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics, and would occasionally engage him in debate about the political issues of the day. This was in 1985 in the aftermath of the miners’ strike and I can report that, back then at least, he was a dry-as-dust Thatcherite. He was a braying, triumphalist Conservative who made no concessions to the leftwing atmosphere of Oxford in the mid-80s — no hint of the Wet he was to become. If the child is the father of the man, Fraser can rest easy.

"This was in 1985 in the aftermath of the miners’ strike and I can report that, back then at least, he was a dry-as-dust Thatcherite. He was a braying, triumphalist Conservative who made no concessions to the leftwing atmosphere of Oxford in the mid-80s."

he used to be a radical, but that might just be the same as every other youth, and thus not reflective of the man now............... we shall have to see.

[Subotan]

Well, Alistar Darling used to be a raving Trotskyite, so don't get your hopes up.

[JAG]

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Ave poll lead down to 9, some put it closer. All Labour need is to lose by 5 points and we stay in power as the biggest party in a hung parliament.... It is gonna happen, I have been saying it for a couple years now. The wheels are coming off Cameron's bus, now it is getting closer to the election, the polls will always close up, not only that but he will be under more scrutiny and when people look at what he has to say, they will realise it is the same old Tories. Labour people will not move away from us to the Tories en masse, this is no '97 for the Tories. Plus we get the added advantage of when the polls narrow, the crack pot tory back benchers start to rear their ugly head. :)

[InsaneApache]

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

[Furunculus]

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

Ave poll lead down to 9, some put it closer. All Labour need is to lose by 5 points and we stay in power as the biggest party in a hung parliament.... It is gonna happen, I have been saying it for a couple years now. The wheels are coming off Cameron's bus, now it is getting closer to the election, the polls will always close up, not only that but he will be under more scrutiny and when people look at what he has to say, they will realise it is the same old Tories. Labour people will not move away from us to the Tories en masse, this is no '97 for the Tories. Plus we get the added advantage of when the polls narrow, the crack pot tory back benchers start to rear their ugly head. :)
lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

[al Roumi]

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

I thought you felt quite positively about the "will of the British people".:wink3:

[Subotan]

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

He's a PM, rather than a PR man.

[Furunculus]

I thought you felt quite positively about the "will of the British people".:wink3:
i do, never doubt it. but that does not preclude the acceptance that the electorate might be idiots.

it would be foolish to place so much trust and responsibility in the hands of the electorate without recognising their many failings and foibles i'm sure you will agree?

[Furunculus]

He's a PM, rather than a PR man.

indeed he is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7014275.ece

Gordon Brown ‘demanded immediate defence cuts’ when Chancellor
February 4, 2010

Francis Elliott, Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan

Gordon Brown demanded immediate and deep cuts to military spending only six months after the invasion of Iraq, a letter seen by The Times reveals.

Then the Chancellor, Mr Brown wrote to Tony Blair on September 26, 2003, forbidding the Ministry of Defence from switching resources to the front line. His guillotine forced defence chiefs to slash £800 million from their budgets, including future spending on helicopters, which they claim is hampering operations in Afghanistan. A bitter dispute over Mr Brown’s record on defence funding overshadowed yesterday’s launch of government proposals on the future of the military.

Armed Forces chiefs issued a stark warning that Britain risks losing the ability to fight overseas, to the detriment of its world power status. In a bleak assessment of the pressures on the military, they stated in the Government’s Green Paper: “We cannot proceed with all the activities and programmes we currently aspire to, while simultaneously supporting our current operations, and investing in the new capabilities we need.”

The report warned that the Strategic Defence Review, which will follow the general election, “must be able to drive radical change” within the Forces.Air Chief Marshal Sir Jock Stirrup, the Chief of the Defence Staff, even cast doubt on whether the Army, Royal Navy and RAF would exist as separate entities in ten years.
Related Links

Bob Ainsworth, the Defence Secretary, told the Commons: “Tough choices will lie ahead, and we need to rebalance our budget to better reflect our priorities.” However, he confirmed that Labour would keep its commitment to build two aircraft carriers at a cost of £8 billion. “The Strategic Defence Review will have to take a pretty radical direction not foreseen by me in order to suggest that those capabilities will not be required,” said Mr Ainsworth.

David Cameron seized on evidence yesterday to the Iraq inquiry from Sir Kevin Tebbit, the MoD’s top civil servant during the war, that Mr Brown “arbitrarily” ordered cuts. He said he was only the latest witness to show that Mr Brown’s decisions meant troops were “not equipped properly when they were sent into harm’s way”.

In angry exchanges in Prime Minister’s Questions, Mr Brown insisted that defence spending had “risen in every year” he was Chancellor.

Mr Brown is certain to be questioned about his decision to rein back spending when he gives evidence to the inquiry later this month.

The Green Paper posed questions about whether the public is prepared to pay for Britain to remain a power with global reach: “We must determine the global role we wish to play, the relative role of the Armed Forces and the resources we are willing to dedicate to them.” The 52-page document reveals an increasingly fractured and unpredictable world in which “cluttered” wars will see “hard and dangerous combat” in urban areas, coastal waters and low airspace.

It predicted that British troops can expect to see casualty rates that “increase markedly” as developing areas of the world close the gap on the West’s technological advantages.

Service chiefs are expected to argue for a new focus on alliance building, particularly in Nato and with the US, to compensate for the rising costs of defence. Britain is expected to co-operate with France, the only other large military power in the EU.

The Green Paper is frequently self-critical, acknowledging that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have forced a fundamental rethink of the way the Army is configured.

Professor Michael Clarke, director of the Royal United Services Institute, welcomed the report: “The paper is a realistic take on the situation we are going to find ourselves in. We haven’t had these sort of big strategic choices since the early 1930s.”





The Times is providing really good coverage of the Defence debate, essential reading for Brits:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7010497.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7011651.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7012792.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7014270.ece

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....


....he's weak?

i want Brown and Labour out, out, out.

[al Roumi]

i do, never doubt it. but that does not preclude the acceptance that the electorate might be idiots.

it would be foolish to place so much trust and responsibility in the hands of the electorate without recognising their many failings and foibles i'm sure you will agree?

Quite so. However we differ on the perception of stupidity, where our respective visions are perhaps directly opposed.

[JAG]

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

As for who will win the election, perhaps if someone could answer this question.

I want Brown as PM for five more years because....

.... a social democratic government, however many stupid, infuriating and authoritarian policies they can come out with, is a much better alternative than a narrow minded, regressive and unegalitarian Conservative party.

But then again, that is just me.


lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

It was always gonna be the case, as long as the economy does not get significantly worse and Labour can throw enough :daisy: on Cameron's shoes, it is ognna happen. The Labour party and the Tory party numbers, support / approval wise are very similar, it is Cameron's edge over both Brown and his party which if dented, pulls the Tories back down to earth. It has already started happening and into the election campaign will happen even more, get used to it! :)

[InsaneApache]

Hey guys, if you want a good laugh, read the 1997 Labour manifesto.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/4labmanecon.html

Some great ones....


We will clean up politics, decentralise political power throughout the United Kingdom and put the funding of political parties on a proper and accountable basis


We will increase the powers and responsibilities of parents.


There has been a fundamental failure to tackle the underlying causes of inflation, of low growth and of unemployment. These are:

too much economic instability, with wild swings from boom to bust

Hilarious stuff. Better than reading the Beano. :laugh4:

[al Roumi]

Hey guys, if you want a good laugh, read the 1997 Labour manifesto.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/background/parties/manlab/4labmanecon.html

Some great ones....
Hilarious stuff. Better than reading the Beano. :laugh4:

Well they did deliver on devolution, on the second point -the entrenchment of the middle class is exactly what increased "choice" has given. And lastly, they did have a good run with the economy, so much as to inflate Brown's sense of self worth to the point of him declaring the end of boom and bust.

Whether the recession was avoidable is another matter, more devisive is the response to it and where the UK's economy is now. Whether the levels of debt could actually have been avoided and how is again another matter. Doesn't seem like anyone had any better ideas, although some of HMG's were very silly (VAT reduction).

[rory_20_uk]

Sorry, but anyone can have a briefly good economy whilst in a bubble. You just need to run a deficit, pump money into the system, deregulate to make it easier for speculators and remember to take all the credit before the credit runs out.

Education is a difficult one to quantify as most independent parties state that standards are dropping which includes the better universities; I would also state that since the grades are supposed to help differentiate the good, bad and excellent students, giving everyone As helps no one in the longer term.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Sorry, but anyone can have a briefly good economy whilst in a bubble. You just need to run a deficit, pump money into the system, deregulate to make it easier for speculators and remember to take all the credit before the credit runs out.

Education is a difficult one to quantify as most independent parties state that standards are dropping which includes the better universities; I would also state that since the grades are supposed to help differentiate the good, bad and excellent students, giving everyone As helps no one in the longer term.

~:smoking:

Quite.

The question is not whether the recession was avoidable, but managable.

Edit:

Oh, and as someone who works in Higher Education.....

Yeah.

[Furunculus]

did labour pursue mass immigration in order to achieve the social engineering objective of making Britain a truly 'multi-cultural' country?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

[Beskar]

did labour pursue mass immigration in order to achieve the social engineering objective of making Britain a truly 'multi-cultural' country?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/7198329/Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants.html

I doubt it is sololy based on that, as that would simply be a very bad idea. It is over-simplistication with an obviously intended bias to suggest that.

[InsaneApache]

I just read that on Labourhome, (yes I do follow what the 'like minded' say and think), and it was just post after post of emnity and disgust.

New Labour. New Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I doubt it is sololy based on that, as that would simply be a very bad idea. It is over-simplistication with an obviously intended bias to suggest that.

The policy document indicates that social engineering was a driving force, though.

Deeply disturbing.

[al Roumi]

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

[Myrddraal]

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.
:laugh4:

[Subotan]

The long descent of the Daily Mailograph continues.

[Beskar]

lol, if that happens then this country is collectively even more stupid than even i give it credit for.

They aren't smart enough to do the right thing and enmass to liberal democrats.

[Furunculus]

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

valid point.

They aren't smart enough to do the right thing and enmass to liberal democrats.
they have to stand on a coherent platform first, and that's before you even get to assessing the worth of that platform.

[al Roumi]

it is quite possible to hold diversity and multi-culturalism as distinct and separate things, and support one but not the other.

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

Personaly, i would have supported (and do now) a policy of immigration, diversity and a multicultural society. I believe that those who are complaining about this issue are primarily doing so because they dislike immigration and diversity.

I live in an area with a great mix of people and backgrounds: Afro carribean, middle eastern, portugese/brazilian and white British. I love it, there's so much to sample and learn in diverse culture, food and ways of seeing things. I work in an establishment with a huge diversity of people from all sorts of backgrounds and sexuality and frankly its great, I've never found anywhere so interesting and invigorating to work in.

That said, what I don't like is that this, if actually "stealth social engineering", wasn't overt and public. Clearly, not everyone is as overjoyed by diversity as I am but that is further cause for all to have had a say/vote on it. It should simply have been a part of Labour's manifesto.

Otherwise its just the Telegraph dipping-in to the daily-mail's line of paranoid scare-mongering: LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn.

[al Roumi]

The article is really about the deception, and the loss of the working-class vote. The issue is the cynicism, after all immigrants are much more likely to vote Labour.

So the purpose of Labour's immigration policy is to "import" votes?? I thought it was meant to be idealistic backstabbing...

I love/hate how the mail/graph attempt to put everything in the light of interests of the "common man" whereas actually they are aimed at the interests of the lower middle class/petty bourgeoisie. Its a big con.


As far as immigration is concerned: Sorry, no room at the Inn. Well that's a function of economic demand for workforce, at the moment, there is indeed very little surplus demand.

[InsaneApache]

LABOUR WILL SNEAK UP BEHIND YOU AND MAKE YOUR FAMILY BLACK ONE BY ONE. THE END IS NIGH.

Well the sneaky buggers got one in on my family. :laugh4:*

As for immigration, no one asked us. Not one of the parties. You'd think that it would be nice in a liberal democracy that the electorate would be consulted before such changes to society. That this was done with the most cynical of reasons; i.e. most of the immigrants would vote Labour, (or so they assume), is gerrymandering. Folks have gone to prison for that.

Now I wonder who abolished the Treason Act and why? :inquisitive:

*Now 'mom' being an American had to jump through hoops and hurdles and still couldn't get leave to remain indefinitley. Pater, despite being a former Royal Marine, policeman and a serving LGO for 35 years couldn't get entry to the 'Land of the Free' because he couldn't show enough commitment to his country of origin. (the UK) :dizzy2:

[Myrddraal]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

[InsaneApache]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

Nope.

[Furunculus]

Indeed. However those who might support multiculturalism and not diversity could (at best) be tipified as a tolerant but with an "each to their own" mentality.

I'm less clear on how one could support diversity without multiculturalism. In any case this is not the sense which you are refering too, and certainly not that which best describes your average incensed telegraph/daily mail reader.

it's quite simple:

Q - do i mind if they wear funny clothes, look a little bit more tanned than the average brit, eat funny food, or don't attend CofE?
A - no, i don't care in the slightest.

Q - do i care if they attempt to justify/advocate; honour killings, jihad or sharia law within the borders of MY country?
A - yes, i do care and would prefer they crawled back to whatever squalid dump they came from.

If you come here with the intention of being British then i welcome you, whatever your colour.
If you come here to work (as many of my friends have) and you intend to accept the laws and mores of the land, then i welcome you too.

But most importantly, i demand that any immigration policy is slow enough that immigrants can be assimilated rather than piling up in giant ethnic ghettoes.
This is, first and foremost, our land and if lots of Brits are uncomfortable being surrounded by those giant ethnic ghettoes, then i am unhappy because, first and foremost, they are my people.

"But what about our own home-grown nut-cases?" you might ask, the answer to that is easy; "they are my problem, but why on earth would i import more who aren't?"

You see the important point here; I care more about my family than i do about yours, and I expect the head of my family to hold as his paramount concern the welfare and happiness of my family!

[al Roumi]

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.


Nope.

Well I'd like to see if that one would stick! That said, it might be the first proper debate on the issue.

[Beskar]

I like how people are saying people who cannot vote are going to vote Labour.

Immigrants can't vote, only British Citizens can vote. So the next lorry from Dover isn't going to be full of Labour voters, as they cannot vote.

I have to be honest, it smells of white-pride bull:daisy:. "Look, they bring in people (who can't vote), as they will vote for them! (even though they can't). They are against our great white nation of Britain! All vote conversative against the coloured labour horde!".

Though there is also another interesting point, would the Torygraph be kicking up a stink if they would have voted Conversatives anyway? Also, why would these immigrants be magically be voting for Labour anyway? (even though they can't vote)

[Furunculus]

I like how people are saying people who cannot vote are going to vote Labour.

Immigrants can't vote, only British Citizens can vote. So the next lorry from Dover isn't going to be full of Labour voters, as they cannot vote.

I have to be honest, it smells of white-pride bull:diasy:. "Look, they bring in people (who can't vote), as they will vote for them! (even though they can't). They are against our great white nation of Britain! All vote conversative against the coloured labour horde!".

Though there is also another interesting point, would the Torygraph be kicking up a stink if they would have voted Conversatives anyway? Also, why would these immigrants be magically be voting for Labour anyway? (even though they can't vote)
that sounds like one of Beskars generalisations, i don't care what colour a person is (we are talking about racism right).


lol, it WAS one of Beskars generalisations, i assumed the post was by Alp for some reason.

[al Roumi]

it's quite simple:

Q - do i care if they attempt to justify/advocate; honour killings, jihad or sharia law within the borders of MY country?
A - yes, i do care and would prefer they crawled back to whatever squalid dump they came from.


Indeed, it's one thing to come looking for a better life for yourself & your family but there is (for me) a minimum of tolerance to local customs and laws which behoves an immigrant. Ironically, people who support Islam4UK and other groups which want to impose a different order on the UK are usually second generation immigrants, i.e. British.


But most importantly, i demand that any immigration policy is slow enough that immigrants can be assimilated rather than piling up in giant ethnic ghettoes.
This is, first and foremost, our land and if lots of Brits are uncomfortable being surrounded by those giant ethnic ghettoes, then i am unhappy because, first and foremost, they are my people.

Immigration policy isn't what determines how immigrants adapt to a new home and how well or not they integrate. There are much broader social and identity issues, its certainly not at all just down to the newcomers themselves. People are scared of what they don't understand and aren't used to.

[Furunculus]

Indeed, it's one thing to come looking for a better life for yourself & your family but there is (for me) a minimum of tolerance to local customs and laws which behoves an immigrant. Ironically, people who support Islam4UK and other groups which want to impose a different order on the UK are usually second generation immigrants, i.e. British.

Immigration policy isn't what determines how immigrants adapt to a new home and how well or not they integrate. There are much broader social and identity issues, its certainly not at all just down to the newcomers themselves. People are scared of what they don't understand and aren't used to.
maybe that's because we have supported and encouraged those multi-cultural ghettoes?

ditto.

[al Roumi]

maybe that's because we have supported and encouraged those multi-cultural ghettoes?

Uh? I think you mean uni-cultural ghettos.

Ghetto-isation is a bigger issue than simply with reference to ethnic or other groups. It's a much bigger problem in terms of segregation of wealth and class. In seeking to avoid it, you are also fighting against a simple urge that people have to be near people like them; be it their family or people of the same culture, same religion or same social class.

[Beskar]

Furunculus, you didn't comment at how the basics such as immigrants being unable to vote (as British Citizenship doesn't grow on trees) somehow translates into Labour votes in the Torygraph.

[Furunculus]

Uh? I think you mean uni-cultural ghettos.

Ghetto-isation is a bigger issue than simply with reference to ethnic or other groups. It's a much bigger problem in terms of segregation of wealth and class. In seeking to avoid it, you are also fighting against a simple urge that people have to be near people like them; be it their family or people of the same culture, same religion or same social class.
the ghetto might be uni-cultural, but its existence stems from multi-culturalism.

the point is to operate an immigration policy at a level so minimal that natural dispersal and assimilation occurs, i.e. by the time the second bangladeshi arrives on the street the first one is already a happy and accepted brit within his community. if ten arrive at once and start demanding a mosque the locals are going to get spooked; their community is being changed from the happy comfort zone of familiarity, and it their happiness and welfare that i look to first.


Furunculus, you didn't comment at how the basics such as immigrants being unable to vote (as British Citizenship doesn't grow on trees) somehow translates into Labour votes in the Torygraph.
no, no i didn't.

but at the time this was happening, there were no strict controls regarding citizenship and immigrants, and we were facing a policy of repeated mass amnesties for illegal immigrants whilst stricter policies were put in place.

against that backdrop the anodyne mention of immigrants voting labour from the article i linked; "Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour." was both pertinent and accurate.

[Beskar]

against that backdrop the anodyne mention of immigrants voting labour from the article i linked; "Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour." was both pertinent and accurate.

Have they attempted to account for why this is the case? Is it because immigrants are generally poorer backgrounds than the typical Eton silver-spooned tory who would want to institute more ploicies which shifts more burden from the rich (who can pay) to the poor (who can't pay) ?

[al Roumi]

the ghetto might be uni-cultural, but its existence stems from multi-culturalism.

the point is to operate an immigration policy at a level so minimal that natural dispersal and assimilation occurs, i.e. by the time the second bangladeshi arrives on the street the first one is already a happy and accepted brit within his community. if ten arrive at once and start demanding a mosque the locals are going to get spooked; their community is being changed from the happy comfort zone of familiarity, and it their happiness and welfare that i look to first.


That's just not how the world works. Immigration is (or should be) linked to economic opportunity and the availability of jobs. Your "1 Bangladeshi at a time" is devoid of a relation to real reasons for why immigration happens and is instead driven by a personal intolerance.

You would be happier with the French system of "we are all equal as the same" than the British "we are all equal as individuals". You should emigrate to France. LOL

[Furunculus]

Have they attempted to account for why this is the case? Is it because immigrants are generally poorer backgrounds than the typical Eton silver-spooned tory who would want to institute more ploicies which shifts more burden from the rich (who can pay) to the poor (who can't pay) ?
i don't care why immigrants might choose to vote labour, what is disgusting is that labour chose deliberately to engage in social engineering (for whatever) reason. labour are the servants of the people, not mad scientists in charge of a fun laboratory.

That's just not how the world works. Immigration is (or should be) linked to economic opportunity and the availability of jobs. Your "1 Bangladeshi at a time" is devoid of a relation to real reasons for why immigration happens and is instead driven by a personal intolerance.

You would be happier with the French system of "we are all equal as the same" than the British "we are all equal as individuals". You should emigrate to France. LOL
no, immigration should be permitted for the good of the nation, and thus the inhabitents of that nation, asylum accepted.

i don't understand the second part.........?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Me, I'm not impressed.


Just about all Western countries have seen a massive increase in immigration in the past decade or so. Many under rightwing governments. All but one, not under New Labour.

I see no reason to qualify it as 'social engineering'. Save, of course, to fit the Torygraph/ Daily Mail practise of fueling constant outrage. To reinforce their tiresomely repeated notion that Labour is about leftist, Orwellian, big government, intrusive, nanny-state politics - and all that in perfect secrecy too.

Not only would all policy be 'social engineering' by this standard: housing, education, employment. I bet there are reports about the effects of policy choices in these fileds as well). But one wonders what the Torygraph makes of the simultaneous rise in immigration under George Bush. Social engineering too?

What is written in that report are pretty much the standard considerations of immigration policy, as they were espoused a decade ago. You can read the same everywhere else. What is behind the report are commonplace social taboos, 'reasoning towards' the manifold benefits of immigration, trying to fins a justification for mass immigration, etc.

It was written in the atmosphere of a decade ago, when any opposition to mass immigration was deemed 'racist', and mainstream thought - whether academia, the media or politics - didn't dare touch with a ten foot pole what a lot of people were already thinking.
It was the time when statistics agencies thought it should be their task to massage the numbers to downplay immigration and demographic developments. When it was next to impossible to get any numbers concerning crime, education, healthcare and immigration - and even if some did trickle down, any criticism based on them was matter-of-factly dismissed as first, false, secondly, hard-right scaremongering, and thirdly, as not conducive to a climate that would help integrate communities.

My verdict is: no social engineering, just standard policy, and nothing particular about Labour either. (Not that I even remotely approve of the report, mind)


...having said all that - anybody seen a copy yet of that report that I just bluffed five paragraphs about? My Google-fu fails me...

[InsaneApache]

Try googling Andrew Neather. :book:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Me, I'm not impressed.


Just about all Western countries have seen a massive increase in immigration in the past decade or so. Many under rightwing governments. All but one, not under New Labour.

I see no reason to qualify it as 'social engineering'. Save, of course, to fit the Torygraph/ Daily Mail practise of fueling constant outrage. To reinforce their tiresomely repeated notion that Labour is about leftist, Orwellian, big government, intrusive, nanny-state politics - and all that in perfect secrecy too.

Not only would all policy be 'social engineering' by this standard: housing, education, employment. I bet there are reports about the effects of policy choices in these fileds as well). But one wonders what the Torygraph makes of the simultaneous rise in immigration under George Bush. Social engineering too?

What is written in that report are pretty much the standard considerations of immigration policy, as they were espoused a decade ago. You can read the same everywhere else. What is behind the report are commonplace social taboos, 'reasoning towards' the manifold benefits of immigration, trying to fins a justification for mass immigration, etc.

It was written in the atmosphere of a decade ago, when any opposition to mass immigration was deemed 'racist', and mainstream thought - whether academia, the media or politics - didn't dare touch with a ten foot pole what a lot of people were already thinking.
It was the time when statistics agencies thought it should be their task to massage the numbers to downplay immigration and demographic developments. When it was next to impossible to get any numbers concerning crime, education, healthcare and immigration - and even if some did trickle down, any criticism based on them was matter-of-factly dismissed as first, false, secondly, hard-right scaremongering, and thirdly, as not conducive to a climate that would help integrate communities.

My verdict is: no social engineering, just standard policy, and nothing particular about Labour either. (Not that I even remotely approve of the report, mind)


...having said all that - anybody seen a copy yet of that report that I just bluffed five paragraphs about? My Google-fu fails me...


I've seen excerpts, said report contains the phrase "social objectives" repeatedly.

I don't mind immigration in principle, but the country is crowded and Labour is trying to prevent a fall in population (that we need) by importing people. Worse, we have never had a labour shortage because there have always been more people out of work than there are jobs going. So what Labour has basically done is import social problems, when we already had enough of our own.

Immigration also depresses wages, which has further hurt the British working class.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Try googling Andrew Neather. :book:Okay.



Somehow this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.



A former Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) adviser at the centre of claims that the government secretly encouraged mass immigration to turn Britain into a "truly multicultural society" and undermine the Tories today made clear "there was no such plot".

The shadow home secretary, Chris Grayling, challenged ministers in the Commons today over remarks by Andrew Neather, a former speechwriter to Tony Blair and special adviser to Barbara Roche when she was immigration minister.
But Neather, now comment editor of the London Evening Standard, said an article he wrote in the aftermath of the television appearance of the BNP leader, Nick Griffin, had been twisted out of all recognition.

"There was no plot," said Neather. He pinpointed a shift in immigration policy in 2001, when he wrote a speech for Roche outlining changes to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK. The speech followed a sensitive report on migration from the Downing Street performance and innovation unit.
"Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when – hard as it is to imagine now – the booming economy was running up against skills shortages," Neather wrote in the Standard.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/oct/26/labour-immigration-plot-andrew-neather

[Louis VI the Fat]

I've seen excerpts, said report contains the phrase "social objectives" repeatedly.

I don't mind immigration in principle, but the country is crowded and Labour is trying to prevent a fall in population (that we need) by importing people. Worse, we have never had a labour shortage because there have always been more people out of work than there are jobs going. So what Labour has basically done is import social problems, when we already had enough of our own.

Immigration also depresses wages, which has further hurt the British working class.Mass immigration is not a Labour invention, never mind New Labour. The UK pixel perfectly follows the pattern of the whole of Western Europe, and even North America and Oceania.

Mass immigration in Europe started in the 1960s, at the behest of...the right. Amidst fierce protests from the left and the unions that this would undermine wages and the negatioting power of the workers.

[al Roumi]

I don't mind immigration in principle, but the country is crowded and Labour is trying to prevent a fall in population (that we need) by importing people. Worse, we have never had a labour shortage because there have always been more people out of work than there are jobs going. So what Labour has basically done is import social problems, when we already had enough of our own.

That is a fantastic misunderstanding of how the economy of a country works and its relation to employment and immigration.


Immigration also depresses wages, which has further hurt the British working class.

True, people ready to work for less does keep wages down and does affect those also competing for the same jobs as those the immigrants take. But, this is a good thing for businesses (more profit) and encourages the overall economic growth of the country. It was an important contributing factor to the UK economy's good performance (until the recession) accross sectors involving low/unskilled manual work: e.g. farming & manufacturing.

Unemployment is a figure which is usually best kept at around 5% for an economy to run well. If unemployment goes below 5% and starts approaching zero, there is a chronic inflation of wages -initially good for those working the under-resourced jobs, but crippling for the companies on whom those very same employees depend for a job.

That's a very broad generalisation, what you also get is particular industry sectors which require particular skills. A local population may not be able to provide adequate coverage for the demand of these sectors, in rich western countries it is often the more menial jobs which are left understaffed and it is to do these jobs that the locals don't want to do that migrants come.

To give you an example from the UK: A few years ago the agricultural industry was particularily badly under-staffed, British people were not doing such jobs for what ever reason -e.g. its hard work, boring, repetitive and uncomfortable (cold, wet, unsociable hours). After their accession to the EU and access to non-Schengen countries (of which the UK is one), Poles came over in droves and were happy to do such jobs for what was a comparatively high Polish wage. British businesses profited from a willing and hardworking workforce. Now that the British economy is in recession and Poland's is in comparatively better nick than before, many Poles have gone back to Poland.

The new points based system for immigration to the UK is designed to favour the UK's need for particular skills at a given time. The system the UK's is based on, the Australian, is well known to have encouraged the emigration to Australia of that key group of skilled workers: Hairdressers, as they were particularily lacking. It's also worth being aware of the crippling effect of this "brain drain" (a term perhaps not best suited to Hairdressing) and how elites from poorer countries are siphoned off by countries better able to pay wages for rarer skills.

[Fragony]

How much of this is credible, knowing where it's coming from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html

[Furunculus]

How much of this is credible, knowing where it's coming from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1249797/Labour-threw-open-doors-mass-migration-secret-plot-make-multicultural-UK.html

i imagine this part is 100% word for word accurate, given that it is unredacted transcription of the offending document:

The highlighted text below was contained in the original draft of the document drawn up in 2000 for a discussion on immigration policy - but deleted from the version published in 2001.


1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That is a fantastic misunderstanding of how the economy of a country works and its relation to employment and immigration.

One of the cleverest ways of winning an argument is to define the terms of an argument. By importing cheap Labour you A: keep wages low and B: further reduce the value of the jobs the migrants do.

If a sector is under-represented the system will right itself, in the medieval period during labour shortages women were allowed to fill the gap. Right now "menial" jobs are allowed to remain menial with wages that keep people bellow the poverty line, and no respect because, "those are jobs for immigrants".

[Fragony]

i imagine this part is 100% word for word accurate, given that it is unredacted transcription of the offending document:

My understanding of English isn't subtle enough to really read that, that is hard enough as it is in Dutch. If half of it is true I expect a rain of FragonyIamsosorry's.

[Furunculus]

My understanding of English isn't subtle enough to really read that, that is hard enough as it is in Dutch. If half of it is true I expect a rain of FragonyIamsosorry's.

hah, you'll be lucky, it won't even penetrate the self-rightousness, let alone induce remorse!

[al Roumi]

One of the cleverest ways of winning an argument is to define the terms of an argument.

No, that should be the starting point of any proper discussion. I am not "trying to win an argument" I'm trying to better inform you about this issue.


By importing cheap Labour you A: keep wages low and B: further reduce the value of the jobs the migrants do.

If a sector is under-represented the system will right itself, in the medieval period during labour shortages women were allowed to fill the gap. Right now "menial" jobs are allowed to remain menial with wages that keep people bellow the poverty line, and no respect because, "those are jobs for immigrants".

:confused: Again, no:

Menial jobs are just that because they require little training to do. People from rich western societies generally have access to better jobs through education, this and other factors allow them greater choice to pick and choose their employment. This naturaly skews the job market leaving gaps in hard/unpleasant/less interesting/poorly paid areas of work. In response to this low take-up of hard/unpleasant jobs, many would-be employers react by raising the wage and hence the appeal of a job, e.g. this is why bin-men are paid better than one might expect.

There will always be a requirement for jobs that are unpleasant,menial or undesirable in another way. These are the jobs that offer an opportunity to people who are looking for one. It just so happens that migrants are usually those more desperate for any opportunity.

Finally, there is absolutely no conspiracy to keep people thick and poor -which you seem to hint at. Never mind its social consequences and immorality, such an agenda would be a massive dis-service to the Uk's economy. If any party were to have such a policy, Labour (for all their failings and unfullfilled promises) would not be it.

[al Roumi]

My understanding of English isn't subtle enough to really read that, that is hard enough as it is in Dutch. If half of it is true I expect a rain of FragonyIamsosorry's.


hah, you'll be lucky, it won't even penetrate the self-rightousness, let alone induce remorse!

I'm not sure who is expected to appologise. The exerpt supports the current Government strategy (but would better support free market control), opposes "zero immigration" and is clearly based on economic interest.

That an individual, who probably doesn't like the idea of immigration, feels like the right was getting it's nose rubbed in it isn't a surprise or much to cry about.

[Subotan]

Immigration increases the size of the labour force. Claiming that it harms the economy is as silly as claiming that population growth hurts the economy.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Immigration increases the size of the labour force. Claiming that it harms the economy is as silly as claiming that population growth hurts the economy.

Population growth does depress wages; always has.

[Louis VI the Fat]

i imagine this part is 100% word for word accurate, given that it is unredacted transcription of the offending document:
The highlighted text below was contained in the original draft of the document drawn up in 2000 for a discussion on immigration policy - but deleted from the version published in 2001.


1) The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

2) Indeed, over the medium to longer term, migration pressures will intensify in Europe as a result of demographic changes. But this should not be viewed as a negative - to the extent that migration is driven by market forces, it is likely to be economically beneficial. On the other hand, trying to halt of reverse market-driven migration will be very difficult (perhaps impossible) and economically damaging.

3) Chapter 4, focusing on the Government's aim to regulate migration to the UK in the interests of social stability and economic growth, argues that it is clearly correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy.

4) The more general social impact of migration is very difficult to assess. Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. These in turn feed into wider economic benefits.

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, and there are a number of areas where policy could further enhance migrants' economic and social contribution in line with the Government's overall objectives.

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification.Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

[Subotan]

Population growth does depress wages; always has.
I didn't say it doesn't. Of course, overpopulation would result in extremely depressed wages, as would mass immigration. But for the UK, that would have to be an influx of millions and millions of people.

[Furunculus]

Immigration increases the size of the labour force. Claiming that it harms the economy is as silly as claiming that population growth hurts the economy.

china has a large labour force, and a large economy, is that what you want to see for britain?

one-child-policy
authoritarian regime to hold together the disparate and fractured parts of your society.
average wage one quarter of what it is here
health care and education a fraction of what it is here

[Subotan]

Immigration, a large population and a larger economy than us aren't the reasons China has those problems.

EDIT: Miigration is the reason for China's huge economic growth though, with colossal rural-urban migration.

[Furunculus]

Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

1) if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives. There is NO acceptable social objective to migration, i am not a play-thing

4) Benefits include a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions. why is someone insisting that i am subjected to greater consumer choice via social contributions?

5) In practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion, why do i care about social exclusion of migrant groups?

6) It is clear that migration policy has both social and economic impacts and should be designed to contribute to the government's overall objectives on both counts. The current position is a considerable advance on the previously existing situation, when the aim of immigration policy was, or appeared to be, to reduce primary immigration to the 'irreducible minimum' - an objective with no economic or social justification. why does a policy of leaving people alone to lead their own lives have a negative conotation, i don't want your intervention

no Louis, there is nothing remotely good, and everything contemptible about that released document.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I didn't say it doesn't. Of course, overpopulation would result in extremely depressed wages, as would mass immigration. But for the UK, that would have to be an influx of millions and millions of people.

3 million in 10 years plus 1 million illegals. That's "millions and millions", isn't it?


Thanks.

This shows that indeed this has become distorted by excitable rightwing newspaper columnists into being a 'plot' to make Britain multicultural. There was no plot.

I think it has been exagerated, but not distorted. The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?

It essentially says, "the locals aren't what we want, so we'll get new people in".

[Beskar]

The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "[Government's economic and] social objectives"[sic], that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?

I do not think that phrase means what you think it means.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The report clearly indicates that some in the government wanted to import a solution to their "social objectives", that is a disturbing agenda, is it not?No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.

Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.

The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.

Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the 'new analytical framework' the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to, and I'll paraphrase the last bit of the sentence, 'improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric'.


The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but it is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.

I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, join those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.

[Beskar]

No, I'm afraid that is not what the report says.

Take the much reviled sentence below, for example.

The emerging consensus, in both the UK and the rest of the EU, is that we need a new analytical framework for thinking about migration policy if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government's economic and social objectives.

The report does not say that migration ought to be maximised on behalf of governmental objectives. Nor that the objective is to maximise immigration. Nor does it speak of migration for governmental objectives.
The sentence is 'read backwards' in the alarmist press, as it were: 'the government has social objectives, these consist of maximising migration contibution'. Ergo - 'mass immigration on behalf of social engineering!'.

Quod non! The sentence does not even mention an increase in immigration - it is completely neutral about that. The report goes on, from what I gather, to expand on what is meant with the new analytical framework: more emphasis on skilled workers, more emphasis on migration that benefis Britain instead of the immigrants. This is the new analytical framework the reviled sentence speaks about, and which is needed to improve the contribution migration has on Britain's economy and social fabric.


The same holds true for the rest of the report. The report is completely misread, turned into an alarmist, sensationalist parody of itself, that has no ground whatsoever in reality.
I would say that the reporters at the Telegraph and the Daily Mail are severly lacking in reading skills, but is is of course much worse than that. It is a clear and deliberate distortion of the truth. A distortion that is swallowed hook, line and sinker because of deep-seated frustration about mass immigration.

I shall happily join the ranks of those who think mass imigration has meant very little for the quality of life in the UK, those who wish Labour had decreased instead of increased immigration, but I'm not going to misread plain English because of it.

The long version of my post.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Conciseness is a form of art.

[Beskar]

Conciseness is a form of art.

I liked your reply better as an actual informative reply. Though I prefer my sentence inspired from 'Princess Bribe' because I like that movie and the sentence was straight to the point (though the flaw of not explaining the point, tends to cause trouble for me).

[Furunculus]

william hague gets it wrong on how to win the election, but not on why it is necessary:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100025975/im-sorry-william-hague-but-your-disregard-for-lost-tory-voters-could-let-brown-back-in

[Boohugh]

Very interesting article and I think it sums up a basic problem in politics that has been building over the years: the parties concentrate on trying to win voters from each other rather than on just trying to win voters. They seem to be making the assumption that as fewer people vote now than in the past, each vote they win from other parties is important. This leads to them targeting their policies at the people who statistically do still vote most, causing everyone else to become disaffected with the political parties, which then just reinforces the downward trend in voting.

[Furunculus]

agreed, and to continue the theme:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/simonheffer/7252686/Can-anyone-explain-what-the-Conservative-Party-stands-for.html

Can anyone explain what the Conservative Party stands for?
Lacking clarity and direction, the Tories risk a haemorrhage of support to fringe parties, says Simon Heffer.

By Simon Heffer
Published: 8:14PM GMT 16 Feb 2010

To judge from the Prime Minister's performance on television the other evening, which reminded us that the best thing to do with private grief is to see it stays private, the coming election will have little to do with policy. Labour's priority is not to spell out what it stands for, or, more to the point, how it would extricate Britain from the mess it is in (and which Mr Brown, in large part, has made). It is to "humanise" the Prime Minister. I pine for the days when prime ministers did not need to verify their membership of the species, but got on with the difficult business of governing. Everything else is a distraction.

Yet it is a distraction in which the Conservative Party seems determined to share. Think of what we have learnt about the government-in-waiting in recent days. Its health spokesman has had secret talks (so secret, apparently, that even Mr Cameron did not know, according to reliable sources) about how to fund care for the elderly. This, as this newspaper argued yesterday, is a vital subject. As we also argued, infantilism, such as shown by all parties to the discussion, will advance it nowhere.

The shadow chancellor, now plumbing new depths of desperation, claims that a statement by leading economists about the need for urgent big spending cuts and the avoidance of tax rises endorses his own party's policy. Since the latest version of that policy supported a delay in big (or "swingeing") cuts and said nothing about reversing damagingly high tax rates that are driving big-earning companies abroad, it is hard to see how Mr Osborne could think that. Perhaps he has had secret talks with himself, and forgot to inform Mr Cameron, who announced the aforementioned policy.

We hear of constituency activists' anger that safe seats are given shortlists comprising ethnic minorities, women and homosexual men, as happened in a Surrey constituency last weekend. We hear of candidates angry that their ancient right to put what they like in their election addresses is now being trammelled by Central Office. (These last two points reflect interestingly on a party that claims to be about the devolution of powers to the lowest level.) We hear that the BBC is making a programme (it is presumed disobliging) about Lord Ashcroft, who more or less owns the party but refuses to say where he pays his taxes.

Best of all, for those of us for whom politics must be treated as light entertainment if we are not to risk our sanity, we hear much of a catfight in the North Kensington constituency. The chairman (a woman) fell out with the candidate (ditto) and the fight had to be refereed by Mr Cameron himself, who happened to have been at school with the candidate's husband. This is like a cocktail party, not a political one.

This spasm of irrelevant behaviour, conducted apparently oblivious of the fact that Britain is struggling to avoid going back into recession, our soldiers are dying in an offensive in Afghanistan, and our European partners are facing economic meltdown, is not confined to the Conservatives. Labour's main concern is that middle-aged people are too fat. It is also spending (or rather wasting) oodles of our money on an expensive advertising campaign suggesting that anyone ordering a third pint of beer had better book an undertaker to go with it. Some people still ask: why is the public so disengaged from politics? Well, if you seek politics' monument, look around you.

I start to wonder whether we are destined to see an eruption here such as manifested by the Tea Party movement in America. For those unfamiliar with this phenomenon, allow me to explain. The Tea Party movement has become a loose federation of local gatherings of people fed up with the American political class. They hate Democrats and they feel little better about Republicans. Their slogan is that they want to "take America back" from such people. Mr Obama they regard as a socialist. Some subscribe to the conspiracy theory that he was not in fact born in Hawaii, or indeed in America at all, and therefore holds his office illegally. Some of their other views are closer to sanity. They believe the American political class has sanctioned indecently high spending, indecently high taxes and insanely high debt. They want all this to stop.

Their movement has snowballed: it held its first national rally last month, and Sarah Palin gave the keynote speech. She is playing a cunning game. If she runs for the presidency in 2012 (as she is now hinting she will) she will need the support of a vast caucus of Republicans, many of whom are attracted by the Tea Party and minded not to support the Republican Party as they currently know it. This would be fatal to the ambitions of any candidate who could not get those people back in the tent: hence Mrs Palin's appearance at their rally. It will not be the last.

We have no Tea Party here, but we do have a number of respectable (and, in the shape of the BNP, non-respectable) fringe parties who will hoover up votes from the main ones. The BNP believes it can win a Labour seat or two, and it may be right. The Tories are also finding it desperately hard to gain footholds in big urban areas outside London, with their potential working-class supporters now in some cases edging towards the BNP.

Yet the greatest threat to the Tories is Ukip, which has been busy capitalising on Mr Cameron's embarrassing emasculation over the Lisbon Treaty. Leaving aside what Nigel Farage may do to Speaker Bercow in Buckingham, Ukip is less likely to win a seat than the BNP is, but the damage it can do to Tory interests, notably in the West Country, where the agricultural and fishing interests have had enough of Brussels, is potentially huge.

The problem for the Tories is this, succinctly put to me by a close observer of the party the other day: if you boarded a bus anywhere in these islands, sat down next to a passenger at random and asked what it stood for, he or she could not tell you. The Tories' propagandists like to foster the belief that there is a secret agenda of radicalism waiting to be unleashed when and if the party seizes power by pretending to be like Labour. However, there simply isn't. Oppositions cannot afford to behave like this.

Mr Cameron's ruthless centralisation apes Tony Blair's party management from the era just before the 1997 election. In that, there are two further difficulties. First, his MPs and candidates tend to have minds of their own, which was less the case for Mr Blair then. Second, those tactics are, well, very Nineties. People are wise to PR spivvery, feel patronised by it and don't like it. As someone once said, it is not enough.

There is a group of Right-of-centre MPs who, like Mr Blair's Leftists before 1997, are struggling to keep the lid on their discontent. Mr Blair kept control because he was always going to win. However, the word on the back benches is that if the lead were to shrink, say to 7 per cent or below, factionalism and possibly even panic would break out. Even if Mr Cameron doesn't see how disenchanted the public is by its lack of choice and his lack of definition, many of his MPs do. The ride is about to get rocky.
The Cons are in danger of making the Lib Dem mistake, being seen to stand on no coherent ideology and instead being hypocritically opportunistic as it randomly picks populist themes from either extreme.

In the Lib Dems this is understandable, because they are awaiting their 'Labour' moment when an old power loses its public relevance, and a new power swoops in to take its place, but in the Cons it does nothing but make them look like the 'old' power that is tottering in obsolescence.

[Furunculus]

a heart warming story, if only the tories would be near so bold:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100026409/libertarianism-has-made-georgia-rich-and-free/
Libertarianism has made Georgia rich and free

Most governments responded to the credit crunch by borrowing more, taxing more, regulating more and owning more. Not that of Georgia. The aristocrats of the Caucasus recently adopted something called the Liberty Act, which limits their deficit to 3 per cent of GDP and their public debt to 60 per cent. The proportion of economic activity generated by the state is capped by law at 30 per cent, and the number of government licences and permits is likewise restricted. At the same time, control of public services, including healthcare and education, is shifted from state to citizen.

Result? Georgia’s GDP is flourishing despite the Russian embargo and the recent war, and the country has continued to grow through the downturn. Mikheil Saakashvili, was in London yesterday at a seminar hosted by a truly brilliant think-tank called the Legatum Institute. He spoke with infectious enthusiasm about the way in which the application of market doctrines had transformed a failed state into a free society – despite the constant, brooding menace of Putinite revanchism.

One of President Saakashvili’s former prime ministers pointed out that Georgia had shot up all the league tables on competitiveness, property rights and lack of corruption. The only countries doing better, he observed, were former British colonies. Spotting the pattern, he had hoped to join the Commonwealth, and had raised the issue with the Foreign Office. That application, sadly, came to nothing. Perhaps we should revive the issue. I mean, if Rwanda can join, why not Georgia?

[al Roumi]

a heart warming story, if only the tories would be near so bold

Pff, what and outsource more UK government responsabilities to the EU? LOL I don't think you've thought that one through.

[Furunculus]

hmmm, limits on the proportion of GDP that can be consumed by public spending, sounds awesome to me.

33% would be the ceiling i would choose.

[al Roumi]

hmmm, limits on the proportion of GDP that can be consumed by public spending, sounds awesome to me.

33% would be the ceiling i would choose.

Yeah, well I think good national health care and education would be nice. And you want 1st rate shiny new toys for the army. Try maintaining either (or both) on 33% of whatever the UK's GDP is now.

Georgia recieved $1 Billion form the US alone (http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,415941,00.html)after the 2008 Russian war. (eugh, fox news)

It is one thing for Georgia to say: "we don't need to perform these checks or have this capability to protect our citizens or further their interests" as someone else who they feel they can trust is doing them. Whose capability would the UK rely on to ensure its citizens were adequately serviced? Would your cherished British people be happy to relinquish such oversight of their own welfare?

Isn't that the ultimate surrender of sovereignty? How can you be in favor of that as a Euro-sceptic?

[Furunculus]

33% is an ideal, i don't expect it too happen. reducing it back to 40% would certainly pay for itself as economic growth sped up however.

and i get bored of constantly correcting the fallacious argument that increased defence spending must = more government spending. defence takes up ~5% of annual government spending whereas health, education and welfare, not to mention international aid have had money hosed at them for the past decade (collectively 47% of expenditure).
you could repair the deficiences in defence by boosting its spending by a third, i.e. to about 7% of annual spending and have zero impact on the above mentioned services, purely because such a tiny dent could be easily covered by efficiency measures.

[al Roumi]

and i get bored of constantly correcting the fallacious argument that increased defence spending must = more government spending. defence takes up ~5% of annual government spending whereas health, education and welfare, not to mention international aid have had money hosed at them for the past decade (collectively 47% of expenditure).

Indeed, although the latest stats are only from 07/08:
http://www.economicshelp.org/macroeconomics/fiscal-policy/government-spending.html
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm

Interesting that you mention overseas development aid though, that has at most hit about 0.6% of GNI since 1997. Defence gets 10 times that much at what is closer to 6%.

My point was not to say that there was fat to cut from defence, rather to try to inject some realism into the desire for a 33% cap to UK government spending.

[Furunculus]

found these amusing, particularly the angela and nicolas one:
http://mylabourposter.typepad.com/blog/

[Beskar]

I have to admit, it is only mildly better than Call me Dave "The Face" Cameron. Filling posters with just your face because you have no policies is a pretty poor to go as well.

Edit: The ITV had a news article about all the spoofs. Saying the spoofs are promoting politic discussion on the twitterweb.

[Furunculus]

surprisingly sensible lecture on Defence given by Liam Fox to the Royal United Services Institute a week or so ago:
http://www.rusi.org/events/ref:E4B62C2FEC5252
The Strategic Defence and Security Review: A Conservative View of Defence and Future Challenges
10:00, 8 Feb 2010
RUSI, Whitehall, London, SW1A 2ET

In his lecture, Dr Fox addressed the challenges the next government is likely to confront while attempting to carry out a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). He discussed the strategic thinking on which the foundation of a future Conservative government review will be based, the structure of the review and specifically how the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will carry out its role in the SDSR process to best prepare the MoD for the challenges of the Twenty-first Century.
Full Text of Speech

Audio and video (together with Q&A) will be available shortly.

Thank RUSI for hosting this event this morning and the huge contribution they make to the 'defence debate'. It is a pleasure to speak to such a distinguished and knowledgeable audience.

In many ways there is no ideal time in which to conduct a Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR). Twelve years have passed since the last review. The MoD notes in the recent Green Paper that 'the international context has changed radically'. It certainly has- and the review is scandalously overdue.

Of course, reviews of this nature always bring an element of instability which can be particularly unwelcome at periods where there is a high tempo of activity.

Today our Armed Forces are currently participating in sixteen operations around the globe and have a military presence in the form of 41,000 troops in thirty-three countries and overseas territories.

They are performing gallantly on remote battlefields in southern Afghanistan, on the high seas combating piracy, and in the Gulf capacity building and protecting Iraqi Oil Platforms.

With the conflict in Afghanistan and Pakistan, the threat of terrorism at home, nuclear proliferation, and our contingent maritime operations in the Gulf and the Horn of Africa, conducting the next SDSR will be like building a ship while out at sea.

But it will bring new opportunities.

The Conservative Party's National Security Green Paper made clear that the next review-a Strategic Defence and Security Review under a Conservative Government- will look beyond defence in the traditional sense.

It will be a cross- departmental review that brings together all the levers of national and domestic security policy with our overseas interests and our defence priorities.

It will be a chance to have a clean break from the legacy and mindset of the Cold War and should be viewed as an opportunity for fresh thinking and change. Make no mistake; we need a step change not tinkering.

The next Government will have a unique opportunity to provide a new direction and renewed leadership inside the Ministry of Defence.

It is worth noting that if the Conservative Party wins the next General Election neither the Prime Minister nor the Foreign or Defence Secretaries nor the Chancellor will have been in the House of Commons at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall. It will be our first post- Cold War government, better attuned to the new realities of globalisation.

Today, I am here to talk about the specific aspects of the SDSR which will fall into the remit of defence so my focus will be on the Armed Forces and how the Ministry of Defence will support them.

Let me be clear about two essential points at the outset.

First, we know from bitter historical experience the difficulty of predicting future conflict- either its nature or its location. We cannot base our future security on the assumption that future wars will be like the current ones. That is why we must maintain generic capability able to adapt to any changing threats.

Second, we cannot accept the assumption in the Green Paper that Britain will always operate as part of an alliance. We have unique national interests and have to maintain the capability to act on our own if required.

It is of course imperative that we win in Afghanistan - and we wish our forces well in their forthcoming operation. There is no doubt that in Afghanistan the government have been too slow to give the army, in particular, the agility and flexibility it needs to maximise its effectiveness. The Army and the Marines have carried the greatest cost of that failure and we must learn from our mistakes.

But we must also remember that we are a maritime nation dependent on the sea lanes for 92 per cent of our trade. A time when the threat of disruption on the high seas is increasing is no time for Britain to become sea blind.

As for the review itself, it must have a logical sequence. It must begin with our foreign policy priorities, outlining our national interests. We must then consider the threats which may affect our interests so that we can determine the defence strategy needed to respond to them. Only then can we determine the military capabilities we need to protect those interests in this threat environment.

Only then can we come to the equipment programmes that will make these capabilities a reality.

Finally, we will have to confront the harsh facts of the economic climate in which we will have to operate given the catastrophic economic management of the current Labour Government.

Of course, we could carry out the process the other way round- begin with the budget and see what we can get for it. But we would end up with unintended consequences in foreign policy and we would have missed the opportunity to return some empiricism to policy making.

Foreign Policy Assumptions

So let us begin by setting out what a defence strategy would have to do to deliver the sort of foreign policy we will want to have.

First, and obviously, we must be able to defend the UK against the threats posed to our interests within reasonably predictable limits. These interests are broad and deep in a globalised world. There are an estimated 12m British citizens living overseas.

We are an international hub for financial activity, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, the G8 and G20, the Commonwealth, the European Union and a leading member inside NATO.

These interests are also found closer to home. When required the Armed Forces must be able to augment and support civil emergency organisations during a time of crisis. Defending the UK also means maintaining key strategic tasks like a continuous at sea submarine based minimum credible nuclear deterrent.

Secondly we must be able to defend our fourteen overseas territories and, of course, the main focus is on the Falklands. The recent legislation passed in Argentina attempting to exert Argentine sovereignty over the Falklands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the British Antarctic Territory is completely unacceptable. The Falkland Islands are and will remain British.

Thirdly, when required, we must be able to come to the aid of NATO allies in a significant way under our Article V obligations-like we did immediately after 9/11 with Operation Eagle Assist and Operation Active Endeavour.

Fourthly, we will need to be able to project power on a strategic level alongside the United States and France. Without doubt the United States and France are our two most important defence and security partners. A future Conservative Government will continue to build on these relationships.

Fifthly, we will have to have the capacity to conduct extended stabilisation and nation building exercises in order to provide stability and security albeit as part of an international coalition. This will also include working closely with the FCO and DFID on conflict prevention.

Sixthly, we must be able to extend meaningful military co-operation within elevated bilateral relations. We will continue to work closely with countries with shared mutual interests and geo-strategic importance, like Norway and Turkey or Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf States.

We will invite these key partners to make submissions to our defence review and will welcome contributions from those who see Britain as a key strategic partner.

And finally, we must be able to enhance UK influence by leveraging our natural national advantages - like intelligence and Special Forces. We must understand the diplomatic and economic value of maximising defence exports and the goodwill generated by joint training exercises or expanded training capacity for overseas officers.

For the foreseeable future the UK will primarily operate alongside our allies, most notably the US. It is therefore crucial that ongoing work within the MoD- to understand better the importance of influence on our coalition allies- is given the priority it deserves at both the tactical and strategic level.

Threats-maintaining a balance

It is impossible to predict the exact shape and nature of the threats we will face but we can make some educated guesses.

Since the last Strategic Defence Review in 1998 the world has become a more dangerous place. Trans-national terrorism, nuclear proliferation, the battle for cyberspace and the effects of climate change are all playing a part in destabilising the equilibrium of global security.

The terrorists attacks of 9/11 completely altered the Western view of global security. An attack that cost only $250,000 to stage ended up costing the U.S. economy $80bn.

International terrorism continues to pose a real threat-as most recently experienced by the attempted airline bombing during the Christmas holiday period.

Although largely defeated in Iraq, Al-Qa'ida is threatening the stability of Pakistan, the Arabian Peninsula-notably Yemen and the Horn of Africa and Southeast Asia.

While some countries like Libya have seemingly given up their WMD ambitions, North Korea has successfully tested two nuclear bombs.

Iran is on the verge of acquiring a nuclear weapon and continues to be a net exporter of terrorism. The nature and behaviour of the regime and the risk of triggering a nuclear arms race in the Middle East makes this a cause of growing anxiety.

Climate Change is forcing us to address new threats. For example, with Polar ice caps melting and piracy rife in some of the world's busiest and warmest shipping lanes; maritime transport in the High North is not only becoming a reality but is also looking attractive for commerce. It is also a potential source of political and military tension.

The possibility of state-on-state warfare, most recently demonstrated by the Russian invasion of Georgia and the subsequent occupation of 20 per cent of its territory, cannot be ruled out. Especially as the competition for scarce resources heats up in some of the world's most unstable regions.

* Other threats may seem remote but if they became a reality would have a devastating effect on our way of life:
* biological weapons proliferation and their use by terrorist organisations and other non-state actors;
* nuclear terrorism and dirty bombs;
* and the use of an electromagnetic pulse device which could destroy all electronic and communications infrastructure over a distance of hundreds of miles.

All of these need strategies to deal with them.

Like it or not, Cyber Warfare is a modern-day reality-not something that 'might' occur in the future as some commentators suggest. They are increasing in both frequency and seriousness- from the mass attack on Estonia to the targeted attacks on British companies and Institutions.

And these threats are occurring on top of our contingent overseas operations like Afghanistan, maritime security in the Gulf, or reacting to natural disasters like the recent earthquake in Haiti.

The multi polarity of the post Cold War era and the speed of globalisation mean that Britain's economic and security interests are increasingly interlinked to others with an unavoidable shared set of interests and the shared importation of strategic risk.

As recent events have shown with the economic crisis, instability in one corner of the globe can quickly affect everyone.

Britain's national interests no longer stop at the White Cliffs of Dover, Gibraltar or the Falklands.

This global interdependence has major implications on how we organise our national (and international) security structures and identify our threats. It goes without saying that the challenges this presents to our Armed Forces are numerous and complex.

The Twenty-first Century strategic environment demands that Western militaries are able to simultaneously conduct war fighting, peacekeeping, continuous deterrence-both conventional and nuclear, and humanitarian operations.

Furthermore, it requires Western Governments to supplement these military operations through an array of soft power tools, such as international aid, defence diplomacy, and the spread of information and ideas.

But if the nature of the Twenty-first century forces us- the West- to re-evaluate current war fighting we should assume that our enemies are forced to do the same. It is in this context that we can understand the types of threats we are likely to face in the future.

There is an on-going debate in the UK on what form the future of warfare will take and how this will impact upon the SDSR.

Usually there are two schools of thought. On one side we are told that future conflicts will be asymmetric and irregular in nature-similar to what we commonly experience in Afghanistan today.

On the other side we are told that state-on-state warfare in the traditional sense cannot be ruled out and if anything, however remote the possibility may seem, this form of warfare is likely to pose the biggest threat to UK sovereignty.

This has led many to believe that we have to choose between fighting 'the war' or 'a war'-but this is a false dichotomy.

The choice between the two schools of thought is not binary and mutually exclusive. It is no more true to say that we will face only asymmetric threats than it is to say we face only state on state threats. The truth lies somewhere in between-in a hybrid form of warfare-that will require Britain to maintain generic and flexible defence capabilities.

Insurgencies are not a new phenomenon-they have been fought in some form or another for hundreds of years.

The counterinsurgency operations currently being conducted in Afghanistan are not a guarantee of what warfare will look like in the future-but a continuation of past trends.

State-on-state warfare is viewed by many as an anachronism in the Twenty-first Century but until there is a radical change in the Westphalian nation-state system that has been around since 1648, state-on-state warfare remains a possibility-and one that we must be prepared for regardless of how unlikely it may seem today. There is always the possibility of the UK being dragged into state on state warfare between other nations.

But even state-on-state warfare would not necessarily take the same linear, symmetric, and conventional form as it did in the Twenty-first century.

The present superiority of Western conventional military might, coupled with the advantages offered by globalisation, have led our adversaries to look beyond the approach of choosing between conventional and asymmetrical types of warfare and adopt a hybrid warfare approach.

Potential adversaries may strive to face us with conventional military might that at best is equal to, or at a minimum competes with, Western technology.

But it is more likely that, knowing that they cannot match our technology, resources or conventional firepower our adversaries will resort to strategic and tactical asymmetric measures in an attempt to defeat us.

But with hybrid warfare we should assume that our adversaries will simultaneously employ a mix of conventional weapons and irregular tactics that may even include organised crime and acts of terrorism.

We must understand that the conflicts of the future will go beyond the conventional arena and threaten our social well-being, our domestic infrastructure and our economic capabilities.

Russia's invasion of Georgia, with heavy armour, air strikes and ground troops-all very conventional- was augmented by a surgical cyber attack on the Georgian Government and a sophisticated information operations campaign aimed at the Georgian people and the international community.

The changing scope and nature of these threats have implications for our procurement plans. We need to focus more on capability and less on specific equipment.

Saying that we can only focus on 'the war' at the expense of 'a war' is not good enough for the British people and would be an easy way out for any government whose first and foremost responsibility is the defence of the realm.

Equipment Programme

To accompany our SDSR, we will undertake a fundamental and far reaching review of the way we provide defence capability in this country.

From the way in which we procure defence equipment and support services, to the structure of UK R&D.

From our relationships with our NATO allies, to the promotion of defence exports.

And from reviewing the role of our world leading defence Primes, to maximising the contribution made by our SMEs - often the engine room of our defence industry.

Let me briefly explain why such procurement reform will be central to the successful implementation of our SDSR.

Shaping defence policy under the current financial situation will be a challenge not felt since the Nott Review of 1981.

In short, then as now, money is tight, and the demands are great.

As I have already stated, it is clear that the 1998 SDR has been persistently under funded by the Treasury.

The consequence of Gordon Brown's actions has been a 12 year increasing imbalance between resources and requirements with only the will, ability and loyalty of our Armed Forces and their families, making up the difference.

So what can be done about it? The Gray Review has shown us that there is up to £35bn in unfunded liabilities in the current equipment programme.

This year's Major Projects Report recorded an in-year cost increase of £1.2bn alone- and that's just the 15 largest programmes. It's easy to see that with a compound unfunded liability of over £3bn a year, the MoD finds it very hard to make ends meet.

But money, or the lack of it, is not the only reason why reform of procurement is so essential.

We need a procurement system that strikes a balance between developing long-term defence capability, to compete with the very best, through the application of in depth blue sky research, a considered through life maintenance plan and incremental upgrades.

We also need to cope with the rapid evolution of warfare through the use of UORs, the application of novel technologies and adaptable commercial relationships.

In order to ensure we are able to respond to rapidly to changing threats we must have a vibrant defence industrial base. Without it we would have no operational sovereignty-thereby threatening our national sovereignty.

The focus of DE&S must move away from obsessing over initial cost, process and volume to capability based contracts and commercial arrangements that can ebb and flow as operational requirements change.

So you can see that far from being an ancillary benefit, improving the way we provide defence capability will be central to the success of the wider reform agenda.

Although much needs to change, we do have a solid foundation on which to build. The UK Defence Industry is already amongst the best in the world but industry knows that it, too, must help us meet the challenges we face.

The UK's defence talent is not limited to the private sector. Within the MoD, we have a dedicated and talented workforce who work tirelessly to support our Armed Forces. The Staff of DE&S have demonstrated, through UORs, that it is possible to bring on line unprecedented changes in defence capability, on time, and on budget.

Where DE&S is not working properly it is not the problem but the symptom of a problem that originates in the MoD itself. It is a structural and management problem which requires radical treatment.

It is essential that we get this process back on track. To help provide clarity and direction defence procurement under a future Conservative Government will have four explicit objectives.

1) To provide the best possible equipment to our Armed Forces when they need it, where they need it and at a reasonable cost to the taxpayer.

2) To use defence procurement to underpin Britain's strategic relationships. Closer cooperation with the United States-our key global ally, and France-our key European ally, and maximising our unique relationship with Commonwealth countries around the world.

3) To provide better stability to the Armed Forces and better predictability to the defence industry-regular SDSRs will play an important role in realising this objective, so to will a future review of our Defence Industrial Strategy and defence trade relations within the EU.

4) To preserve UK defence jobs by maximising exports. The Conservative Party will use defence exports as a foreign policy tool and we will seek to increase Britain's share of the world defence market.

To meet these objectives we will test any future equipment programme against five criteria:

1) Capability: The determination of defence capability should be the product of an objective analysis of our defence needs, and not driven by the parochial interests of pork-barrel politics. We also need to move away from talking about equipment programmes as if they exist in the abstract, and in isolation, when we should be talking about capability in the round, across all Defence Lines of Development.

2) Affordability: Clearly, we must be able to afford not only the initial procurement costs but also the through life costs. As recent delays to the Carrier programme have taught us, we also need to be able to afford a programme on schedule, in-year. The default position should be 'spend to save' not 'Delay to spend'. Speedy procurement saves money.

3) Adaptability: We need to get the greatest flexibility in the equipment we buy while ensuring that as many potential roles as possible can be fulfilled. Future capabilities may be with us for 50 yeas, but intentions can change overnight. This will require truly open systems, UK based IPR where possible and adaptive commercial support arrangements.

4) Interoperability: If we are to maximise the utility of our equipment platforms then they must be able to take part in Combined and Joint military operations with our NATO allies, most notably the US.

5) Exportability: We must seek out equipment that will have a high export demand which, in the long term, will create UK jobs, reduce the unit cost of equipment to our Armed Forces, support the wider British economy and reinforce out strategic relationship with our allies.

Reforming the procurement process will be no easy task. In fact, it may prove to be our greatest challenge in terms of increasing the efficiency of the MoD.

The thousands of hardworking civil servants and military personnel involved in procurement have been let down by a failed system which has still not shaken off the Cold War mentality. And the effects are being felt on the frontline today. Defence reform must become a national endeavour, and all options for reform, no matter how radical, are on the table.

The Economic Backdrop

The government in office after the election, whenever it comes, will find itself with a military that is overstretched, undermanned and in possession of worn out equipment.

We know that the equipment programme is underfunded-by exactly how much is anyone's guess but most estimates measure the total in billions of pounds.

Bernard Gray placed the figure at £16bn over the next ten years. This equates to unfunded liability of £4.4 million per day.

The plunging value of the pound alone has left an estimated £1.3bn black hole in Britain's defence budget.

Current operations in Afghanistan are placing a strain on the core budget.

The Defence Secretary's recent statement on cuts-to the tune of £900m- in December confirmed what many have thought all along: that operations in Afghanistan are NOT fully funded from the Treasury Reserve despite what we have continuously been told.

We have learned from the testimony of former Defence Secretaries at the Chilcot Inquiry that the last SDR was never fully funded.

As Geoff Hoon stated during the Chilcot Inquiry, within the MoD there was:

'quite a strong feeling that the 1998 Strategic Defence Review was not fully funded' and that 'in the subsequent CSR programmes, we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received'.

Sir Kevin Tebbit said that as Permanent Secretary he had to operate in a permanent crisis budget.

More significantly, whatever happens at the election, the SDSR will be conducted against the most adverse financial backdrop for decades. As I said in the House of Commons last week, Government debt is some £799 billion. That is the equivalent of borrowing £1.1 million pounds every day since the birth of Christ.

As a consequence, what is waiting for the next Government is grim.

Defence cannot be immune from the economic realities but we should use the difficult challenges to grasp the opportunity for long overdue radical thinking and reform.

Conclusion

It is a dangerous world-you don't need me to tell you that. This Government is tired. The MoD needs a new vision and new life that only a new Government has the energy to provide.

The next SDSR will have to be a step change and full overhaul of the status quo-not a minor tinkering to the system.

It will be carried out ruthlessly and without sentiment. Tough decisions will be made and there will be winners and losers at the end of the process but Britain will be safe and our interests secure.

We are at a tipping point in Britain. We need to decide if we want to stay in the First Division or slide into the Second Division. I choose the former.

The fact that the last SDR was in 1998 is completely unacceptable.

This is why, on top of immediately conducting an SDSR, the Conservative Party has pledged to hold regular defence reviews every 4-5 years. If necessary we will put this requirement into legislation.

This will allow our Armed Forces to respond to new threats as they emerge and will also give the defence industry the predictability they require. The longer you wait between defence reviews the more instability you can expect.

But this will not be enough.

We need to be able to drive the process from one review to the next. Furthermore, we need a mechanism to absorb strategic shock.

If another 9/11 style event takes place-an event that alters the way we view global security, how can the Armed Forces absorb the shock of change if we are in between reviews. This capability will have to be built into the system.

For the Ministry of Defence a successful SDSR should:

* Allow our Armed Forces to succeed in today's war in Afghanistan and other current operations.
* Give our Armed Forces the flexibility and agility to respond to future threats-especially Hybrid threats combining traditional and asymmetric capabilities.
* Provide the framework for our Armed Forces to augment and support civil emergency and domestic security organisations when and where required.
* Enable our Armed Forces deter and prevent future conflicts.
* And will maximise and improve the levels of readiness of the Armed Forces and the ability to sustain them on operations.

Above all, we must have a coordinated response across the whole continuum of national security. The threats are real and immanent. Time will be of the essence.

no figures to go with the facts, of course, but his priorities are in the right place.

two things that stand out particularly:
1. The reference to not being sea-blind give me hope for a more navy-centric strategic doctrine at long last
2. The explicit reference to france as a key ally, and not the EU, recognition of the worth of the sovereign nation state

[Beskar]

Hey Furunculus, have you seen "Yes Prime Minister" ? What did you think of 'the Grand Plan'?

[Beskar]

I am surprised* I never saw this here.

*Not-surprised some people deliberately not mentioned it.

Tories show Labour how to do sums
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/15/tories-pregnancy-mistake

The Conservatives launched the attack document, called Labour's Two Nations, to try to show the rise in inequalities under the current government. It claimed – three times – that women under 18 are "three times more likely to fall pregnant in the most deprived areas compared to the least deprived areas. In the most deprived areas 54% are likely to fall pregnant before the age of 18, compared to just 19% in the least deprived areas."

Within hours, the Labour party had leapt on the accusation, showing that in the ten most deprived areas used by the Tories, the rate of conception is actually an average of 5.4%.



I am hoping they are not to set the VAT, or it will end up as 175%.

[Furunculus]

Hey Furunculus, have you seen "Yes Prime Minister" ? What did you think of 'the Grand Plan'?

awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)

[Boohugh]

awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)

It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.

[InsaneApache]

It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.

A very brave and bold move then.......:laugh4:

[Fragony]

http://express.lineone.net/posts/view/159400/77-want-a-cut-in-immigration-

So what now

[Beskar]

awesome program, don't remember it well enough to recognise the significance of the grand plan remark.....................? :)


It's Hacker's plan to cancel the proposed replacement for Polaris and spend the money on conventional forces instead, reintroducing conscription to solve the nations education and unemployment problems at the same time as boost defence :laugh4:.

Basically, it is this, but it is to cancel Trident, which frees up a large amount of money which could be put into the conventional armed forces, reintroduce national service to solve the massive school leavers unemployment problem by giving them experience, education and work ethic. This totals in helping solve problems in the undereducated, the unemployed and those not in training (NEETs) and same time, give a big boost to defence (your favourite subject)

[Furunculus]

Basically, it is this, but it is to cancel Trident, which frees up a large amount of money which could be put into the conventional armed forces, reintroduce national service to solve the massive school leavers unemployment problem by giving them experience, education and work ethic. This totals in helping solve problems in the undereducated, the unemployed and those not in training (NEETs) and same time, give a big boost to defence (your favourite subject)

ah yes, i remember now. lol.

a funny episode. i would never advocate conscription tho, wonderful way to wreck the effectiveness of a professional military fighting force. :p

[InsaneApache]

A future fair for all. Good. Now when is it going to be and will there be toffee apples and candy floss? I can't wait.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ah yes, i remember now. lol.

a funny episode. i would never advocate conscription tho, wonderful way to wreck the effectiveness of a professional military fighting force. :p

I dissagree on conscription, so long as conscripts aren't exepcted to fight outsdie of the homeland or in extremis I'm all for it. Why not, after all? I spent six years as a Forces Cadet as a teenager, another year of that, but getting to use the big guns, sounds fine to me.

[Beskar]

National Service would work best for those not going to university. They could get skills such as in construction, plumbing, and all sorts of various skills, medical and even administration work. It would mean there would be a lot of on-the-job training for those who are perhaps underqualified for anything other than stacking shelves.

Though as some one who went to university, got a degree, and completing a Masters, the whole concept if applied to me would be a pointless waste of time and effort, as I don't need it.

Though, you could perhaps argue that Nation Service could be the unemployment benefit for the young. Which would mean those who can get a job wouldn't be affected either.

[Furunculus]

we aren't a continental nation, w e don't need millions of ill-trained cannon fodder infantry to man the front line against the next clausvitzian total war.

we have always had (world wars excepted) small professional forces that when combined with a large professional navy have allowed us to apply crippling pain at critical foreign pressure points, conscription does not serve the UK's need.

[Beskar]

we aren't a continental nation, w e don't need millions of ill-trained cannon fodder infantry to man the front line against the next clausvitzian total war.

we have always had (world wars excepted) small professional forces that when combined with a large professional navy have allowed us to apply crippling pain at critical foreign pressure points, conscription does not serve the UK's need.

It is not to put them on the front-lines, they could do the home-front. Plus, they wouldn't be ill-trained as they would be in-training, and those that have left would be a benefitical addition to the workforce, thus it would bring economic improves, plus in a time of work, we would have a trained reserved. It sounds like something you usually want. A stronger armed forces, a better workforce (so more of that lovely GDP), plus it would be a reduction on both benefits and unemployment.

[Furunculus]

It is not to put them on the front-lines, they could do the home-front. Plus, they wouldn't be ill-trained as they would be in-training, and those that have left would be a benefitical addition to the workforce, thus it would bring economic improves, plus in a time of work, we would have a trained reserved. It sounds like something you usually want. A stronger armed forces, a better workforce (so more of that lovely GDP), plus it would be a reduction on both benefits and unemployment.

i dispute the stronger armed forces thing, but if you would like to see it funded from the DIUS budget, then fill your boots, just don't let them anywhere near the Defence budget, and don't let anyone mistake them for soldiers either!


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Department_for_Innovation,_Universities_and_Skills

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

National Service would work best for those not going to university. They could get skills such as in construction, plumbing, and all sorts of various skills, medical and even administration work. It would mean there would be a lot of on-the-job training for those who are perhaps underqualified for anything other than stacking shelves.

Though as some one who went to university, got a degree, and completing a Masters, the whole concept if applied to me would be a pointless waste of time and effort, as I don't need it.

Though, you could perhaps argue that Nation Service could be the unemployment benefit for the young. Which would mean those who can get a job wouldn't be affected either.


we aren't a continental nation, w e don't need millions of ill-trained cannon fodder infantry to man the front line against the next clausvitzian total war.

we have always had (world wars excepted) small professional forces that when combined with a large professional navy have allowed us to apply crippling pain at critical foreign pressure points, conscription does not serve the UK's need.

National Service should be universal, fitness allowing, otherwise it is an unfair imposition. A year of your life somewhere between 18 and 23 is not a big deal, and it would allow us to actually field an army when we need one. The reality, Furunculus, is that Britain has almost always been caught with its trousers down when it needs to fight a serious war. Twice in the Peninsular, and twice in the World Wars. National Service is used to good effect by the Swiss and Nordic countries and, excepting HoreTore, no one seems to complain that much.

[Beskar]

National Service should be universal, fitness allowing, otherwise it is an unfair imposition. A year of your life somewhere between 18 and 23 is not a big deal, and it would allow us to actually field an army when we need one. The reality, Furunculus, is that Britain has almost always been caught with its trousers down when it needs to fight a serious war. Twice in the Peninsular, and twice in the World Wars. National Service is used to good effect by the Swiss and Nordic countries and, excepting HoreTore, no one seems to complain that much.

Not true, a lot of people complain from those countries, and other ones like Singapore. Mainly because they are the intellectual elite and they are stuck doing stuff that they don't need to do. Also, in many of these nations, women aren't required to sign-up.

On the otherhand, to combat underskilled, unemployed, growth in population at school leave, national service can do a ton of good for those, of both sexes. However, if some one is a serious academic, then blowing a year on uselessness is simply that. Many national service systems however do allow those who go to university to skip national service.

[Boohugh]

I'm actually torn on conscription as I think it could be great for social reasons but terrible for military ones. I think it would be a good idea if everyone of both sexes did about a year of conscription when they turn 18 to instill the virtues of teamwork, discipline and determination, with only those actually being medically unsuitable (i.e. those with an actual medical condition such as having no legs, not just the fat chuffers who don't want to run!) being allowed exemption. Even those academically inclined would benefit in my opinion as having those traits will help whatever you do in life (some of the smartest people I've met don't always work that well in teams because they just haven't been exposed to those sorts of social interactions to any significant degree before) and I believe having a bit of discipline isn't just useful but necessary to really succeed at university.

On the other hand, conscription is totally pointless for military reasons. It takes a year just to instill the basics of being a soldier and constant training to keep those skills fresh, updated and relevant, so a conscript will never make an effective soldier and from a military perspective would generally be a liability, especially if asked to work alongside professional armed forces. Even Clauswitz recognised the fact that a conscript fighting force was only useful when fighting a war that threatened the existance of their state, as that would be the only time they were truely motivated to fight. If conscription was to be paid for out of the existing defence budget then no, I wouldn't support it, as keeping a professional, modern, credible fighting force is more important. If, however, it was paid for out of another budget (*cough* benefits *cough*) then I'd be all for it for social reasons, on the assumption the conscripts would never be asked to actually fight, unless we'd basically entered WW3 and the British state was threatened with extinction!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not true, a lot of people complain from those countries, and other ones like Singapore. Mainly because they are the intellectual elite and they are stuck doing stuff that they don't need to do. Also, in many of these nations, women aren't required to sign-up.

Personally, I like the idea of the political and intellectual elite getting their hands dirty.

[Furunculus]

shock horror, even students are more conservative:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/7286136/Modern-students-more-conservative-than-previous-generations.html

[Furunculus]

The reality, Furunculus, is that Britain has almost always been caught with its trousers down when it needs to fight a serious war. Twice in the Peninsular, and twice in the World Wars. National Service is used to good effect by the Swiss and Nordic countries and, excepting HoreTore, no one seems to complain that much.

flatly disagreed, i am with Boogugh here.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm actually torn on conscription as I think it could be great for social reasons but terrible for military ones. I think it would be a good idea if everyone of both sexes did about a year of conscription when they turn 18 to instill the virtues of teamwork, discipline and determination, with only those actually being medically unsuitable (i.e. those with an actual medical condition such as having no legs, not just the fat chuffers who don't want to run!) being allowed exemption. Even those academically inclined would benefit in my opinion as having those traits will help whatever you do in life (some of the smartest people I've met don't always work that well in teams because they just haven't been exposed to those sorts of social interactions to any significant degree before) and I believe having a bit of discipline isn't just useful but necessary to really succeed at university.

On the other hand, conscription is totally pointless for military reasons. It takes a year just to instill the basics of being a soldier and constant training to keep those skills fresh, updated and relevant, so a conscript will never make an effective soldier and from a military perspective would generally be a liability, especially if asked to work alongside professional armed forces. Even Clauswitz recognised the fact that a conscript fighting force was only useful when fighting a war that threatened the existance of their state, as that would be the only time they were truely motivated to fight. If conscription was to be paid for out of the existing defence budget then no, I wouldn't support it, as keeping a professional, modern, credible fighting force is more important. If, however, it was paid for out of another budget (*cough* benefits *cough*) then I'd be all for it for social reasons, on the assumption the conscripts would never be asked to actually fight, unless we'd basically entered WW3 and the British state was threatened with extinction!

I dissagree, it takes 12 weeks instill "the basics" and another nine months to produce a fighting soldier of the standard we deploy today. That's a fact. It takes about 6-12 weeks to bring former soldiers back up to speed after five years out in Civilian life. In today's world we will not have the luxury of a year to train another 200-400 thousand men in order to produce a remotely credible land army (more accurately, five armies). Given that the Government is either unwilling or unable to fund even one actual army today conscription would provide us with the necessary reserves of not just soldiers, but also sailors and aircrew, to defend ourselves.

[InsaneApache]

GORDON Brown dismissed claims of bullying last night and threatened to ruin the life of anyone who says different.


Mr Brown said that, like most people, he does occasionally behave like Frank from Blue Velvet
As Christine Pratt, the chief executive of the National Bullying Helpline, said the prime minister was a psycho, Mr Brown stressed it would be very difficult to run a helpline when all your phones have been cut off and your jaw is wired shut.

A Labour source said: "Ed Balls is already feeding all kinds of interesting facts about her to the Daily Mirror. Did you know she's a former member of the Real IRA who used to beat up Macmillan nurses in her spare time?

"And of course if that doesn't work we'll just get Alistair Campbell to take her out for a nice cup of coffee and show her a photograph of David Kelly."

Earlier Lord Mandelson appeared on BBC1's Andrew Marr Reads the Papers to defend Mr Brown and insisted the heavy bruising around his eyes and mouth had been caused by foolishly placing his head in the way of a flying laptop computer.

And on Saturday Mr Brown told Channel Four's Krishnan Guru-Murthy that he had never hit anyone in his life, before asking the interviewer where he lives and what time he usually gets home from work.

But despite fresh evidence of Mr Brown's raging psychosis, weekend polls show Labour closing the gap on the Tories as around one third of the country insisted Mr Brown had been under a lot of pressure recently and that it was really their fault for getting him so angry.

A Downing Street spokesman said: "Some weeks he's Spiderman and other weeks he is his own arch-nemesis, Doctor Octopus. It would appear we are in the midst of an octopus week."

Meanwhile Piers Morgan is to follow up his landmark interview with Mr Brown by asking Serbian general Ratko Mladic why he is so clever and how many dolly birds he pumped at university.

:laugh4:

It seems McRuin has stopped listening to the Arctic monkeys on a morning, instead he likes to work out on the old punch bag for an hour, then she gets up and makes him a cup of tea. :laugh4:

[Beskar]

:laugh4:

It seems McRuin has stopped listening to the Arctic monkeys on a morning, instead he likes to work out on the old punch bag for an hour, then she gets up and makes him a cup of tea. :laugh4:

The whole 'bullying' thing is simply retarded. "Boo-hoo, I am not doing my job and Mr. Brown is telling me off. I am going to run to the press with the latest nonsense story. That will serve him right."

[Justiciar]

A man in a position of authority and responsibility, under constant pressure and surrounded by back-stabbers snaps at a bunch of cretins occasionally. An obnoxious do-gooder attempts to make a petty issue a damned sight bigger than it really is with dubious claims and no proof beyond the statements of cretins and heresay. Opposition parties leap at the opportunity to jump up and down and make a meal of it in a desperate bid to better their election chances. Teenage boy roasts himself in sacrifice to Chris Kelly.

[Subotan]

Pfft. If civil servants can't stand the heat, then they should get out of the fire. I'd prefer a Prime Minister who was able to enforce his authority, even if he has to resort to "bullying", rather than a kindly, spineless one.


:laugh4:

It seems McRuin has stopped listening to the Arctic monkeys on a morning, instead he likes to work out on the old punch bag for an hour, then she gets up and makes him a cup of tea. :laugh4:
He doesn't listen to the Arctic Monkeys, that was a misquote. His love of Iron Maiden is well known though.

[Beskar]

We know Sir Humprey Appleby runs Downing Street anyway.

[JAG]

Seen the latest polls - almost as if I did a degree in this stuff I am so good, oh yeah, I did..

Coming to get you Tories!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Seen the latest polls - almost as if I did a degree in this stuff I am so good, oh yeah, I did..

Coming to get you Tories!

If Labour gets a fourth term whilst achieving a minority of English vote there will be a constitional crisis. Not to mention, Labour is rotten to the core right now and needs to be purged with fire before they are ever fit to govern again.

[Beskar]

If Labour gets a fourth term whilst achieving a minority of English vote there will be a constitional crisis. Not to mention, Labour is rotten to the core right now and needs to be purged with fire before they are ever fit to govern again.

Viva la Armchair Revolution ?

I personally think Liberal Democrats should win, just so Labour and Conservatives get the kick in the teeth, so they actually reform themselves based on policy and not just "out to grab as many votes as possible."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Viva la Armchair Revolution ?

Viva la Regina.

anything but more of this lot.

[Justiciar]

If Labour gets a fourth term whilst achieving a minority of English vote there will be a constitional crisis. Not to mention, Labour is rotten to the core right now and needs to be purged with fire before they are ever fit to govern again.
Oh aye. It's the Tories turn to show the depths of their ineptitude and depravity, isn't it? All power to them. And no worries, even if they somehow prove a bigger bunch of ejits than Labour they're bound to get back into power sooner or later. Huzzah for democracy.


Anything but more of this lot."Cameron and chums. They can't be worse. Can they?" Insert big picture of some smarmy git with a shiny face.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh aye. It's the Tories turn to show the depths of their ineptitude and depravity, isn't it? All power to them. And no worries, even if they somehow prove a bigger bunch of ejits than Labour they're bound to get back into power sooner or later. Huzzah for democracy.

"Cameron and chums. They can't be worse. Can they?" Insert big picture of some smarmy git with a shiny face.

Odd, my quote doesn't quite match your post. Mods?

Anyway, I suspect the Tories will be better, or at least will not pursue the same policies Labour have to such disastrous result. For starter, multiculturalism is dead and therefore Cameron and Co. have no interest in supporting it. Labour, however, have supported it to the hilt and are unlikely to about-turn. Also, Labour has a vested electoral advantage in pandering to the extremists in our minority groups.

[Subotan]

Oh aye. It's the Tories turn to show the depths of their ineptitude and depravity, isn't it? All power to them. And no worries, even if they somehow prove a bigger bunch of ejits than Labour they're bound to get back into power sooner or later. Huzzah for democracy
I'm a Labour supporter, and I'd rather Labour have a close defeat over a close victory, as the next Parliament is going to be amazingly unpopular by the end of it, regardless of the party with the majority.


Also, Labour has a vested electoral advantage in pandering to the extremists in our minority groups.
Sauce.

[Furunculus]

I'm a Labour supporter, and I'd rather Labour have a close defeat over a close victory, as the next Parliament is going to be amazingly unpopular by the end of it, regardless of the party with the majority.


yes, as usual the Cons are the ones who have to pick up the pieces, and try and return a shambles to a functioning entity.

[Beskar]

yes, as usual the Cons are the ones who have to pick up the pieces, and try and return a shambles to a functioning entity.

When did they last do that?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Last time they ousted Labour. There was a very good reason the party couldn't get elected for 18 years.

[InsaneApache]

When did they last do that?

Everytime that Labour nuked the economy. I was around in '79 and it was grim, very grim. Compared to this time though, it's like a walk in the park in comparison.

With a small amount of research you will find that every Labour govt. has left office with unemployment higher, stirling devalued, inflation rampant (watch this space after QE) and the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Economically and fiscally incontinent doesn't even come close to describe these fantasists.

[Furunculus]

When did they last do that?

i am amazed that you have to ask this question, but i see that answering it is not necessary since various people have already provided the answer; 1979.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Everytime that Labour nuked the economy. I was around in '79 and it was grim, very grim. Compared to this time though, it's like a walk in the park in comparison.

With a small amount of research you will find that every Labour govt. has left office with unemployment higher, stirling devalued, inflation rampant (watch this space after QE) and the poor poorer and the rich richer.

Economically and fiscally incontinent doesn't even come close to describe these fantasists.

Well, if Labour actually eliminate poverty, lack of social mobility, etc. they would have no constituants. Which is why Maggie tried to increase wealth and social mobility accross the board; to destroy the Labour vote.

[InsaneApache]

Well, if Labour actually eliminate poverty, lack of social mobility, etc. they would have no constituants. Which is why Maggie tried to increase wealth and social mobility accross the board; to destroy the Labour vote.

Funny you should say that. T'other week I was chatting with one of the wifes friends who's Labour through and through. Always voted Labour, always will. Bit like being a footy fan, if you will. She was griping and moaning about how her pension and benefits were going to be reduced and it was all Maggies fault. :dizzy2: The way she was talking you'd have thought she left office last year, not twenty years ago. :laugh4:

Anyroad, I said to her, "You do realise that Labour has a vested interest in keeping poor people poorer and if possible drag a few more down into the bog".

She said, "How do you work that out?"

That sums up the quality of most of Labour support.

[Beskar]

I was watching an episode of Yes Prime Minister, in the 2nd season, in specific, it is called "Power to the People".

What is amazing, it says the kind of system I want to implement, and how it would solve the political party nonsense.

Unfortunately, Hacker, a crazy-militant feminist lady and Sir Humphrey all rejected it. Apparently, it would make it so crazy-feminist wouldn't be elected, it would stop Civil Service ironfist control, and the people wouldn't support Hacker if it came about. Typical. :cry:

[Subotan]

I was around in '79 and it was grim, very grim.
And 80-82/91-92 weren't?



With a small amount of research you will find that every Labour govt. has left office with unemployment higher.
Wrong, Clement Atlees government maintained consistent low unemployment. Afterwards, the Conservative government managed to achieve in 13 years lower rates of growth than the rest of Europe and high unemployment when it left office. And as for Thatcherism:
http://www.economicshelp.org/uploaded_images/unemployment-71-05-736294.gif

Hmmm...

stirling devalued
So? There are times when this may be appropriate such as, ah, Black Wednesday.


inflation rampant
Just like Heath's then? At least we never got a three day week under Labour.


and the poor poorer and the rich richer.
I can't confirm this, but what I do know is that the Tories was far more successful at infecting this particular wound.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/joepublic/2009/oct/07/unequal-ageing-conservative-cuts

[Furunculus]

Admiral Stanhopes address to the International Institute of Strategic Studies:
http://www.iiss.org/recent-key-addresses/admiral-sir-mark-stanhope-address/

Why do i mention this in an election thread?
Because both political parties have promised Defence Reviews at a time of budget cutbacks, so the question of what capabilities we keep, and what we lose, is both imminent and critical.

If you think the RN is important, go find a petition on the no10 website and sign the thing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Funny you should say that. T'other week I was chatting with one of the wifes friends who's Labour through and through. Always voted Labour, always will. Bit like being a footy fan, if you will. She was griping and moaning about how her pension and benefits were going to be reduced and it was all Maggies fault. :dizzy2: The way she was talking you'd have thought she left office last year, not twenty years ago. :laugh4:

Anyroad, I said to her, "You do realise that Labour has a vested interest in keeping poor people poorer and if possible drag a few more down into the bog".

She said, "How do you work that out?"

That sums up the quality of most of Labour support.

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.

[Subotan]

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.
You still need a substantial proportion of the working class to exist to fuel the Tories' claims of a "broken society" though. If everyone was rich, we'd all vote for the Lib Dems, but having a underclass allows the Conservative Party to enforce their moral agenda upon the rest of us Britons.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

[Furunculus]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

lol.

[InsaneApache]

Indeed. :fishing:

[Subotan]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.

I totally agree. When it comes to the crunch of governance, the Tories will put their chums before the people of Britain.

[Louis VI the Fat]

:fishing:One will find that poverty is lowest in the countries with strongest social-democratic policies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Poverty_Index

[InsaneApache]

Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month. :balloon2:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh what utter rubbish. The notion that Labour wants to create poor people, and the Tories rich people that is.


If it were up to Labour, every Briton has beef on his plate.

If it were up to the Tories, the British would still be slaving away 14 hours a day, from the age of five. Sweatshop UK Ltd and all that, the Britain before social-democracy took hold.

I think you have fundamentally misunderstood British politics.

[JAG]

It's basic common sense, Labour needs more poor people; the Conservatives need more wealthy people. Ergo, if you want to be wealthy vote Tory.

I do not think I have ever seen since a piece of utter bullshit. If you actually believe that - blimey you need help.

[JAG]

Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month. :balloon2:

He is also an ass... And in lock step with the Tories, so he is probably floating that for their benefit. The election is going to be when everyone expects it to be, there is no benefit for Brown in bringing it forward now, with the polls narrowing more and more everyday - unless he feels we will go back into negative economic growth and after today's figures it does not look like that will happen. The Tories are doing what they have done over the last 13 years, panic.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I do not think I have ever seen since a piece of utter bullshit. If you actually believe that - blimey you need help.

Really? Think about it for a moment. When Thatcher came to power she increased wealth and tried to get people to buy their Council houses, because wealthy home owners vote Tory.

Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers. In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.

Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.

Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".

[Beskar]

Really? Think about it for a moment. When Thatcher came to power...

Where will this go?...


she increased wealth

By stripping the nation of its assets to fund an unworkable system... (also, she basically gave those assets away)


and tried to get people to buy their Council houses

At a very undervalued price, which caused chaos due to lack of Council Housing for those who need it. and at the undervalued rate actually caused a netloss all around in taxes, council funds, interest and a host of other things, which resulted in only the buyer benefiting while everyone else suffered.


because wealthy home owners vote Tory.

Council House = Wealthy?


Poor inner city people and people on benefits vote Labour, so do public sector workers.

So poor people vote labour? Those dirty poor people, they should get a job and go to Eton. When they are getting 150,000 p.a. then they can be a good ol' conservative voter like you.


In the past twelve years the things that have increased the most are the benefits budget and the public sector. I'm not saying Labour deliberately create poor people but they won't try to make people self sufficient. Instead, they prop people up using the public sector.

In summary - You rob a old man of his walking stick, so he can walk. Rob some ones glasses to make them see. Instead of trying to get people off the streets, you should just let them stay on them. What a compassionate person you are, wanting to kick people when they are down. But no, wait, getting people out of poverty some how makes them poor... Some logic somewhere might make sense to you, but it doesn't to me. I think soical welfare and support is quite explanatory and does completely the opposite result then you are suggesting.

Also, just to actually explain to people, what you mean by public sector - Increased Healthcare (NHS) and Increased Education (Schools, etc), etc. It sounds far less omnimous now.


Labour is bad for wealth; it balloons the public sector and that creates a bubble and stiffles private enterprise. This is why all Labour Chancellors run out of money and the gap between rich and poor increases.

Right, so your solution is to do the opposite? Slash all the public welfare and support programmes (which affects poor people the most), redistrubute taxes from the rich to the poor (which widens the gap), etc... or you are not sure what you are talking about.


Labour is ideologically incompetent and out of date; all Blair did was paper of the cracks. If you want proof of this you just need to look at the 50% tax rate and the Bi-election they lost in a safe seat because they called the challenger "a Tory Toff".

We don't have a 50% tax-rate... Only people who will have a 50% tax-rate are those earning over £150,000, which came in this year and those earning over £150,000 won't be affected much. Afterall, all, joe bloggs down here have the average wage of what, 18,000? I am sure they can manage that tax fine. If you are wondering. Basic rate tax we pay is 20%.

[InsaneApache]

Typical socialist claptrap.

[Beskar]

Typical socialist claptrap.

... or as Colbert puts it, "Reality has a well-established liberal bias."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

[Beskar]

some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

The conservatives were number 1 supports in increasing the costs for University, so unfortunately, you are placing bets on the losing side. Also, poor people don't spend all their lives sucking the "government tit", as you said yourself, you are not one of them, I am not one of them either, etc.

[JAG]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

Why do you address this to me? I didn't even respond to your second post..? Never mind.

And as for that second post of yours - if you believe that Labour's motivation for giving poor people more benefits is to increase their vote share - then again I say, you need help.

[JAG]

Jag, I was born into the rural working class/bottom of the middle class; I went to an under-performing Comprehensive. Despite having a graduate-level job and two degrees I earn below 18,000 because I live in a poor county (Devon).

So sod off.

Not all poor people want to spend their lives sucking the government tit, some of us just want a little leg up in the form of a decent education and not being bankrupted by university.

And as for this post, wow, what a piece of self deception.

Firstly a 'little leg up' is what drives Labour politicians and the Labour party, in fact not a 'little' leg up but a real, sizeable and lasting leg up so that those who are not born into money are not left behind and defined by it. We believe that there is more to a person than their circumstance - and that is what drives those of us who are in and campaign for the Labour party.

You cite education and universitys - yet are voting Tory? Excuse me have I missed something over the last 24 years of my life? Who is it that pushes MORE funding - and delivered - pushes MORE places for people who want, yet can't afford to go. The Labour party is REJECTING Tory appeals to INCREASE top up fees, and though it was introduced by Labour - under significant rebel opposition, if you forget a 161 majority was reduced to 5 due to Labour party opposition in the house - there were vast increases in grants to poorer students so they avoided the fee's altogether. Which party has updated our school buildings which were in TERRIBLE shape because of chronic underfunding by successive TORY governments, but I guess you are too bitter to see all this, all you see is Labour bad right? You have some cheek in declaring yourself disgusted with Labour yet give two examples of areas where the Labour party is one which actually attempts to deal with the actual problems for underpriviledged kids, yet the Tories only care if it affects middle class areas. Disgusting, nothing gets me more pissed off than people who vote Conservative preach about things they don't give a sh.. about, or if they do, are simply too ignorant to realise what they are voting for.