The United Kingdom Elections 2010 [Archive] - Page 3

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-27-2010, 12:45

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

We shall see, from what I have read, however, compulsory voting simply favours the parties near the top of the ballot. This has, apparently, been the case in Australia.

And as for this post, wow, what a piece of self deception.

We shall see, follow this now:

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.

Labour raises taxes for the poorest, then increases benefits and employs more functionaries and creates more red tape to administer the system. Net loss to the government, and probably the average tax payer because they can't understand the system and don't get their dues.

Better to reduce taxes and fire the tax-men.

Also, don't spin me the whole "we don't want you to be defined by your circumstances" rubbish. As a Liberal I believe that wholeheartedly.

You cite education and universitys - yet are voting Tory? Excuse me have I missed something over the last 24 years of my life?

Well, if you're 24 you (like me) missed Labour "top up" fees. I vote Tory because Geoffrey Cox is a Tory, prior to that I would have voted Lib-Dem because our last man was Lib-Dem. I'm not an ideologue like you; but I see Labour's rank corruption and incompetence and I want them gone.

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.

So, top up fees are wrong, but still a good thing? My sister is currently studying and she pays full wallop. Those grants don't cover the additional expense, or anywhere near.

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?

I'm not bitter, sorry. Educational standards have continued to decline throughout the late 90's, only exam results have improved. Massively excessive spending has done nothing to improve social mobility, university is still dominated by the Public Schools because the state system is crap.

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.

The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.

Beskar

02-27-2010, 14:13

So, top up fees are wrong, but still a good thing? My sister is currently studying and she pays full wallop. Those grants don't cover the additional expense, or anywhere near.

Your sister pays the whole 11k per year tution fees that foriegn-students pay? Or are you saying that she pays all the costs herself with no parental support?

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.

The Tories do not stand for screwing over the common man; what they stand for is fiscal responsibility.

Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.

tibilicus

02-27-2010, 14:19

Personally I think we'll see a Parliament with a small Tory majority. Yes, labour have been making gains in the polls but I'm not sure it will be enough.

In all honestly though they would of done better if they ditched Brown a couple of months ago. That guy is damaged goods. I think the problem that a lot of people see is not the Labour party itself, but the guy leading it. He's attached politically to two very unpopular wars, questionable economic decisions and numerous other bad decisions.

I'm not really writing this from the point of view of a Tory/ Labour supporter, I probably wont actually vote at the next election, I don't see much point. Besides, my constituency is the fourth safest Tory seat in the country, therefore it's kind of irrelevant anyway.

Edit:

JAG might have a point..

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/feb/26/david-cameron-prepares-hung-parliament

Beskar

02-27-2010, 14:47

I personally think the Liberal Democrats should win, just because it will shock everyone.

Labour and Conservatives are both power hungry dogs just trying to gobble everything up like pac-man. Getting some fresh air in parliament will do it some good. It is just a shame that those who go "but they are the 3rd party, blah blah blah" should actually vote for them, instead of doing that dull mantra, then you would actually see them do it.

Beskar

02-27-2010, 15:16

Tories reveal using "Obama Dinner Plan" to win over voters

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8539619.stm

David Cameron and his croonies have revealed their new election slogan "Change we can" which is expected to be a hit with the illiterate dietry masses as inspired by Obama in the US elections.

Mr Osbourne comments:
"Our country stands at one of those moments when our forks come across a dinner table laden with either a fruit tart or a profiterole - and we have to make our choice."
"We can either continue with eating strawberries, oranges, apple, laden with a sticky fruit syrup and pastry in an attempt to give our country a 5-a-day special"
"That is Labour's choice. It always has been. We know where it leads and we must never allow this country to be dragged there once again." whilst making motions of stomach trouble.
"Or we can change the dessert - accept the difficult truth and get ourselves a mountain of chocolate covered, pastry puffs filled with cream, and create the flabs of a Britain that works for all. That is the Conservative path"

Tory front bencher Theresa May said the party would be setting out "real change" that the country needed as she eyes up the profiteroles.

Labour's Douglas Alexander said the proposals were "reckless".

Labour, holding a Welsh Labour Party conference in Swansea, will argue that Tory policies would damage the fight against obesity.

They will use the Conservative conference as an opportunity to launch a new poster attacking Mr Osborne over his proposed change, suggesting he will use full-fat cream and not a semi-skimmed variant in his profiteroles.

The election must be held by June but is expected to take place on 6 May. Recent polls have suggested the Conservative lead over Labour may be narrowing.

The message of change likely to be central to David Cameron's main speech on Sunday.

It was a theme underlined by Ms May, shadow minister for work and pensions.
She told the BBC: "Over 80% of people think this country is going in the wrong direction for desserts."

Danny Alexander MP for the Liberal Democrats:
"For people who want real change, real fairness in Britain there is only one choice: the Liberal Democrats with their choice of a strawberry sundae with optional extras such as wafer stick and chocolate sprinkles"
"Labour has totally failed to make Britain tastier, and the Tories can't be trusted to."

Ian Jenkings, Green Party representative:
"It is a case of the major parties policies of 'have your cake and eat it' which started this in the first place."

bobbin

02-27-2010, 17:58

I think that whole "change" tactic is doomed to fail, David Cameron isn't Barak Obama (who in the election at least really was different from most US politcians in recent years), he isn't bringing anything new to the table.

People are hardly going to swallow the whole "change" message when Cameron comes from the same Eton/Oxford wealthy background as most Tory leaders came from and when he proposes many policies that are conservative classics (raising the inheritance tax threshold for example). His choice of colleages doesn't help either (Letwin anyone?).

Also the Labour government is nowhere near as unpopular as the republicans were in 2009 and there are a lot of people who are still very bitter about ations taken during the last Tory governments .

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.
Not having to pay tuition fees* is one of my favorite joys of being scottish.

*kind of, if you earn above a certain threshold (11 or 15k i can't remember) you have to pay back a ~2k lump sum but thats all.

Myrddraal

02-27-2010, 18:16

:laugh4: That spoof was great Beskar! :bow:

Furunculus

02-27-2010, 18:42

:laugh4: That spoof was great Beskar! :bow:

agreed, it gave me a laugh.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2010, 01:06

Your sister pays the whole 11k per year tution fees that foriegn-students pay? Or are you saying that she pays all the costs herself with no parental support?

Neither, she has a loan, but I was given a grant to cover ALL my undergraduate fees. My sister worked and saved for two years prior to Uni, while savings made when she was born have covered some of the cost for thsi year. However, my parents may have to dig her out and that might involve them having a mortgage for the first time in over 25 years.

If it is the latter, I know exactly what you mean, I study full-time and have a part-time job, so I could continue at University. What is even worse, I was denied a student-loan for my Masters, so I had to pay for that myself without any support.

This is totally notmal, I'm afraid. I saved in order to study my Master's degree, got no help from our overlords, and thence emptied my bank account.

Thatcher's Poll tax says it all. They shift all the "fiscal responsbility" onto the poor people, while the rich get richer. Then the rich complain about the taxes while earning 5 to 6 times more money at least than the average person on the street. It is a joke.

Thatcher's Poll-Tax was 20 years ago now. What's more, the much maliigned tax makes a certain sense, you shouldn't have to sell your home once you retire just because it's nice and you worked hard. In the same vein, a small house full of people puts a greater stress on public services. The Poll-Tax was a means of introducing a per-Capita tax for local services.

The alternative was to raise the base rate of income tax, again.

In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.

Beskar

02-28-2010, 02:02

Thatcher's Poll-Tax was 20 years ago now. What's more, the much maliigned tax makes a certain sense, you shouldn't have to sell your home once you retire just because it's nice and you worked hard. In the same vein, a small house full of people puts a greater stress on public services. The Poll-Tax was a means of introducing a per-Capita tax for local services.

That is never the case though. No one sells their house unless which seems to be typical, granparents sell their two-storey house for a bungalow (which are usually more expensive but and smaller).

Also, public services are the same. You only have a certain quota they collect for garbage, no matter who lives in the house. Also, it is only poor people who have high number of people in the house, compared to those who are wealthy, so the poll-tax affected poor people more than anyone else. Since they were all in the house in the first place, since they can't afford to live in smaller numbers.

In any case, ancient political history is not indicitive of the current party. That goes for both sides; one should no more assume the Tories are all Toffs than Labour all Communists and Anarchists.

I just have to point out that old Labour were Socialists.

However, since there have been changes since those days, New Labour is pretty much "Middle Class" politics now a days with Tories as "Upper Middle Class and Upper Class" politics. Only people on the grass roots level of any sort are the Green party, BNP, Respect. So unfortunately, Tories are still quite Toffee. Well, I have to admit, looking at the political party groups on Campus, it is quite amusing. You get to see unwashed Greens, Conservatives in suits, Labour seemingly casual smart/scruffish with casual smart members being New Labour, and scruffish ones are Old Labour. Liberal Democrats seem to be strange mix of people who are fiercely zealous in promoting themselves.

Furunculus

02-28-2010, 04:37

However, since there have been changes since those days, New Labour is pretty much "Middle Class" politics now a days with Tories as "Upper Middle Class and Upper Class" politics. Only people on the grass roots level of any sort are the Green party, BNP, Respect. So unfortunately, Tories are still quite Toffee. Well, I have to admit, looking at the political party groups on Campus, it is quite amusing. You get to see unwashed Greens, Conservatives in suits, Labour seemingly casual smart/scruffish with casual smart members being New Labour, and scruffish ones are Old Labour. Liberal Democrats seem to be strange mix of people who are fiercely zealous in promoting themselves.
stereotypes are a wonderful thing, i was the scruffy gimp wearing surfer rags............... who was also a toffee nosed tory.

JAG

02-28-2010, 05:20

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7044185.ece

And to think, you people doubt me -

GORDON BROWN is on course to remain prime minister after the general election as a new Sunday Times poll reveals that Labour is now just two points behind the Tories.

The YouGov survey places David Cameron’s Conservatives on 37%, as against 35% for Labour — the closest gap between the parties in more than two years.

It means Labour is heading for a total of 317 seats, nine short of an overall majority, with the Tories languishing on a total of just 263 MPs. Such an outcome would mean Brown could stay in office and deny Cameron the keys to No 10.

As for the 'well this is just one poll' - go look at the very brilliant and impartial UK polling report (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/). When people focus with the election coming, the polls were always going to narrow - the question was, and still is, how do the Tories react and deal with it and thus far they have done terribly.

Furthermore I have been trying to get my head around the Tory strategy - their new one that is - for the last week and I simply cannot fathom it. People do NOT want significant change, they simply didn't like Brown all that much and didn't like the recession. People have consistantly liked what Labur stand for over the Tories all through this period - it is the reason Cameron went to such lengths to show he had changed his party's policies. People do not want significant change when it comes to economic policy, people do not want striking, stringent tax cuts and public spending cuts. People do not want schools being, effectively, privately run pet projects by big business and busy bodies - they want every school to be better and well funded. Yet The Tories are going into the election with a huge change message - it isn't what the people want. People have had one hell of a hard time over the last year and a half and they want stability and a sure hand and Labour are increasingly being effective at making people criticise and look at the Tory position, rather than the governenments action. With a platform of significant change - it only gets easier.

I find it quite mind boggling to say the least - anyway as a Labour member and campaigner, I am loving it. And people should learn never to doubt me ;)

CountArach

02-28-2010, 08:45

Yep there is no denying that the polling has shown some sort of narrowing... my bet is on a hung parliament with the Lib Dems giving Labour government.

Furunculus

02-28-2010, 12:27

there is no doubt the polls have narrowed, whether that will be emulated on election day is another matter, lots of people are pressuring the Cons to see their own special interest invades Conservative HQ consciousness.

I have made plain that i will vote UKIP unless I see something worthwhile on the EU and Defence.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in other news; labour is infiltrated by islamic radicals:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html

Beskar

02-28-2010, 14:59

stereotypes are a wonderful thing, i was the scruffy gimp wearing surfer rags............... who was also a toffee nosed tory.

I was actually house mates with a Conservative councillor (laugh all you like), he was also quite toffee too. In his spare time, he was always scruffy looking and you wouldn't suspect it, except for boxes and rows of ties and various suits he had. He came from some rural posh area from the south, and had lots of money.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf too (dumdeedum!) but it makes sense since he was a History Student.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2010, 15:18

I just have to point out that old Labour were Socialists.

On paper, but they had significant Communist and Anarchist wings. You don't pick the colour Red during the Cold War casually.

stereotypes are a wonderful thing, i was the scruffy gimp wearing surfer rags............... who was also a toffee nosed tory.

Quite standard. You aren't from within a 100 mile radius of Guildford, are you?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7044185.ece

And to think, you people doubt me -

As for the 'well this is just one poll' - go look at the very brilliant and impartial UK polling report (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/). When people focus with the election coming, the polls were always going to narrow - the question was, and still is, how do the Tories react and deal with it and thus far they have done terribly.

Furthermore I have been trying to get my head around the Tory strategy - their new one that is - for the last week and I simply cannot fathom it. People do NOT want significant change, they simply didn't like Brown all that much and didn't like the recession. People have consistantly liked what Labur stand for over the Tories all through this period - it is the reason Cameron went to such lengths to show he had changed his party's policies. People do not want significant change when it comes to economic policy, people do not want striking, stringent tax cuts and public spending cuts. People do not want schools being, effectively, privately run pet projects by big business and busy bodies - they want every school to be better and well funded. Yet The Tories are going into the election with a huge change message - it isn't what the people want. People have had one hell of a hard time over the last year and a half and they want stability and a sure hand and Labour are increasingly being effective at making people criticise and look at the Tory position, rather than the governenments action. With a platform of significant change - it only gets easier.

I find it quite mind boggling to say the least - anyway as a Labour member and campaigner, I am loving it. And people should learn never to doubt me ;)

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.

Does that mean nothing to you?

I was actually house mates with a Conservative councillor (laugh all you like), he was also quite toffee too. In his spare time, he was always scruffy looking and you wouldn't suspect it, except for boxes and rows of ties and various suits he had. He came from some rural posh area from the south, and had lots of money.

He also had a copy of Mein Kampf too (dumdeedum!) but it makes sense since he was a History Student.

Ok, I'm betting this one was from near Alton (Hampshire/Surrey border, Hampshire side).

Furunculus

02-28-2010, 15:42

Quite standard. You aren't from within a 100 mile radius of Guildford, are you?

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

i should point out that i have no idea what the phrase "toffee nosed" is supposed to signify in class-war parlance, i just used it because it appears to be the traditional epithet applied to a tory. if it means i was rich and/or privileged then i certainly am not.
merely pointing out that tories at uni don't all have a wardrobe full of suits and a tie-press in their 'digs'.

it is fairly disgraceful that this imbalance still exists, even after the electoral boundary commission had its last go at straightening things out.

JAG

02-28-2010, 15:47

So you're happy that Labour will get 50 or so more more seats with 2% less of the vote? That is hideous!

WE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A DEMOCRACY.

Does that mean nothing to you?

I support a change in the voting system, but the Tory party and the right wing in this country does not. Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats. So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.

naut

02-28-2010, 15:59

Guido Faulkes is suggesting the election could be soon. Next month. :balloon2:
Doesn't give me time to overseas register. Not that I was going to anyway. I'd rather eat sandpaper than vote either Tory or Labour. And the Lib Dems are like 'Magical Floating Candy-dispensing Models', a nice idea, but not really feasible.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

02-28-2010, 16:12

I support a change in the voting system, but the Tory party and the right wing in this country does not.

This:

it is fairly disgraceful that this imbalance still exists, even after the electoral boundary commission had its last go at straightening things out.

Get it? We're not fooled, voting reform is a smoke screen to hide the reality of the situation. One man (or woman), one vote; one vote is used to elect one MP. The problem is that it takes fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than any other kind.

Plus just because the voting might put Labour 2% down over the whole country, it is likely Labour will be 15% up - at least - in Sctoland, double didgits up in Wales and in most big cities, Labour will sweep the seats.

Wales and Scotland have too many MP's relative to their population. This sop to their fear of being dominated is especially disturbing given the high level of Anti-Anglo sentiment.

So you want democracy? I think a party - The Tories - who will win 1 seat in both Scotland and Wales, and little representation in urban Northern cities, is not a good billboard for democracy. So before you start screaming abour Labour, maybe just state that the system sucks.

Labour had the chance to enact reform in 1997, as I recall they re-drew the boundaries to make it harder to oust them.

gaelic cowboy

02-28-2010, 17:24

Yep there is no denying that the polling has shown some sort of narrowing... my bet is on a hung parliament with the Lib Dems giving Labour government.

That would not be a good idea for Lib Dems the voters of Lib Dems would likely be annoyed they allowed labour to stay in power and obviously Tories would never waste a chance to proclaim that the people had been denied etc etc. Course they will be secretly hoping to cause them to walk across the floor and then using them as a figure of public hate for all the things they will end up doing the public.

Lib Dems will have to go Tory even if its not a natural home for then politically. however it is possible the Tories may not get enough with Lib dems to convene a government this election is shaping up to be a far better run than I expected. It will be hilarious to see them all incapable of copping that the public hold them ALL in contempt.

Furunculus

03-07-2010, 10:28

looks like the convention against standing in the Speakers constituency during elections is now thoroughly broken:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100028696/is-anyone-else-planning-to-stand-in-buckingham/

to paraphase someone earlier in this thread, who said they would rather have a decisive leader like brown, i give you our decisive leader:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7386439/As-Chancellor-Gordon-Brown-did-not-understand-defence.html

Subotan

03-07-2010, 14:31

Farage just wants to become an MP, and is willing to resort to any dirty tricks to get his bum on a green seat. Hence, the convention breaking.

KukriKhan

03-07-2010, 16:48

...to see them all incapable of copping that the public hold them ALL in contempt.

That's a prevailing mood over here too. "T'row da bums out!" is always present, though this year it seems to be capturing the minds of more and more voters, Dem, Repub and Indie.

Louis VI the Fat

03-07-2010, 17:15

Lord Ashcroft goes from Tory saviour to election liability in marginal seats

The financial clout that has given the Conservatives a dominant position in the polls has rebounded spectacularly with last week's revelations about the tax status of the man with the cash
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/07/lord-ashcroft-donations-marginal-seats

[...]

"It is huge, huge. We are putting it in every letter. Why should a billionaire who does not pay full taxes in this country be allowed to buy the election in places like this?"Ashcroft, a deputy chairman of the party, has used his huge personal fortune to fund Tory campaigns in dozens of marginal seats, the ones that the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives) must seize to win the next election. The secretive Ashcroft has run his own nerve centre at party headquarters masterminding the strategy that could bring Cameron to power. Since Cameron became party leader in 2005, the peer, who is a close friend of the shadow foreign secretary, William Hague (whom he flies round the world in his personal jet), has donated more than £5m.
His influence on policy and tactics is immense. Although not an elected politician, or a member of the Tory frontbench, he has accompanied Hague to Washington, Cuba, China, Panama, the Falklands and the Turks and Caicos Islands in recent months, prompting speculation that he will be given a ministerial role under a Conservative government. Labour has also raised concerns that Ashcroft may have used the visits with Hague to open doors to talks with business leaders in those countries.

The row over Lord Ashcroft's donations to the Tory party threatened to erupt into a full-blown constitutional crisis last night as questions were raised over whether the Queen (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/queen) and the former prime minister, Tony Blair (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/tonyblair), had granted him a peerage under false pretences.

As David Cameron's aides confirmed that Ashcroft would be retiring as Tory deputy chairman after the election, the Liberal Democrats called on the cabinet secretary, Sir Gus O'Donnell, to publish all documents relating to the peerage as a matter of urgency, so that it could be established whether the sovereign had been misled.

The monarch confers honours mostly on the advice of the Cabinet Office and the prime minister. Ashcroft's declaration last week that he was a "non-dom" has been seen to contradict "clear and unequivocal" assurances given to the then Tory leader, William Hague, that he would take up permanent residence in the UK before the end of 2000. This assurance was seen as crucial. Members of Blair's inner circle suggest the former prime minister now feels he has been misled.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/mar/07/queen-tony-blair-michael-ashcroft

The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.

Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.

Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-07-2010, 19:16

The Tories are buying marghinal seats with the money supplied by a tax refugee. Moreover, a tax refugee who was raised to the peerage under assurances of his paying his taxes in the UK. Which turned out to have been a lie, a scam to misled the Queen and PM.

Not that the Tories mind. Despite their posturising on corruption, Ashcroft has bought himself huge influence within the party with money that belongs to the British taxpayer.

Still the ancient Tory reflex: taxes are for the little people.

Hur, hur! Ashcroft is being delicately disengaged by Cameron, and Hague. The interesting thing will be to see if Osbourne says something stupid and is finally replaced by Clarke (oh, God, please let it happen!).

With that said, the money does not belong to the tax payer because Labour has not, in twelve years, reformed the Tax Code. This may be because they have their own non-dom Peers and benifactorcs.

Furunculus

03-08-2010, 09:50

Louis VI the Fat

03-08-2010, 12:28

hmmm, what did that report into ashcroft conclude..........................?The conclusion? The conclusion is that the Tories are sneaky, cheating bastards who made common cause with a billionaire tax evaser. But nothing illegal, no. The only thing that was broken, was the spirit of the law and the morality of the Party. Well done!

Sir Hayden Phillips, then the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, also disclosed that the revised terms under which the billionaire businessman became a peer had been fully approved by House of Lords Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
In comments welcomed by Lord Ashcroft's supporters, he said: "I wanted to make sure that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative party leadership were of one mind as to what he was agreeing to, and that was agreed.

"I agree the words that were then formulated were different from those that were originally announced, but both the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative leadership at the time agreed with those words ... Let's be clear about one thing, there is nothing illegal in what has occurred." Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was at the centre of a political storm throughout last week after he revealed on Monday that he is a "non dom": a status which means he does not have to pay tax on his substantial overseas earnings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7386715/Key-civil-servant-clears-Lord-Ashcroft-of-acting-illegally-in-tax-row.html

Furunculus

03-08-2010, 12:57

*reads Louis's post - fails to get too bothered*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

oops, yet one more person tells Chilcot that Broon underfunded defence:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7397808/Gordon-Brown-hasnt-given-MoD-enough-cash-for-defence.html

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-08-2010, 16:01

The conclusion? The conclusion is that the Tories are sneaky, cheating bastards who made common cause with a billionaire tax evaser. But nothing illegal, no. The only thing that was broken, was the spirit of the law and the morality of the Party. Well done!

Sir Hayden Phillips, then the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery, also disclosed that the revised terms under which the billionaire businessman became a peer had been fully approved by House of Lords Political Honours Scrutiny Committee.
In comments welcomed by Lord Ashcroft's supporters, he said: "I wanted to make sure that the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative party leadership were of one mind as to what he was agreeing to, and that was agreed.

"I agree the words that were then formulated were different from those that were originally announced, but both the Political Honours Scrutiny Committee and the Conservative leadership at the time agreed with those words ... Let's be clear about one thing, there is nothing illegal in what has occurred." Lord Ashcroft, the deputy chairman of the Conservative party, was at the centre of a political storm throughout last week after he revealed on Monday that he is a "non dom": a status which means he does not have to pay tax on his substantial overseas earnings.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/conservative/7386715/Key-civil-servant-clears-Lord-Ashcroft-of-acting-illegally-in-tax-row.html

What about the Labour Peer Lord Poul, who MUST be a non-dom because Harriet Harmen is refusing to say otherwise? Her excuse? Labour doesn't require its own Peers to declare tax status.

So who's really sneaking and underhanded?

Louis VI the Fat

03-08-2010, 16:10

What about the Labour Peer Lord PoulAnd Sir Ronald Cohen!

However, afaik, neither received their peerage on the distinct promise to end tax evasion, as is the case with Ashcroft.

(As an aside - I'd be bloody embarrased to hold a British title. What a bunch of crooks. It's not a badge of honour, it's a public acknowledgement that you've stolen so much money you are now entitled to run Britain)

Furunculus

03-08-2010, 16:25

And Sir Ronald Cohen!

However, afaik, neither received their peerage on the distinct promise to end tax evasion, as is the case with Ashcroft.

(As an aside - I'd be bloody embarrased to hold a British title. What a bunch of crooks. It's not a badge of honour, it's a public acknowledgement that you've stolen so much money you are now entitled to run Britain)

maybe we should have thought twice before we decided to reform the lords then.........?

Beskar

03-08-2010, 16:29

Being chosen by parliament isn't much reform.

If you want my ideas, then those truly would be reform.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-08-2010, 17:34

No elections please, we have enough of that with the Commons.

Subotan

03-08-2010, 18:21

maybe we should have thought twice before we decided to reform the lords then.........?
Oh, come on. There is no way that you can consider the hereditary House of Lords to have been suitable in a modern democracy.

Furunculus

03-08-2010, 18:22

Oh, come on. There is no way that you can consider the hereditary House of Lords to have been suitable in a modern democracy.

i don't really care aboutwhat is suitable, i care about what is effective.

the house of lords pre-1997 functioned in an effective way.
the conduct of the reformed lords on the other hand..................

Boohugh

03-08-2010, 18:54

Ah, seems that Brown has noticed the defence debate isn't really going his way so has taken the obvious course of action: Prevent the press from reporting from the frontline in Afghanistan, cleansing the MoD website of any incriminating evidence and gagging all the armed forces between now and the election!

Link (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/7393809/Army-faces-Afghan-gag-for-election.html)

Particularly like this bit:

The prohibition on public speeches by senior officers is likely to be seen as a response to the increasing outspokenness of military chiefs

Good to see Brown isn't beyond press censorship in his stuggle to maintain his desperate grip on power...

Louis VI the Fat

03-14-2010, 04:10

Labour to unveil plan to change the UK into a democracy!

Plans for abolition of House of Lords to be unveiled Plans to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-strong, wholly elected second chamber are to be unveiled by ministers in a key political move ahead of the general election.

Jack Straw, the Justice Secretary, is this weekend consulting cabinet colleagues on a blueprint which would represent the biggest change to the way Britain is governed for several decades.
The proposals, which have been leaked to The Sunday Telegraph and which are expected to be announced soon, would sweep away centuries of tradition and set ministers on a collision course with the current 704-member House of Lords, which is resolutely opposed to having elected members.

Ministers are ready to announce their plans, which follow years of fruitless cross-party discussions and several votes in the House of Commons, in a bid to wrong-foot the Tories with polling day less than two months away.
Labour's plan is to provoke elements inside the Conservative Party to object to the reforms – which would allow it to paint David Cameron as wedded to old ideas of privilege.

The proposed changes also follow various House of Lords-related controversies, including the recent furore over the admission by Lord Ashcroft, the Tory deputy chairman, that he was a "non-dom."
Members of the new-style chamber will have to be both UK residents and domiciled here for tax purposes.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/7437230/Plans-for-abolition-of-House-of-Lords-to-be-unveiled.html
Whoa...elected, have to pay taxes in the UK - a virtual Revolution says I!

tibilicus

03-14-2010, 04:32

Labour to unveil plan to change the UK into a democracy!

Whoa...elected, have to pay taxes in the UK - a virtual Revolution says I!

Pretty certain Labour has been promising Lords reform since 1997. The closest it got was the removal of most hereditary peers which doesn't really make much of a difference when the peerage system means that political parties basically give a peerage to those who donate kindly to them. That being said, I don't think the Lords does a particularly bad job as it is, I just think there's a few people with peerage status who really shouldn't have it.

As for this latest proposal, nothing will probably come of it. Here's what normally happens with the Labour government around election time Louis, Labour promises all these great things on face value in it's manifesto and broadly speaking fails to deliver on a majority of them. Both Lords reform and electoral reform aren't new ideas within in British politics, they've been floating round for years. Labour itself has promised both in past election manifestos and hasn't delivered it. Therefore why would I be inclined to believe they'll deliver this time. There electoral reform went down the pan too. Sure, they promise a referendum on it next year but I'm not sure the proposed system will be any better than our current one.

I don't think I nor any one else can deny that some labour promises, minimum wage for example which have been implemented have been anything but beneficial to British society but the fact remains that Labour like to promise the world in their election manifesto yet deliver on a pathetic proportion of said manifesto.

Louis VI the Fat

03-14-2010, 04:45

Gah! You're probably right. Such a shocking overhaul of the political system would not be unveiled out of the blue two months before an election.

It's more about embarrasing the Tories, I suppose. Get them to defend the Lords, defend Ashcroft and his NonDom status. Paint Cameron as the defender of privilige.

Boohugh

03-14-2010, 12:09

I think the whole idea of having a second elected house in the UK is absurd quite frankly. The whole point of the House of Lords is that it's meant to act as a balance to the election-focused Commons. The problem with it now is that it's those same election focused politicians that decide who should go to the Lords. I say take the power away from the politicians completely and let a totally independent committee run by the monarch decide who deserves to sit in the Lords. Then you have the elected Commons with a mandate from the people to create laws and an independent Lords to make sure those laws are remotely sensible.

The current system isn't really viable long-term but more elections isn't the answer in my opinion.

InsaneApache

03-14-2010, 12:33

johnhughthom

03-14-2010, 14:05

It seems to be getting more difficult to get people to bother to vote for someone to sit in one house, how many people are going to want to vote for another?

Rhyfelwyr

03-14-2010, 14:08

So just to re-cap. The bi-cameral system has worked pretty well for 300 years or more. The nasty party get in power back in '97 and decide that what isn't broke needs fixing after all. They then reform the upper house filling it with apparachniks, shysters and corrupt supporters, as you do, and then when the whole rotten edifice is exposed as a sham they then say that the upper house isn't working now, at least not as well as it did before we pissed about with it, so now we intend to abolish it!

Sounds like something from the Frankfurt Marxist school on destroyng a democracy. :book:

I agree that Labour's reform has been the usual ideologrical driven mess they like to produce. But at the same time, the Lords has been far from unchanging since 1707. In reality, our system is best called 'weak bi-cameralism', ever since 1911 the Lords has always been by far the inferior chamber. And then further weakened in 1949. The change has been gradual and probably in reality inevitable.

Furunculus

03-14-2010, 17:22

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2010, 17:26

Labour to unveil plan to change the UK into a democracy!

Whoa...elected, have to pay taxes in the UK - a virtual Revolution says I!

I wouldn't mind being a democracy, but I object violently to the idea of a Republic. Tony Blair's outing as a quasi-president who sold peerages for cash has only reinforced this position.

gaelic cowboy

03-14-2010, 17:28

Why not scrap it have a unicameral system its practically one anyway

Furunculus

03-14-2010, 17:30

on the directionless opportunism of the lib-dems:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100029774/do-the-libdems-want-to-cut-spending-or-not/

Do the LibDems want to cut spending or not?

By Daniel Hannan Politics Last updated: March 13th, 2010

I still can’t make out what the LibDems want to do about the debt crisis. They say they will be more radical than the Conservatives, closing the deficit wholly through spending cuts rather than through a combination of spending cuts and tax rises. But, at the same time, they say they will avoid “Tory butchery”.

Vince Cable promises that any cuts will be the subject of consultation with those directly affected. Yet those directly affected are surely the one set of people who, by definition, can’t be objective, and who will oppose the reduction of their budgets whatever the national interest.

Most worrying of all, the LibDems now say that they would oppose any fiscal tightening this year. Yet it is precisely because Labour keeps deferring the cuts that we are in this mess. Gordon Brown is behaving like Nick Leeson, doubling and doubling in the hope of putting off the worst of the pain until after polling day. As a result, we have the same level of deficit as Greece, despite the additional trillion pounds seized in taxation since 1997. The agony will come soon enough, and will be far more severe for having been postponed.

You think I exaggerate? Then ponder this. In the time it has taken you to read this blog post, our national debt has risen by around 380,000 pounds. 390,000 now.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-14-2010, 17:49

Why not scrap it have a unicameral system its practically one anyway

Then there would be no opposition from within the government; we would be a Tyranny of the Ruling Party.

Furunculus

03-16-2010, 08:53

Would the tories be stupid enough to take Straws idiotic plan for constitutional tinkering of the lords and run with it?

apparently they might:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100030024/forget-the-lords-its-the-commons-the-public-intends-to-neuter-by-electing-a-hung-parliament/

Forget the Lords – it's the Commons the public intends to neuter by electing a hung parliament

By Gerald Warner Politics Last updated: March 15th, 2010

Jack Straw’s vacuous plan to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a 300-member “Senate” demonstrates that, to the bitter end, Labour is obsessed with the kind of constitutionally illiterate vandalism that has characterised its 13 disastrous years in office. We already have a completely superfluous Supreme Court, on the American model; now Straw wants to add a Senate. American institutions are first-rate – for Americans. They are totally alien to Britain.

The reason for this persistent constitutional tinkering is that Labour (and now its Vichy Tory clones) thinks that such synthetic constructs are more “modern”. A favourite claim is “No other developed nation has a House of Lords”. That reflects the cultural masochism that leads “progressives” to imagine that every other society is superior to Britain. Most “developed” nations have contrived paper constitutions, cobbled together after the overthrow of their monarchies and other evolved institutions provoked periods of revolution, civil war, totalitarianism, general unrest and instability.

We have the inestimable advantage of an organic, evolved constitution that was traditionally the envy of the world. Yet, because it is enveloped in the trappings of past eras, despite its enduring efficiency and adaptability Labour and Tory modernisers want to smash it. It is a characteristic of modern Lab-Con Britain that everything that is unbroken is gratuitously mended, while the many things that are indeed broken are left unrepaired.

It is also significant that Straw’s plan is expected to include mechanisms for gerrymandering the Senate in favour of the usual suspects – women, “faith groups”, etc – as has already been done in the Commons via all-women and other forms of rigged candidate selection lists. The voter is being deprived of choice and is increasingly an extraneous cipher in the process of engineering an appointed parliament in both chambers.

It is widely assumed that Straw’s plan will not progress: but do not underestimate the potential for the Tory traitors to pick it up and run with it. What could “detoxify” a gang of Etonians more impressively (in their own demented imagination) than abolishing the House of Lords? It typifies the decadence of our times that the only section of the membership in the whole of Parliament that has not been mired in expenses and corruption scandals – the hereditary peers – is the one element that is designated for expulsion.

The implications of all these incoherent attempts to ape less mature and successful constitutional models is ultimately republican. The monarchy is the eventual target of the so-called modernisers. Pomp and pageantry are anathema to them. The grey-suited, serially corrupt apparatchiks of the European Union are their role models – and don’t forget what a plum the office of President would offer to a succession of retiring expenses junkies.

It is not the House of Lords that the public would prefer to abolish, but the House of Commons. The loathsome canaille on the slime-green benches – despite the sycophantic vocabulary of journalists such as “dedicated public servant”, “devoted constituency MP” and suchlike crony-guff – are detested by the electorate. They have banned country sports, driven smokers out of pubs, irresponsibly flooded the country with immigrants, handed us over trussed and gagged to Brussels, harassed the nation with “green” tyranny and political correctness, persecuted Christians and remorselessly robbed every taxpayer in the country.

The public knows, however, that there is no means available to it of abolishing this chamber of horrors. So, cleverly, it has opted to neuter it. An opinion poll recently showed that 34 per cent of voters actively want a hung parliament. That provoked spluttering outrage among the political class. Did these clowns of voters not understand that a hung parliament would destroy confidence in Britain’s ability to fix its economy? How stupid could they get?

The voters are not stupid at all. They know what they are doing: reducing the political class to impotence. And not before time. The transparent lie that the markets will trash Britain because of a hung parliament – when most of the countries whose bonds they purchase are in a state of permanent coalition government – impresses the British public as much as global warming scares. The difficulty about securing a hung parliament is the mechanism for engineering it. The only secure method is to deny votes to the three major parties. It is time to put them – not the peers – out of business.

Boohugh

03-16-2010, 08:59

Seems the Conservatives have found some unlikely support from the EU over their economic policy of making big spending cuts early. A European Commission report (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8569418.stm) has said that the UK budget deficit should be cut faster than Labour intend to do it, which certainly makes it harder for Mr Brown to argue the Conservatives are completely wrong on economic policy now.

Edit: In reply to the article Furunculus posted:

It is a characteristic of modern Lab-Con Britain that everything that is unbroken is gratuitously mended, while the many things that are indeed broken are left unrepaired.

Never a truer word spoken!

Furunculus

03-16-2010, 10:29

true, not that i put much store in EU adice over and above that which is available here.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/finance/jeremywarner/100004341/we-dont-need-the-eu-to-tell-us-were-bust/

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

time to break the unions again?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100030088/who-would-be-affected-by-spending-cuts/

Idaho

03-16-2010, 12:50

Updating the Lords would be a great idea. But if you are going to do that then you may as well update the commons at the same time. The Lords has been largely powerless since 1911, if we were to make it democratic, then at least give it a powerful role.

Possible Lords ideas: party alliegance should be banned? Fixed term elections? etc..

In reality the commons will never create a second chamber that could possibly hurt them.

Furunculus

03-17-2010, 09:44

first labour was infiltrated by islamists, now it is owned by the unions once more:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7458286/Tony-Woodley-BA-strike-union-leader-given-Commons-pass-by-Labour.html

being owned by the unions, as was the case up to the 80's, made more sense when 80% of the workforce was a union member, it could claim a national mandate.

now however, when union membership has dropped below a third it looks distinctly more sketchy............

Beskar

03-17-2010, 10:26

Furunculus

03-17-2010, 13:57

Gordon Brown admits: I was wrong on defence spending:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/7464554/Gordon-Brown-admits-I-was-wrong-on-defence-spending.html

Gordon Brown has admitted he was wrong to claim that he increased defence spending in real terms every year.

By James Kirkup, Political Correspondent
Published: 12:26PM GMT 17 Mar 2010

The Prime Minister said that claims he had made in the House of Commons and in evidence to Sir John Chilcot's Iraq Inquiry had been incorrect.

Mr Brown, who has faced intense criticism over his support for the Armed Forces, had repeatedly insisted that as Chancellor, he made real increases in the defence budget every year.

However, offcial figures from the Ministry of Defence show that, allowing for inflation, its budget fell in five years: 1998, 1999, 2000 and 2002 and 2007.

Challenged about his claim during Prime Minister's Questions, Mr Brown made a rare admission of errror.

"I do accept that in one or two years, defence expenditure did not rise in real terms," he told MPs.

Mr Brown said is now writing to Sir John Chilcot to amend his evidence to the inquiry.

The Prime Minister's admission is a political victory for David Cameron, the Conservative leader, who challenged him about the figures last week in the Commons.

By amending his evidence to the Chilcot panel, Mr Brown may bolster the case for recalling him for another evidence session later this year.
awesome news, defence continues to be newsworthy in the run up to the election. :)

Idaho

03-17-2010, 14:39

Gordon Brown admits: I was wrong on defence spending:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/7464554/Gordon-Brown-admits-I-was-wrong-on-defence-spending.html

awesome news, defence continues to be newsworthy in the run up to the election. :)

I bet you have your trousers round your ankles and the box of tissues to hand while you consider all the extra weapons that are going to get bought :rolleyes:

gaelic cowboy

03-17-2010, 14:55

I bet you have your trousers round your ankles and the box of tissues to hand while you consider all the extra weapons that are going to get bought :rolleyes:

:laugh4::laugh4:

Furunculus

03-17-2010, 16:15

I bet you have your trousers round your ankles and the box of tissues to hand while you consider all the extra weapons that are going to get bought :rolleyes:

maybe not, i'd just be happy to see the Forces equipped properly for the roles they are expected to undertake, like Gordon not chopping £1.5 billion out the helicopter procuerment budget in 2007 when British soldiers are dieing in IED attacks in Afghanistan because they are forced to use the roads.

to give just one example.

gaelic cowboy

03-17-2010, 23:07

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2010, 00:00

Helicopters are overated for a place like Afghanistan you still have to land it and then your fighting on your own instead of with a truck that has a 50 cal on the back and the afgans are well capable of using missle weapons too

You can mount a GPMG on a helicopter, and they don't need to land anyway, ever heard of rapple lines?

Come to think of it, have you not seen the Air-Cav in any Vietnam film?

Helicopters are essential in a place like Afganistan, you can fly over the mountains, instead of driving through them.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2010, 00:02

I bet you have your trousers round your ankles and the box of tissues to hand while you consider all the extra weapons that are going to get bought :rolleyes:

You don't need a weapons fetish in order to want defence spending to rise during wartime. Wars Labour started, I might add.

Louis VI the Fat

03-18-2010, 00:11

maybe not, i'd just be happy to see the Forces equipped properly for the roles they are expected to undertake, like Gordon not chopping £1.5 billion out the helicopter procuerment budget in 2007 when British soldiers are dieing in IED attacks in Afghanistan because they are forced to use the roads.

to give just one example.How many lives of British soldiers would these extra helicopters have saved? Five? Ten? Fifty?

That works out to anything from £300 million to £30 million a life. And how many Britons on waiting lists for hospitals can be saved for that amount? Several dozens to several hundreds per life of a soldier? That's not a fair trade-off. The money was better spend in healthcare.

Any MoD always has an infinite appetite. There is always another toy. Then there is the political tendency to always overstretch militarilly. Combine these two, and the military will always be underfunded, no matter how much is spend on it.

gaelic cowboy

03-18-2010, 00:41

You can mount a GPMG on a helicopter, and they don't need to land anyway, ever heard of rapple lines?

Come to think of it, have you not seen the Air-Cav in any Vietnam film?

Helicopters are essential in a place like Afganistan, you can fly over the mountains, instead of driving through them.

First that gibson film tells you staright off that air cav can only do so much the men still have to get out of the helo.

Mounting a gpmg is fine but the helo is far too valuable a battlefield resource to be left hanging on a battlefield where it might get clipped by a missile.

Whats essential in Afghanistan is consent of the locals and a strong mule otherwise forget it

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 00:58

That works out to anything from £300 million to £30 million a life. And how many Britons on waiting lists for hospitals can be saved for that amount? Several dozens to several hundreds per life of a soldier? That's not a fair trade-off. The money was better spend in healthcare.

Any MoD always has an infinite appetite. There is always another toy. Then there is the political tendency to always overstretch militarilly. Combine these two, and the military will always be underfunded, no matter how much is spend on it.
if a country is going to send people to die in foriegn countries it needs to properly equip them.

lol, and social security and the nhs does not?
Defence = ~ £33 billion (<5% annual Gov't spending)
Those two = ~ £180 billion
please, no lesson on how voracious Defence is, it doesn't wash.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2010, 01:25

How many lives of British soldiers would these extra helicopters have saved? Five? Ten? Fifty?

That works out to anything from £300 million to £30 million a life. And how many Britons on waiting lists for hospitals can be saved for that amount? Several dozens to several hundreds per life of a soldier? That's not a fair trade-off. The money was better spend in healthcare.

Any MoD always has an infinite appetite. There is always another toy. Then there is the political tendency to always overstretch militarilly. Combine these two, and the military will always be underfunded, no matter how much is spend on it.

Probably closest to fifty, but that's only direct casualties. Increased force projection would reduce casualties because it would increase operational effectiveness.

tibilicus

03-18-2010, 01:32

if a country is going to send people to die in foriegn countries it needs to properly equip them.

Key factor.

You either equip your troops and designate a decent amount of GDP to the armed forces so that you can perform military operations, or you don't and you surrender your role as a country able to have such capabilities.

I'm not saying I support such a role either way but the fact is if your going to do it, you do it right. Other wise as a nation your only feasible scope of operation in armed conflicts is part of a group like NATO, the EU, UN ect.

Louis VI the Fat

03-18-2010, 01:51

if a country is going to send people to die in foriegn countries it needs to properly equip them.Sure. Absolutely.

Equally as important, a country that sends people to die in foreign countries needs to, well, accept that people die in a foreign country.

Operations in southern Afghanistan accounted for nearly £2.6bn, compared with £1.5bn last year. Most of the money was spent on providing tougher armoured vehicles (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/13/afghanistan-iraq-bill-british-military) for soldiers who face a growing threat of roadside bombs. That's what? Ten extra lives saved? Five? £55 to £110 million per life then.

Harsh as it may sound, a government can put a price on a life. Not a monetary value, but an amount where it is no longer sensible to save this life. £100 million to save a single life, as above, is not sensible policy. Spending another £1.5 billion to save ten, or even fifty, lives more with some helicopters is decidedly unsensible too.
One faces two dilemmas:
- Saving a single soldier would come at the cost of a perverse amount of civilian lives that remain unsaved
- £1.1 billion, another £1.5 billion - how many more lives - and I'm just talking UK military - would be saved if this money was invested in developing Afghanistan?

The UK loses about 30 lives annually in Afghanistan. The costs to save one more grow exponentially. Where does one draw the line? At a billion quid for a single life, at the expense of five thousand British civilian lives?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2010, 02:10

Sure. Absolutely.

Equally as important, a country that sends people to die in foreign countries needs to, well, accept that people die in a foreign country.

That's what? Ten extra lives saved? Five? £55 to £110 million per life then.

Harsh as it may sound, a government can put a price on a life. Not a monetary value, but an amount where it is no longer sensible to save this life. £100 million to save a single life, as above, is not sensible policy. Spending another £1.5 billion to save ten, or even fifty, lives more with some helicopters is decidedly unsensible too.
One faces two dilemmas:
- Saving a single soldier would come at the cost of a perverse amount of civilian lives that remain unsaved
- £1.1 billion, another £1.5 billion - how many more lives - and I'm just talking UK military - would be saved if this money was invested in developing Afghanistan?

The UK loses about 30 lives annually in Afghanistan. The costs to save one more grow exponentially. Where does one draw the line? At a billion quid for a single life, at the expense of five thousand British civilian lives?

The UK loses far more than 30 lives:

2009 January 6.
2009 February 6.
2009 March 3.
2009 April 1.
2009 May 12.
2009 June 4.
2009 July 22.
2009 August 19.
2009 September 8.
2009 October 6.
2009 November 12.
2009 December 9

Total last year, 108. Most of those are due either to IEDs or Rocket attacks, both of which are a result of using the Afgan road system. What's more, the death toll in the last 2.5 months is all ready 30, at this rate casualties this year could be around 150. As Britain fights harder and takes on increasing responsibilities casualties will continue to rise unless the soldiers have the proper equipment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/sep/17/afghanistan-casualties-dead-wounded-british-data

In other words, "I refute you."

Myrddraal

03-18-2010, 04:10

As Britain fights harder and takes on increasing responsibilities casualties will continue to rise unless the soldiers have the proper equipment.

Not quite right I don't think. As Britain fights harder and takes on increasing responsibilities casualties will continue to rise. Proper equipment doesn't make men invulnerable.

Louis does have a point, which is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and wherever you draw that line, it will never save everybody.

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 08:48

and having identified a need to replace old helicopters like the sea-kings which are older even than me, and set aside a £1.5 billion budget to acquire them as a ,military resource that will be needed in any event, it suddenly becomes ok to axe that budget and chop those helicopters when we are fighting a insurgency war in mountainous terrain against an enemy fond of IED's?

It. Is. Rank. Stupidity.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-18-2010, 09:26

Not quite right I don't think. As Britain fights harder and takes on increasing responsibilities casualties will continue to rise. Proper equipment doesn't make men invulnerable.

Louis does have a point, which is that you have to draw the line somewhere, and wherever you draw that line, it will never save everybody.

About 60%+ of British casualties ccome from IED's whilst traveling overland. It is a fact that many soldiers die for lack of proper transport. At the same time, Snatch and Sea King both need to be replaced anyway. Loius is right in theory, but very wrong in context.

Boohugh

03-18-2010, 09:44

Saving a single soldier would come at the cost of a perverse amount of civilian lives that remain unsaved

You used the example of putting the money into the NHS earlier. Well, I'd argue that huge amounts of money have already been thrown at the NHS over the past 10 years and I'd be surprised if it has saved loads of lives and would certainly have cost a huge amount per life saved (the quality of treatment may have increased, but we are talking purely about lives saved here, otherwise we get into the realm of comparing treatment to operational effectiveness, etc). In all honesty, lots of that money has been spent on administrators to count how many people are on the waiting lists and other targets set by the government anyway, so I don't think throwing another £1-2 billion at the NHS will help anyone as most of it doesn't get to the frontline.

Of course we are off-target on the whole issue of number of soldiers deaths anyway. Myrddraal was absolutely correct when he pointed out that soldiers will die if you send them into a fight, however well equipped they are. It isn't therefore a question of saving lives, rather it is a question of increasing operational effectiveness. More helicopters mean greater mobility, better armoured vehicles mean you can achieve the same firepower with fewer troops and so can then send those spare troops to other places, more UAV's mean better reconnaissance and target acquisition. It's all about force multipliers, not just about saving lives.

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 09:50

Of course we are off-target on the whole issue of number of soldiers deaths anyway. Myrddraal was absolutely correct when he pointed out that soldiers will die if you send them into a fight, however well equipped they are. It isn't therefore a question of saving lives, rather it is a question of increasing operational effectiveness. More helicopters mean greater mobility, better armoured vehicles mean you can achieve the same firepower with fewer troops and so can then send those spare troops to other places, more UAV's mean better reconnaissance and target acquisition. It's all about force multipliers, not just about saving lives.
quite correct, having identified a need to replace old helicopters like the sea-kings which are older even than me, and set aside a £1.5 billion budget to acquire them as a military resource that will be needed in any event, when did it suddenly becomes ok to axe that budget and chop those helicopters when we are fighting a insurgency war in mountainous terrain against an enemy fond of IED's?

i am repeating myself, but the message does not appear to be getting through to some.

Myrddraal

03-18-2010, 15:51

i am repeating myselfI think we all heard you, and I think we would all agree. I'm curious to know how you reconcile what you're saying with the development of these new aircraft carriers, which cost a fortune. Do you still think the money couldn't be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps on some helicopters?

gaelic cowboy

03-18-2010, 15:57

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 16:56

I think we all heard you, and I think we would all agree. I'm curious to know how you reconcile what you're saying with the development of these new aircraft carriers, which cost a fortune. Do you still think the money couldn't be better spent elsewhere? Perhaps on some helicopters?

there is nothing to reconcile.

the government determines foriegn policy goals and capabilities, and then provides funds to enable them.

the government determined a requirement for expeditioanry war and thus carriers, and i am happy to go along with that.

the above is totally separate from determining a need, creating a budget, then deleting the budget in order to boost a domestic program, while the original need still exists.

Louis VI the Fat

03-18-2010, 18:27

Disregarding the provocative nature of Idaho's last post, he hits bulls eye in his depiction of defense spending.

The military has an insatiable appetite, and this appetite is skewed towards its near fetish like love for shiny new toys. Toys that look so good in the defense glossy, in the arms show, in the smooth talk of the interational arms dealer as he treats defense hotshots and magazine editors to a nice night out filled with champagne and hookers.

These calls for ever more and ever new shiny toys - reinforced in recent years by the moral blackmail of 'our boys dieing in the desert unless....' - actually undermines the effective power of the armed forces and creates more casualties for the ordinary soldier.

In a strongly-worded criticism on Ministry of Defence equipment programmes, John Hutton has urged ministers to be “leaner and meaner” in making decisions on costly equipment programmes.
The former Defence Secretary, who resigned for family reasons at the height of the challenge to Gordon Brown’s premiership in June, said that the major equipment programmes needed to be “radically improved” and management of them required “greater professionalism”.

Despite attempts to improve efficiency “the miserable and lengthy catalogue of equipment delays and cost overruns has continued to cast a large question mark in the public's mind over whether we are getting proper value for the money we spend” he said during a speech given to the think-tank City Forum at a conference called Acquisition in Time of War.

With the recession putting further pressure on the MoD’s £38 billion budget, a “business as usual approach” was no longer sufficient.“Decision making in the MoD should be leaner and meaner so we avoid the perils of mission-creep and over-specification,” he said.

Too much focus was also put on acquiring “the most technologically advanced” weapons at the expense of a wider range of more simplistic and available equipment, he argued. Instead of equipping the Armed Forces for a traditional state-on-state war Britain needed to be better equipped “for the threats we actually face today” of international terrorism, irregular warfare and counter insurgency.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/6151322/Overspending-defence-projects-threaten-weaker-Forces-former-Defence-Secretary-argues.html

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

Total last year, 108. this year could be around 150.

In other words, "I refute you." I rather innocently divided the 275 total fatalities in Afghanistan by nine years to get a rough amount. However, the increase in fatalities over the past years is clear. 100-150 fatalities per year is the more relevant amount.

Does it refute the underlying principle though? Is it sensible to increase the budget by £1 billion to decrease the fatality rate from 100 to 80? To increase it by £2.5 billion to go down from 80 to 70?
A state has many responsabillities. Several billion pounds could do a lot to decrease crime in the UK, to improve healthcare or education, to decrease taxes.

Boohugh

03-18-2010, 19:50

John Hutton using the argument of equipment delays and cost overruns as a reason why defence procurement needs to be changed is hypocrisy at its worst. The Labour government made a conscious decision to delay a range of equipment programmes to save money in the short term with the full knowledge it will cause costs to increase and overrun the orginal budget. Who would have thought politicians are more interested in short-term savings at the expense of substantially increasing long term costs?! :rolleyes:

And to be honest, I'm struggling to keep myself falling from my chair laughing at Hutton's approach to the current and future security situation with regards to potential threats. Even the recent defence green paper, published by his own government, disagrees with his assessment. So forgive me for ignoring what that man says with regards to defence policy, it's really no wonder he only lasted 8 months in the post! :laugh4:

Furunculus

03-18-2010, 23:23

Disregarding the provocative nature of Idaho's last post, he hits bulls eye in his depiction of defense spending.

The military has an insatiable appetite, and this appetite is skewed towards its near fetish like love for shiny new toys. Toys that look so good in the defense glossy, in the arms show, in the smooth talk of the interational arms dealer as he treats defense hotshots and magazine editors to a nice night out filled with champagne and hookers.

These calls for ever more and ever new shiny toys - reinforced in recent years by the moral blackmail of 'our boys dieing in the desert unless....' - actually undermines the effective power of the armed forces and creates more casualties for the ordinary soldier.

I rather innocently divided the 275 total fatalities in Afghanistan by nine years to get a rough amount. However, the increase in fatalities over the past years is clear. 100-150 fatalities per year is the more relevant amount.

Does it refute the underlying principle though? Is it sensible to increase the budget by £1 billion to decrease the fatality rate from 100 to 80? To increase it by £2.5 billion to go down from 80 to 70?
A state has many responsabillities. Several billion pounds could do a lot to decrease crime in the UK, to improve healthcare or education, to decrease taxes.

none of which changes:

the government determines foriegn policy goals and capabilities, and then provides funds to enable them.

the government determined a requirement for expeditioanry war and thus carriers, and i am happy to go along with that.

the above is totally separate from determining a need, creating a budget, then deleting the budget in order to boost a domestic program, while the original need still exists.

or this:

and having identified a need to replace old helicopters like the sea-kings which are older even than me, and set aside a £1.5 billion budget to acquire them as a ,military resource that will be needed in any event, it suddenly becomes ok to axe that budget and chop those helicopters when we are fighting a insurgency war in mountainous terrain against an enemy fond of IED's?

It. Is. Rank. Stupidity.

or this:

quite correct, having identified a need to replace old helicopters like the sea-kings which are older even than me, and set aside a £1.5 billion budget to acquire them as a military resource that will be needed in any event, when did it suddenly becomes ok to axe that budget and chop those helicopters when we are fighting a insurgency war in mountainous terrain against an enemy fond of IED's?

i am repeating myself, but the message does not appear to be getting through to some.

Louis VI the Fat

03-19-2010, 02:02

France has offered to create a joint UK-French nuclear deterrent by sharing submarine patrols (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/19/france-britain-shared-nuclear-deterrent).

Officials from both countries have discussed how a deterrence-sharing scheme might work but Britain has so far opposed the idea on the grounds that such pooling of sovereignty would be politically unacceptable.

Britain and France each maintain "continuous at-sea deterrence", which involves running at least one nuclear-armed submarine submerged and undetected at any given time. It is a hugely expensive undertaking, and its usefulness in a post-cold war world has long been questioned by disarmament campaigners.

Britain's independent deterrent, based on Trident (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/trident) missiles carried by submarines, could cost the country up to £100bn, according to some estimates, once planned modernisation to the fleet has been completed.
France also maintains a four-submarine Strategic Oceanic Force, with each submarine armed with 16 missiles.
Go one then. Do it. Save us all tens of billions.

There is no realistic scenario in which either country would need nuclear deterrent without the other too.

We don't both need to spend one hundred billion to have four submarines up and running.

Myrddraal

03-19-2010, 05:04

because we've only just found out about these problems and in any case by the time this aircraft comes into service (if it ever does) I shall be long retired as indeed will all of my collegues and so it'll be somebody elses problem

:laugh4:

there is nothing to reconcile.

the government determines foriegn policy goals and capabilities, and then provides funds to enable them.

the government determined a requirement for expeditioanry war and thus carriers, and i am happy to go along with that.

the above is totally separate from determining a need, creating a budget, then deleting the budget in order to boost a domestic program, while the original need still exists.

... :inquisitive: ...

You're repeating yourself. Again. Even though I think I recall saying that I think we all agree that flip flopping on budget's is a bad principle. What do you want me to say? Repeat "I agree" every time you repost the same post word for word?

You seem to have a really blinkered view of defence spending. If it's going to be spent on defence, it must be a good thing, regardless of whether it's necessary defence spending, whether the money could be better spend domestically or even within the MoD. That's why I brought up the aircraft carriers. They're enormously expensive and have been approved because they are big, visible statistics creators for politicians to shout about. I would be a happy man if they spend every penny of those billions on buying proper boots and vests for the troops (and ... wait for it ... yes helicopters too). So do you think it's possible for investment in the army to be a bad thing, or is it infallible by default?

But please, I know you're not going to address these points. I know exactly what you're going to post next... word for word.

Furunculus

03-19-2010, 09:01

Go one then. Do it. Save us all tens of billions.

There is no realistic scenario in which either country would need nuclear deterrent without the other too.

We don't both need to spend one hundred billion to have four submarines up and running.

coordinating patrol zones is a good thing, can't have subs bumping into each other like last year, but operational independance will always be important:

"We could not make a full commitment," a defence source said, referring to the deployment of carriers. He referred to the British intervention in Sierra Leone 10 years ago and Iraq. France did not "want to have anything to do with" either operation, the source said.

Furunculus

03-19-2010, 09:15

You're repeating yourself. Again. Even though I think I recall saying that I think we all agree that flip flopping on budget's is a bad principle. What do you want me to say? Repeat "I agree" every time you repost the same post word for word?

You seem to have a really blinkered view of defence spending. If it's going to be spent on defence, it must be a good thing, regardless of whether it's necessary defence spending, whether the money could be better spend domestically or even within the MoD. That's why I brought up the aircraft carriers. They're enormously expensive and have been approved because they are big, visible statistics creators for politicians to shout about. I would be a happy man if they spend every penny of those billions on buying proper boots and vests for the troops (and ... wait for it ... yes helicopters too). So do you think it's possible for investment in the army to be a bad thing, or is it infallible by default?

But please, I know you're not going to address these points. I know exactly what you're going to post next... word for word.

that's because you have zero understanding of the strategic priorities of britain.

no, i read the SDR 98 which mandated the strategic requirement for carriers, because carriers would form an essential part of what was deemed to be a strategic military capability; expeditionary and amphibious warfare.
in addition to that, there is also the need to maintain and upgrade other extant military capabilities, one of which is helicopter support, so as part of the broader strategy outlined in SDR 98 these abilities were costed and Labour intended to pay for it by maintaining Defence at 2.5% of GDP, which was labours own agreed stable baseline for peacetime Defence spending.
and yet, after eight years of continuous war in two countries the defence budget has slipped to 2.1% of GDP, so there isn't enough cash to pay for the helicopters that were agreed to be required, and budgeted to be paid for, so in 2008 brown scraps the £1.5 billion budget set aside for new helicopters............................. at a time when troops are dieing unnecessarily in afghanistan because our 40 year old sea-kings that should have retired a decade ago are incapable of usefully flying in such hot-and-high conditions, and they are forced to travel in poorly armoured vehicles by road.

yes, you do know what i am going to say, but you have no idea why, because you have zero understanding of the strategic priorities of britain.

Boohugh

03-19-2010, 09:39

That's why I brought up the aircraft carriers. They're enormously expensive and have been approved because they are big, visible statistics creators for politicians to shout about.

From a purely geostrategic point of view, over half the worlds population lives within 200km of the coast and this figure will only increase in the next 10-20 years, so I can totally see why it wouldn't be important to be able to exert control and influence over these areas :juggle2:.

Being able to project military power in any area of the world at any time is realistically limited to 3 countries currently (USA, UK and France), why would we want to give up that ability when coastal regions are likely to become increasingly important over the next 50 years (the lifetime of the 2 carriers being built)? We can't necessarily rely on other countries providing airbases and other logistical support in an increasingly unreliable, fractured political situation so giving up our ability to project airpower abroad would be foolhardy in my opinion. The fact we are currently involved in a war in a landlocked country does not mean it will be the next war we fight too (if anything it makes it more unlikely!). There is no point in now procuring huge amounts of equipment to fight in Afganistan at the cost of other projects because by the time it is ready we will have moved on, only to realise we've given up our ability to intervene somewhere else when we really need it.

I'm not against investment in the army (and proper boots and vests cost peanuts against other projects, which is why it's such a travesty even these essential items weren't provided in sufficient quantity thanks to Labour dithering and budget control/cuts), but if you are going to invest in the army at the cost of an almost unique ability in the world then I don't see that being a good thing.

Furunculus

03-19-2010, 16:29

the nasty party shows its true colours:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100030628/david-camerons-huskies-rip-conservative-energy-policy-goes-nuclear/

al Roumi

03-19-2010, 17:45

the nasty party shows its true colours:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100030628/david-camerons-huskies-rip-conservative-energy-policy-goes-nuclear/

That is funny. The more details the Tories provide, the less they actually have to offer of difference to the other parties.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-19-2010, 23:46

From a purely geostrategic point of view, over half the worlds population lives within 200km of the coast and this figure will only increase in the next 10-20 years, so I can totally see why it wouldn't be important to be able to exert control and influence over these areas :juggle2:.

Being able to project military power in any area of the world at any time is realistically limited to 3 countries currently (USA, UK and France), why would we want to give up that ability when coastal regions are likely to become increasingly important over the next 50 years (the lifetime of the 2 carriers being built)? We can't necessarily rely on other countries providing airbases and other logistical support in an increasingly unreliable, fractured political situation so giving up our ability to project airpower abroad would be foolhardy in my opinion. The fact we are currently involved in a war in a landlocked country does not mean it will be the next war we fight too (if anything it makes it more unlikely!). There is no point in now procuring huge amounts of equipment to fight in Afganistan at the cost of other projects because by the time it is ready we will have moved on, only to realise we've given up our ability to intervene somewhere else when we really need it.

I'm not against investment in the army (and proper boots and vests cost peanuts against other projects, which is why it's such a travesty even these essential items weren't provided in sufficient quantity thanks to Labour dithering and budget control/cuts), but if you are going to invest in the army at the cost of an almost unique ability in the world then I don't see that being a good thing.

I agree completely, but would go further and point out that we are a nation occupying a group of Islands, giving up the ability to project force via our Navy is simply absurd. I would further point out that flying troops and gear to places is not remotely practical or economic.

Furunculus

03-20-2010, 09:48

I would further point out that flying troops and gear to places is not remotely practical or economic.
it is the key to the defence of the falklands.

the FDF is just big enough to make a successful assault impossible, and a full scale invasion will be blindinly visible to UK sig-int/com-int, and we can reinforce the island quicker than they can build up an invasion force man enough to wipe out the FDF, so its a lose lose situation for the Argies.

Furunculus

03-20-2010, 10:16

Will Unite's socialists become Cameron's stormtroopers?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/charlesmoore/7483114/Will-Unites-socialists-become-Camerons-stormtroopers.html

The Tories have been slow to make capital out of Labour's militant union allies, argues Charles Moore.

By Charles Moore
Published: 7:27PM GMT 19 Mar 2010

"If she comes to power, it will be wholly because of the trade unions… Moss Evans and his T & G have acted as her stormtroopers." So wrote Bernard Donoughue, head of Jim Callaghan's Downing Street Policy Unit, in his diary. It was early 1979, and Callaghan's Labour government was in the middle of the economic crisis that would ensure its defeat by Margaret Thatcher. That May, come to power she did.

Here we are in early 2010, in the middle of an economic crisis. For the first time since that "Winter of Discontent", there is a real possibility that a Conservative Opposition will kick out a Labour government. An election is expected in May.

And here we are, once again, with what Donoughue, a lifelong Labour man, called the stormtroopers. The "T & G" which he denounced was the Transport and General Workers Union, the largest union in the country, led by Moss Evans. Today, the T & G has amalgamated with Amicus and changed its name to Unite (though its fractious internal arrangements suggest that it would better be known as Divide). Unite is led by Tony Woodley. From today, he is pitting his union against hundreds of thousands of holidaymakers in a strike designed to break the will of British Airways, which could go bust. And yesterday Unite's traditional allies in the rail union RMT promised an Easter strike of signal workers.

Mr Woodley is backed by the faction in his union called United Left, which declares that it wants "a socialist economic, social and political system", and wishes to "regain" the Labour Party. It has a motion down for the union's policy conference after the election that calls for the union to "give no support" to any Labour MPs who do not seek to abolish the "anti-trade union laws". This threat could be powerful: Labour campaigns in 148 constituencies are funded by Unite, and 167 Labour MPs and candidates are members of the union. Unite produces a quarter of Labour's money.

Mr Woodley's future co-general secretary is Len McCluskey, who is also supported by United Left. In Liverpool in the 1980s, he admits ("I would never, ever deny that"), he backed the Militant Tendency, the most famous extreme "entryist" organisation in Labour history. "I led lots of strikes," he boasts. You can read discussions of his Left-wing heroism on the website Though Cowards Flinch (a phrase from "The Red Flag").

Unite's political director is Charlie Whelan. Once he was Gordon Brown's spin doctor, and now he is back. Thinly disguised in flat cap and spectacles, he passes in and out of No 10 Downing Street. He is organising Unite to run the campaign in the marginal seats. He is Mr Brown's main adviser on how to fight the election.

The relation between the unions and the Government is even closer than in 1979. Then, poor old Jim Callaghan was trying, unsuccessfully, to hold the unions back. Today, Mr Brown is leaning heavily on the unions for his survival. And if he falls, Unite will anoint his closest associate, Ed Balls, as his heir.

Politically, this looks like an open goal for the Conservatives. But it is only this week that the Tories have started to kick the ball in the right direction. In the Commons, David Cameron asked the Prime Minister whether BA workers should cross picket-lines, a question Mr Brown dare not answer.

Why has it taken so long? Why are the Tories so slow to bang home the political points? It sometimes feels as if the Tory defeat of 1997 was the equivalent of the Mull of Kintyre helicopter crash which wiped out our best security experts in Northern Ireland. An entire generation of knowledge perished. Since 2005, it is true, the party has got much better at presenting itself and developing policies in tune with people's desires. But it still resembles a boxer who prances around giving good pre-fight interviews, but then doesn't want to box in the ring. The Tories are not political, in the limited but vital sense of that word – knowing how to attack, how to behave when attacked, and how to keep on attacking.

And that is the one skill that Labour has preserved. The country is bust; the public services are broken; we're all getting poorer. Yet, still, somehow, Labour can hit harder than its opponents.

Witness the Lord Ashcroft row. There has always been a case for keeping Lord Ashcroft at arm's length. He is a classic example of the rugged individualist. The party could have decided that a man who had so much power over a foreign country [Belize], and who wished to remain a "non-dom" taxpayer while living here, was a bit too rugged.

There has always been a case – a stronger one, in my view – for making full use of Lord Ashcroft. He is most unusual among multi-millionaires in being acute about politics and dedicated in his political work. His booklet, Smell the Coffee, is the best single analysis of why the Tories lost three elections in a row. His organisational focus on marginal seats is a key piece of work. And none of the lurid accusations thrown at him has been proved.

But the Tories have never quite sorted out what they think about him. Lord Ashcroft's non-dom status could have been defended – despite what is now claimed, it was accepted at the time by the authorities in charge of scrutinising peerages, and, besides, all parties have non-dom peers. Or the Tories could have told him that it looked bad and he must change it. Instead, they took his help and money, but adopted a "don't ask, don't tell" approach to his tax position.

No one sets out better than Lord Ashcroft himself how this Government plays rough. In his amazing book about it all, Dirty Politics, Dirty Times, Ashcroft explains how Labour suborned government officials to leak material against him, including the traditionally sacrosanct discussions between the parties about honours. Unlike too many current Tories, Ashcroft is phenomenally tough, as well as rich. He sued the Government for its leaks and extracted an apology and legal costs in 2003. So the Tories have known that Labour had government documents it was capable, if desperate, of abusing again. The election approaches, and it is desperate, so it leaks once more, to a pliant BBC. But the Tories were not ready. Don't they know there's a war on?

I am not arguing that the Conservatives should follow Labour down the path of lies. But I am very suspicious of the frame of mind that shirks the election battle, saying: "Oh no, we are better people than they are." It is a loser's argument, just at the point when they could, at last, win.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-20-2010, 11:36

it is the key to the defence of the falklands.

the FDF is just big enough to make a successful assault impossible, and a full scale invasion will be blindinly visible to UK sig-int/com-int, and we can reinforce the island quicker than they can build up an invasion force man enough to wipe out the FDF, so its a lose lose situation for the Argies.

The Falklands is a special case, fighters, tanks, and munitions are kept in hardened bunkers so that only troops need to be flown in at short notice. However, flying equipment and munitions in is not economical.

Furunculus

03-21-2010, 10:41

tibilicus

03-21-2010, 18:14

Enough about numbers and defence! Let's bring in a new topic.

A possible "spring of discontent" (it won't happen and it's all media hype, but still) might make this election a little more interesting. Personally I think the whole BA strike is a joke and the cabin crew staff are shooting themselves in the foot. I'm more interested on which party can successfully capitalise on it though Mind you, at the minute, my money's on neither. Gordon's in a sticky situation seeming he takes cash from Unite and Cameron so far has failed to really capitalise on so many opportunities thrown his way.

I have a feeling this election won't be about who's the winner, more who can prove themselves to be the lesser loser..

Furunculus

03-22-2010, 09:40

sure Defence isn't the only issue, and I am delighted the unions have taken this moment to remind the electorate what labour stand for.

in other news, Labour urinate more than 50% of the nations wealth up the wall every single year:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7495214/Budget-2010-Relentless-march-of-state-spending.html

InsaneApache

03-22-2010, 13:45

A fine piece in the Wall St. Journal today.

http://blogs.wsj.com/iainmartin/2010/03/21/stephen-byers-lobbying-scandal-how-corporatism-works-part-94/

Stephen Byers is in hot water. The former cabinet minister is at the centre of a Sunday Times undercover investigation into lobbying and MPs making themselves available for hire to corporate interests keen to influence government policy in their favour.

He now says that when he was caught on tape he was exaggerating, presumably to impress the fake lobbying firm trying to establish what he could do for them. He denies any wrongdoing.

An extraordinary spin operation seems to have convinced parts of the BBC that actually there’s not much to see here, and that the real story is that ministers are condemning their former colleagues (well, they would, wouldn’t they, as someone from another scandal once put it). And also that Gordon Brown is determined to take action against lobbyists, something he seems to have overlooked in either the last three or 13 years.

Ultimately, this story just demonstrates, yet again, how corporatism works. When government is too powerful, free markets are too weak and competition insufficient, companies (clearly not stupid) will realise quickly that the main route to getting what they want lies in convincing government to give it to them. Thus doing business and making money hangs on who you know in power and what they can do for you — rather than in just making better products than your rivals and selling them to customers.

For a users manual, read Byers comments to The Sunday Times about National Express and the Department of Transport:

“He regards his greatest success, however, as his “work” for National Express when the company was in negotiation with the government over its loss-making rail franchises that cost £1.4 billion. This is how he tells the story: “They approached me, June of last year, and said, ‘We’ve got a huge problem. We want to get out of the East Coast main line but not pay a huge penalty and we want to keep the other two franchises as long we can’.“So between you and I, I then spoke to Andrew Adonis, the transport secretary, and said, ‘Andrew, look, they’ve got a huge problem. Is there a way out of this?’ And then we, we sort of worked together — basically, the way he was comfortable doing it and you have to keep this very confidential yourself.”

“He [Adonis] said we shouldn’t be involved in the detailed negotiation between his civil servants and National Express but we can give them a broad steer. So we basically got to a situation where we agreed with Andrew he would publicly be very critical of National Express and talk about, ‘I’m going to strip you of the franchise’ and be very gung-ho.“And we said we will live with that and we won’t challenge you in the court, provided you then let us out by December, by the end of the year, and we can keep the other two franchises for a little longer. So, and that’s what we managed to do.”

See how it works? “They’ve got a huge problem… so I spoke to Andrew… then we sort of worked together… broad steer… we will Iive with that and won’t challenge you in the court, provided you then let us out… that’s what we managed to do…”

We live, more than ever, in a corporatist world - as the conduct in recent years of some of the biggest banks demonstrates.

There’s a great piece (also in the Sunday Times) from Michael Lewis (of Liar’s Poker fame) which in passing notes the corporatist aspects of the financial crisis.

“A few Wall Street CEOs were fired for their roles in the sub-prime mortgage catastrophe, but most remained in their jobs and they, of all people, became important characters operating behind closed doors, trying to figure out what to do next. With them were a handful of government officials — the same government officials who should have known a lot more about what Wall Street firms were doing, back when they were doing it.”

What Lewis describes is not free-marketeering. It’s corporatism, a conspiracy between two powerful interests: government and institutions. The loser is the consumer and the taxpayer.

I liked this quote....

Bravo, This is something I have been pointing out for years to anyone who will listen. We do not have a free market system in the UK, We are not a socialist, or a capitalist system. Neither of the main parties supports free-markets or capitalism or socialism. They are both corporatists. we are seeing the “third way” started by Blair and continued by both Brown and Cameron. The third way is a form of Privatisation that is very different from what Thatcher did. With BT and British Gas, etc. Vast and inefficient public monoliths were sold to ordinary everyday people. We could have a direct and valuable share in the ownership, instead of an indirect and value-less state ownership. Additionally, the state stopped stealing money from the tax-payer to fund these and left the cost to the customer.

Modern privatisations see parts of state owned “assets” sold in private to elite cronies and the cost is STILL borne by the tax-payer. It is a merger between state and Corporation. This removes democratic oversight and privatises the profits whilst socialising the losses. We have seen something similar with the banking system, with a part nationalisation. Again, this was done to socialise the losses but keep the profits and bonuses flowing. This is NOT socialism, nor is it capitalism. This is Corporatism which is also known as Fascism.

:book:

Idaho

03-22-2010, 16:23

true enough.
---------------------------------------------------------------
ah, how i want to see this scum broken once again:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/7488530/Threats-and-abuse-for-the-BA-staff-standing-up-to-the-strikers.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/7488923/I-thought-wed-swept-away-all-this-nonsense.html

Usual anti-union smear tactics. This stuff is as old as the hills.

People like you think that it's fine for business to maximise it's legal rights to make money, but not for people to group together to protect their jobs.

Boohugh

03-22-2010, 16:56

People like you think that it's fine for business to maximise it's legal rights to make money, but not for people to group together to protect their jobs.

But when they start to destroy the company they work for and all end up with no job because the company goes bust it seems rather counter-productive, no? Trade union activity helped kill off other British industries such as coal, steel and carmaking, why will airlines be any different? A company shouldn't be able to walk roughshod over its workers, but equally the workers (through trade unions) shouldn't stop the business being just that...a viable business.

Furunculus

03-22-2010, 17:30

Usual anti-union smear tactics. This stuff is as old as the hills.

People like you think that it's fine for business to maximise it's legal rights to make money, but not for people to group together to protect their jobs.
that is your interpretation.

Idaho

03-22-2010, 17:54

But when they start to destroy the company they work for and all end up with no job because the company goes bust it seems rather counter-productive, no? Trade union activity helped kill off other British industries such as coal, steel and carmaking, why will airlines be any different? A company shouldn't be able to walk roughshod over its workers, but equally the workers (through trade unions) shouldn't stop the business being just that...a viable business.

Thatcher and the conservatives killed off British industry by making the whole country run for the benefit of their mates in the city. Labour followed suit and we did whatever the bankers said was best. Which as you know, ended really, really well.

InsaneApache

03-22-2010, 18:35

Thatcher and the conservatives killed off British industry by making the whole country run for the benefit of their mates in the city. Labour followed suit and we did whatever the bankers said was best. Which as you know, ended really, really well.

:laugh4:

If I didn't know better, I reckon that you're serious.

As you're well aware, Hilda implemented the doctrin of In Place of Strife, that the Wilson government bottled when Castle thought it up. The British industry of which you speak never recovered from the fascist unions demands in the 70s.

al Roumi

03-22-2010, 18:44

Thatcher and the conservatives killed off British industry by making the whole country run for the benefit of their mates in the city. Labour followed suit and we did whatever the bankers said was best. Which as you know, ended really, really well.

I'd also say that British industry was severly undermined by its management. Many of the flagship industries, most notably automotive, were consolidated under a single group, collectively and comprehensively destroyed by poor products and poor quality. The concept of "British made" being a sign of quality lost all meaning after about the 70s. The industry failed to modernise and control costs in the way that the French and German manufacturing automatised themselves (albeit with govt support -unthinkable under Thatcher).

Idaho

03-22-2010, 19:25

:laugh4:

If I didn't know better, I reckon that you're serious.

As you're well aware, Hilda implemented the doctrin of In Place of Strife, that the Wilson government bottled when Castle thought it up. The British industry of which you speak never recovered from the fascist unions demands in the 70s.

The union activity of the 70s was a symptom of industrial decline, than the cause of it.

'Fascist unions'? You are just stringing together words. One of the key features of fascism is union breaking.

InsaneApache

03-22-2010, 20:11

'Fascist unions'? You are just stringing together words. One of the key features of fascism is union breaking.

You clearly know nowt of union tactics in the 70s.

Subotan

03-22-2010, 20:16

I'd also say that British industry was severly undermined by its management. Many of the flagship industries, most notably automotive, were consolidated under a single group, collectively and comprehensively destroyed by poor products and poor quality. The concept of "British made" being a sign of quality lost all meaning after about the 70s. The industry failed to modernise and control costs in the way that the French and German manufacturing automatised themselves (albeit with govt support -unthinkable under Thatcher).
John Harvey-Jones' "Troubleshooter" is the best example of this :yes:

Furunculus

03-23-2010, 00:42

Thatcher and the conservatives killed off British industry by making the whole country run for the benefit of their mates in the city. Labour followed suit and we did whatever the bankers said was best. Which as you know, ended really, really well.

hah, my grandfather was a solid union man in the liverpool docks.

he went on strike the first time they asked and lost his prized jazz collection, and received nothing from the union, it was just SU inspired agitation.

he went on strike the second time they asked and lost the car he loved, and again received nothing from the union, it was just SU inspired agitation.

the third time they went out on strike he joined them for loyalty, and lost nothing but money because he's already given away everything he valued as a poorly paid dock worker, and again the union did nothing for him.

i will happily watch and applaud as they get broken once again if the unions decide to get uppity, i might even smile!

Furunculus

03-23-2010, 09:18

Institute of Directors ask darling to cut harder and faster, and demonstrate that a reduced burden of taxation leads to higher growth:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7499325/Budget-2010-IoD-urges-Alistair-Darling-to-heed-lessons-of-1997.html

Subotan

03-23-2010, 10:13

CountArach

03-23-2010, 11:10

You clearly know nowt of union tactics in the 70s.
Fascists are anti-unionist and unions are anti-fascist. Not that hard to figure out.

And don't count on the strike actually influencing public opinion (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/2524?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+PollingReport+%28UK+Polling+Report%29):

YouGov asked a series of questions on trade unions and Unite. 49% of people thought that Unite had a great deal or a fair amount of influence over the government. 17% though it was ever thus – that Labour had always been controlled by the unions, 28% thought Labour had distanced itself, but control was now shifting back. 32% thought that Labour used to be controlled by the unions but no longer was (including a majority of Labour supporters). More generally, 22% of people think trade unions are too powerful in Britain today, 19% thinki they are not powerful enough with 45% thinking they have about the right level of power.

Asked specifically about the BA strike, 35% of respondents thought the government should have condemned the strike more strongly, 18% thought the government got their criticism about right (a sum of 53% supporting the government criticising the strike). 30% said the government should not have taken sides, with 4% saying the government should have supported the strike.

Hardly anyone says the strike would actually change their vote at the election (and most of those that do can be dismissed – the 4% who say it makes them less likely to vote Labour are mostly Conservative voters anyway, while most of the 1% who say it makes them more likely to vote Labour are already Labour voters). However, while it may not be a direct consideration, it could still have an indirect effect in terms of the government’s response and the effect upon their party image.

Furunculus

03-23-2010, 12:31

InsaneApache

03-23-2010, 15:14

As Tommy Dorsey sang, the music goes around and around....

The row over the role of parliamentary lobbyists erupted in the commons when the Conservative Party leader, William Hague, accused the prime minister of surrounding himself with "feather-bedding, pocket-lining, money grabbing cronies".

During a series of bitter exchanges at prime minister's questions, Mr Hague demanded to know why no action was being taken against a member of the Downing Street Policy Unit, following allegations in the Observer newspaper.

Jon Sopel reviews Tony Blair's most difficult 10 minutes in the Commons yet

The prime minister said Mr Hague was using "smear tactics" and "windy rhetoric"and again denied the claims in the cash-for-contacts row.

Meanwhile, one of the individuals at the centre of the row, Derek Draper, has resigned from his lobbyist job at GPC Market Access.

He had already been suspended from the firm and been sacked from another job as columnist on the Daily Express newspaper.

Derek Draper has left his job as lobbyist

The row began when the The Observer claimed that the political lobbyist, Mr Draper, arranged access into 10 Downing Street for clients with the help of the Downing Street policy adviser Roger Liddle.

Mr Draper denies the claim and is considering legal action against the newspaper.

The Downing Street policy adviser, Mr Liddle, has been strenuously backed by government ministers who argue the Observer has failed to provide any evidence to back up its story.

Sir Ian Wrigglesworth, head of GPC Market Access, said: "Following discussions, Derek Draper has this afternoon told GPC he has resigned in the best interests of GPC, its clients and staff, and to pursue other interests.

"The board of GPC welcomes Mr Draper's decision."

Mr Blair said at a stormy Question Time that he had instructed the Cabinet Secretary Sir Richard Wilson to revise the rules governing contacts between government employees and outside groups and "to strengthen them in any way he sees fit".

Mr Blair said: "There can be no circumstances that ever justify either passing confidential or inside information to a lobbyist or the granting of any improper preferential access or influence over government."

Blair denies wrongdoing

Responding to a call from Mr Hague to take action against his ministers, Mr Blair again denied any wrongdoing.

He said: "First of all, there was the supposed leak of the select committee report. We investigated that. No government minister was involved. No MP was involved.

"A member of a lobbying firm simply took a press embargoed copy. That shouldn't have happened but it is obviously not the fault of government.

Tony Blair faced a grilling from Conservative leader William Hague

"Second, was the allegation that there was the leak of the Chancellor's Mansion House speech and selective information in that speech was leaked.

"There was no such leak of that speech and the information concerned wasn't even in that speech."

Moving on the allegations about Mr Liddle, Mr Blair said: "That was based, as you know, on this talk at a cocktail party at the Guildhall.

"A freelance journalist, claiming to be an American businessman, said he wanted to invest in Britain and asked Mr Liddle to help, who agreed, perfectly properly.

"It is emphatically denied that he in any way offered, in doing so, to act on behalf of a lobbying company.

"The journalist claimed to have words suggesting this on tape. It is now admitted that this claim is false and no such tape exists."

Minister walks out

Meanwhile Hilary Armstrong, the Local Government Minister, walked out of a meeting with journalists as the contacts row reached a local government conference in Bournemouth.

BBC correspondent Nick Jones says he was given short shrift when he asked about Mr Lucas

Mrs Armstrong left a news conference when BBC correspondent Nick Jones asked her about the Local Government Association employing lobbyist Ben Lucas.

Mr Jones suggested that Mr Lucas had told the association that he would be able to get hold a copy of the forthcoming White Paper on local government before publication.

Ms Armstrong described that as an "outrage".

She said: "No one other than you from the BBC has suggested that anyone from the government has been involved in deals.

"It is a slur, it is outrageous. It is not true. I do deals with no one and I have been straight with delegates here."

It later emerged that the LGA were to meet to discuss the future of Mr Lucas, a director of lobbyist company LLM, who they are employing on a six-month contract.

The Local Government Association said: "LLM is not and has not lobbied on behalf of the association. At no time has the association sought or obtained confidential information through LLM."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/128931.stm

:book:

Idaho

03-23-2010, 17:23

Politicians in corruption shocker! My god! You mean they are all just after money and power for it's own sake?!?

That's why I don't vote. Why put the stamp of approval on the charade?

Furunculus

03-23-2010, 18:43

Politicians in corruption shocker! My god! You mean they are all just after money and power for it's own sake?!?

That's why I don't vote. Why put the stamp of approval on the charade?
just so long as you realise that you have no right to complain when politics doesn't turn out how you would like it to be...........

Myrddraal

03-24-2010, 03:23

Truly disgraceful, but unfortunately hardly surprising following on the back of the expenses scandal. Though the reputation of our politicians and political activism is suffering because of all this media attention, at least we can console ourselves that the intense public scrutiny going on right now is probably going to have longer term benefits to our democracy. In a sense I guess I'm trying to say that it's probably quite healthy for a democracy to lay into it's representatives every so often.

Beskar

03-24-2010, 05:04

Now for the right thread -

The Guardian makes a very interesting point when it comes to bending over and receiving it from our American colleagues while throwing up the argument that our sovereignty is being eroded when it comes to our European counterparts.

Perhaps it is the notion in Britain that we are superior to our European counterparts thus we will raise our arms in protest against any co-operative efforts with our neighbours. On the other hand we are brainwashed from Hollywood and Americanphile sources to accept American supremacy over our lands and eternal servitude to our American overlords in the form of our "special relationship".

Idaho

03-24-2010, 11:40

just so long as you realise that you have no right to complain when politics doesn't turn out how you would like it to be...........

That doesn't even draw a passing reference to logic. You are saying that unless I validate and approve a poor system, I have no right to complain about it? Pure nonsense. I hope the voter turnout drops below 30%. Then the current crop of politicians and parties will get very very nervous about being ambushed by single issue candidates and independents.

The point is that whoever you or I vote for, will make absolutely no difference to how politics turns out. May as well pray, or try and cast a magic spell.

InsaneApache

03-24-2010, 11:52

I hear what you're saying Idaho and in some ways I agree with you. I felt the same in the last election. However, if we are to try and 'rescue' our democracy then we should all vote. My own opinion is that you should vote for anyone who is not an MP. At least that way we start with a brand new broom and the plus side is that if all the MPs elected were novices it would take them six months to sort themselves out. Also whilst they are doing this they won't be passing anymore ridiculous laws. Double plus good.

Idaho

03-24-2010, 12:17

How can we change a system by validating it?

If we vote for a different party the message we give is - the system works, it just needs a change of personnel. It doesn't just need a change of personnel.

We can vote on everything that doesn't matter - big brother, the best song, the c-list nonsense. And the technology works perfectly. But can we vote for anything that matters? No. And instead we have people like Lord Sainsbury and Lord Ashcroft. Massively wealthy and influencial people who can just walk into government. They can affect more policy with a shrug, than 50 constituencies of voters.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-24-2010, 13:58

That doesn't even draw a passing reference to logic. You are saying that unless I validate and approve a poor system, I have no right to complain about it? Pure nonsense. I hope the voter turnout drops below 30%. Then the current crop of politicians and parties will get very very nervous about being ambushed by single issue candidates and independents.

The point is that whoever you or I vote for, will make absolutely no difference to how politics turns out. May as well pray, or try and cast a magic spell.

The only way to change the way the system works is to vote in people who want to change it, this is rather like the argument, "If only the Liberal Democrats could get enough votes, but they never will, so I won't vote for them."

Your only alternative is to forcebly overthrow the government.

How can we change a system by validating it?

If we vote for a different party the message we give is - the system works, it just needs a change of personnel. It doesn't just need a change of personnel.

We can vote on everything that doesn't matter - big brother, the best song, the c-list nonsense. And the technology works perfectly. But can we vote for anything that matters? No. And instead we have people like Lord Sainsbury and Lord Ashcroft. Massively wealthy and influencial people who can just walk into government. They can affect more policy with a shrug, than 50 constituencies of voters.

The "system" is parliamentary democracy, unless you think there is a better system you should vote. Complaining about a few rich peers is pointless, and petty. All the people who matter were deomocratically elected. If all the people who didn't want them had actually voted at least half of them would not now have seats.

That Idaho, is why you cannot complain.

I hear what you're saying Idaho and in some ways I agree with you. I felt the same in the last election. However, if we are to try and 'rescue' our democracy then we should all vote. My own opinion is that you should vote for anyone who is not an MP. At least that way we start with a brand new broom and the plus side is that if all the MPs elected were novices it would take them six months to sort themselves out. Also whilst they are doing this they won't be passing anymore ridiculous laws. Double plus good.

Quite. I concur.

Now for the right thread -

The Guardian makes a very interesting point when it comes to bending over and receiving it from our American colleagues while throwing up the argument that our sovereignty is being eroded when it comes to our European counterparts.

Perhaps it is the notion in Britain that we are superior to our European counterparts thus we will raise our arms in protest against any co-operative efforts with our neighbours. On the other hand we are brainwashed from Hollywood and Americanphile sources to accept American supremacy over our lands and eternal servitude to our American overlords in the form of our "special relationship".

This is the difference between "Operational" and "Strategic" independence. Britain is operationally independent, Trident can function for 16 months without the US, that's more than long enough to make the deterent fully independent if it was actually necessary.

Furunculus

03-24-2010, 17:44

Ah, the liberal namby-pamby Grauniad on defence. Let's see what the sandal-wearers have to say:
Losing our sovereignty is unacceptable; except when it's 'Murrican. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2010/mar/22/trident-nuclear-deterrence-uk-us)

once more Monboit acts the fool, everything you need to know about the UK's nukes:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?118607-Dawn-of-a-new-EU-European-Conservatives-and-Reformists-Group-springs-into-life&p=2270721&viewfull=1#post2270721
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Independence of Operation, not independence of acquisition:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/FreedomOfInformation/DisclosureLog/SearchDisclosureLog/2005/07/BritainsNuclearArsenalControl.htm

"2. Does the government of the United States of America have any involvement in the use of nuclear weapons by the British government?

No. But in the event of the contemplated use of UK nuclear weapons for NATO purposes,
procedures exist to allow all NATO Allies, including the US, to express views on what was
being proposed. The final decision on whether or not to use nuclear weapons in such
circumstances, and if so how, would, however, be made by the nuclear power concerned.

3. Can the government of the USA prevent, veto or forbid the UK to use its own nuclear weapons?

No.

4. Does the British government have to tell the US government if it intends to use nuclear weapons?

No. But the US would be involved in any consultation process at NATO as described in the
answer to your second question."
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmselect/cmdfence/986/98607.htm

"80. It is important to distinguish between two different types of independence: independence of acquisition and independence of operation. We heard that independence of acquisition is what the French have opted for at a significantly higher cost to the defence budget. Independence of operation is an alternative concept of independence and it is this which the UK has opted for at a lower price.

81. Sir Michael Quinlan told us that the UK's decision to choose independence of operation meant that "in the last resort, when the chips are down and we are scared, worried to the extreme, we can press the button and launch the missiles whether the Americans say so or not".[67] He argued that the decision to fire is an independent, sovereign decision. The United States "can neither dictate that the [UK's] force be used if HMG does not so wish, nor [can it] apply any veto-legal or physical-if HMG were to decide upon [its] use".[68]

82. Commodore Hare told us that "operationally the system is completely independent of the United States. Any decision to launch missiles is a sovereign decision taken by the UK and does not involve anybody else". He told us that the United States does not have a "technical golden key" which can prevent the UK from using the system.[69]

83. The potential disadvantage of the UK decision to forego independence of acquisition is that "if, over a very long period, we became deeply estranged from the Americans and they decide to rat on their agreements, we would be in… great difficulty".[70] Commodore Hare told us that such a risk was, in reality, "very low" and that, ultimately, "one must balance that risk against the enormous cost benefits that we have in procuring an American system to house in our submarines. That should not be underestimated".[71]"

Strike For The South

03-24-2010, 18:42

21 pages and no adorable slang....I don't think I'm alone when I say this thread has been an absolute waste

al Roumi

03-25-2010, 15:24

21 pages and no adorable slang....I don't think I'm alone when I say this thread has been an absolute waste

LOL, surely there is some charm in our quaint concerns of non-superpower defence and political intrigue?

If not, i'd plead that the Telegraph (origin of most of the articles here, courtesy of the threads main sponsor: Furunculus) somehow manages to be bland in the extreme and yet vitriolic and jingoist.

Alternatively, it could be that we have moved-on to detailed discusion, rather than the broad should we/shouldn't we be completely self interested :daisy:s when it comes to supporting the needy in our society?

:wink:

Strike For The South

03-25-2010, 16:15

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-25-2010, 16:40

LOL, surely there is some charm in our quaint concerns of non-superpower defence and political intrigue?

If not, i'd plead that the Telegraph (origin of most of the articles here, courtesy of the threads main sponsor: Furunculus) somehow manages to be bland in the extreme and yet vitriolic and jingoist.

Alternatively, it could be that we have moved-on to detailed discusion, rather than the broad should we/shouldn't we be completely self interested :daisy:s when it comes to supporting the needy in our society?

:wink:

Then we have the Guardian saying we should have a joint fleet with the French, and suggesting they complete one of our Aircraft Carriers.

The thing I love about the Telegraph is that they present the actual facts and figures, no matter how much invective the writer uses you can still glean some actual news. The Gaudian just woffles, few facts, no figures, just quoted numbers.

So, I'll take the one over the other; thank you.

tibilicus

03-25-2010, 16:51

21 pages and no adorable slang....I don't think I'm alone when I say this thread has been an absolute waste

It turned into a debate on defence. As far as I know that's a topic way down on the list of peoples concerns in the country right now.

InsaneApache

03-25-2010, 17:36

I dunno, I like to read that madwoman Toynbee on a morning. It's sure to make me laugh and cheers me up no end. As for the slang, Gordon Brown is a wassock. :)

Furunculus

03-25-2010, 18:34

LOL, surely there is some charm in our quaint concerns of non-superpower defence and political intrigue?

If not, i'd plead that the Telegraph (origin of most of the articles here, courtesy of the threads main sponsor: Furunculus) somehow manages to be bland in the extreme and yet vitriolic and jingoist.

Alternatively, it could be that we have moved-on to detailed discusion, rather than the broad should we/shouldn't we be completely self interested :daisy:s when it comes to supporting the needy in our society?

:wink:

roflmao!

well, some brave soul did attempt to interject a great moonbat article from the guardian, but it was rubbish as usual.

and what your overly-sensitive nerves detect as jingoism is nothing more than realism, deal with it.

al Roumi

03-25-2010, 18:56

The thing I love about the Telegraph is that they present the actual facts and figures, no matter how much invective the writer uses you can still glean some actual news. The Gaudian just woffles, few facts, no figures, just quoted numbers.

Pray tell, what is the difference between "just quoted numbers" and "actual facts and figures"? Is it anything to do with perception, perchance?

roflmao!

well, some brave soul did attempt to interject a great moonbat article from the guardian, but it was rubbish and usual.

and what your overly-sensitive nerves detect as jingoism is nothing more than realism, deal with it.

We are going to have so much fun once the voting starts, aren't we chaps! :party:

Louis VI the Fat

03-25-2010, 21:13

We are going to have so much fun once the voting starts, aren't we chaps! :party:The fun is, that despite Labour having been in power for thirteen years, reaching unheard of levels of dissaproval and common disgust, people still don't want anything to do with the Conservatives. The Toff lobby party is always one grade worse. :toff:

The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

Election Looming, Tories Put Posh Foot in Mouth

LONDON — What could be more embarrassing for a party trying to change its elitist image than the existence of someone like Sir Nicholas Winterton? A Conservative member of Parliament for the last 39 years, Sir Nicholas wandered disastrously off message recently when he decided to share his thoughts on why legislators should be allowed to travel first class to avoid exposure to the common man.

“They are a totally different type of people,” Sir Nicholas declared

All this matters because many Britons, when confronted with privilege, are still deeply ambivalent about whether to mistrust, envy, celebrate, despise, aspire to or undermine it.

Many old-time Tories are leaving Parliament this year, including the unrepentantly first-class-loving Sir Nicholas. But there are more waiting in the wings. Last year, worried about how an impeccably pedigreed Tory candidate named Annunziata Rees-Mogg would go over with hoi polloi, Mr. Cameron suggested that she might want to campaign under the name “Nancy Mogg.”

She refused, although, to be fair, another candidate, the spectacularly named Richard Grosvenor Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax, dutifully “de-toffed” himself (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233566/Tory-parliamentary-candidate-Richard-Grosvenor-Plunkett-Ernle-Erle-Drax-called-plain-Richard-Drax-De-toff-Cameron.html) by downgrading to “Richard Drax” on campaign posters.
Meanwhile, Ms. Rees-Mogg’s brother, Jacob, a banker who is also running for Parliament and who appears to believe he belongs to the “Brideshead Revisited” era, having once taken his childhood nanny with him (http://findarticles.com/p/news-articles/mail-on-sunday-london-england-the/mi_8003/is_2000_March_26/truth-nanny/ai_n36244794/?tag=content;col1) on the campaign trail, went on television to denounce Mr. Cameron’s plan to get more women and minorities elected as the triumph of “potted plants” over “intellectually able people.”

Which self-respecting British taxpayer would sweat buckets every day just to support Dave Snooty and his Eton Pals?

Mr. Cameron cannot overcome the fact that his own background of easy privilege fits the classic Tory stereotype, Mr. Savage said. Among the most obvious issues, Mr. Savage pointed out, are that “he speaks with a posh accent and comes from the most elite school in the country.”

That would be Eton, the traditional finishing school for the aristocracy, and the alma mater of most members of Mr. Cameron’s inner circle (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-band-of-etonian-brothers-449043.html). Mr. Cameron also went to Oxford, where he ran in rarefied company, enjoying shooting parties at the estates of his rich friends and joining the upper-crust Bullingdon Club (http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/may/09/oxbridgeandelitism.highereducation), whose members like to put on white tie, get spectacularly drunk and destroy things like the insides of rural pubs.

Mr. Cameron also married well: Samantha, his wife, is the daughter of Sir Reginald Adrian Berkeley Sheffield, Eighth Baronet and a descendant — reportedly in three different ways — of King Charles II; her stepfather is the Fourth Viscount Astor.
With all this as material, Labour cannot resist. Prime Minister Gordon Brown (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/gordon_brown/index.html?inline=nyt-per) played to easy laughs in Parliament last year when he derided a Tory proposal to reduce estate taxes (http://topics.nytimes.com/your-money/planning/estate-planning/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier) as having been “dreamed up on the playing fields of Eton.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/23/world/europe/23britain.html?hpw

Pannonian

03-25-2010, 21:48

The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

UKIP fragments the Tory vote, but the BNP actually takes from the old Labour constituency. The BNP's main selling point in mainstream terms is rights for the British (read: whites), which plays well among the underprivileged who aren't bright enough to ask how the BNP intend to do this. UKIP's appeal is to Thatcherites whose exploration of their ideas has led them up their own arse. The Tories and New-Labs are broadly similar post-Thatcher neo-Liberal parties with different emphases, which is what the British mainstream is nowadays. The LibDems are the LibDems.

Furunculus

03-25-2010, 22:52

The fun is, that despite Labour having been in power for thirteen years, reaching unheard of levels of dissaproval and common disgust, people still don't want anything to do with the Conservatives. The Toff lobby party is always one grade worse.

The rightwing vote is divided. Between the BNP, the UKIP and the Tartan tories sharing the nationalist/rightwing vote, there's not much left for the Conservatives. This leaves the Tories only their natural power base, which consists of a handful of toffs and those who imagine themselves one by being their faithful servants.

you are right to assume that it is the tories election to lose, and they may yet lose it, if they do i will be laughing hard believe me.

but you are wrong to ascribe the BNP vote to the tories because that is pure labour territory, and wrong to play too hard on class politics.

Boohugh

03-26-2010, 00:10

Alistair Darling has finally admitted that we are in for some serious spending cuts (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587877.stm) after the election, apparently worse than the ones Thatcher made in the 80's! This raises two interesting points for me:

1) It proves Gordon Brown is either completely and utterly deluded as he isn't willing to personally admit the cuts and still thinks he can spend money, or he just keeps lying about spending and hopes the truthful messages from his ministers slip under the radar.

2) Where does this place the die-hard anti-Thatcherites who still blame her for so many of the UK's ills by making such drastic cuts in her time, when the Labour government (if they win) will make even bigger cuts? Although I guess if Cameron wins, and he goes ahead and makes even deeper cuts than Labour as he is promising, then they'll have a whole new hate figure to blame for sorting out what is basically a momumental financial balls-up!

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2010, 00:38

Traditionally the working-class tends more towards "racism" against outsiders, while the Upper Class tend to looking down fondly on everyone equally. After all, the colour of your Gentleman's Gentleman is much less important that whether he understand how to polish your shoes and press your shirt-collar. So the BNP hardly plays to the Tory.

So what if Mr Cameron went to Eton and Oxford, it means he's well educated. I frankly don't give a toss about how much money he or his wife has, or their breeding. To think it makes him intrinsically a bad person or unfit to run ther country is just as prejudiced as attacking Barrack Obama for being "Black".

Pannonian

03-26-2010, 00:53

2) Where does this place the die-hard anti-Thatcherites who still blame her for so many of the UK's ills by making such drastic cuts in her time, when the Labour government (if they win) will make even bigger cuts? Although I guess if Cameron wins, and he goes ahead and makes even deeper cuts than Labour as he is promising, then they'll have a whole new hate figure to blame for sorting out what is basically a momumental financial balls-up!

Thatcher isn't reviled for her spending cuts. She's reviled for utterly stripping Britain of all sense of community, and making an ideology of it. She's liberalism taken to its extreme, no identity outside the individual, the individual being everything. She claims some adherence to Toryism via the family, but Toryism had traditionally been about the class doing its duty within the set society, of which the family was but a small part. Her difference from old Labour's socialist ideals doesn't need explanation. She's won her political struggle in that her view is now the political mainstream. But let's not forget what she did.

Myrddraal

03-26-2010, 01:00

Pannonian

03-26-2010, 01:19

The theory is that those who have grown up with privilege have no experience of many of the problems in society and the economy which they are supposed to address in power. It's got some basis, but mainly it's a load of :daisy:. If Cameron is intelligent enough and empathetic enough the argument has no leg to stand on, and I have no doubt that he is.

The Tory argument would be that the privileged classes have a duty to society as a whole, and should do their best to discharge it. Wellington was the archetypal Tory. The Thatcherite argument would be that the individual has no responsibility to society beyond what the state demands, and even this should be reduced as much as possible.

Furunculus

03-26-2010, 08:56

Thatcher isn't reviled for her spending cuts. She's reviled for utterly stripping Britain of all sense of community, and making an ideology of it. She's liberalism taken to its extreme, no identity outside the individual, the individual being everything. She claims some adherence to Toryism via the family, but Toryism had traditionally been about the class doing its duty within the set society, of which the family was but a small part. Her difference from old Labour's socialist ideals doesn't need explanation. She's won her political struggle in that her view is now the political mainstream. But let's not forget what she did.

reviled by some, i have never had a problem with it.

InsaneApache

03-26-2010, 10:52

I personally couldn't give a rats arse where the Prime minister or his cabinet comes from. They could come from Neptune as far as I'm concerned, just as long as they're competent and capable.

al Roumi

03-26-2010, 11:21

Traditionally the working-class tends more towards "racism" against outsiders, while the Upper Class tend to looking down fondly on everyone equally. After all, the colour of your Gentleman's Gentleman is much less important that whether he understand how to polish your shoes and press your shirt-collar.

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

Can I have some sauce with your amazing statements on the correlation between social class and racism please, it's a bit hard to swallow.

Have you any idea about history?

Edit:

Must I invoke godwins' law and explain a bit about Oswald Mosely (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oswald_Mosley), to name but a single example from the last century?

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2010, 15:12

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

Not what I said, I suggest you re-read. I deliberately placed "racism" for the working class in quote marks. My point was that prejudice works differently in different classes. The lower class are directly threatened by outsiders, and this manifests as ethnic prejudice when confronted by immigrants. By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

So, this is why the King caused consternation during WWI because he tended to praise all commonwealth troops equally, regardless of origen; but he did this because they were all his "subjects".

I find it interesting you raise Mosley, who is probably one of the most ambiguous figures of the 20th Century, a Facist certainly, anti-Jewish and Anti-Catholic. However, also a Labour MP, pro European and against the violence of the Blacks-and-Tans.

al Roumi

03-26-2010, 15:33

By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

Banquo's Ghost

03-26-2010, 16:11

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-26-2010, 16:21

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

I see you have returned and once again donned Green. :bow: That's certainly a pleasure to see.

Anyway, I defer to your greater experince in this area and in life in general. I was merely offering what I percieve to be the case. It should be noted have have no direct access to the Upper Class, being the stereotypical "Poor Clerk".

al Roumi

03-26-2010, 16:22

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

Edit:

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.
Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the BNP's economic policy -although i agree that they purport to have the interests of the comon British worker at heart, something not easy to reconcile with an ultra free market approach such as fascism tends to espouse.

Banquo's Ghost

03-26-2010, 16:51

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.

Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?

al Roumi

03-26-2010, 17:21

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

True, I guess the upper class lost their grip on the steering wheel of power in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Their party of choice was Monarchical. I'm getting confused with more recent history where the controls have been held by the middle class, against whom the upper class defended themselves and lost in the strife of the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries (depending on where you live).

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?
I couldn't agree more - its baffling given the apparently privileged lot BA crews have compared to other airlines, but maybe that's nonsense too. The pendulum of public opinion is most definitley not behind them when BA can make the strikers look like the cause of holiday travel nightmares.

As with the recent public sector worker strikes, i find it consistently amazing how self-centred people appear to be when made to feel the pain of those in the wider private sector. Then again, i'm sure I'd find it hard to be stoic about a pay cut or the threat of redundancy if I had a mortgage and family to support.

Louis VI the Fat

03-26-2010, 17:39

I personally couldn't give a rats arse where the Prime minister or his cabinet comes from. What if the problem with Dave Snooty and his Eton Pals is that they are a self-serving clique, as the investigative journalism (http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2009/11/25/old-pals-tax-115875-21848294/) of this quality paper suggests?

David Cameron's closest Tory chums will make £7.1MILLION from his plans to slash inheritance tax for the super-rich.

A Mirror investigation has found that 18 millionaire members of the shadow cabinet will save up to £520,000 each under the Conservatives' flagship policy.

Among those benefiting from the controversial plans to raise the tax threshold to £2million are shadow chancellor George Osborne, foreign secretary William Hague and Mr Cameron.
Angry trade union leaders last night said it was a blatant example of the Tories looking after their own. Unite general secretary Derek Simpson said: "They want to feather their nests but make hard-working families work longer and for less."
A few more proposals like this, and Britain will move from a meritocracy to an old-fashioned rigid class society - like the US. :sneaky:

Increasingly, the current Tories are taking their cue not from traditional British class divisions, nor from Thatcher's conservatism, but from the excesses of the US right.

InsaneApache

03-26-2010, 18:08

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant. :laugh4:

Pannonian

03-26-2010, 20:51

Idaho

03-27-2010, 00:26

The "system" is parliamentary democracy, unless you think there is a better system you should vote.

...

That Idaho, is why you cannot complain.

I do think there is a better system, so I don't vote.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-27-2010, 01:41

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

Banquo's Ghost

03-27-2010, 09:54

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant. :laugh4:

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

Were your family still in France at the time of the Great Charter? Or had they gone English by then?

I think one might say the issue was still under some degree of negotiation. :beam:

Pannonian

03-27-2010, 11:42

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

There was this bloke on another forum, who did some work for some lord or other. He noted that he was the scruffiest looking bugger he had ever seen, totally unconcerned with appearance, as if he had more important things on his mind. The counterargument is that the aristocracy have inbred to the point where their brains don't function properly any more, and that's the real reason for their otherworldliness. Adam's apple, swallowing a ballcock, etc.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

03-27-2010, 11:51

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Well, once again this is two seperate kinds of prejudice, which is the point. Though, anti-Monarchistic sentiment among the Lower Class has always had an ethnic slant; ever since William the Bastard.

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

I seem to recall something about Sheffielf cutlers playing a trick on Victorian Middle Classers.

Whitey

03-27-2010, 12:31

Just popping my head in...The quality of debate on this forum was never bad, but just glancing through this thread it seems it has got even better over the years.

It's a bit silly to give a 'thumbs-up', what would that count for? At the same time, good stuff.

And yes, I've always tought it rather daft that the middle classes (of which I am certainly a member) are so obsessed with the form and order of an event rather than the actual substance. It comes from a reasonable place, however. The duke can do what the hell he likes because he doesn't need anyone for anything. We may, so we follow the rules.

Banquo's Ghost

03-27-2010, 15:15

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class. Both New Labour and the current Conservative party are completely devoid of principles or political philosophy, so they are each grasping at ephemera from the past. This is particularly true of Cameron's Conservatives. They don't want to be the "nasty" party anymore, but have no real idea what they do want to be.

Cameron came to lead them because no-one else was quite as vacuous whilst reminding the old school that they had once been conservatives - ie reactionary, cautious and aristocratic, with an expectation of power to rule underpinned by an advanced sense of divine paternalism. Thatcher's revolution had destroyed the old Tory in favour of monetarist individualism with no obligations save to themselves. In the nineties, the brutality that world view inflicts was rejected for Blair's fantasy Third Way which continued the theme of individualism but added a fiction that the country didn't need the "nasty" fiscal responsibilities and could party forever. The Conservatives (now more than ever a loose coalition of philosophies in direct conflict with each other) failed and failed to overcome the public's enthusiastic embrace of jam forever. Just as Blair provided Thatcher-lite-but-cuddly, Cameron provided a suitably vapid Blair-clone and provided a thin appeal to the wings of the party that still cling to the old paternalism because of his alleged breeding.

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy.

(Had the Tories elected a similarly charmless but hard-principled working class man like David Davies, one suspects this election would have already been over. Had they elected a real aristocrat, I suspect they would be announcing 15% public sector pay cuts like Ireland in their manifesto and challenging the public to face reality. Neither type wants to be loved, like little David does).

InsaneApache

03-27-2010, 15:34

Cameron made himself look a right wally when he was interviewed by channel 4 about gays. He made The Great Leader look nimble and sure footed. Indeed the mask is beginning to slip, as I said a week or so ago. I wonder why Cameron joined to Tories as he seems more like a social democrat than a conservative. Davies would have made a better fist of the election campaign for sure. A working class lad made good, who talks more sense in one minute that the three party leaders do in a month.

I still say the Tories missed a trick with El Portillo.

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 11:36

BG - i certainly agree that cameron has done nothing to recommend himself to me, his only claim to my vote is that the tories would be less destructive than labour, but i am not sure that is enough as i am pretty firm on the idea of electing someone who represents my aims and expectations.

IA - agreed about portillo, i always liked him. almost as much as i like john redwood, now there is an old school tory of first-principles.....

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 11:46

an interesting article that takes the tory's to task for not spelling out their vision, and examines why they are afraid to reveal that vision:

The Conservatives have the vision but not the nerve
David Cameron's Conservatives have a compelling plan for government, but they are too fearful to spell out what it is

By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one. Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.

Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.

Related Articles

*
David Cameron can be a great PM - or a footnote
*
Britain may need IMF bail-out, warns David Cameron
*
David Cameron could scrap final salary public sector pensions
*
Tory party conference: Labour's poll rebound sets David Cameron a challenge
*
If you add it all up, MPs are paid handsomely
*
Dominic Grieve loses plum

The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open. The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour. And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?

You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified. Who are the real cowards here? Is the Conservative leadership like some cartoon character who runs away from his own reflection in the mirror because he mistakes it for a bogeyman? Is the story that the Tories could be telling – their "narrative", in fashionable terms – really so terrifying or awesomely incomprehensible? Let's try putting the argument in simple terms and see how many of you run for cover.

First, governments run things very badly. They presume to know more about delivering services than the expert professionals they employ, they waste money on bureaucratic oversight and they play party-political games with vital areas such as education and health. So by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results. Everybody still here? Good.

Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.

Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.

Do you find this concept so difficult to grasp? Does it not, in fact, seem consistent with your own experience of real life? You know that you are likely to get much better and more attentive service from a small local business which is eager to please you as an individual than from a huge corporate outfit which sees you as nothing more than one tiny digit in its annual turnover. When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.

What's not to like? Why is the party so timorous about pitching this solution proudly and robustly? Because it is afraid of Labour (and its media friends) shrieking "postcode lottery", "pushy parents", "middle-class privilege" – of any suggestion that its programme would endanger what Labour calls "fairness". If services become accountable to communities then by definition they may vary, and so the informed, the conscientious, the "privileged" may get a better deal. Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.

This is normally the point in the argument when the Tory spokesman loses his nerve. Unable to assent to anything that would repudiate "fairness", the party retreats on to Labour's ground instead of standing its own. What it could be saying is, "Let's look at how successful Labour's approach has been. Has central government, with all its determination to deliver social equality, actually reduced deprivation and increased opportunity for the poor?" No, it hasn't – and the figures exist to prove it. Inequalities of educational achievement, health outcomes and earnings have not diminished under Labour. So maybe the overweening, overspending, over-intrusive state isn't the answer. Perhaps, contrary to paternalistic, Left-wing myth, it is poorer communities that would benefit most from local self-determination. Perhaps deprivation is as much linked to passivity, defeatism and despair as it is to material poverty, and giving people more responsibility and power over their own lives would enable them to see a future for themselves that was not hopeless.

But telling this story takes nerve, and unblinking fidelity to core beliefs. That means having the confidence to reject Labour's language and its shibboleths: the word "fairness" must be reclaimed to mean that people who work hard to improve their own lives and those of their families should not be treated as if their efforts were a form of social theft; "equality of opportunity", which means that everyone gets a fair chance, must not be confounded with "equality of outcome", in which everyone gets the same whatever his merits. This is a truly liberating solution to the country's problems that could make Gordon Brown's class war look as reactionary and vindictive as it is. The Tories have a week or so in which to decide whether they are proud of it.
i would happily support both this and DC's six EU pledges, but as long as they remain so nebulous i lack the trust that he really intends to implement them, this is serious change that needs to be on an election manifesto.

twelve months down the line when the unions start to object to this plan and cause national strikes, cameron needs to be able to turn around and say i have the backing of the people for this, because otherwise he won't be able to crush union resistance.

CountArach

03-28-2010, 11:58

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy. .
Gah, the poll I read is eluding me now, but I do seem to recall Brown being seen as better in a crisis than Cameron about a month ago.

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 12:08

new polls:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/27/and-the-gap-widens-with-yougov-and-yougovbpix/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2010/03/27/tories-extend-their-lead-with-icm/

Beskar

03-28-2010, 12:29

The 'Special-Relationship' is now over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm

Apparently, people were misusing the word, trying to suggest both America and Britain were equal and Britain benefited from this said relationship. :laugh: :laugh4: :laugh4:

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 12:31

a labour dominated committee decided that.

not that they don't have a point, but i reject the implicit assumption, a-la the IPPR, that it should be replaced with a new euro-relationship.

we will always have more in common with our anglosphere family.

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 14:05

Subotan

03-28-2010, 15:26

That was a great link, thanks.

Louis VI the Fat

03-28-2010, 17:14

lol, the report is based on testimony given by Nick Witney who works for the European Council on Foreign Relations and currently working to set up the European External Action Service aka the European Army:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/c114-i/c11402.htmOh, what cognitive dissonance. A single expert is heard by the committee about the European aspects of transatlantic relations, and you dismiss the entire report?

'Smoking bad for you? lol, I know this chain smoker who lived to be 92 !'

It's a three party committee, it travelled to New York and Washington to hear experts, dozens of British experts were consulted, ranging from economic experts, to UK ambassadors in Washington and the UN, to experts in military and international relations. Based on all of this, the committee tried to establish a picture of the workings and the worth of the special relationship for Britain.

And no, an absolutely pig-headed refusal to accept that the 'special relationship' (if it exists at all) should not be the sole focus of British foreign policy was not the conclusion of the report.

The report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11404.htm#a1

Beskar

03-28-2010, 17:18

Sir Campbell is always one that knows his stuff. He even predicted the credit crunch.

Furunculus

03-28-2010, 19:50

Oh, what cognitive dissonance. A single expert is heard by the committee about the European aspects of transatlantic relations, and you dismiss the entire report?

'Smoking bad for you? lol, I know this chain smoker who lived to be 92 !'

It's a three party committee, it travelled to New York and Washington to hear experts, dozens of British experts were consulted, ranging from economic experts, to UK ambassadors in Washington and the UN, to experts in military and international relations. Based on all of this, the committee tried to establish a picture of the workings and the worth of the special relationship for Britain.

And no, an absolutely pig-headed refusal to accept that the 'special relationship' (if it exists at all) should not be the sole focus of British foreign policy was not the conclusion of the report.

The report: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmfaff/114/11404.htm#a1
my thoughts on the headlines reported were:

a labour dominated committee decided that.

not that they don't have a point, but i reject the implicit assumption, a-la the IPPR, that it should be replaced with a new euro-relationship.

we will always have more in common with our anglosphere family.
it is true that america sees us as a tool with which to anglicise the EU, as well as one to add a little spine to the rickety contraption, an objective i reject in its implied outcome; that we become a part of a federal europe.

it is also true that america is less interested in europe, and thus less interested in its unsinkable aircraft carrier parked just off europe, but that is because europe is becoming a strategic backwater in the 21st century.

so yes, we should not be slavish to the US, that is agreed, but i also reject the implication that we need to jump into bed with europe just because we've been 'jilted' by the US, because they will remain close in attitude and expectations.

Here is the reports conclusion:

We conclude that the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US in the future, recognising the many mutual benefits which flow from close co-operation in particular areas. We further conclude that the UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

no argument there from me.

Boohugh

03-29-2010, 19:13

Just a heads-up in case anyone is interested, Channel 4 are showing a debate between the Chancellor and his 2 shadow opponents tonight at 8pm. Not sure how interesting it'll be but may be worth a watch.

shlin28

03-29-2010, 20:01

You can also watch the debate online at http://www.channel4.com/microsites/A/askthechancellors/live.html, which also features a very handy tool to keep track of all the tweets about it.

As for me, I shall watch it online whilst writing an essay, should be be fun :book:

Louis VI the Fat

03-29-2010, 21:34

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class. And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

Subotan

03-29-2010, 22:53

Texas doesn't have a class because it knows that it is above everyone else regardless.

Furunculus

03-29-2010, 23:18

Furunculus

03-31-2010, 14:17

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

David Cameron promises to create 'neighbourhood army'
David Cameron
David Cameron says he wants every adult to join a community group

David Cameron has said that a Conservative government would train a 5,000-strong "neighbourhood army" to set up community groups.

The Tory leader said in a speech this offered a "positive alternative to Labour's big government" approach.

"Our aim is for every adult citizen to be an active member of an active neighbourhood group," he said.

Meanwhile, Labour is promising communities more powers to take over the running of local services.

The parties are attempting to take control of the "localist" agenda ahead of the general election, which is likely to be held on 6 May.

'Galvanising'

The Conservatives are promising to fund the training of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers "over the course of the next Parliament".

They say this is based on a movement in the United States which has "trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama".

The era of top-down government is over
Tessa Jowell, Labour

In a speech in central London, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think the state should be funding directly the community organisations, but the state can fund the training, can do some of the galvanising."

Repeating his description of Britain as a "broken society", he said: "We are determined to create a bigger society, to give people more control over their lives. We believe we need to get Britain running."

Mr Cameron also announced plans to create a "Big Society Bank", funded from unclaimed bank assets, which will "provide hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other non-governmental bodies".

The party says it will transform the civil service into a "civic service", by "making regular community service a key element in civil servant staff appraisals".

Mr Cameron said: "In Labour's world, for every problem there's a government solution, for every issue an initiative.

"This is not what Beveridge dreamed of when he created the welfare state."

'Important step'

He added: "We want every adult to be a member of an active neighbourhood group.

"I know some people argue that there isn't the appetite for this sort of widespread community participation. I don't agree."

The BBC's Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton said the grass-roots initiative was ambitious and there was a danger it would be easier to put forward in opposition than implement in government.

For Labour, Cabinet Office Minister Tessa Jowell said a pilot scheme would look at giving parents a greater role in deciding how Sure Start children's centres are run.

The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense
Julia Goldsworthy, Lib Dem communities spokeswoman

There would also be a "movement to allowing staff in the NHS who want to run their own services to keep their existing pension".

Ms Jowell said: "The era of top-down government is over. Often, the best people to decide how local services should work are the local people using and running those services.

"These measures are an important step in achieving a big increase in the number of 'mutual' services that will give real power over the services that matter most."

The Liberal Democrats said the Conservative proposals were a "gimmick" and they were "out of touch" with existing examples of community activism.

"The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense, particularly for the thousands of dedicated people who are working to make their communities better every day," said the party's communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy.

"David Cameron will say anything to get a headline. The Liberal Democrats will give people real power over things that matter like their local police and health services."

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

gaelic cowboy

03-31-2010, 14:50

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

Is that not Blairism????????

al Roumi

03-31-2010, 15:11

Is that not Blairism????????

It does smack rather strikingly of Blair's "third way"... :deal:

Furunculus

03-31-2010, 15:21

al Roumi

03-31-2010, 15:26

perhaps in its appearance, but it won't have to be forced through the teeth of a labour party still clinging to stupid ideas about class-war, the disadvantaged, and how the two should be forced to meet by policies that try to force equality of outcome.

we could genuinely end up with a government that does less, (a good thing), and empowers people to make up that deficit themselves (also a good thing).

Why not?...if there was any evidence to trust Cameron to deliver anything. Either way, this is still a vague concept.

And I'm not saying that "big governement" or Brown is the answer here either...

Furunculus

03-31-2010, 21:01

Why not?...if there was any evidence to trust Cameron to deliver anything. Either way, this is still a vague concept.

true enough, and i am a sceptic of the cameroon brand of cuddley conservatism, but every challenger starts in this position.

Subotan

04-01-2010, 00:21

THE FIGHTBACK BEGINS
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2010/3/31/1270070236853/Gordon-Brown-campaign-pos-003.jpg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/01/labour-gordon-brown-hard-man

In an audacious new election strategy, Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) is set to embrace Gordon Brown (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/gordon-brown)'s reputation for anger and physical aggression, presenting the prime minister as a hard man, unafraid of confrontation, who is willing to take on David Cameron in "a bare-knuckle fistfight for the future of Britain", the Guardian has learned.Following months of allegations about Brown's explosive outbursts and bullying, Downing Street will seize the initiative this week with a national billboard campaign portraying him as "a sort of Dirty Harry figure", in the words of a senior aide. One poster shows a glowering Brown alongside the caption "Step outside, posh boy," while another asks "Do you want some of this?"
Brown aides had worried that his reputation for volatility might torpedo Labour's hopes of re-election, but recent internal polls suggest that, on the contrary, stories of Brown's testosterone-fuelled eruptions have been almost entirely responsible for a recent recovery in the party's popularity. As a result, the aide said, Labour was "going all in", staking the election on the hope that voters will be drawn to an alpha-male personality who "is prepared to pummel, punch or even headbutt the British economy into a new era of jobs and prosperity".
Strategists are even understood to be considering engineering a high-profile incident of violence on the campaign trail, and are in urgent consultations on the matter with John Prescott, whose public image improved in 2001 after he punched an egg-throwing protester.
Possible confrontations under discussion include pushing Andrew Marr out of the way while passing him on a staircase, or thumping the back of Jeremy Paxman's chair so hard that he flinches in shock.
One tactic being discussed involves provoking a physical confrontation at one of the three ground-breaking TV debates between the candidates. In this scenario, Brown, instead of responding to a point made by Cameron, would walk over from his microphone with an exaggerated silent display of self-control, bring his face to within an inch of the Tory leader's, and in a subdued voice, ask "what did you just say?", before delivering a single well-aimed blow to his opponent's face, followed by a headlock if required.
The bloodied and bruised Cameron could then be whisked to a nearby hospital, where a previously briefed team of doctors and nurses would demonstrate the efficiency and compassion of the NHS under a Labour government.
Saatchi & Saatchi, the agency behind the poster campaign, are also considering reworked posters from classic movies, casting Brown as The Gordfather, the Terminator, and "Mr Brown" from Reservoir Dogs, or perhaps linking him to Omar Little, the merciless killer in the TV series The Wire, in order to burnish the prime minister's "gangsta" credentials. Another set of designs appropriates the current Conservative anti-Brown poster campaign, employing adapted slogans such as: "I took billions from pensions. Wanna make something of it?"
The Brown team has been buoyed by focus group results suggesting that an outbreak of physical fighting during the campaign, preferably involving bloodshed and broken limbs, could re-engage an electorate increasingly apathetic about politics. They also hope they can exploit the so-called "Putin effect", and are said to be exploring opportunities for Brown to be photographed killing a wild animal, though advisers have recommended that weather, and other considerations, mean Brown should not remove his shirt.
Labour further hopes to "harness the power of internet folksourcing", the aide explained, encouraging supporters to design their own posters, which could then be showcased online. The "design your own poster" initiative has caught the imagination of Downing Street strategists, the aide said, because it is cheap, fosters engagement among voters and, above all, nothing could possibly go wrong with it.
For their part, Conservative strategists are said to be troubled by internal research suggesting that several members of the shadow cabinet – including Cameron and George Osborne – would in fact not "come here and say that" if challenged by Brown, instead turning pale and running away, or arranging for an older brother to wait outside the Houses of Parliament to attack him when he is least expecting it.
A physical confrontation with Cameron later in April could be a real vote winner :yes:

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2010, 01:08

So the Gruniad has decided to play up the fact that it's a national joke, yes?

Furunculus

04-01-2010, 08:11

lol, funny article, i like it. :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apparently it is all crystal clear on Cameron's platform for election resides:

Election 2010: Eureka! At last, I can see what David Cameron is on about
We demand vision from our leaders - and the Tories' plan for society is truly radical, says Benedict Brogan

Published: 8:18PM BST 31 Mar 2010

It happened to Alan Turing, as he lay on his back in Grantchester Meadows, wondering how to crack the German Enigma codes. Newton was lounging in a Lincolnshire orchard. Archimedes was in his bath, but was so excited that he jumped out and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse. The weather persuaded me to opt for a taxi after my own Eureka moment yesterday, but otherwise my delight was of the same magnitude – for I now understand what David Cameron is on about.

It is often the case that something that should be apparent isn't, because you can't see what's in front of your nose. With a crossword or a puzzle – or one of those annoying pixellated images you have to look at sideways and with a squint to make out the laughing dog – there is usually a moment when all is revealed and the answer becomes plain. For some, this happens quickly. Others take a while, so that those who have cracked it already burst with frustration: "But can't you see? Just look! Surely it's obvious!"

This is the difficulty that has faced the Conservatives for some time now. Mr Cameron has a plan for revolutionising the relationship between the individual and the state. It is ambitious. It is detailed. It is in many ways a gamble, because its success is by no means assured. It demands some quite profound changes in the way we have got used to behaving. It will require different thinking on our part. Once exposed to the toxic daily demands of government, it may prove to be wildly over-optimistic. No matter: he has told us what he wants to do in quite exhaustive detail.

What he had not managed, until yesterday morning in a community centre in south London, was to make us see the big picture. Imagine his frustration: despite all those press releases and launches and announcements and Green and White Papers, people on all sides were asking him: "But what would the Tories do, exactly?", accusing him of lacking a single compelling vision. And he has had to reply – ever so politely – "But can't you see?", before going back to the office to shout in frustration at Oliver Letwin.

Mr Letwin, you see, is one of the brains behind what was presented to us yesterday as "The Big Society". A succession of shadow cabinet ministers gathered together to present, like the pieces of a jigsaw, the overall image of a Conservative plan to free us from the suffocating embrace of big government. The Tory policy chief has been banging on about this for two years at least, with little thanks. Gordon Brown, however, can spot the danger, and did his best to scupper the Tories' launch by giving a speech on immigration, an issue he had been silent on until political necessity intervened. His economic boom was built in part on an unlimited torrent of foreign migrants; now that it has turned to bust, he has roused himself to address the terrible consequences, but too late.

Mr Brown's purpose yesterday was twofold: to deprive Mr Cameron of useful headlines, and to invite the Tories to step over another of his dividing lines, when he will then thwack them with accusations of extremism. Set against this depressingly brutal approach to politics, the Big Society event was remarkable for its American-inspired optimism. Sensitive, perhaps, to the charge that their plain speaking on austerity and their talk of a "broken society" is a difficult message to sell on the doorstep, Mr Cameron and his colleagues had their smiley faces on.

"I am unashamedly optimistic and unapologetically ambitious," he told us, with a flash of the "let sunshine win the day" vision that was darkened by the economic crisis. He is optimistic about what the nation's human capital can do to restore health to a society that has lost its way; ambitious for what a Tory government can do to make it come about.

So what does he intend? The Big Society project must first be set alongside the supply-side reforms the Tories intend for the public services. If mobilising society's "little platoons" is the aim, then Michael Gove's scheme to encourage parents, volunteer groups and businesses to set up new schools is a crucial component, as is the innovative pledge to allow communities to take over and run local assets such as recreation centres or even shops.

For those looking to reduce the welfare bill, the plan to offer cash bounties to companies that find jobs for people on the dole is radical, as is the scheme for a voluntary form of national service for 16-year-olds. Philip Hammond, George Osborne's deputy, gave a lucid presentation on how reforming society is a vital part of returning us to fiscal stability: reduce the demand for welfare and you reduce – permanently – the deficit. Savings channelled back into projects that reduce dependency and increase freedom from the state in turn generate more savings. A virtuous circle is created.

Giving people both the tools and the powers they need to become active in their communities without waiting for the state to take the lead will be legislated for in the first term. A Freedom of Data Act will give us the right to access the information held by Government. Things like crime maps and public-sector job vacancies will not just be published online – alongside details of every item of public spending above £25,000 – but made available for re-use by others. Grant Shapps gave a useful analogy: when Apple introduced the iPhone, it had no idea that opening its system up to anyone who wanted to develop an application would result in a tool that allowed the public to take a snap of a pothole and report it straight to the council. A Tory government will set a similar framework of openness, then let us get on with it.

Then there is the Big Society package itself, which includes the creation of a "Big Society Bank", using unclaimed deposits to channel private money into grassroots projects; the training of 5,000 community organisers, who will fan out across the country to encourage local involvement; requiring civil servants to take on community service; and a Big Society Day to mark the resulting achievements.

You can find material here to criticise. Hearing Conservatives spouting the jargon of granularity, holistic multi-agency silos and burning platforms will set teeth on edge, though we might see it as a useful ruse: to win over that state-dependent volunteer sector, you must first speak its language. Then there is the American-ness of the thing: the idea of neighbourhoods is a transatlantic import, as is the faith in our ability to conjure up an army of community organisers like the young Barack Obama, embraced a bit too implausibly yesterday by Mr Cameron. Nor is it clear whether the necessary army of volunteers will materialise, given that no incentive is on offer beyond the warm glow of moral satisfaction.

So Mr Cameron is certainly right in one regard: his agenda is exceedingly ambitious. We have lost faith in politics, yet here is a politician who has faith in our ability as individuals to wrestle responsibility for society away from the state. We demand vision from our would-be leaders, and here is one who offers a big one, of a society rebuilt from the ground up. Gordon Brown can certainly spot this threat to his top-down ways. David Cameron knows what he doesn't – that at some point, you have to say to the people: "Over to you."

Banquo's Ghost

04-01-2010, 08:20

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

Furunculus

04-01-2010, 11:33

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/Vote-Match-General-Election-2010.html

Beskar

04-01-2010, 12:01

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7541285/Vote-Match-General-Election-2010.html

"Your best match is with the Liberal Democrats. "

Green 2nd, Conservatives 3rd, Labour 4th.

Furunculus

04-01-2010, 12:23

i was 77% UKIP, and 66% Con

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2010, 12:29

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

You're not coming around to the "oik" are you?

Beskar

04-01-2010, 12:53

i was 77% UKIP, and 66% Con

Apparently I scored high with UKIP too, even though I disagree with their core principles in many places. I don't want a Parliament for England, I think it should be Regional. While I could agree on a referrendum on Europe, it wouldn't be because we should leave Europe.

al Roumi

04-01-2010, 12:57

Apparently I scored high with UKIP too, even though I disagree with their core principles in many places. I don't want a Parliament for England, I think it should be Regional. While I could agree on a referrendum on Europe, it wouldn't be because we should leave Europe.

Editorial bias...

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2010, 13:01

I scored 71% UKIP, 61% Con, 52% Lib Dem.

Not that surprising, really.

Boohugh

04-01-2010, 14:57

73% Cons, 60% UKIP for me (followed by 51% Lab and 44% Lib Dems). Not too surprising I guess, not sure how accurate the UKIP count really is though, as they don't have particularly well developed policies in many areas they ask about.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-01-2010, 15:48

I think UKIP scores well with most people because they are political whores. Rather than presenting a coherent political position they pick various incompatable policies to appeal to the largest number of voters. They probably edged out the Cons on my test because I want (at least) an English Parliament and a referendum on Europe. The last not so much because I definately want to leave, but because I want to see someone actually ask me and put foward resons why we shouldn't.

Subotan

04-01-2010, 16:01

Labour Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/index.php?s=partyresults&p=21): 62%

Liberal Democrats (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/index.php?s=partyresults&p=3): 55%

Green Party (http://votematch.telegraph.co.uk/index.php?s=partyresults&p=4): 49%

Is that surprising?

InsaneApache

04-01-2010, 17:07

http://www.slapometer.com/

Be careful or you might hit one of the other two! :)

Strike For The South

04-01-2010, 17:57

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Like when someone gets a whole blow in his gut, the cheeky Brit says "don't fret gubna just a little nick we'll have you ready for tea time"

That Brit has done his job and he deserves all the fish and chips he can handle.

al Roumi

04-01-2010, 18:16

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues... :laugh:

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top, shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife?

Furunculus

04-01-2010, 18:42

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7084502.ece

Strike For The South

04-01-2010, 19:47

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues... :laugh:

Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top,?

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife

From time to time a man must put his hobbies aside

Boohugh

04-01-2010, 20:13

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7084502.ece

Indeed, watching the BBC news online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm) headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too! :laugh4:

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

Banquo's Ghost

04-02-2010, 11:54

Indeed, watching the BBC news online (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8599447.stm) headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too! :laugh4:

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

al Roumi

04-02-2010, 14:08

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

InsaneApache

04-02-2010, 14:36

I'd love to help cocker but today I'm mainly laikin about.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-02-2010, 16:53

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

Mercians....

tibilicus

04-02-2010, 17:00

I don't plan on voting Lib Dem but I have to admit, of all the pre-election campaigns launched so far, this has to be the cleverest, If not the funniest.

http://www.labservative.com/

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 09:47

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

al Roumi

04-03-2010, 11:10

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 11:30

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?
Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste? :dizzy2:
11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

Banquo's Ghost

04-03-2010, 12:18

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 12:44

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

absolutely agreed.

if you know that your party, if elected, will have to makes some deeply unpolular changes then the only to implement this is to go into an election seeking a mandate from the people to make those changes.

its is why i have so much sympathy with the mission of the excellent critical reaction blog when they say the following:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2502/24-03-2010-welcome-to-critical-reaction

At Critical Reaction we not only want David Cameron to campaign as a Conservative and be elected as a Conservative. We even hope he will govern as a Conservative.
I am not a floating voter, i don't need the tory brand to be 'decontaminated', therefore I am not a huge fan of this new image of cuddly-conservatism.

Beskar

04-03-2010, 12:55

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off)

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

InsaneApache

04-03-2010, 14:11

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! :laugh4:

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

Beskar

04-03-2010, 14:35

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

Tellos Athenaios

04-03-2010, 14:41

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

Louis VI the Fat

04-03-2010, 14:59

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.Tory spin.

1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=) at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.

2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.

3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

Beskar

04-03-2010, 15:12

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 16:11

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

This works only with services, i.e. Rail, Water, etc. (as you pointed out). However, the massive number of as-yet unidentified leaky pipes, and the only recently replaced (last five years or so) rail carriages show that the public sector in Britiain not only failed to provide value for money, it failed to upgrade with time and technology. When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I('m afraid.

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 16:16

Tory spin.

1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=) at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.

2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.

3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am reminded of the quote attributed to gordon brown in 97 on being informed by a civil servant that he was inheriting an economy in tip-top condition, he reportedly responded with; "do you want me to send them a f*£^%$& thank you letter?"

so, i am literally rolling on the floor, splitting my sides with laughter when you attribute the proseperity of the nineties and noughties to labour! :laugh4:

i doubt gourgeous george osborne will be given any such reassuring news to rude about!

thanks Louis, you brightened my day.

Beskar

04-03-2010, 16:31

When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I'm afraid.

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF) It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link (http://www.eta.co.uk/Britain-could-have-world%E2%80%99s-best-railway/node/11910), I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.

Tellos Athenaios

04-03-2010, 19:18

Probably exaggerated but Japan always features high in “public” sector value for money. You know the public transport system where services being 2 minutes delayed apparently means they'll write a note for your boss explaining why you are late.

Furunculus

04-03-2010, 20:05

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF) It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link (http://www.eta.co.uk/Britain-could-have-world%E2%80%99s-best-railway/node/11910), I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.
i would counter that works in one country is not necesarily the right solution for another, we have never got good value from nationalised industries, different culture, different ethos, but then i am alone in believeing peoples are not identical.......

Beskar

04-03-2010, 20:29

i would counter that works in one country is not necesarily the right solution for another, we have never got good value from nationalised industries, different culture, different ethos, but then i am alone in believeing peoples are not identical.......

Then I will point out "It was how we were raised" and that change is indeed possible. It requires people just to get on with getting changed other than leaving it for another day.

Edit: I just realised that saying about how the French system was better earlier with an avatar of Napoleon is just amusing.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-03-2010, 23:06

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

The problem was the chronic lack of investment from the Second World War onwards. The carriages in use in the early nineties were pretty much the ones from when rail was electrified. The system was never modernised, and barely maintained. The shameful state the tracks were left in was illustrated by the rail crashes that used to happen year on year, but have now stopped.

Perhaps Northern Rail is not as interested in improving the service, but First Great Western and South West Trains both operate modern stations and rolling stock.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

this is basically how our system works, except the boards and profits are private, not public.

Myrddraal

04-04-2010, 00:24

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:no: Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

Philippus Flavius Homovallumus

04-04-2010, 00:49

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

:no: Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

Louis VI the Fat

04-04-2010, 00:49

French trains. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

London-Glasgow 550 kilometers
Time: 5 and a half hours

Paris-Marseille 660 kilometers
Time: three hours
Free wifi aboard, wine served, guaranteed seat, runs every 30 minutes.

Oh, you can have quick snacks at the train station too. Here is 'Le Train Bleu' restaurant at Paris' Gare de Lyon, directly above the tracks so you can leave thirty seconds before your train to Marseille departs:

https://img542.imageshack.us/img542/3815/dscn1277trainbleu.jpg

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. Furunculus and I like it rough. We rubbish each other's claims while keeping a sense of mutual respect.

Myrddraal

04-04-2010, 01:21

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

I'm not arguing that the reasoning behind government spending is economical considerations on the part of ministers. I'm saying that public sector spending is not a money sink into which money simply disappears. The important part of the post was:

Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

EDIT on an aside, I couldn't agree more. In my area we have problems with the roads (which area doesn't) but whilst the local govern't doesn't spend money on fixing the potholes, it instead uses the money to plant trees on the verges, and replace the pavement where it's in good condition, simply because these items fall under different budgets. Ridiculous.

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 08:50

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

:no: Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.
before we start building armies of straw-men, let us be clear that i am not an extreme libertarian-anarchist as i accept that government has its place, however i consider it immoral for the state to spend more than 40% of the wealth generated by its citizens because taxation is basically legalised robbery and should thus be kept to a minimum as a matter of principle.

there is nothing dubious about the expectation of massive waste from a government that has increased public spending 250% in the space of only three terms, anyone who has worked in both the public sector and the private sector will have a bone-deep scepticism of the ability of any government to properly allocate and use such sums of money.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

Myrddraal

04-04-2010, 13:15

I hear what you say about tax being kept as low as possible on principle. I agree as well, but there were some posts in this thread that seemed to be taking the attitude that public spending was a drain on the economy, that a penny paid in taxation 'disappeared' out of the economy, never to be seen again. This obviously isn't true. A penny spent is a penny earnt, etc.

Public spending does not make money disappear, the objective of public spending is to force expenditure into avenues which would not recieve funding under a free market system. Whether or not an example of public spending is desirable or not is a different matter, but to denounce public spending in general is a bit short sighted. Let's not forget that when Atkins gets contracted to build a stretch of road, that pays for the salaries and generates weath for private individuals.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.

InsaneApache

04-04-2010, 13:34

One of the problems with the public sector is mission creep and empire building. Things you just don't get in the private sector. For example see how many ministers and junior ministers we have today compared with the days of the empire. I can't remember the exact figure but it's something along the lines of 40% of the Labour benches are government ministers in some form or another.

Just to be clear. I don't think the public sector is bad per se and there are fellows in the public sector who do a good job. Unfortunatley the government see the private sector as a cash cow, used to increase the public sector. When you arrive at the situation where 52% of the workforce is employed in the public sector you are indeed staring into the abyss. Don't believe me? Take a look at Greece where something like 7 out of 10 of the workforce work for the government/local authorities. Look how well that ended up.

Banquo's Ghost

04-04-2010, 13:59

One of the problems with the public sector is mission creep and empire building. Things you just don't get in the private sector.

:laugh:

Oh come on, IA. What do you think the banking crisis was?

There is no inherent reason why an organisation of people shouldn't be effective and efficient regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned. The major difference is that the public sector is largely protected from the consequences of getting it wrong, so over time, poor performers and bad practices settle in. Mediocrity becomes the norm, and outstanding performers viewed as troubling. When private sector organisations get to a certain size or monopoly, or operate in a market which has to be maintained, they too get fat and lazy, to wit, the banks.

The public sector in the UK needs to be managed with discipline and to high performance standards. People need to be fired often and easily unless they do their jobs effectively. Unions should be removed from all public sector involvement - nowadays they operate only to protect the useless and pointless. Governments must publish their performance indicators and budgets in detail to the public (as the shareholders) and order managers to deliver on them without fail or lose their jobs - this includes the minister and permanent secretary, both of whom are then barred from further office. Promotions should go to the most able, not the most senior. And public service to these standards should be celebrated just as a entrepreneur is respected.

This kind of hard discipline could be usefully imposed on large corporates too. A businessman with a small, or medium sized business will often lose most of what he owns if he isn't efficient. A corporate boss borks a business and simply moves on to another high paid job with his buddies. Organisations, from top to bottom, are most efficient when the people therein are driven by the knowledge they have a lot to lose, as well as being recognised and respected with status in their community when they achieve.

InsaneApache

04-04-2010, 14:21

Oh come on, IA. What do you think the banking crisis was?

You know exactly what I meant. :vanish:

The banking crisis was caused by the dismantling of controls put in place after the great crash of 1929 and the decision to bugger about with the Bank of England as the policeman of the bankers. Light regulation wasn't the problem, wrongheaded regulation was. After all in the dystopian utopian world, all shall be winners. Even if they can't afford the mortgage they had.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post though. Blimey I need to lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head. :laugh4:

Furunculus

04-04-2010, 14:44

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.
i know what louis said, and i am aware of its existance.

but this spending increase is not only a function of GDP growth and inflation, it is also impacted by both an increased proportion of spending as a function of GDP, and massively increased deficit borrowing, at a time when you should be using surplus to decrease the deficit in respect of the cyclical nature of economies........................

except brown had the towering arrogance to assume that he had engineered boom-and-bust out of the economy, so he could borrow and spend a much as he damned well pleased.

it was colossal incompetance.

Louis VI the Fat

04-04-2010, 17:12

i know what louis said, and i am aware of its existance.

but this spending increase is not only a function of GDP growth and inflation, it is also impacted by both an increased proportion of spending as a function of GDP, and massively increased deficit borrowing, at a time when you should be using surplus to decrease the deficit in respect of the cyclical nature of economies........................

except brown had the towering arrogance to assume that he had engineered boom-and-bust out of the economy, so he could borrow and spend a much as he damned well pleased.

it was colossal incompetance.Tory spin.

1) Public expenditure, absolute amount (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=), £ billion:

1980 - £ 98,2
1997 - £ 348,0
2008 - £ 525,0

The Tories increased public expenditure by 350%. Labour by 150%. We shall have to conclude Thatcher was a Marxist, responsible for the largest increase in the public sector in British history.
Or not, and look at the numbers in a more relevant way, as % of GDP:

2) Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

3)Public net debt as % of GDP (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=G0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=):

1980 - 42,11%
1997 - 41,92
2008 - 36,38

That's right. The Tories are the party of public debt, Labour is the party of fiscal discipline. Not unlike the US*, blunt fact simply does not manage to overcome perception of a spendthrifty left, and a disciplined right.

Massive public debt is what you get for describing taxes as daylight robbery. It leads to a refusal to maintain taxes at a realistic level. Public debt is what you get for neo-liberalism and its demand that governments sell the geese with the golden eggs. That is, to privatise directly profitable government sectors so the profits are for the few, and maintaining non-profitable government sectors, so these costs are socialised.

* The UK has the problem of speaking a language closely related to American, so there is even more creeping in of American concepts in British public discourse than on the continent. It undermines traditional British values. In politics, the US lacking a European style social democracy, it is mostly the UK Conservatives that are prone to adopt concepts that are alien to traditional British values.