The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Banquo's Ghost]

There will be a general election in the United Kingdom this year - perhaps as early as March, but by law it must be held before June 3rd.

It's a remarkably interesting contest this time (for those scholars of politics) because of the electoral map, the thorough disillusion with Parliament, the devastated economy and consequent unpopular decisions, the visceral personal loathing for Gordon Brown yet the apparent lack of enthusiasm for the Conservative alternatives. add in a lot of expressed support for minor extremist parties, a deeply unpopular war and the increasing likelihood of a hung parliament (both in terms of seats held and the fervent wish of most of the voters) and we have the ingredients of a fascinating time.

All these strands mean we may well end up with myriad threads starting. To keep some sort of order, please add all political commentary pertinent to the elections herein.

Now, over to CountArach (Poll King) and Lemur (Blog Tzar). :wink:

(My own question is: Given that everyone I talk to has despaired of Labour and has no enthusiasm for the Tories at all, why is no-one even considering a vote for the Liberal Democrats? I know the electoral mathematics mean it's almost impossible for them to gain even on a huge swing, but it does seem odd no-one wants to give them a go).

(Oh, and what chance a regicide of Brown in the next couple of weeks?)

[InsaneApache]

Liberal Democrats! Talk about making it up as you go along. :dizzy2:

I've voted tory twice and SDP once. This time none of the main parties will get my vote, the thieving bastards. I've not made up my mind yet, although the UK Libertarians look interesting. Needless to say I wont be voting for the corrupt Labour party who can't even get their own financial house in order, never mind the countries. Imbeciles. :furious3:

[CountArach]

*Quickly catches up on months of polling data*

[rory_20_uk]

Yes, it's a case of the best of the worst.

Labour: discredited (did they ever have any credit?)
Conservatives: too keen to get into power to have any thoughts what to do when there, probably too "fair weather"
Lib Dems: Leftie, pro Europe. Too concerned with giving power elsewhere to have policy; too fringe to need policy.
BNP: statutory IQ being less than 75 obligitory since race admission no longer required.
UKIP: One policy party. What would they do with any real power? Might be useful as a force if no party has a majority to force the one issue.

Brown will hang on as the next leader wants to lead the party forward, with the baseline set on an utter failure - rising like a phoenix from the ashes, not starting with a prat-fall.

As it happens I'm helping with strategy for one of the Tories, but just to reassure people it's almost certain he'll loose :beam: Of course, he states he's independent and thinks for himself, but don't they all say that?

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

I don't have a personal dislike of Brown. I think he's way more integral than Cameron, who tries to present himself as middle class, normal, Daily Fail reading guy who sends his kids to the local comprehensive, despite being filthy rich/posh. That said, most of the Labour cabinet are made up of middle class people; iirc there's only one senior working class minister.

Unfortunately I can't vote; I'll miss out on my birthday by just over a month.

[caravel]

I haven't voted since '97 and probably won't vote again. Democracy in this country is an illusion, whoever you vote for you still get the same corrupt self serving scum that look after the interests of the rich elites.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm voting for Geoffrey, because he's our local man, he's done weel over the last four years, and he was recomended by a friend. He's also a Conservative, but that's because when John retired the Lib Dems replaced him with Charles Kennedy's Spin-doctor.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I'm despairing. After the past decade, surely it is time to move away from New Labour. But Cameron looks like an impending disaster. :wall:


Go Liberal Democrats indeed!

My question: will we see the unthinkable, a Labour/Conservative coalition?

[Furunculus]

Given that everyone I talk to has despaired of Labour and has no enthusiasm for the Tories at all, why is no-one even considering a vote for the Liberal Democrats? I know the electoral mathematics mean it's almost impossible for them to gain even on a huge swing, but it does seem odd no-one wants to give them a go).


because the lib-dems stand for nothing, they are an act of positioning whereby they straddle the fence between the competing ideologies of the left and the right in the hope of attracting disaffected voters from the two polar opposites. this leads them to be inconsistent and opportunistic, neither likely to attract voters.

if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise:

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian

LibDems are trying to straddle the divide, which is difficult to do because people are fairly polarised to one blend of politics or the other, not a mix of the two.

[KukriKhan]

What kind of campaign will most likely resonate with most UK voters this year, do you think? "Transperancy in Government", "Bring our Lads home", "Good jobs for all", or something else?

[caravel]

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian
Labour are more of a "just right of centre" party these days rather than simply "left wing".

[tibilicus]

No idea who I will vote for if I do vote at all. It's kind of irrelevant anyway seeming my constituency is the fourth safest Tory seat in the country and as such Boy George is guaranteed to be elected.

Hurrah for voter apathy! Hurrah!

[Beskar]

This is the opinion of the average poster -
"You vote between the lesser of the two evils of Labour and Conservatives, Lib Dems are a waste of a vote."

It's the media-myth.

Also, New Labour being left-wing? They are Right-wing, argubly more so than the Tories, in some areas.

[InsaneApache]

What kind of campaign will most likely resonate with most UK voters this year, do you think? "Transperancy in Government", "Bring our Lads home", "Good jobs for all", or something else?

I'd have to direct you to my siggy. If you vote for anyone, make sure they are NOT an MP. Of any flavour. :yes:

[Furunculus]

@ AN and Beskar.

Labour are left-wing in the context of british politics because wing'iness is defined by the relative difference between Conservatives and Labour.

Labour may not be as left-wing as you might desire, but they still define what left-wing IS in the context of british politics.

[Beskar]

@ AN and Beskar.

Labour are left-wing in the context of british politics because wing'iness is defined by the relative difference between Conservatives and Labour.

Labour may not be as left-wing as you might desire, but they still define what left-wing IS in the context of british politics.

No, it was a case that Old Labour was actually left-wing, untill New Labour came and did a top-bottom change. So instead of obviously noting this, some individuals just stick to the historical alignment, but since the party has been re-branded, etc, it is inaccurate.

The left of British- politics is the Liberal Democrats and the Green party.

[Furunculus]

but as we already know with our wonderful FPTP system neither of those parties actually count for squat.

[Fragony]

This election will probably have an historically low participation. I am going to watch it closely. Next election is going to be a circus here as well, even more so than with Fortuyn. Not going to vote at all methinks.

[Subotan]

Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.


I'd have to direct you to my siggy. If you vote for anyone, make sure they are NOT an MP. Of any flavour. :yes:
Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

[InsaneApache]

Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

£65k a year is hardly buttons. :juggle2:

The best thing about the bastards is that they no longer decide their own pay and expenses. Now stop me if I'm ranting but if they can't be trusted to take care of themselves, why do they think that they can be trusted to pass laws that effect us, the sheeple. Ropes and lamposts are too good for the lying thieving scumbags. Bastards the lot of them.

and breathe.....:embarassed:

[Beskar]

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.

Are the Tories pushing "family values" which are boo to single people/divorced people, etc? (Yes)

Are the Tories the biggest opponents to drug decriminilisation? (Yes)

Tories failed basic liberal-check.

[tibilicus]

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.




May be referring to "classic liberalism" whilst your thinking of modern liberalism.

[Furunculus]

I assume you're reading the secret Tory manifesto where it details their plans for a progressive drugs policy, the scrapping of DRM and their friendliness to non-married parents.


Huh? What do you consider "work" for an MP? The vast majority of MP's work incredibly hard, and are paid buttons for their work. Hence, they abuse the expenses system. Now, the Lords on the other hand...

i'm quite happy with my original statement where the definition of tory = right wing / libertarian derives from the following statement: "if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise"

The Lords do an excellent job, and they did an excellent job before they were reformed too.

[Subotan]

£65k a year is hardly buttons. :juggle2:
It is compared to legislators in many other countries.



The best thing about the bastards is that they no longer decide their own pay and expenses. Now stop me if I'm ranting but if they can't be trusted to take care of themselves, why do they think that they can be trusted to pass laws that effect us, the sheeple. Ropes and lamposts are too good for the lying thieving scumbags. Bastards the lot of them.

Time to end this disastrous democratic experiment.


i'm quite happy with my original statement where the definition of tory = right wing / libertarian derives from the following statement: "if you view the dividing line in british politics as the question of where your social assistance becomes my individual interference then following characteristics arise"

I would say that the Tories very much enjoy interfering in my personal life.



The Lords do an excellent job,
Somewhat true. The majority of them are good lawmakers.


and they did an excellent job before they were reformed too.
Yes, at keeping those democratically elected socialists in their place :yes:

[Kralizec]

Go Liberal Democrats! :cheerleader:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Are the Tories pushing "family values" which are boo to single people/divorced people, etc? (Yes)

Are the Tories the biggest opponents to drug decriminilisation? (Yes)

Tories failed basic liberal-check.

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

Anyway, Libertarianism is not Liberalism. The Right to Free association, Free Speech, the right to Bare Arms, the right to Privacy.

They are Libertarian causes, and Labour goes against them all.

[Beskar]

A right to Bear Arms might get the RSPCA angry.

[naut]

First/last one I can vote in, unless I come back and dwell within the UK again. So... I want to, but none of the parties appeal...

[Furunculus]

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

Anyway, Libertarianism is not Liberalism. The Right to Free association, Free Speech, the right to Bare Arms, the right to Privacy.

They are Libertarian causes, and Labour goes against them all.

correct.

[Subotan]

Two fairly irrevevant issues in the grand scheme of things, as drugs will always be regulated and intellectual copyright aren't going anywhere. They're also very ego-centric issues; and secondary to the much larger concerns that embrace them.

So what constitutes an important issue? You're incredibly naive if you think that drugs policy is "irrelevant".

Although I agree that they may be a liberal party, they are not Libertarian.

[Idaho]

Yes, it's a case of the best of the worst.

Labour: discredited (did they ever have any credit?)
Conservatives: too keen to get into power to have any thoughts what to do when there, probably too "fair weather"
Lib Dems: Leftie, pro Europe. Too concerned with giving power elsewhere to have policy; too fringe to need policy.
BNP: statutory IQ being less than 75 obligitory since race admission no longer required.
UKIP: One policy party. What would they do with any real power? Might be useful as a force if no party has a majority to force the one issue.


I haven't voted since '97 and probably won't vote again. Democracy in this country is an illusion, whoever you vote for you still get the same corrupt self serving scum that look after the interests of the rich elites.

I'd broadly agree with both of those assessments.


Conservatives - right-wing / libertarian
Labour - left-wing / authoritarian
LibDem - left-wing / libertarian

Conservatives are libertarian?!? They may well advertise so, but they are very much authoritarian. They were the party who first mooted ID cards, who introduced the draconian police powers and public order laws. They are all in favour of the liberty of rich people doing what they want with their money, but beyond that - no way.

[Furunculus]

Conservatives are libertarian?!? They may well advertise so, but they are very much authoritarian. They were the party who first mooted ID cards, who introduced the draconian police powers and public order laws. They are all in favour of the liberty of rich people doing what they want with their money, but beyond that - no way.

sure they are not a libertarian party, there is an authoritarian theme to Tory politics just as there is a libertarian theme that derives from the Whig rump that joined the Tories back in the day, but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.

labour should defer to no-one when it comes to pushing ID cards and public order laws.

but more importantly; labour also define the authoritarian genre of british politics by introducing legislation and regulation at a phenomenal rate, and justifying the intrusion into individual behaviour by citing the benefit of the many.

[InsaneApache]

but they are libertarian party insomuch as it exists in the UK.

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

[tibilicus]

To all those saying to Tories aren't Libertarian, I'm pretty certain the US Republican party is Libertarian, and look how supposedly "right wing" they are. Libertarianism holds very different values from modern "liberalism". A "libertarian" set of principles are based on aspects such as the upholding of individual rights, separation of religion from the sate and small government. Starting to see the difference now?

[Furunculus]

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

i agree with what you say, but would argue that given the UK's FPTP system and their electoral percentage they simply don't count as part of the active fabric of british politics.

[Beskar]

To all those saying to Tories aren't Libertarian, I'm pretty certain the US Republican party is Libertarian, and look how supposedly "right wing" they are. Libertarianism holds very different values from modern "liberalism". A "libertarian" set of principles are based on aspects such as the upholding of individual rights, separation of religion from the sate and small government. Starting to see the difference now?

The Patriot Act was a great example of this?

[Beskar]

Errr...not quite.

http://lpuk.org/

I like what they are saying. A lot. :yes:

I got 80% on their test. Obviously, the first and second points were "illiberal", but then again, I am obviously a Liberatarian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).

[Furunculus]

The Patriot Act was a great example of this?
you mean the legislation that was rushed into place once the american government browned their pants after realising that crazy nutcases with big bushy beards were quite happy knocking yanky sky-scrapers down, while they were full of people?

not defending the patriot act by any means, but it could reasonably be viewed as a product of its time, just saying.

[johnhughthom]

I got 80% on their test.

20% I loved how they told me why my opinions were wrong. :2thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

I got 80% on their test. Obviously, the first and second points were "illiberal", but then again, I am obviously a Liberatarian Socialist (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism).
Your Results

Well done!
You scored 90%
You are a liberal
--------------------------------
We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society. If they are over-taxed they will simply move themselves, their assets and capital offshore. Which will in turn decrease investment in the country.
--------------------------------
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal

The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
--------------------------------
The state should bailout large corporations in financial distress?
Your answer was liberal

This is an illiberal incursion on the free market — at the taxpayer's expense. No company should ever receive a taxpayer backed bailout. It encourages bad financial practices and corruption between the state, corporations and unions.
--------------------------------
It should be illegal for members of the public to own guns?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal country people can protect themselves as they see fit. Remember if someone owns a gun it does not mean they will murder anyone. In addition it is very dangerous for a people to allow their state to have a monopoly over weaponry and therefore force.
--------------------------------
People who hold racist or extreme views should be allowed to publicly express their ideas?
Your answer was liberal

To not would be a gross and illiberal infringement on freedom of speech. And it sets a dangerous precedent for further reducing freedom of speech. It must be noted that defining things as extreme or dangerous is a purely subjective activity. Therefore the state will only define things as extreme if they pose a threat to it. But not necessarily to the people.
--------------------------------
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for the police to retain the DNA of anyone not serving a prison sentence?
Your answer was liberal

There is no reason why in a liberal society that the state should be allowed to steal the property of a person when they have not been convicted of any crime or are currently serving a prison sentence.
--------------------------------
The state should ban people from watching violent pornography?
Your answer was liberal

This is an illiberal incursion on freedom of thought. It is not the business of the state to involve itself in the sexual preferences of consenting adults.
--------------------------------
It is wrong for democratic nations to overthrow foreign dictators?
Your answer was illiberal

It is illiberal, and a sign of gross arrogance, for one state to impose their will on another in this way. These issues are for the people of said state to resolve themselves with their leader(s).
--------------------------------
Free market capitalism should be forced on other nations to help create a better world?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for one state to impose their way of life on another. A liberal foreign policy involves free trade with all willing participants. It does not involve forcing states to behave in a certain way if they do not wish to.

[caravel]

you mean the legislation that was rushed into place once the american government browned their pants after realising that crazy nutcases with big bushy beards were quite happy knocking yanky sky-scrapers down, while they were full of people?
As I recall the chaps that "knocked down the skyscrapers" were for the most part clean shaven.

[Furunculus]

As I recall the chaps that "knocked down the skyscrapers" were for the most part clean shaven.

they were in disguise, pretending to be normal people. :juggle2:

[rory_20_uk]

Some questions are rather biased.

"Bailout" corporations implies throwing money at them. Purchasing equity at rock bottom rates can be good - Quatar made $1 Billion from Barclay's in less than a year.
And the gun ownership question well, the devil is in the detail. Purchasing a gatling gun from the corner shop is different to a Farmer owning a shotgun locked in his shed.
Police not retaining DNA unless the person has a prison sentence again is odd. Surely a better endpoint is if the person was convicted, and the nature of the crime - especially if it is related to violence.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

You could argue that they should have records of everyones DNA, as it is only used when coming in contact to a crime-scene and they want to match and pair examples up. Thus, you only need to worry if you are a rapist or commit violent crimes.

But that is a devils advocate.

[Subotan]

We should raise taxes on the rich so we can redistribute wealth to the poor?
Your answer was liberal

It is illiberal for people to be taxed at a different rate based on their income. Also rich people are the most mobile members of society.
...
We should get rid of the minimum wage?
Your answer was liberal

The minimum wage is an illiberal restriction on free trade. It also places an artificial value on the cost of labour which makes it more difficult for low skilled workers to find work, and therefore gain experience and training.
...
The state should make people change their behaviour to tackle climate change?
Your answer was liberal

In a liberal society the state will not force any law abiding person to behave in a certain way as this is an infringement on freedom of thought and action. This is an especially acute issue when you consider there is still great debate about whether climate change is caused directly by human action. People should note that the state have a lot to gain in terms of social control from climate change catastrophe. Along with large corporations who will find it easier to cope with environmental regulations than their smaller competitors.

...?

[Furunculus]

wazzup?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So what constitutes an important issue? You're incredibly naive if you think that drugs policy is "irrelevant".

Although I agree that they may be a liberal party, they are not Libertarian.

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.

On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose you identify those drugs most socially harmful, control them and put people who break the law into some form of social program.

The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.


...?

When they use the word "Liberal" they mean what you would consider "Libertarian", preferenceing personal freedom over collective society.

[KukriKhan]

If the past 2 pages are any example of the forthcoming campaign, I feel sorry for our Brit friends and their fellow voters/TV viewers; what dreadfully tedious stuff to have to endure. Where are the hookers, the love-children, the corruption, the smokey back-room deals, the pay-offs... you know: the scandal(!) ?

[lars573]

Or if your in Canada the PM's shutting down of parliament over the phone with the GG. And announcing it on the same day as the olympic hockey team and hoping know one will kick up a big stinck about it.

[Beskar]

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.

On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose you identify those drugs most socially harmful, control them and put people who break the law into some form of social program.

The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.


Well, a couple of things. The executive is not to rule or perform social care, it is more of an administration, more of checking the cogs are turning correctly and applying oil where needed, and performing upgrades and reform to produce a better functioning machine.

As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us. You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison? The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.

Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.

[Furunculus]

why are the users the one who should go into prison?

Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian),

because in Britain we have the concept of legal responsibility, something assumed at adulthood provided the individual is of sound mind.

that is a very poor definition of authoritarian, when used to distinguish it from libertarian, and really has no relevance.

[Subotan]

Drugs policy is an aspect of social policy, and how you deal with it is influenced by you philosophy of the social responsibility of the state. If the role of the executive is to rule and not to perform social care then you simply identify the fatally harmful drugs, ban them, and imprison people for breaking the law the same as you would for anything else.


That's what gets me about your statement. A Libertarian government wouldn't care what people do to their bodies with drugs. Yet, the Conservative Party retains a reactionary policy of the criminalisation of various lethal and non-lethal drugs, and their abuses. That isn't libertarian is any sense.


On the other hand, if you believe the Executive has a social purpose
Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.


The Conservatives are more Libertarian than labour, but not Liberal.
Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.

[Furunculus]

but to the extent that libertarian politics exist in british politics the conservatives are the more libertarian, because they introduce:
> lesser number of restrictive legislative acts
> have less emphasis on using legislation to enforce social aims

[Subotan]

That's wildly hypothetical, since the Tories aren't in power and lack the ability to pass legislation, and thy historically have a tendency to like stick their noses in where they're not wanted in order to prevent moral decay and "Broken Britain"

[Banquo's Ghost]

Another half-hearted attempt to unseat Gordon Brown (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6977685.ece) is launched.

Whilst the Labour party clearly knows it is doomed with GB leading it, they simply can't seem to discover the ruthlessness to dispatch him. Amusing to watch them try - thereby demonstrating a fundamental cowardice that probably proves he's actually the best they've got.

[Beskar]

Another half-hearted attempt to unseat Gordon Brown (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6977685.ece) is launched.

Whilst the Labour party clearly knows it is doomed with GB leading it, they simply can't seem to discover the ruthlessness to dispatch him. Amusing to watch them try - thereby demonstrating a fundamental cowardice that probably proves he's actually the best they've got.

You should advise them for Beskar from the .ORG to take over. Then I will sweep out the ranks and replace everyone with people with spirit, idealism, and the drive and the initiative the country needs. :egypt:

[Furunculus]

That's wildly hypothetical, since the Tories aren't in power and lack the ability to pass legislation, and thy historically have a tendency to like stick their noses in where they're not wanted in order to prevent moral decay and "Broken Britain"

nothing speculative about it all.

look at the rate of new legislation created each year in the last 12 years, and compare it to the rate of new legislation created each year in the preceding 12 years

[Furunculus]

interesting post on the gathering forces forces of the left, collating their strength to stop the right in the forthcoming titanic battle of ideologies:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/edwest/100021582/how-to-stop-the-right-loonies-commies-stalinists-gather-in-london-with-ken/

How to stop the Right – loonies, commies, Stalinists gather in London with Ken

Later on this month I’m going to a conference hosted by Boris Johnson in which he’s invited various allies and friends to discuss how to “stop the Left” this year. Among the speakers will be General Pinochet’s former ambassador to Britain, a Christian journalist who describes non-believers as “cattle”, another journalist who took payment from Nazi Germany, a BNP member, and Polish political leaders from a group who have refused to attend Holocaust Memorial Day in the past.

Oh sorry, that was just a really weird dream – says a lot about my inner psyche. But this isn’t:

Ken Livingstone invites you to Progressive London conference:
A progressive agenda to stop the right in 2010

Among those speaking at this laugh-a-minute conference will be:

Mehdi Hasan – Senior Editor (Politics), New Statesman
“The Kaffar, the disbelievers, the atheists who remain deaf and stubborn to the teachings of Islam, the rational message of the Quran; they are described in the Quran as, quote, “a people of no intelligence”, Allah describes them as; not of no morality, not as people of no belief – people of “no intelligence” – because they’re incapable of the intellectual effort it requires to shake off those blind prejudices, to shake off those easy assumptions about this world, about the existence of God. In this respect, the Quran describes the atheists as “cattle”, as cattle of those who grow the crops and do not stop and wonder about this world.”

Richard Gott – writer
“I took red gold, even if it was only in the form of expenses for myself and my partner. That, in the circumstances, was culpable stupidity, though at the time it seemed more like an enjoyable joke”.
Yes, hilarious to the millions of people imprisoned in Soviet Russia. Just hilarious.

Kate Hudson – Chair, CND
No, not Goldie Hawn’s daughter, but rather the CND activist who’s also a member of the Communist party of Great Britain, and the woman who invited the Iranian ambassador to the CND conference to defend Iran’s policies.

Professor Tariq Ramadan
European Islam’s leading thinker, so progressive he’s called for a “moratorium” on the stoning of adulterers.

Dr Abdul Bari – Muslim Council of Britain
Won’t this party clash with Holocaust Memorial Day? Oh, never mind.

Samuel Moncada – Venezuelan Ambassador
How to stop the Right? El Presidente Hugo has a few ideas.

George Galloway MP
Friend of the centre-left, pro-gay rights, Hamas and the über-liberal Islamic Republic of Iran.

Karen Stalbow – Shelter
A charity that is 21 per cent taxpayer-funded. I hope the Conservatives remember that come May.

What a strange and awkward event – feminists, gay rights activists and greenies next to supporters and allies of some of the most brutal and repressive religious movements around. It reminds me of the Onion’s headline: “Japan Forms Alliance With White Supremacists in Well-Thought-Out Scheme”.
i really don't understand how these people hold any traction in Britain.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, a couple of things. The executive is not to rule or perform social care, it is more of an administration, more of checking the cogs are turning correctly and applying oil where needed, and performing upgrades and reform to produce a better functioning machine.

This is only true of the Cabinet, the "Executive" includes all the operative organs of government, certainly the Police and Armed Forces, and the Courts (but not the Judges), it also arguably includes the NHS, and definately Social Services and the Education Authorities. Those organs are currently used to enact social reform.


As for drugs, on one hand you have those which are "socially harmful" (whatever that means) and imprision people who use them. Then the alternative of controling these and putting people into social programs. The most amusing thing about this statement, is that alcohol is the most socially harmful drug, so look at where that takes us.

If you want to ban alchohol, I'll go along with that. I'll miss the occasional pint of Ale, but I won't cry myself to sleep over it.


You also miss something out, why are the users the one who should go into prison?

Only because use is illigal; if you break a law you should recieve the punishment that law carries. This is a wider problem with society; punishments are inconsistantly enforced. This is true even of assualts and thefts.


The users suffer the negative effects as it is, and you can take a large amount of drugs "safely". Only social would be in schools where they should teach you what drugs do, purpose behind them, and even safety tips. Decriminalise the use of people taking them, and only crack down on those selling such drugs, and have them only able to go through medical channels and purposes. Such a system is far more effective in examples seen in places such as Portugal.

I am not in favour of decriminalisation. If it is illegal to sell them it should be illegal to take them, also... if it is illegal to sell them it must be illegal to buy them. Ergo, anyone in posession should be prosecuted for procurement. The position is legally inconsistant and therefore unenforcable.


Conservatives are the people in the first lot of your points, the ones who bang up anyone taking a sniff behind the shed, not paying any attention to the welfare of the individual (most authoritarian), while a similar system under a more liberal system would be the social programs (social-authoritarian). The liberatarian would be far closer to what I said with very minimal laws and regulation.

I'm not going to claim that drugs policy under the Conservatives are Libertarian on drugs, but conversely Libertarianism has a very strong moral streak (it started with non-conformist Christians in Britain), and one issue does not make a part either authoritarian or Libitarian.

Also, the Conservatives pass laws and then enforce the punishment, and this is Libertarian because it stems from every criminal being treated the same under the Law. I.e., regardless of the Law you break you recieve the full force of the Law. Labour's current practice of not prosecuting under the Law is inconsistant and favours certain groups; therefore not Libertarian.


That's what gets me about your statement. A Libertarian government wouldn't care what people do to their bodies with drugs. Yet, the Conservative Party retains a reactionary policy of the criminalisation of various lethal and non-lethal drugs, and their abuses. That isn't libertarian is any sense.

One issue, see above to Beskar.


Labour believes this, yet they follow the same policies as the Tories.

Labour banned hunting, Labour issues fixed-penalty notices for bizare things (feeding pigeons). Fixed penalty notices are Authoritarian, they place power in the hands of an Officer of the Executive, and deny recourse to due process and the Judiciary in the first instance.


Both are liberal parties on a macro-view (as opposed to Communist/Fascist parties) but neither of them are Lolbertarian.

Looking at Labour today, I no longer believe they are "macro" Libertarian, we have overtaken almost every country in terms of survaillence and detention of unconvicted citizens.

[Beskar]

It reminds of that in law, it is illegal to commit suicide. Hate to think of what punishments for them Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla would come up with just because it is illegal.

Also, you say that it is illegal to sell something, so it should be illegal to have it/use it. That is just crazy talk. It would be illegal for a hotdog stall owner to sell hotdogs topped with arsenic, but why should it be illegal for some one to put an arsenic topping on their own food and be punished by the law, in a way the hotdog stall owner would be punished. It just speaks of idiocy. There are reasons as to why the hotdog owner cannot sell an arsenic topping, due to health and safety, but why should it be illegal for some one, with full facts of the risks and of this, to decide to have it? Argubly, the punishment is already recieved from doing that action, having the law laid down on top is just pointless.

[rory_20_uk]

I don't think committing suicide is illegal any more.

In the UK, the NHS is for everyone. Arsenic has no known value apart from being poisonous, delineating is slightly from tobacco and alcohol. As the country has to pay for one's health this gives the country some say in what one intakes.

One could argue that anyone deciding ot do such a tihng is a danger to themselves and hence can be sectioned under the Mental health Act.

~:smoking:

[KukriKhan]

As the country has to pay for one's health this gives the country some say in what one intakes

Indeed. That's the aspect of national health care that scares the american right.

[rory_20_uk]

Indeed. That's the aspect of national health care that scares the american right.

Yet they do it already with free emergency treatment - it just costs vastly more this way around.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It reminds of that in law, it is illegal to commit suicide. Hate to think of what punishments for them Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla would come up with just because it is illegal.

The proper punishment was death, which is perfectly logical, as the Law was aimed at preventing a Mortal Sin, by executing them you prevented this and increased their chance of entering heaven.

Perfectly logical.

It is, however, no longer on the Statute books, because these days we try to prevent people reaching that stage.


Also, you say that it is illegal to sell something, so it should be illegal to have it/use it. That is just crazy talk. It would be illegal for a hotdog stall owner to sell hotdogs topped with arsenic, but why should it be illegal for some one to put an arsenic topping on their own food and be punished by the law, in a way the hotdog stall owner would be punished. It just speaks of idiocy. There are reasons as to why the hotdog owner cannot sell an arsenic topping, due to health and safety, but why should it be illegal for some one, with full facts of the risks and of this, to decide to have it? Argubly, the punishment is already recieved from doing that action, having the law laid down on top is just pointless.

That's not the same, Arsenic is legal to sell (but controlled) for some purposes. Illegal drugs are just... illegal. Also, I'm pretty sure it is both illegal to buy or sell arsenic if you believe the intent is to harm (you hotdog analogy would be self-harm).

Edit: I see Rory caught it.

[Vladimir]

Yet they do it already with free emergency treatment - it just costs vastly more this way around.

~:smoking:

Exactly. That also angers the Right.

[Boohugh]

Whoever gets into power next is going to both cut spending and raise taxes because they have no choice about it. The rest is quite frankly rather irrelevant because, for the next parliament at least, there won't be any money to actually change policy significantly. I'm just waiting to see who actually has the balls to tell us what spending and which taxes...

[Furunculus]

it should prove a pretty easy guess to figure out which party has the firmest commitment to reduced public spending, and the better track record economic management.

[rory_20_uk]

In the UK democracy, there are far more votes to be won in Denial than squaring up to the truth. The minute you mention cuts you ostracise whichever group it is you feel are going to loose the money; pretending it's all fine and dandy means you loose a tiny number of votes that still have to either abstain or vote for one party of liars.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Also, the argument of where to cut? as Rory says.

Should we cut welfare? Should we cut pensions again ? Should we cut ournuclear arsenal? Should we cut healthcare and education? Should we stop updating and improving the countrys infrastructure, which destorys the longer term investment and benefits of the future?

A lot of things shouldn't get cut at all, if you are sane. By cutting them, you make a situation worse or worse for the future.

Argubly, we should cut investment where we don't get a return on. Which might sound cruel, but Africa is just a blackhole for money, leave it for Oxfam, etc, to deal with.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Should we cut welfare? Should we cut pensions again ? Should we cut ournuclear arsenal? Should we cut healthcare and education? Should we stop updating and improving the countrys infrastructure, which destorys the longer term investment and benefits of the future?

Cut, no cuts, cut and reform by moving money into conventional forces or research, reform and reform, no cuts, in that order.



Argubly, we should cut investment where we don't get a return on. Which might sound cruel, but Africa is just a blackhole for money, leave it for Oxfam, etc, to deal with.

Once I took precisely that stance. And now, while I still believe that charity is better than foreign aid, I do realize that foreign aid is also a tool used by governments for political leverage, and is therefore useful. I am less hostile to foreign aid because of that argument.

[InsaneApache]

A lot of things shouldn't get cut at all, if you are sane. By cutting them, you make a situation worse or worse for the future.

Leaving aside the sanity of our Prime Mentalist for a moment, there is no choice. The moneys run out. The well is dry. We've lost the paddle and the canoe is leaking. Expect deep cuts and tax increases, especially for the poor.

The thing that amazes me is that some people are actually considering voting for the great snot gobbler and his dysfunctional credo. Must be all those diversity outreach officers one reads about in the Gruniad job vacancy adverts.

:juggle2:

[FactionHeir]

I for one think that the benefit system (including local housing allowance) in the UK is way too generous. Make people who are able to work actually work. Benefit recipients should not be able to live a comfy life of staying at home and making more money than those who actually put in effort to go to work even for minimal wage.

There's people in the UK who just act as baby machines because they can get away with doing so and not going to work at all while getting incredible amount of state payments.

Also, benefit payments should be restricted to UK nationals only - not commonwealth + EU nationals.

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.

Doing so would free up quite a bit of wealth to be invested elsewhere.


Disclaimer:
I am an EU national and not on benefits. I would rather work than be on benefits too. I am outraged that people on benefits can make more than I make for a living.

[Furunculus]

There's people in the UK who just act as baby machines because they can get away with doing so and not going to work at all while getting incredible amount of state payments.



this is absolutely true. they even time it to about seven years to get theb maximum benefits for the minimum babies (period of maximum benefits given to the mum after the child is born).

[rory_20_uk]

First off, the public services need to be massively reduced. These basically mean that all private enterprise has to pay taxes to pay for the state bodies. The bigger the state bodies, the greater the taxes, and hence the competitiveness of the private enterprises decreases.

Housing benefits are paid to individuals (more kids = more money) but also the size of house you get. Completely counter-intuitive that adults are not expected to show any control as the worse their situation gets the state will bail them out again and again. Benefits manage to not only increase taxes, but also to provide inflationary pressures to wages:


The amount one would get for no effort compared to working for 40 hours a week
The tax on one's earnt salary to pay for others who aren't working


This in turn helps to kill off production of low value goods as their costs are too high.

Social services. A monolith that takes away responsibility for all and doesn't really work. Local reliance and community crumbles as the SS is expected to do it all - after all, there's billions spent on them. The amount of money that has been spent on trying to stop the next "baby P" is easily in the millions. But of course the rate is the same at roughly 1 a week. Without 24 hour supervision someone is going to kill their child. We waste money pretending we can stop it. Young male suicides? 80 a week. Not catching as a story though.

State pensions. Why be thrifty? Why save? You need to have a large pension to make up for the decrease in state pension as it's means tested. Enjoy life now, and then let the state pay for it all.

Education. Why can India do so well with such poverty and we do worse? Why do many other parts of the world? It clearly makes a difference to one's quality of life, so it's worth going for. Not so true here. Education is free, therefore has not perceived value. All are entitled to it, so no need to worry about loosing it. All down to the schools so no need for the parents to do anything.
Big budgets don't equal better results. Everyone to Uni does not automatically equal a more intelligent or even better trained workforce.

But, everyone can vote.

Piss off the Public Sector? c. 20% national votes - and of course all those that use the services
Piss off the unemployed? c. 10% votes
Harshen up long term sickness? Unsure of numbers, but not good.
Take from the elderly? c. 15% and growing.

Bankers? AHA! probably less than 1% Get 'em!

~:smoking:

[Boohugh]

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.

We have too much weaponary around? That must be why the Navy is overworking it's ships and crew (when it even has enough money to put them to sea) to fulfil just its basic obligations, the RAF and Navy are being forced to scrap helicopters despite there being a shortage of them and other squadrons despite there being no replacement ready leaving a capability gap in the sky, and you never ever read about the equipment shortages the Army and Marines suffer in Afghanistan, right?

You know when I last heard this arguement about no longer needing conventional weaponary because the way wars were being fought had changed...let me think...oh yes, it was in 1982! Oh and of course there was the time before that...now when was it...oh yeah the 1920's/30's, can't possibly think what happened soon after that though...

The whole point of keeping an effective armed forces is that they are prepared for any situation where they may be needed because you never know what will happen in the future. Just because not all the weaponary we possess is being used in current operations does not preclude the fact it may be needed in the future.

Anyway, back to the spending cuts in general...seems Darling (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8449716.stm) has come out and said there will be big cuts before we even have an election. Who wants to bet they will be long-term, well planned cuts for the better of the country rather than popular but ill-thought out cuts that will have worse long term consequences?

Oh, and I did like his quote at the end:


"Most people know that public spending has doubled over the last 10 to 12 years, so we are coming off a much higher base, " he said.

"We are not talking about a situation where we have already cut to the bone."

At least they know they've been throwing our money away rather than spending it only where it was needed...

[rory_20_uk]

I think that a Strategic Spending Review is overdue to sort out exactly what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. This would enable us to stop trying to do everything but never quite enough to succeed at any of them and so some things well.

Personally:


RAF hasn't got much of a need for an independant role. Amalgamate the relevant bits into the Nazy and Army
Less on sexy hardware without thought to use. Eurofighters might be technically great, but are so few in number they will be unable to make a strategic difference. In a serious conflict they;ll quickly be worn out or destroyed by missiles.
Massive blue fleet navies are pretty and I imagine for men who'se own members are failing are reassuringly phallic. We need to protect our vestiges of Empire, but that's about it. Several, smaller modern ships can deal with any threat that we would be involved in. If the Falklands are a concern, build some decent bunkers, a lot of SAM sites and station some troops over there. Showing up with a naval force and undertaking a amphibious landing shows we were not prepared.
Get rid of heavy armour. Blitzkrieg was great, but we've not got the numbers for this, nor a potential conventional foe. They cost a lot of money and do practically nothing. We can barely move them out of Germany in a reasonable time scale.
Increase special forces and appropriate equipment for their use.


In essence have a small force that can defend the homelands, detect and pick off pirate threats and do what they do well; it will also mean that we'd be unable to get entangled in wars. We might possibly have more respect with the current system, but we so quickly become overstretched I don't imagine that this lasts.

And a military budget that is shrinking by the year needs to be rectified as building up at the last minute for defence is expensive and risky at best.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

I also believe that cutting weapons arsenals is a good idea considering that wars will hardly be fought the conventional way and there's way more troops and expensive to upkeep and maintain weaponry around than needed.



while your suggestion seems quite anodyne in its simplicity and apple-pie-is-good bon homie, it is a very dangerous sentiment that if applied could make the world a very much more dangerous place for Britain.

before i am willing to discuss the multitudinous benefits of unilateral disarmament any further i would invite you to read the first link in my sig................. and then come back and tell that you still think chopping defence spending (which is what your anodyne statement really means in practice) is a good idea.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I couldn't help but think there was a peculair similarity between the chilly bleakness of this picture taken today, and Britain's electoral forecast. Bleak and dismal. Not a single spot of solace to be found.

Brrr...



https://img109.imageshack.us/img109/1122/grandebretagne.jpg




(All-white and no global warming. Could this predict a BNP landslide?)
(Note how Ireland is still green. Nothing can beat the greeness out of the Emerald Isle.)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I think that a Strategic Spending Review is overdue to sort out exactly what we should be doing and what we should not be doing. This would enable us to stop trying to do everything but never quite enough to succeed at any of them and so some things well.

UK defence spending is already low, 2.4% in 2005 according to Wiki, and I believe still falling. There is a strong arguement that it should rise, as it is already well below the Cold War peak. Now, if you would allow me to respond to your points.


RAF hasn't got much of a need for an independant role. Amalgamate the relevant bits into the Nazy and Army.

Financially, this may make sense. However, the RAF was created because Army Commanders are usually not pilots, and therefore do not understand pilots and aircraft. I don't believe this has changed much, and the need for the RAF remains so that there is an Air Marshall to stand up to the General.


Less on sexy hardware without thought to use. Eurofighters might be technically great, but are so few in number they will be unable to make a strategic difference. In a serious conflict they;ll quickly be worn out or destroyed by missiles.

True, we need more Eurofighters, or a cheaper interceptor designed to launch missiles from long range.


Massive blue fleet navies are pretty and I imagine for men who'se own members are failing are reassuringly phallic. We need to protect our vestiges of Empire, but that's about it. Several, smaller modern ships can deal with any threat that we would be involved in. If the Falklands are a concern, build some decent bunkers, a lot of SAM sites and station some troops over there. Showing up with a naval force and undertaking a amphibious landing shows we were not prepared.

Ships are useful for so many things, including patrols, anti-piracy, hummanitarian efforts, etc. Also, they are built in Civillian dockyards, which are major local employers when successful.


Get rid of heavy armour. Blitzkrieg was great, but we've not got the numbers for this, nor a potential conventional foe. They cost a lot of money and do practically nothing. We can barely move them out of Germany in a reasonable time scale.

The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.


Increase special forces and appropriate equipment for their use.

Special forces are drawn from the rank and file, less rank and file means either less Special Forces or a drop in quality.


In essence have a small force that can defend the homelands, detect and pick off pirate threats and do what they do well; it will also mean that we'd be unable to get entangled in wars. We might possibly have more respect with the current system, but we so quickly become overstretched I don't imagine that this lasts.

And a military budget that is shrinking by the year needs to be rectified as building up at the last minute for defence is expensive and risky at best.

~:smoking:

What you describe is what we currently have, "a small force". Only two British Divisions can be deployed at short notice, and the total stength of the regular army, trained, is around 98,000. Consider that as a proportion of the total population of the UK.

[naut]

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.

[Beskar]

The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

I have seen some of the new tanks in relevant information and even though I am into the military hardware, some of them really do look sexy.

Not "looking sexy" in a sexual/looks manner, but they look very attractive to having them deployed in the armed forces as they can basically serve a lot of functions. One tank (I believe it is one of the latest german ones) has an inbuilt super computer, very advanced radar, anti-rockets, hard-plated, automatic guns, etc. Basically, it looked like it could probably serve as a one-man army.

By this, tanks can be so functional now-a-days and so versaille, that you could see normal infantry corps having small armoured detached to assist in co-ordinating and give support.


I don't know how much these sorts of tanks are in service, from what you read and see, I could imagine British armed forces using re-conditioned panzers and sherman tanks in Iraq and Afghanistan. (Probably to justify replacing them)

[Furunculus]

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.

If the Scots really are that wedded that to their anti-tory politics that they would vote yes in a referendum on independence, then bring cameron on, the one thing that makes my teeth grate more than anything else is the continual whining and indecision from north of the border. if they are that undependable, and lack any clear commitment to the 'family' then we are better off without them.


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


in other news, a mainstream political party finally does something to wrest the immigration debate away from the BNP and its million plus disillusioned voters:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100021824/david-cameron-puts-a-lid-on-immigration/

[Furunculus]

1. UK defence spending is already low, 2.4% in 2005 according to Wiki, and I believe still falling. There is a strong arguement that it should rise, as it is already well below the Cold War peak. Now, if you would allow me to respond to your points.

2. Financially, this may make sense. However, the RAF was created because Army Commanders are usually not pilots, and therefore do not understand pilots and aircraft. I don't believe this has changed much, and the need for the RAF remains so that there is an Air Marshall to stand up to the General.

3. True, we need more Eurofighters, or a cheaper interceptor designed to launch missiles from long range.

4. Ships are useful for so many things, including patrols, anti-piracy, hummanitarian efforts, etc. Also, they are built in Civillian dockyards, which are major local employers when successful.

5. The main purpose of Armour is to support infantry. Also, if you dispand a particular Corps it is incredibly difficult to recreate it. Be assured, the army keeps twice as many tanks moffballed as in service, so that armour can be mobalised if needed.

6. Special forces are drawn from the rank and file, less rank and file means either less Special Forces or a drop in quality.

7. What you describe is what we currently have, "a small force". Only two British Divisions can be deployed at short notice, and the total stength of the regular army, trained, is around 98,000. Consider that as a proportion of the total population of the UK.
1. UK Defence spending was down as low as 2.2% of GDP in 2008/09, whilst we had been fighting two far off wars for most of the preceding decade.
As a result of Broons decision to use core funding for operations it is almost certainly going to slip to at least 2.1% of GDP.

2. The RAF was created way before WW2, and it was durng the build up to WW2 that we finally cottoned on to joint forces and unified command which is one of the reasons we were so successful, and ever since that point we have had a rotating unified command structure. We do not need a separate RAF anymore, which is not to say that it would not be desirable to have such an entity.

3. We don't, 230 eurofighters was a cold war requirement which for contract reasons we were stuck with as the withdrawal penalties would cost nearly as much as buying the aircraft in the first place. ironically, it was britain that demanded these penalties be put in place because our european partners, notably germany, had an irritating tendency to go wobbly on the program every thirty seconds demanding capability cuts and number reductions, a poor way to run a multinational acquisition program costing hundreds of billions! a very wise american officer once said; "there is nothing more expensive than having the second best airforce in the world!" and he is right. the eurofighter is a good aircraft, as is the F35 and we need both, just not in cold war numbers.

4. The Navy has been the key to Britain becoming, being, and continuing to be a Great Power. It has always been, and always will be the most important military arm that Britain has.

5. Tanks are useful, this was demonstrated in iraq in 2003, long after they had (once again) be written off as irrelevant to the modern battlefield. And you are correct, we do maintain enormous air conditioned warehouses discretely around the country where huge numbers of Challenger 1 tanks and various other AFV's are kept actively maintained as a reserve. Given that we currently operate only 320 Challenger 2 tanks currently, with that likely to be cut in half in the next five years, we might consider it a capability we don't need to make ourself in future, sad as it might be given that we invented the first useful tank.

6. Agreed, we have probably expanded the special forces as much as they can be given that the Army itself numbers less than 100,000.

7. What we are is a Great Power, one of only three (including the yanks and france) in the world that can fight a high intensity land war at the opposite ends of the earth, and one of only two (including the yanks) who can do so as independent in-theatre command.
We also have the ability to launch opposed landings via amphibious and expeditionary warfare anywhere we please, and sustain and support it in theatre.
Along with the nuclear deterrent this defines the three core capabilities of 98 Strategic Defence Review (Labours greatest success), though we sadly never provided the funding to maintain it (Labours greatest failure), which is the reason why the Royal United Services Institute wrote the report listed in my sig asking the question; how can we maintain Britain as a Great Power in the 21st century given the funding constraints. Read it.

[Subotan]

Kick pensions all the way back to 70, and maybe beyond. They're the single biggest cost for the government. The pensions sytem itself was designed when men's life expectancy didn't even reach up to 65, and was never intended to provide a golden twilight of twenty odd years. It will also increase the size of the labour force :yes:

[rory_20_uk]

Kick pensions all the way back to 70, and maybe beyond. They're the single biggest cost for the government. The pensions system itself was designed when men's life expectancy didn't even reach up to 65, and was never intended to provide a golden twilight of twenty odd years. It will also increase the size of the labour force :yes:

When the age of retirement was first started it was 70. As the life expectancy increased, the age to retire decreased :inquisitive:

Both labour and the conservatives are very slowly increasing the age of retirement. There are a lot of baby boomers who with throw toys out of the pram if they're made to work for their own retirement. Yes, the country can't afford it in the long term - but the next 30 years is OK, yeah?

~:smoking:

[Subotan]

When the age of retirement was first started it was 70. As the life expectancy increased, the age to retire decreased :inquisitive:


Haha, what terrible policy making!



Both labour and the conservatives are very slowly increasing the age of retirement. There are a lot of baby boomers who with throw toys out of the pram if they're made to work for their own retirement. Yes, the country can't afford it in the long term - but the next 30 years is OK, yeah?

~:smoking:What's annoying is although it's totally out of the question for Ebeneezer to be working when he's 70, it's perfectly okay and even necessary for me to. I will be working to subsidise a way of life which I will not be able to enjoy, and just because neither party has the balls to make sensible fiscal decisions.

[Vladimir]

Leaving aside the sanity of our Prime Mentalist for a moment, there is no choice. The moneys run out. The well is dry. We've lost the paddle and the canoe is leaking. Expect deep cuts and tax increases, especially for the poor.

The thing that amazes me is that some people are actually considering voting for the great snot gobbler and his dysfunctional credo. Must be all those diversity outreach officers one reads about in the Gruniad job vacancy adverts.

:juggle2:

I'm late to the game on this post but have questions: How do you raise taxes on poor people? Do your poor people have money?

I've argued for raising taxes on our poor people but everyone here says they don't have any money. :shrug:

Is this some sort of poverty game whereby we can eliminate poverty by simply eliminating the metric we use to assess poverty? Because I'm all for eliminating poverty too. :yes:

The UK still has a middle class. I recommend taking money from them.

~;)

[Boohugh]

I'm late to the game on this post but have questions: How do you raise taxes on poor people? Do your poor people have money?

I've argued for raising taxes on our poor people but everyone here says they don't have any money. :shrug:



I guess our poor people are better off than poor people elsewhere, they are only poor by a relative standard in the UK. In terms of taxing the poor, the implication is to tax working people on the lowest income or raise indirect taxes.

Raising income tax directly is always very unpopular and it looks terrible if you do it to those on the lowest incomes so is unlikely, but raising the level of national insurance slightly (which is basically another form of income tax by a different name) is a possibility as that is more likely to slip under the radar.

The alternative is to raise indirect taxes such as VAT, alcohol, fuel, tobacco, etc. These will of course hit everyone but they affect the poorest most because they have the lowest disposable income. Statistically, poorer people are generally heavier smokers/drinkers than better off people and so would share a disproportionate burden of any increase in those sorts of duties too. These taxes would hit those on benefits, not only those who work, and so arguably affect the poorest people of all: those that require state help just to survive as they don't/can't provide for themselves (assuming a benefit system that actually does what it's designed for!).


In terms of why we are likely to tax the poor - it's basically because it's the least politically dangerous (as anywhere else, our politicians rarely have the stones to take the morally upstanding route and rather take the path of least resistance). Richer people don't mind so much about increases to the indirect taxes (which is the most likely option for raising taxes) because they have the disposable income to absorb it without being put out too much. There is likely to be tax increases for the richest people too, and they are more likely to come in the form of raising income tax on the highest incomes but currently that would actually be seen as a popular move by many people due to the (media-induced) image that the world recession was caused by a small minority of very rich people and nobody else. It will be the middle classes that will escape from large tax increases most (initially at least) because that is where the election is likely to be won or lost.

[Vladimir]

Thank you. I was having a little fun with his post. :bow:

Yea, I can see your government, any government, raising regressive tax rates. Many in the U.S. want to implement a national sales or value-added tax. Most people who support these don't know what a regressive tax is and that we tried that before. Sales/sin aka regressive taxes is how the early federal government tried to support itself. Sales taxes are also largely the purview of the states.

Good luck guys.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Banquo:

I think Brown's survival reminds me of the GOP nominations of Dole in 1996 and McCain just passed. With no clear "voice of leadership" or clear-cut goals ASIDE from retaining power, he's just a place holder for the inevitable.


To the last few posters on UK defense spending etc.

2% is either a) drastically too little OR b) at least twice what it needs to be. The UK needs to decide the role it wishes to have and to pay accordingly.

[Louis VI the Fat]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

Mhmm...sure (http://datafinder.worldbank.org/military-expenditure?cid=GPD_42) they do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

John Major, the last Conservative PM, cut defense spending by 25%.
Blair and Brown, Labour, raised it by 25% again.


Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Numbers and facts contradict the stereotype that one ought to vote Conservatives for big defense spending. Labour is where it's at.

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.

[Louis VI the Fat]

....except that they cut defence spending as a percentage both of GDP and against inflation. Where as the Conservatives cut it following the Cold-War and maintained the practice of ring fencing a surplus for fighting foriegn wars.

So what you wrote is nonsense, but I'm sure you know that already.Why would I willingly write nonsense? What's that all about?



As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

Labour took over in 1997: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php4



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



Labour is as aware as I am of the discrepancy between words and actions when it comes to Tories and defense spending, and is already using it in the elections.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.


Defence may avoid fall of spending axe if Labour wins election, says Mandelson

Defence would be exempt from Whitehall spending cuts if Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) won the next election, Lord Mandelson suggested yesterday in a surprise bid to outflank the Tories in the ongoing row about the funding of the military (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/military) operation in Afghanistan (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/afghanistan).

The business secretary said that Labour would seek to protect defence spending if it won the general election and that this contrasted with the stance of the Tories, who have made it clear that the Ministry of Defence is not one of the two departments that would be exempt from spending cuts under a David Cameron (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/davidcameron) regime.


The claim is surprising, because Whitehall is braced for deep cuts in most departments after the poll, and Mandelson's main purpose may have been to intensify divisions among the Conservatives (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/conservatives), some of whom believe Cameron should be doing more to protect the defence budget.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/jul/19/afghanistan-funding-david-cameron-military

[Brenus]

"Also, benefit payments should be restricted to UK nationals only - not commonwealth + EU nationals":
So, I stop to pay taxes in UK?
Because actually I am pure benefit for UK.
UK paid nothing for my shool, training and skills.
I came here free of charge, all trained and ready, work in UK, pay for YOUR pregnant teenage, pay for YOUR school and YOUR army.

If I've got trouble in a foreign land, who will rescue me? UK or French Embassy/army? Guess...:idea2:

The cost of social benefit is due to the english Natives, not on the Polish, Indians and others who just work hard...
You don't find much Indian/Pakistaneese girls pregnant do you?:inquisitive:
Who benefit the most of the Social housing? The young white and English girls...:beam:

[Furunculus]

2% is either a) drastically too little OR b) at least twice what it needs to be. The UK needs to decide the role it wishes to have and to pay accordingly.

quite right Saemus, which is precisely why the Royal United Services Institute (created by Wellington nearly 200 years ago) created its discussion paper titled; A Force For Honour, asking two questions:

1) Is it desirable that Britain should wish to remain a Great Power?
2) If yes to the above, how can this be achieved?

That discussion paper is the first link in my sig and is an interesting read, in fact it should be mandatory reading for any Brit before they are allowed to spout bovine-excreta about peace and love.

[Beskar]

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending... :beam:

[Furunculus]

In the same vein, you say it is robbery to increase spending... :beam:

.............. and i get the same tired response every time i suggest it, even though:

1) it is well known that i consider Defence of the Realm to be the first duty of the sovereign nation-state.
2) Defence spending in Britain has fallen continuously since 1985 to 2010, from nearly 5% of GDP to nearly 2.0%.
3) i am happy to have Defence exist as a larger proportion of an overall smaller annual government expenditure.
4) because Defence occupies such a small part of annual government expenditure, the above is entirely achievable.
5) it would be achievable with little reduction in capability from other departments, precisely because their budgets have grown like a cancer since 1997, far in advance of the improvements that increase has brought. they are in short grossly inefficient, at a time when Defence spending can only be considered lean.

and somehow the obvious escapes even the sharpest of orgah tools.................






it's a honest-to-god mystery.

[Boohugh]

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased. The problem is it hasn't increased enough! From the website you listed, you can see that defence spending is still below 1992 levels (i.e. after the first Gulf war) in real terms and constantly falling in GDP terms, despite the armed forces having been far more operationally committed over a far longer period of time than they have been since probably the Korean war! There can be no question - the armed forces of the UK are underfunded for the role they have been assigned and the blame falls squarely at the feet of the Labour government (both for it's role and the underfunding!).

I'd also take anything Lord Mandelson says with a pinch of salt, he's not exactly the most trustworthy politician around. He even says at the end of that article that the decision on where spending cuts fall ultimately lies with the Treasury and they haven't said anything about protecting defence spending. Not to mention the MoD has already been told by Labour they need to start cutting spending and so this is already happening rather haphazardly without any long term plan because they aren't waiting to carry out a new Defence Review before doing it.

[Furunculus]

As ever, I always have a link for those interested. Note how the defense budget really did increase by 25% under Labour. Needless to say, that is 25% against inflation, and not in curency amount (which went up well over 50%). It went down under the Conservatives, by a whopping 25%. Or 1,5% of GDP, after which it stabilised under Labour.

I vain, I predict. Because on sheer stereotype, the 'defense vote' goes to the Conservatives, so the Tories reckon they can get away with cutting the defense budget (again!) and their electorate will never know it, under the spell as they are from stereotypes based on Tory robust defense rethoric. Which is all talk, instead of action.

It was called the post cold war peace dividend, and it was inevitable that since the evil empire had been defeated once and for all that people would want to spend public money on the finer things in (public) life rather than tanks. funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

As to the Dark Lord himself, has it escaped your attention that Labour is promising jam tomorrow while you blithely ignore the fact that Labour just announced a massive cut, i.e. that Afghanistan would be funded from the core defence budget in contravention of all previous policy that active operations are funded by treasury appropriation. And this after a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one.

Since Labour in the past decade, unlike the disastrous decade before under the Tories, presided over massive economic growth, Labour was able to drastically increase the UK defense budget without raising it as a percentage of GDP.

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

[Vladimir]

Louis, you're priceless. You take the most patently ridiculous positions, and present them as if they were perfectly reasonable. It.......... just hilarious!

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

[Furunculus]

Yes, but he does it with such flair that it leaves you wanting more.

just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.




just so long as you don't take what he says seriously.Never take my word for anything.

Instead, rely on facts.


UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.


Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Louis, it may be true that defence spending has increased under Labour in real terms since they took power, but you have to look at it against the political background.

The Conservatives presided over defence cuts at the end of the Cold War because we had large amounts of obsolete equipment, the armed forces just didn't need all the equipment and manpower it had, so cuts made some sense (although there is an argument to be made they went too deep, especially considering what happened next).

Labour, on the other hand, has presided over at least one and eventually two concurrent high tempo military operations in theatres the other side of the world - of course it's logical defence spending has increased. Naturally, one needs to take political background into consideration.

However, there is no Cold War at the moment either. Both the Tories and Labour in the past two decades made their defense policies in a post-1989 world. And in this new geo-political constallation, in the post-Cold War world, Labour increased the defense budget by a quarter, and the Conservatives decreased it by the same amount.

It is not a given that the UK should pursue a very active military foreign policy. It is a political choice, and this active defense policy has been Labour's choice, not the Tories'.




The problem is it hasn't increased enough!A well-Italicised statement, for therein lies the rub indeed. Labour indeed has not accepted the full consequences of its very active foreign military policy. It is all fine and dandy to have 8500 troops in Afghanistan, plus Iraq, but it does come with a price tag one needs to be prepared to pay. These operations must be properly funded by a huge increase in spending. Or else either the success of the operations will be compromised and troops will suffer needless casualty, or the general defense budget will suffer.

This underfunding of British' military operations have given the Tories the chance to create the misconception that Labour decreases UK's military expenditure. That Labour is the party of defense budget cuts.

This is not true. The very reverse is true. Labour in the past decades has been the party that increases defense spending, and the Tories the one that drastically reduces it. And they will do so again.



a shrinking Defence budget (as both from %GDP and Defence inflation) during a period in which the forces have spent most of the last decade fighting two high-intensity foriegn wars. again, funny how your detailed analysis missed that one. I am afraid this is incorrect.

British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

[Beskar]

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

[Vladimir]

Strike may have a problem with that.

[Furunculus]

I am afraid I do not get the logic that the Conservatives increase military spending by decreasing it because of the end of the Cold War, and that Labour decreases military spending by increasing it because of Labour's very active foreign military policy.

UK military spending when Thatcher took office in 1979:
5.2% of GDP

UK military spending when Major took office in 1990:
3,9% of GDP

UK military spending when Blair took office in 1997:
2,8% of GDP

In the twelve years since, under Labour, defense spending has stabilised percentage wise, and increased 25% in real amount, corrected for inflation. This is the most massive increase in defense spending since living memory.

This rubbishes at once the claim that the Conservatives merely cashed in on the 'peace dividend' after the Cold War ended in 1989. The vast bulk of the Conservative defense cuts had been made in the decade before the fall of the wall.

It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power. And it is Labour who drastically increased the budget again, to fund their policy of very active UK foreign military involvement.

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.

Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

i have never said that tories increase defence spending, i wish they would, but the reality is i trust no politician with defence spending. all parties have a proven track record of decreased military spending in the last 80 years.

i have already credited labour with creating the most far-sighted Strategic Defence Review ever, and i am fully aware that the Cons chopped defence budgets far more than they should. The post cold war dividend is a fact, all i did was enter it into the blithely ignorant equations you are churning out for general consumption.

the britain is now, arguably, still a Great Power much as the definition is amorphous, the fact that we are not a world power has everything to do with decline of empire and the debt of two world wars.

the tories have never got away with defence cuts, at least not from me. labour has got the majority of my ire because they are the party in government during the period of my internet ranting.


British defense spending has risen enormously since 2000. Yes, indeed corrected for inflation. Labour in the past decade has overseen the most drastic UK defense spending increase in decades. The UK is third behind only the US and China in global defense spending.

Moreover, to fund the UK's two pricy high-intesity conflicts, the Treusury Reserve has provided an additional £9.5Bn on top of the Defence Budget to cover operational costs. Add in pensions and numerous other non-MoD costs, and it is clear that Labour, far from cutting on defense, has drastically increased the defense expenditure burden of the UK.

no it hasn't louis. it has risen in line with inflation. it has not risen in line with defence inflation. and it certainly has not risen in line with government spending, you know the one i am always banging on about, 2.2% of GDP etc, less than 3.5% of GDP etc. it has not been treated as the primary duty of the state, instead it has been treated like the red-headed step-child of government spending, evidenced by its continual decline as a proportion of government spending, by all parties.

the treasury reserve has never coverered all operational costs, worse it has in some cases been clawed back. to top it off, there has been a massive defence cut announced only last month when the gov't announced that afghanistan operational funding would be taken from the core defence budget. that is a CUT, as i have said before.
------------------------------------------------------
edit -

for the record, i have no expectation that cameron will increase defence spending either, regardless of having to clear up labour finances or otherwise.

labour spends high, but actively dislikes the military = x ammount
conservatives spend low, but like to court the defence vote = y amount

amount x and amount y are usually pretty similar.

my sympathy naturally lies with the tories, because i actively dislike any brit who actively dislikes britains military institutions, but i'm under no illusions that neither does anything but chop defence budgets.

[Furunculus]

Times like this, I want to marry Louis.

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

[Beskar]

your cheer-leading is already clearly visible.

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

[Furunculus]

You know that Louis makes a lot of sense.

You even agreed to it yourself that he was correct, however, you further comment that they should have spent more. Which goes in opposition to your earlier comments that it is basically all new labours fault for keep on clawing it back when it was the Tories which did the most damage.

they haven't done 'most' of the damage.

events dear boy, events - to quote a british prime minister

the end of the cold war, (where we spent 40 years deterring the might of the red army along with our allies), was always going to require a peace dividend. Keeping BAOR in germany and holding the G-I-UK gap was no mean feat, especially as it didn't give us a free pass from all our other global commitments.

i have never advocated a return to defence spending at a level of ~5%, or even 3.5% of GDP, what i have actually advocated is:
> a legislated peacetime minimum of 2.5% of GDP (which is what labour said they would attempt to maintain in the SDR 98)
> an annual review to see if we are in fact at peace, and if not to recommend the appropriate increase (currently at ~2,1% during wartime)
> a temporary hike above 2.5% to recognise to recover from decades of under investment (and the fact that we were fighting two foreign wars at once on a 2.2% budget)
> absolute recognition that ALL operational costs including attrition are paid for by the treasury (not the situation now)

and i will apologise to nobody for criticising labour for taking a further bite out of the core defence budget last month to fund afghanistan, especially when the defence budget itself has fallen 0.3% below the level labour said they would maintain.

[Subotan]

Btw what happened to our navy

[Brenus]

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.
The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?:inquisitive:

[Furunculus]

Btw what happened to our navy
Prior to SDR98 it consisted of 35 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 12 attack submarines.

SDR98 mandated a need for 32 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 10 attack submarines.

After SDR98 it quickly slipped to 28 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 9 attack submarines. (spot the baddy?)

In 911 they changed their mind and abandoned they best policy doc they ever made (SDR98) and created the "new2 chapter" where we needed only 25 frigates and destroyers, in addition to 8 attack submarines.

This has since dropped below their policy documents to about 22 frigates and destroyers, with a planned number of 7 attack submarines. (again, spot the baddy?)

And given the rate at which perfectly serviceable frigates are being sold off or put into "extended readiness" that could go as low as 17 escorts.

that is what has happened to the navy.

[Furunculus]

“It is the Tories who presided over the UK defense cutback from Great Power to medium power.”
It is so true that if the Argentineans would have attack the Falklands/Malvinas/Malouines few months after they did, the UK would have no Aircraft Carriers as Maggie had sold them to India.

The same Maggie, in cutting defence expenses obliged the destroyers Type 45 to be reduce in size with the consequence they couldn’t have all the AA defence needed. It cost UK the Sheffield.

So, who did the damage?:inquisitive:

The FCO have the greatest blame for the falklands, for demonstrating little interest in keeping them to the Argentinians whilst showing every willingness to talk about the issue forever. no gumption, and talks won't lead anywhere, why not invade. The same maggie who did have the balls to actually take the falklands back.

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

[Boohugh]

Are those the same T45 ADD destroyers of which we were supposed to receive at least 12, and we now find 6? i wasn't aware that anyone had complained that 48 aster missiles with the option to retrofit another 16 wasn't enough..................?

Think he was probably getting confused and meant the T42's as he was talking about Maggie and HMS Sheffield. Although I'm not sure you can blame the fact Sheffield sank on it having fewer AA defences than originally planned Brenus, when the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles because the main threat (the Soviet Union) wasn't expected to employ that sort of attack (note it was due to be upgraded however, so it's not like the problem had been ignored). All the AA defences in the world wouldn't have helped in that situation.

Regarding the Navy nowadays, as Furunculus has stated, they have been steadily shrinking despite there being no shortage of tasks set for them. The smaller ships haven't got off either, there are currently only 16 Mine Counter-Measures Vessels despite there being a minimum requirement of 22 as set out in the SDR (reduced from an initial number of 25) and the Navy has just been told to get rid of another one so will soon be down to just 15. That's 7 short of the minimum this government itself set out for their assigned tasks (and they have only got busier since invading Iraq in 2003).

Considering that 92% of UK trade (by volume) travels by sea and sea transport is the UK's third largest service sector, it seems absurd that any government should ignore the needs of the Royal Navy. They aren't asking for a massive blue water fleet that will take on another nation in a big old-fashioned naval battle because that just isn't likely - they are trying to create a navy that can 1) protect maritime trade routes, particularly the 9 strategic choke-points through which the vast majority of international trade passes and 2) can support littoral (coastal) combat operations, which are the most likely (e.g. Iraq invasion) but they aren't being given the resources to do that. Afghanistan is the exception in being a landlocked country far away from the sea and doesn't represent the most likely area of operation in the future (although that hasn't stopped the Navy from providing up to 40% of all UK service personnel operating there).

So to say that Labour supports the armed forces adequately when they have presided over this sort of mess beggars belief. I'm not saying the Conservatives have a better track record, but the Labour one isn't exactly glowing either - as always they have just managed to hide it fairly well with spin.

[Brenus]

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

[Furunculus]

“the fact is the ship couldn't confirm it was actually under missile attack until they got visual confirmation about 5 seconds before it was struck, as the radar system just wasn't designed to detect fast moving, low flying planes or missiles”.
Er, it is exactly what I said.
The info we’ve got at the time was due to a lack of space thanks to the reduction of budget thanks to Maggie (and the Berlin Wall was still solid), the Navy could install a tracking radar for this kind of attack (and the Exocet being a French Missile was not exactly ignored by UK. I think that USSR had the Kelt at that moment, not really a low missile, but still…) so it cost the Navy the Sheffield (yeap, Destroyer type 42) (and others). Knowing that the Argentineans had just a few of these missiles, imagine the result if they had waited the delivery of all the order…

And there is still the selling of the aircrafts carrier to India even before the new one to be ready?

defence procurement is always a mess, everywhere, to think otherwise is lunacy. Air Defence was never a priority for the Royal Navy in the Cold War, as its principle task was maintaining a huge Anti Submarine fleet to hold Soviet hunter-killer submarines behind the Greenland-Iceland-UK gap, and thus ensure Operation Reforger could reach mainland europe to reinforce american troops in the event that 15,000 soviet main-battle-tanks rumble across the Fulda Gap.

you are talking about the T42's, not the T45's.

if you want another cracking example of a cock-up have a look at the italian/french horizon program; each country gets a grand total of two units. how's that for a return on 30 years of investment, the unit cost must be princely don't you think?

now that is an ADD disaster in waiting!

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



defence cut of 15%:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/journalists/thomas-harding/6974706/Military-concerns-over-new-Iraq-inquiry.html

[Beskar]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

[Subotan]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

YESSSSSSSS:yes::yes::yes:

[Boohugh]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

In theory the idea is interesting, it would just be the next big stage of a process in defence procurement and cooperation that is already happening to some degree. The only problem is there would be no political agreement on when to use it so it would be pointless having in the first place! :laugh4:

Edit: Although like to add, pretty sure all the EU defence budgets combined still wouldn't rival the US one.

[Furunculus]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

as i have said many times before; it doesn't matter how many shiny war toys the EU could collect together, europe is post-war, they don't have the balls to use those toys, so it would have very little influence in bolstering europes foreign policy.

it would just look very pretty on the parade ground, and be treated as such.

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

you also need to be able to create a common foriegn policy........... which doesn't exist.

In theory the idea is interesting, it would just be the next big stage of a process in defence procurement and cooperation that is already happening to some degree.

The only problem is there would be no political agreement on when to use it so it would be pointless having in the first place! :laugh4:

Edit: Although like to add, pretty sure all the EU defence budgets combined still wouldn't rival the US one.
even that doesn't work very well, A400 anyone, or Horizon, etc.

agreed, as i said above.

indeed not, because europe is post-war.


YESSSSSSSS:yes::yes::yes:

given your enthusiasm for a euro-army is expressed in a thread dedicated to the most euroskeptic british electorate in a long time, i have to question your judgement. do you honestly see the next parliament having a mandate for foriegn policy integration with the EU sufficient to create a euro-army?

[Subotan]

No, but a man can dream. A man can dream.

[Beskar]

as i have said many times before; it doesn't matter how many shiny war toys the EU could collect together, europe is post-war, they don't have the balls to use those toys, so it would have very little influence in bolstering europes foreign policy.

it would just look very pretty on the parade ground, and be treated as such.

You would make a great American.




you also need to be able to create a common foriegn policy........... which doesn't exist.

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.

[Furunculus]

You would make a great American.

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.
am i wrong.

NATO constitutes a system of collective defence whereby its member states agree to mutual defence in response to an attack by any external party, and having a high representative does mean we have anything even remotely like common foreign policy objectives.

[Vladimir]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

:laugh4: There already is one except the initials are U.S. and not E.U.

Laughable. Europe, and Europeans, would never support such a force. They're as addicted to U.S. military support as we are to middle-east oil.

It does have some appeal though. Many have commented on the fact that we only kill brown people nowdays. Real men fight in Europe.

Oh, and this:


You would make a great American.

Other than NATO which can be argued as one, there is the brand new office which could cover this... so yes, there is.

I suspect that is a compliment. That's how I would take it if someone claimed I would make a great German, Brit, or (the sadly unattainable goal :shame: ) a Dutchman. I'd even settle for a Walloon.

NATO as a common foreign policy? You must be joking.

[Furunculus]

I suspect that is a compliment. That's how I would take it if someone claimed I would make a great German, Brit, or (the sadly unattainable goal :shame: ) a Dutchman. I'd even settle for a Walloon.

NATO as a common foreign policy? You must be joking.

given he's a brit, i suspect it's not.

sadly that is about the limit of 'muscular' european foreign policy; "don't attack me, i have a big brother who'll duff you up!"

[Furunculus]

the spending cuts would start right away under osborne (important given the election is likely to be just after the start of the 10/11 financial year:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100022337/george-osborne-the-cuts-start-now/



Like many Tories, George Osborne loves a Swedish model and this evening was with Sweden’s finance minister who like him is young and articulate but has the added advantage of being in power and fresh from his role in his country’s EU presidency (not that much of a triumph some say). The Shadow Chancellor used their get together to issue a message that should by rights make waves, namely that the Tories will cut spending as soon as they get in (if the voters allow, natch).

I repeat: spending for FY 10/11 will be cut under a Conservative government.

Mr Osborne has provided no further details beyond repeating the hit list he set out in Manchester, namely tax credits for those on £50k+, no more Child Trust Fund for the well off, slashing ‘propaganda spending’, etc. What he hasn’t said either is whether spending will be cut relative to FY 09/10, or whether spending will grow less than planned by Gordon Brown: spending in 10/11 is due to rise by £31bn. Is Mr Osborne lopping that off and more or what? This is the kind of statement many have been pressing him for, and Brown Central have been hoping he’ll make.

Full details are in Andrew Porter’s story for tonight’s Telegraph, and the key quote from Mr Osborne is: “The message could not be clearer – if you find yourself on the wrong road, you take the first available exit instead of carrying on. With the date of the general election increasingly likely to be after the beginning of the next financial year, that means we will need to make early in-year reductions in existing plans. Programmes that represent poor value for money, excessive spending on things like advertising and consultants, spending on tax credits for people earning over £50,000, and spending on Child Trust Funds for better off families will all have to be cut during the financial year.”

[Furunculus]

Would be interesting for Europe Union to form its own army. The combined effort would produce a super-power status armed forces which could rival America.

that common army/foreign-policy appears to be coming along a treat:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100022224/germany-is-not-pulling-its-weight-in-afghanistan/



One of the major consequences of the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a very changed understanding of NATO and the dynamics of the alliance. The response of the European nations to NATO’s call for additional forces for the IFOR mission shows this.

The heaviest burden in Afghanistan has been borne by the US, UK and Canada. Of the older NATO nations Denmark has played a major role, contributing more troops and taking more casualties as a part of its population than any other continental European nation. However, other Western nations have not pulled their weight at all, with Germany now acting as the problem child of the Western Alliance.

Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and a much larger population than the UK, had less than half of the force strength in Afghanistan as the UK. While British forces are committed to the toughest part of the country, the south, and are there to fight, the Germans have stationed their force in the safest part of Afghanistan, the north, and have and surrounded their commitment with numerous caveats restricting when and how their forces might engage in combat.

In short, while the US, UK, Denmark, and the Eastern Europeans are in Afghanistan to fight a war, the German government has generally avoided calling their deployment a “war” and has generally framed it as ‘peace” operation. Confronted with a huge leftist peace movement at home, Angela Merkel’s government will not expand its force in Afghanistan. German troops are stationed in Afghanistan as a symbolic act of NATO solidarity than as a true military ally. NATO officers in Afghanistan complain that the German army will not actively patrol and tends to hole up in their heavily fortified camps. In short, they will not do the kind of active counterinsurgency operations among the population that the operation requires. This is not because the Bundeswehr is an incompetent force, but because the German commanders sent to Afghanistan are under strict orders to avoid casualties.

The extreme sensitivity of the Germans to any kind of fighting was demonstrated by the German political crisis that ensued after a German commander called in an airstrike on a gasoline tanker truck that had been seized by the Taliban. The strike was successful and the truck destroyed, although there were civilian casualties. The fact that German actions had caused civilian casualties set off the German media and the politicians of both Right and Left and pushed Merkel to fire both her defence minister and the military chief of the Bundeswehr.

In fact, there was no scandal and what the German commander had done was exactly right. Given their use of suicide bombers, the Taliban would have used the truck as a huge bomb against other Afghans or NATO forces. A bomb of that size might have killed hundreds of Western forces — so the NATO air strike that caused such agonies in German domestic politics actually saved hundreds of lives. Yet, such is the force of the pacifist Left in Germany today that no senior person in the government would stand up and tell that simple fact to the public.

While Germany is proving to be a major weakness in the NATO alliance, the new Eastern European members of NATO have stepped up to the mission and proven their committment to Western defence. While Germany rejected the recent call for reinforcements to Afghanistan, the Poles are increasing their force to over 3,000 men. Poland, with half of Germany’s population, will soon have troop strength equal to Germany’s. The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have a combined population of about 10 per cent of Germany’s. But in late 2009 these three countries had a military and civilian deployment to Afghanistan of over 700 military and civilian personnel – a much larger committment in terms of their populations and economies than Germany’s.

Unlike the Germans, the Poles and Baltic forces deploy their troops to combat without restrictions or conditions. They are currently serving and taking casualties under US and UK command in the tough parts of Afghanistan. Friends of mine serving in Afghanistan now refer to Germans and to “real allies” – meaning the Eastern Europeans. The strong commitment of these countries to the Western system is revitalising the alliance.

[Furunculus]

Mythbusters: Britain's finances are in a poor state because of the financial crisis that began in America

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/6991069/No-minister-this-disaster-began-years-before-the-credit-crunch.html

No minister, this disaster began years before the credit crunch
Britain is in a financial mess because of a spending binge that stretches back to 2002, says Jeff Randall

By Jeff Randall
Published: 8:20PM GMT 14 Jan 2010

'Of all the ways to dig out what's really going on," said my friend, the world-weary newshound, "there's nothing better than a DFE."

I nodded sagely, pretending to catch his drift, while trying to work out what or who a DFE could be. A quick trawl through Google provided little help. Neither Double Faced Eels (a Latvian rock band) nor Dragon Fli Empire (a Canadian hip-hop group) seemed likely sources of red-hot stories. Decision-Feedback Equalizers (a routine for reducing errors in storing computer data) were a possibility, except that my chum could barely work the hairdryer, much less hack into an information system.

After a couple of feeble bluffs, I came clean. "Er, what exactly is a DFE? Anything to do with the Department for Education?" Dismayed, the Fleet Street veteran explained, very slowly: "Disaffected… Former… Employees. They know where the skeletons are."

DFEs exist in all walks of life – business, the media, sport – but nowhere more obviously and poisonously than in politics. Since he became Prime Minister in 2007, Gordon Brown's leadership has been polluted by a steady flow of ex-Cabinet colleagues who became toxic DFEs. Charles Clarke, Hazel Blears, Caroline Flint, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt all turned sour after losing ministerial influence. They were joined this week by James Purnell, a rarity among Labour's leading lights in that one would not crawl across a busy motorway to avoid him.

Mr Purnell's piece this week in The Guardian did not savage Mr Brown in the way that Miss Flint had done after her inelegant exit, when she accused the PM of treating women as "window dressing". It was damaging, none the less, because it set out Mr Purnell's reasons for resigning seven months ago.

"I couldn't continue in Cabinet saying things I no longer believed to be true," he said. This, he knew, would prompt speculation about how many who are still there have no such qualms.

Mr Purnell went on: "There were major policy differences… It was clear that some cuts would be needed, because the economy was smaller than everyone had previously thought. GDP had been artificially inflated by the housing and financial bubble."

GDP artificially inflated? Well, who would have thunk it? There we were believing that the United Kingdom's remarkable "growth" was down to Mr Brown's managerial genius, his elimination of boom and bust. Not so, Mr Purnell admitted: "By being clear about that, early and fully, I thought we would be in a better position to convince the public that the debt was down to our response to the credit crunch, not to excess spending before it."

Oh dear. He was doing so well up to that point. Then he ruined his case with blind adherence to Ballsonomics. This is the dismal science's version of flat earth mythology, ie that all Labour spending is productive "investment".

Let us debunk this nonsense. For it is simply untrue to claim that the foundations of Britain's towering edifice of debt, the Burj Khalifa of state borrowing, were laid by the financial crisis, rather than Labour's fiscal incontinence.

The last time a British Chancellor delivered a balanced budget – or better, one in surplus – was 2001, the year of Tony Blair's second general election victory. Much has changed since then, especially for those with red rosettes. That year, Liverpool lifted the FA Cup and Red Marauder (an omen of things to come at Number 11?) won the Grand National. Confident of victory at the polls, Mr Brown labelled his Budget "Investing for the Long Term". His plans included annual spending of £394 billion and income of £398 billion.

It was his last dance with pretty Prudence. Thereafter she was ditched in favour of her ugly cousin, Profligacy. In each of Labour's eight subsequent Budgets, expenditure has exceeded revenue.

The slide began modestly. In 2002, the Budget deficit was £10 billion, just 2.4 per cent of the £418 billion that Mr Brown dished out. Then came the deluge. Long before collateralised debt obligations hit the headlines, years before anyone had heard of "Ninja" mortgages (No Income, No Job, No Assets), at a time when an expanding economy should have enabled the Government to build up its savings, Mr Brown cut loose.

In 2003, government spending rose by 9 per cent, in 2004 by 7 per cent, then by 6 per cent in 2005, 2006 and 2007, and 5 per cent in 2008. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, our ability to pay for this binge did not grow at anything like the same rate. From 2002-2008 (the year before the full impact of the credit crunch), government spending increased by 48 per cent, but taxes went up by only 41 per cent.

Contrary to Mr Purnell's assertion, Labour's debt pile-up preceded the credit crunch. As a state, we had become addicted to the never-never. In 2003, the Budget deficit was £28 billion, then £33 billion in 2004, £32 billion in 2005, £36 billion in 2006, £34 billion in 2007 and £43 billion in 2008.

From 2003-2008 inclusive, the Chancellor's overspend as a percentage of the Government's annual outlay ranged between
5.8 per cent and 7 per cent, with the average being 6.4 per cent. In his 2008 Budget, Alistair Darling predicted GDP growth of 1.75-2.25 per cent, yet still planned to borrow £43 billion.

This is a core structural deficit, which has nothing to do with the financial crisis "that began in America", as Mr Brown likes to incant. It was akin to a family with a weekly income of £500 spending £532 every week for six years. At first, the process is not ruinous, but trouble accumulates until something unexpectedly bad happens – then, the finances whizz out of control.

In 2009, with the state coffers already bare, tax revenues collapsed as unemployment shot up and welfare payments ballooned. The Government's response – an unprecedented fiscal and monetary stimulus – did not solve the problem: it merely blurred reality, while deferring discipline. The upshot was borrowing of £178 billion, 27 per cent of state spending.

In its research paper "Popular Delusions", Société Générale noted this week: "Removing the stimulus will involve pain; lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity. But policy-makers don't like lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity. They enacted the stimulus in the first place to avoid it! At what point will they decide they do want lower growth, higher unemployment and political unpopularity?

"Given the choice, they won't, ever. So it will be imposed on them (and therefore us) by a suddenly less generous bond market via a government funding crisis."

Mr Brown is betting the bank that such an outcome will not occur before the general election. He is still hoping to buy votes. But as Mr Purnell reminded us, we have been here before. After Labour's election defeat in 1931, R H Tawney, the historian and economist, concluded that the party failed because it had courted the people with "hopes of cheaply won benefits". Then, as now, it "demanded too little and offered too much".

epic fail McBroon.

[Beskar]

that common army/foreign-policy appears to be coming along a treat:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamescorum/100022224/germany-is-not-pulling-its-weight-in-afghanistan/



One of the major consequences of the ongoing war in Afghanistan is a very changed understanding of NATO and the dynamics of the alliance. The response of the European nations to NATO’s call for additional forces for the IFOR mission shows this.

The heaviest burden in Afghanistan has been borne by the US, UK and Canada. Of the older NATO nations Denmark has played a major role, contributing more troops and taking more casualties as a part of its population than any other continental European nation. However, other Western nations have not pulled their weight at all, with Germany now acting as the problem child of the Western Alliance.

Germany, with the fourth largest economy in the world and a much larger population than the UK, had less than half of the force strength in Afghanistan as the UK. While British forces are committed to the toughest part of the country, the south, and are there to fight, the Germans have stationed their force in the safest part of Afghanistan, the north, and have and surrounded their commitment with numerous caveats restricting when and how their forces might engage in combat.

In short, while the US, UK, Denmark, and the Eastern Europeans are in Afghanistan to fight a war, the German government has generally avoided calling their deployment a “war” and has generally framed it as ‘peace” operation. Confronted with a huge leftist peace movement at home, Angela Merkel’s government will not expand its force in Afghanistan. German troops are stationed in Afghanistan as a symbolic act of NATO solidarity than as a true military ally. NATO officers in Afghanistan complain that the German army will not actively patrol and tends to hole up in their heavily fortified camps. In short, they will not do the kind of active counterinsurgency operations among the population that the operation requires. This is not because the Bundeswehr is an incompetent force, but because the German commanders sent to Afghanistan are under strict orders to avoid casualties.

The extreme sensitivity of the Germans to any kind of fighting was demonstrated by the German political crisis that ensued after a German commander called in an airstrike on a gasoline tanker truck that had been seized by the Taliban. The strike was successful and the truck destroyed, although there were civilian casualties. The fact that German actions had caused civilian casualties set off the German media and the politicians of both Right and Left and pushed Merkel to fire both her defence minister and the military chief of the Bundeswehr.

In fact, there was no scandal and what the German commander had done was exactly right. Given their use of suicide bombers, the Taliban would have used the truck as a huge bomb against other Afghans or NATO forces. A bomb of that size might have killed hundreds of Western forces — so the NATO air strike that caused such agonies in German domestic politics actually saved hundreds of lives. Yet, such is the force of the pacifist Left in Germany today that no senior person in the government would stand up and tell that simple fact to the public.

While Germany is proving to be a major weakness in the NATO alliance, the new Eastern European members of NATO have stepped up to the mission and proven their committment to Western defence. While Germany rejected the recent call for reinforcements to Afghanistan, the Poles are increasing their force to over 3,000 men. Poland, with half of Germany’s population, will soon have troop strength equal to Germany’s. The Baltic States – Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania – have a combined population of about 10 per cent of Germany’s. But in late 2009 these three countries had a military and civilian deployment to Afghanistan of over 700 military and civilian personnel – a much larger committment in terms of their populations and economies than Germany’s.

Unlike the Germans, the Poles and Baltic forces deploy their troops to combat without restrictions or conditions. They are currently serving and taking casualties under US and UK command in the tough parts of Afghanistan. Friends of mine serving in Afghanistan now refer to Germans and to “real allies” – meaning the Eastern Europeans. The strong commitment of these countries to the Western system is revitalising the alliance.


They got the right idea, unlike us who stupidity fights America's imperialistic wars for them.

[Furunculus]

we responded to a treaty obligation, it is that simple.

and i agree that intervening in countries that allow foreign terrorist organisations is a good idea, and that intervention should include crushing the terror groups whilst building the domestic institutions that allow the failed state to own a monopoly on violence.

germany isn't doing its job.

[al Roumi]

we responded to a treaty obligation, it is that simple.

and i agree that intervening in countries that allow foreign terrorist organisations is a good idea, and that intervention should include crushing the terror groups whilst building the domestic institutions that allow the failed state to own a monopoly on violence.

germany isn't doing its job.

You do know Germany has severe hang-ups about even having a military for anything other than self defense -and i mean self defense in Germany. Right?

It also seems that that article/blog has wilfully ignored the horrific death toll of civilians resulting from the tanker strike. Had that been a UK fire mission, I should hope there would have been a scandall here too.

Killing civilians, especially in order to prevent deaths of NATO/western troops, is not going to be an acceptable balance to Afghans. Ever. Same as it isn't in Pakistan, won't be in Yemen or isn't in the west either.

[Furunculus]

Sure i do, i read most of the der-spiegel reports on the bombing.

That does not change the fact that a defensive alliance is only worth the confidence the participants hold that their allies will respond to a call to arms.

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

And none of this does anything but show a complete lack of common purpose, as well as a total lack of any common value they might attach to achieving that purpose, which makes a ludicrous basis for attempting to create institutions of common foreign policy.

you can have as many shiny euro-tanks as you wish, parading down Brussels boulevard with missile launchers in tow, but they will be treated as nothing more than toys by your enemies know that you have neither unity nor the resolve to use them.

[Sarmatian]

you can have as many shiny euro-tanks as you wish, parading down Brussels boulevard with missile launchers in tow, but they will be treated as nothing more than toys by your enemies know that you have neither unity nor the resolve to use them.

Kind of irrelevant since the point of them wouldn't be to enforce will of EU unto others but to ensure that others don't enforce their will on the EU. "Others" including US, Russia, China and a long list of developing countries with large territory, population, natural resources that are edging ever closer technologically.

It's still far away as a practical idea, I give you that.

[Furunculus]

Kind of irrelevant since the point of them wouldn't be to enforce will of EU unto others but to ensure that others don't enforce their will on the EU. "Others" including US, Russia, China and a long list of developing countries with large territory, population, natural resources that are edging ever closer technologically.

It's still far away as a practical idea, I give you that.

not when considered as an instrument of foriegn policy.

thanks, much appreciated.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it.

With extreme respect, and no offense intended, no, you could not. A European Army would be even less effective than separate British, Polish, German, and French militaries, simply because we would be able to reduce military spending even further. A unified European Army would be no better than the modern French armed forces, and certainly not even close to an allied Europe working together freely with multiple, national armies.

[Brenus]

"We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts." Never.
And you came a little late during the 1st one...:book:
French saying: Vous volliez au secours de la victoire...
And we can discuss about the willingness of the 2nd...:beam:

[Furunculus]

With extreme respect, and no offense intended, no, you could not. A European Army would be even less effective than separate British, Polish, German, and French militaries, simply because we would be able to reduce military spending even further. A unified European Army would be no better than the modern French armed forces, and certainly not even close to an allied Europe working together freely with multiple, national armies.

with respect, the french armed forces are both professional and have a reasonable amount of political spine behind them to achieve political ends via military means.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

with respect, the french armed forces are both professional and have a reasonable amount of political spine behind them to achieve political ends via military means.

Indeed. In fact, that was why I intended to showcase them as the cream of the crop in modern day Europe.

My point was essentially that a European military would have the cutbacks of the British, the willingness to fight of the Germans, and the rough size of the French. While the French military is of a very respectable size and capability for a single nation, one would effectively be replacing the militaries of over twenty nations acting in cooperation with a single one that is barely larger and no more effective, and one would be spending billions to do so. An impractical exercise.

[Subotan]

Such as coups in Central Africa :yes:

[Beskar]

I wonder why all 20 countries of Euro would magically go down to the size of France... :inquisitive: Where does that even come from?

Some-one is making up little porkies again...

[Louis VI the Fat]

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.??


I get the impression that you base the above on the relentless drivel of the anti-EU press.

Many proponents of an EU army are quite pro-Atlantic. For example, the current political force behind further integration of European defense is Sarkozy, who is not anti-Atlanticist at heart.



Firstly, nothing in Europe is already as internationally harmonised as precisely the military. Ooow! If only the EU could harmonise European legal and economical aspects to the extent that NATO has harmonised European defense!

Defense has managed to become this integrated, because this integration is overwhelmingly outside the political control of the EU. It is NATO that has integrated European defense. Hence there is far less democratic control (pesky referenda!), political opposition, or even public knowledge of this harmonisation.

What applies for NATO applies for the EU: synchronisation and harmonisation work, it has all sorts of mutual benefits - what is the point of Denmark trying to sustain a defense policy of full military capacity? That is, an army, air force and navy, capable of performing a thousand different tasks? That wouldn't work. Better to have the Danes specialise in one aspect, and let the Germans, Belgians and Spanish do what they are good at in turn. That is, France and Germany build airplanes, and the Danes build ships to watch the North Atlantic.

The more integration like this, the better Europe can fulfill its share of the military preservation of the free world. NATO and a common EU defense are complimentary, sometimes supplementary. Not mutually exclusive competitors.


Four further considerations:

- Ireland, Sweden, Finland and Austria are not NATO members, but are members of the EU. (Combined, that's the population and GDP of Canada). Their integration into a synchronised Western alliance could be aided by the EU.

- The EU has already taken over from NATO in the Balkans. This happened after the British and Americans left for Iraq. The EU filled the void.

- A European defense policy means Europe is less dependent on the US.
Strangely, both the pro-American and the anti-American, both the conservative American or the pinko-Eurogaymarxist, would support this. The first, because EU is no longer taken a free ride, the second, because Europe no longer needs to sit up and jump when Washington so requires.

- The world is bigger than Iraq and Afghanistan. The EU has, and has had, many foreign military missions. For example, in Chad.*
Missions like these, incidentally, are where all those French troops that are not in Afghanistan are. Not a Briton or American in sight here - they are at home, gnashing their teeth over the French who refuse to send as many troops to Afghanistan as they do, kept blissfully oblivious by their Daily Outragograph of the fact that France has as many troops in international missions as Britain.


*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EUFOR_Tchad/RCA

Note, besides France suppying half the troops, how for example non-NATO member Ireland has a large force present, and to a lesser extent, Sweden and Austria.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Where does that even come from?

Past experience of European willingness to fight, continual cutbacks in terms of equipment and spending, and opinion. The armies won't just merge into one big whole, they will be cut and trimmed down to size. I can't see them being much larger than Europe's current largest European power.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Past experience of European willingness to fight, continual cutbacks in terms of equipment and spending, and opinion. The armies won't just merge into one big whole, they will be cut and trimmed down to size. I can't see them being much larger than Europe's current largest European power.Synchronisation is a cost-cutting mechanism indeed. But, the idea is: more efficiency, so more bang for our bucks.

Must Europe have 27 airforce headquarters? 27 different military attachés in Brazil? Five, or three or one, are less expensive. Get rid of the pencil pushers, and use the money for actual defense. Either by maintaining current defense levels, in which case defense capability goes up, or by maintaining current capability, in which case expenditure goes down.


More defense for our money:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronized_Armed_Forces_Europe

[Furunculus]

A European Army? Please dear God make it so. We could bring 1AD home along with all of the Balkans "police" efforts and let the locals handle it. Once United Europe ended (amicably) the NATO alliance, we'd be able to get back to letting the marines guard the embassies and be done. We wrecked France twice, surely that's payback enough for De Grasse's efforts.

that is precisely why the US is so keen on a more federal europe with a common foreign policy and unified army command, so that they have a real partner in the 21st century as US hegemony declines.

and it's why they want the UK inside the federal entity so bad, so that it maintains a pro-us theme in its governing organs.

[Furunculus]

Britain becomes a 3.5 party system - the rise of none-of-the-above:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/normantebbit/100022421/beware-of-opinion-polls-millions-of-people-cant-find-a-party-they-want-to-vote-for/

Beware of opinion polls. Millions of people can't find a party they want to vote for

It looks as though I rattled a few of the bars on several cages yesterday, so I ought to say a bit more about the BNP. (I’ll come to UKIP another day – and my own party and New Labour, too.)

John Denham, the Secretary of State for Local Government and Communities (another bit of PC mumbo-jumbo) must have been reading what you have been writing here on this blog. The Government really is running scared of losing seats not so much to the BNP, but because of the BNP, to other parties.

They need not have have waited this long to wake up to the problem. When I condemned multiculturalism back in 1997, the modernisers tried to get me expelled from the Conservative Party. When Trevor Phillips, Chairman of the Commission for Racial Equality, said much the same sort of thing in 2006, Ken Livingstone advised him to join the BNP.

More recently still, when I interviewed Trevor Phillips for The House Magazine in January last year he told me that whilst he thought that discrimination against women, the elderly and disabled, not to mention “ethnic and sexual hate crime” were still serious issues, he was more worried about “the big and growing problem of people stuck at the bottom of society … and that is not to do with race”.

I do not think it did Trevor Phillips much good in the race relations industry to say such things, least of all to me, and he has had to put up with a lot of sniping from his “friends” since then.

However, whether it is because of me, Trevor Phillips, or the BNP, I am glad that even this Government is becoming aware of the plight of poor white kids denied decent schools, and of the fact some ethnic minorites (such as the Chinese and Ugandan Asians) seem not to be held back by “racism”. We should all cheer at the sight of a sinner stumbling towards repentance, even if not virtue.

I thought that, as we are going to have one before very long, I might offer a morsel or two of food for thought about elections.

Beware of the published polls telling us that the Conservatives are running at about 40 per cent, Labour at 30, Lib Dems at 18 and 12 for the rest. There is another big party out there called “None of the Above”.

So here are some figures. The electorate in 1979 was 41.1 million. In 2005 it was 44.1 million. On a very good day for Labour they made 13.9 million votes (in 1951, when the electorate was only 34.6 million). Well, it wasn’t altogether a good day – they lost.

On a very good day for the Tories they made 14.1 million in 1992. The Lib Dems managed 6.0 million in 1992 and in 2005. Margaret Thatcher won in 1979 with 13.7 million. After eight years she won a third time with 13.8 million.

Tony Blair won in 1997 with 13.5 million. After eight years he won again with 9.5 million. You have to go back to the 1920s to find a government being elected on less than that. Even when they lost in 1992, Labour polled 11.6 million. But it only took Tony Blair eight years to turn 4.0 million Labour supporters off voting.

So who on earth would want to be “the heir to Blair”? The Tories, by the way, polled 9.6 million in 1997, 8.4 million 2001 and 8.8 million in 2005.

So where did all those Tory and Labour votes go? Nowhere. They belong to people some of whom have died, but mostly to people who cannot find a party which represents their views, and people who don’t think it would make much difference who won the election.

I find that worrying, don’t you?

this is what happens when democracy ceases to be representative, as much is the word is derided as an irrelevance in european governance these days, it is mainstream politics that will be the victim of its own callous indifference to the voters!

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

and another £35m budget cut for Defence:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jameskirkup/100022234/another-35-million-sliced-out-of-the-defence-budget/

thanks McCavity!

[Skullheadhq]

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

[Viking]

Hint: The world is not a static place

[Skullheadhq]

So we could expect an invasion tomorrow?

[Viking]

Do you expect cancer tomorrow?

[Skullheadhq]

I don't take chemo today...

[Beskar]

West has the threat of Russia and China, however, our Nuclear arsenal is basically the same as Chemo and Radiation therapy to kill a Cancer. Damage the body severely to get rid of the little problem.

[Furunculus]

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why do Western Countries even have an army

Because eastern countries have them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

[Skullheadhq]

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...


You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

By who? Evil belgium? :laugh4:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...



By who? Evil belgium? :laugh4:

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

[Skullheadhq]

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

[Viking]

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

There was no Russia in the cold war, just in case you forgot.

[Furunculus]

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

not as long as we still have people who fail to understand why "comrade stalin" is hated so much.

[CountArach]

So how about that election eh? Crazy stuff.

Read something interesting in The Guardian (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jan/13/brown-coup-blairites-in-charge) today on the future direction that NewLab is likely to take in the post-election political climate. The conclusion:

Brown and his closest allies have been brought to heel, Blairite and Treasury orthodoxy has been re-established, and the government's recent crab-like shift towards a more recognisably social democratic stance has come to a #juddering halt. That was encapsulated at Monday's meeting of Labour MPs when Lord Mandelson, whose powers now extend well beyond those of a mere deputy premier, smilingly accepted Brown's pledge that he was merely "one of a team" who would not now be interfering in other people's jobs – such as running the party's election campaign.
[...]
Now they're back in charge of the government, the Blairites are setting out their stall to take control of the party after its expected defeat. David Miliband told Tuesday's cabinet meeting that Labour's early manifesto plans were not nearly radical enough, that a "game-changing" offer to the electorate was needed, #including proportional representation and sweeping political reform. That was echoed in this week's Guardian article by James Purnell, who resigned in the last failed coup and is now looking for allies on the centre-left.

But for all the talk of a new radicalism, neither man appears prepared to turn his back on New Labour's calamitous embrace of corporate power and its besetting failure to confront private wealth and inequality. Indeed, Purnell goes out of his way to emphasise his support in cabinet for talking about cuts and makes a case for a market in schools providers and a less powerful state that strikingly overlaps with the approach of David Cameron's Conservatives.

Despite everything that has #happened in the past couple of years, the #majority of the cabinet remain wedded to a model of free market capitalism and #corporate privilege that simply isn't delivering the goods to their voters, core or otherwise, while bailed-out executives in state-owned banks still stuff their pockets with impunity. Their #dominance has been strengthened still further in the past week. Unless that grip is broken, the crisis of representation in British politics can only deepen.
Food for thought I feel.

[Subotan]

Who cares about Blair/Brownites? They're two sides of the same, grubby coin.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipus, the cold war is over :juggle2:
Just in case you forgot...

Funny, the turning off of Russian Gas, and the invasion Georgia, suggest it might be otherwise.

In any case, history did not end with the Cold War, even the man who coined the phrase, "The End of History", has admitted he was wrong in the face of Muslim radicals and the rise of China.

Ultimately, we have armies because we have enemies.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looking back at the argument from the first couple of pages on whether or not the Conservatives are libertarian, I would have to say I don't think they are. But not for the same reasons other people are giving.

The Tories do hold more traditional values in terms of social policy, but that doesn't necessarily equte to having a big government to enforce them - generally speaking they tend limit the role of the government when it comes to educating about/enforcing morality, whereas Labour have always taken a more collectivist approach (even since they became less economically left-wing).

Also, issues such as the decriminalisation of drugs don't always sit along left-right lines, with the right being authoritarian and the left more liberal. Yes, the Tories tend to be socially conservative, and want a crack down on drugs due to them being seen as morally wrong. But Labour have always been tough on drugs due to it being part of their wider, more collectivist policies to help rejuvinate deprived areas - taking away the right of the individual to act responsibly, in order to get better results for society as a whole. The same used to be true with alcohol here in Scotland, with temperence leagues and what not having ties with the early labour movement - after all, drink was causing a lot of social problems and keeping the working man down.

Anyway, it's the economy in which the Conservatives have proved to be far from libertarian. Being opposed to left-wing policies doesn't automatically mean you support the idea of small government - just ask the Nazis (oh yes I just did that :beam:). The whole neoliberal agenda since the Thatcher years has hinged on the principle of the government actively inserting markets into all sorts of areas in the public services - most notably the NHS. It might be capitalistic, but it's being driven from the state downward. That's why I get a bit annoyed at complaints that the Scottish Parliament is using its powers to push some sort of radical leftist agenda when it diverged from England's approach of using partially privatised 'foundation hospitals'. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament was staying much closer to the traditional idea of the NHS, unlike those right-wing fanatics down south. :tongue:

As for who I'll vote for, the only party that interests me at all is the Scottish Unionist Party. Much in line with my sentiments above, I see them as a truer continuation of the Conservative and Unionist Party than the current Thatcherite radicals. Basically, they are a small party based in largely working-class areas of Scotland that keep the Tories tough stance on social issues and values such as personal responsibility, while at the same time keeping what I see as a fairly balanced stance on the left-right spectrum - basically in keeping with traditional ideas of the welfare state. It's nice to see amidst the polarised world of liberal muticultural left-wingism on the one hand, and fanatical neoliberalism driven more by ideology than sense on the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Looking back at the argument from the first couple of pages on whether or not the Conservatives are libertarian, I would have to say I don't think they are. But not for the same reasons other people are giving.

The Tories do hold more traditional values in terms of social policy, but that doesn't necessarily equte to having a big government to enforce them - generally speaking they tend limit the role of the government when it comes to educating about/enforcing morality, whereas Labour have always taken a more collectivist approach (even since they became less economically left-wing).

Also, issues such as the decriminalisation of drugs don't always sit along left-right lines, with the right being authoritarian and the left more liberal. Yes, the Tories tend to be socially conservative, and want a crack down on drugs due to them being seen as morally wrong. But Labour have always been tough on drugs due to it being part of their wider, more collectivist policies to help rejuvinate deprived areas - taking away the right of the individual to act responsibly, in order to get better results for society as a whole. The same used to be true with alcohol here in Scotland, with temperence leagues and what not having ties with the early labour movement - after all, drink was causing a lot of social problems and keeping the working man down.

Anyway, it's the economy in which the Conservatives have proved to be far from libertarian. Being opposed to left-wing policies doesn't automatically mean you support the idea of small government - just ask the Nazis (oh yes I just did that :beam:). The whole neoliberal agenda since the Thatcher years has hinged on the principle of the government actively inserting markets into all sorts of areas in the public services - most notably the NHS. It might be capitalistic, but it's being driven from the state downward. That's why I get a bit annoyed at complaints that the Scottish Parliament is using its powers to push some sort of radical leftist agenda when it diverged from England's approach of using partially privatised 'foundation hospitals'. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament was staying much closer to the traditional idea of the NHS, unlike those right-wing fanatics down south. :tongue:

As for who I'll vote for, the only party that interests me at all is the Scottish Unionist Party. Much in line with my sentiments above, I see them as a truer continuation of the Conservative and Unionist Party than the current Thatcherite radicals. Basically, they are a small party based in largely working-class areas of Scotland that keep the Tories tough stance on social issues and values such as personal responsibility, while at the same time keeping what I see as a fairly balanced stance on the left-right spectrum - basically in keeping with traditional ideas of the welfare state. It's nice to see amidst the polarised world of liberal muticultural left-wingism on the one hand, and fanatical neoliberalism driven more by ideology than sense on the other.

Oh, good you're back. Nice to see you again.

OT: That's a much better line of reasoning than has been offered thus far. I think it will be interesting to see if the next Conservative government does try to extend the (rather pointless) internal markets in public services, or not.

I lean towards not, simply because telling the NHS how much it is going to spend on something will be a way of forcing costs down.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.

I suspect there is some truth in this, although some people exagerrate it. There have been recent studies that I can't be bothered looking up that have shown Scotland is only very, very slightly to the left of England. Also, I doubt that the Tories will be much different from the current Thatcherite regime.

Nonetheless, it is ironic that often the most passionate defenders of the Union are likely to vote Conservative, and in doing so possibly damage the Union. People have become aware of this fact, leading to the somewhat unlikely alliance between Labour and the Orange Order, with the latter promising to mobilise 50,000 votes to keep out the SNP. Some of the comments in the aftermath have been pretty hilarious, with the ordinary members on both sides pretending they had nothing to do with it. :laugh4:


If the Scots really are that wedded that to their anti-tory politics that they would vote yes in a referendum on independence, then bring cameron on, the one thing that makes my teeth grate more than anything else is the continual whining and indecision from north of the border. if they are that undependable, and lack any clear commitment to the 'family' then we are better off without them.

Wow, it's like I've been blasted back in time to the 1760's. You realise I'm now going to have to go and make a thread over this? :mean:


Oh, good you're back. Nice to see you again.

OT: That's a much better line of reasoning than has been offered thus far. I think it will be interesting to see if the next Conservative government does try to extend the (rather pointless) internal markets in public services, or not.

I lean towards not, simply because telling the NHS how much it is going to spend on something will be a way of forcing costs down.

Hello! :2thumbsup:

Withdrawal symptoms got the better of me...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here you go, you perfidious rosbifs. (:whip:)

Something to cheer you up in these bleak times.


While the world is still in recession, the UK embroiled in a war it can neither win nor finance, and every year brings a new set of major crises (food, resources, Russia, environment), both major parties are decidedly unfit to be entrusted with governing powers.

But then, British politics have always been like this. For three hundred years now, nothing has changed and British subjects have been governed like slaves by a bunch of incompetent, miserable thieves. You should take your cue from us continentals, free citizens of cultural and political superiority. :smash:



https://img341.imageshack.us/img341/6200/gillrayt.jpg

[Furunculus]

haha, awesome cartoon, think i've seen it (or similar) somewhere before. thanks. :laugh4:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

that is precisely why the US is so keen on a more federal europe with a common foreign policy and unified army command, so that they have a real partner in the 21st century as US hegemony declines.

and it's why they want the UK inside the federal entity so bad, so that it maintains a pro-us theme in its governing organs.

As Louis referenced, a "Federal" Europe does appeal both to the political left and the political right in the USA. The left sees it as a means of coming one step closer to a single world government that can work, equitably, on addressing all of the world's real problems using global resources to do so. The right sees it as a means of being shut of the whole place. However, on the right, most would rather see the UK NOT join a federal Europe, but continue their special relationship with the USA (though there are some who no doubt hold the view you express).

Politically, at least to the extent that it had the political will to do so, a Federal Europe will be somewhat opposed to most U.S. foreign policy efforts. One of the implicit goals of a Federal Europe is to have a political entity with the economic/political strength to tell the USA to take a hike and be able to back it up.

I have few objections to Europe doing so, as long as they don't expect us to pay for Europe's defense into the bargain. NATO was founded as a means of opposing communist aggression/aquisitiveness. The USSR is now Russia, a more or less democratic country of largely European population. Threat's over folks. Bring the 1AD and others home, allow Europe to defend itself (as it certainly has the capability of doing), and force the USA to focus on its own knitting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have few objections to Europe doing so, as long as they don't expect us to pay for Europe's defense into the bargain. NATO was founded as a means of opposing communist aggression/aquisitiveness. The USSR is now Russia, a more or less democratic country of largely European population. Threat's over folks. Bring the 1AD and others home, allow Europe to defend itself (as it certainly has the capability of doing), and force the USA to focus on its own knitting.

Do you honestly believe this? The murder of Litvinyenko (sp) and the invasion of Georgia strongly suggest otherwise. The Cold War didn't en because we won some ideological battle, it ended because the other side ran out of money; rather like WW1.

I know you see the parralel.

[Brenus]

"it ended because the other side ran out of money;rather like WW1." Well, and the fact that the German Front was punched few times and the Reich Army in full retreat...

"the invasion of Georgia " Was not Geogia which started the war by shelling Refugees Camps?
And there are as much Russian Troops in Georgian Territory than US troops in Serbian Territory, as the two (Russia and USA) gave independance to the territories they took...:beam:
And don't pretent it is different...:sweatdrop:

[Subotan]

"the invasion of Georgia " Was not Geogia which started the war by shelling Refugees Camps?
And there are as much Russian Troops in Georgian Territory than US troops in Serbian Territory, as the two (Russia and USA) gave independance to the territories they took...:beam:
And don't pretent it is different...:sweatdrop:

You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years, and that Russia escalated it far higher than what was necessary to protect the Ossetians. Georgia bears some blame, but the responsibility lies with Russia.

P.S. If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"it ended because the other side ran out of money;rather like WW1." Well, and the fact that the German Front was punched few times and the Reich Army in full retreat...

In full retreat? Seriously?

[Brenus]

"In full retreat? Seriously?"
Yeap. Just read books... The German front just collapsed in front of the English, French and US offensives.
After the August September Allied Offensive, the Marshal Foch issued the command to attack and brake the Hindenburg Line itself (September 26).
The Allies (American, Belgian, British, and French) assemble 123 divisions and 57 divisions in reserve. 197 German divisions in strong positions opposed them
The British deployed tanks in numbers that proved highly effective in breeching trench fortifications. The Americans attacked the St. Mihiel Salient south of Verdun and then moved against the Argonne Forrest west of Verdun.
The Allies succeeded in breaking through the Hindenburg Line and the Germans began falling back.
The Germans finally began to crack and large numbers of soldiers began to surrender and desert for the first time in the War. The Allies forced the Germans to retreat.

In order to stop the invasion of Germany, Hinderburg told the Kaiser to stop the war and to surrender.

So , yes, the German Army totally collapse and rooted...:beam:

[Brenus]

"You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years" I don't as it is irrelevant.
Even Hitler said the Polish were provoking...
The facts are the Georgian President, suer to have the support of the uS wanted to play Croatian Tudjman ethnic cleansing...
He ignored that the times had change and failled then put his country under what we know...
His decision, his responsability...

"If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?"
Politic
Same: If USA is so frendly and recognise Kosova, why not Ossetia? Politic and self interest...

[Furunculus]

ah, the thorny question of taxation and why one will always be accused of protecting the rich if you offer to reduce taxes:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/danielhannan/100022697/why-tax-cuts-are-bound-to-favour-the-rich/



A distinguished constituent emails me the following story, to illustrate why virtually any party that seeks to reduce the tax burden on the general population will be accused of “looking after the rich”.

Suppose that every day, ten men went to the pub, and drank exactly £100 worth of ale among them. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the landlord, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “you’re my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your trade, I’d like to give you a discount. From now on, I’ll knock £20 of the total bill for your drinks”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the way that we pay our taxes. So, obviously, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What, though, of the other six? How could they divide the £20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, following the principle of the tax system they had been using. This is how the bill now looked.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33 per cent saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28 per cent saving).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25 per cent saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22 per cent saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16 per cent saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He jabbed an accusing finger at the tenth man,”Why should he get £10?”

“Too right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got two measly quid? The system is rigged in favour of the toffs!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. It’s always the worst off who get neglected by the politicians!”

The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave him a thorough kicking.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn’t even cover half of it.

There is, of course, an argument for cutting tax in a way that disproportionately favours the poor: a rise in thresholds, for example, aimed at ending the disincentives that trap people in the squalor of dependency. Norman Tebbit, our newest Telegraph blogger, makes precisely that case here. (Do have a look, by the way, at the brilliant new contributors whom the blogs editor, Damian “The Dame” Thompson, has signed up: Andrew Gilligan, Douglas Murray and Toby Young as well as Norm.) The point is that any general tax cut – reducing income tax, lowering VAT, scrapping taxes on savings or inheritance – is bound to favour, in absolute if not relative terms, the people paying the most already.

Of course, if your objective is equality rather than prosperity, you can design a fiscal system around the expropriation of the tenth man. But, as in my constituent’s little parable, he is unlikely to hang around waiting for you to apply it. In fact, the chances are that his house in Belgravia is already on the market.

[Subotan]

"You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years" I don't as it is irrelevant.
Don't be stupid, of course it's not irrelevant. The Russian government has been plotting for years to keep Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestier (Yes, another ghost from Soviet Past). Without Russian support, these "states" would collapse.


Even Hitler said the Polish were provoking...
They're not even remotely comparable, since the Russians were actually provoking thew Georgians (Giving Ossetians Russian passports etc.)
Oh, and Sup Godwin


The facts are the Georgian President, suer to have the support of the uS wanted to play Croatian Tudjman ethnic cleansing
That's speculation. What did happen though is that many ethnic Georgians were chased from their homes in SO/Abkhz, by Russian forces.



He ignored that the times had change and failled then put his country under what we know...
His decision, his responsability...

"If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?"
Politic
Same: If USA is so frendly and recognise Kosova, why not Ossetia? Politic and self interest...
They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo? (Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still)

[Sarmatian]

Don't be stupid, of course it's not irrelevant. The Russian government has been plotting for years to keep Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestier (Yes, another ghost from Soviet Past). Without Russian support, these "states" would collapse.

And "states" created with western backing (Kosovo, Bosnia) are prime examples civil rights, rule of law and economic development? :dizzy2:



They're not even remotely comparable, since the Russians were actually provoking thew Georgians (Giving Ossetians Russian passports etc.)
Oh, and Sup Godwin


Italy gave Istrians (region in Croatia Italy silently consider its own) Italian passports. If Croatia attacked Italy or commited ethnic cleansing against the undesirables, you would be ok with that?


That's speculation. What did happen though is that many ethnic Georgians were chased from their homes in SO/Abkhz, by Russian forces.

I'd wager still many times less compared to Serbs and other non-Albanians who were chased from Kosovo.



They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo? (Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still)

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

[Beskar]

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

You don't watch many movies. The Allies and NATO are the good guys, here to save the world. Russia are the hard-hearted stern Putin look-a-likes with a fondness for vodka and violence and mafia.

Then you go "Serbia loves Russia" and expect the Allies to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that."

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And "states" created with western backing (Kosovo, Bosnia) are prime examples civil rights, rule of law and economic development? :dizzy2:

Bosnia and Kosavo are both better off now than they were, irrc the Kosovans want to build a statue of Tony Blair.


Italy gave Istrians (region in Croatia Italy silently consider its own) Italian passports. If Croatia attacked Italy or commited ethnic cleansing against the undesirables, you would be ok with that?

Don't you mean, "If Italy attacked Croatia", which is what Russia did, or perhaps, "If Croatia attacked Istria", maybe that's what you think Georgia did.

Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing? Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing.


I'd wager still many times less compared to Serbs and other non-Albanians who were chased from Kosovo.

You're probably right, mainly because the war didn't last as long. In any case, Kosovo wishes to be a seperate country, but South Ossetia looks likely to be annexed to Russia.


Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

[Vladimir]

NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

You're not supposed to say that. :no:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Brenus: RE: WW1 finish

A fighting retreat is not the same as full retreat. They were right to call it quits, though. The USA was pumping in millions of fresh fodder whereas Germany was running low on replacements and Germany's logistical system was having trouble getting enough food to the home front. Had they opted to shorten lines and fight on the Rhine, however, they would still have exacted a horrible toll though -- and it wasn't as though the Poilus or Tommies were all that psyched to continue at that point.

[Brenus]

“They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo?
Of course it is not the same. It is they and it is we…

North/South Ossetians are the same people but the Serbs from Bosnia, Croatia and Serbia are not.

Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still. God protect us from the Russian Friendship: Serbian saying…
Do you really know what country the Serbs really love: France. There is one nomument in Belgrade stating: Aimons la France comme elle nous a aimé. Love France as she loved as. We can discuss of the quality of the Statue, but it is the reality.
Where is your Pan-Slavism? In YOUR mind.
Serbia is happy for any alliy she can find and who can reproach her this? (Er, I put Serbia as female -as France- but I am sure of it...).
Why Serbia is officially neutral? Why Serbia has no Russian soldiers/base?
Because Serbs feel and are Europeans.

Tip: Never give an answer in a debate; especially the wrong one.
And in general, from a near 51 years old man who made this mistake too often, never answer for somebody else.

“Giving Ossetians Russian passports”
And how is this a provocation? Or does the Georgian President think he owns his citizens?
A lot a people have double nationality in many countries (even triple in Bosnia) and that doesn’t make a reason to attack refugees.
All Croatian from Bosnia have even the right to vote in Croatia. Should we start to attack Croatia?

“Whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence” employing methods than when used against NATO soldiers make them terrorists and made Talibans looking as amateurs: Attack on Theatre, attack on schools targeting clearly children, kidnapping, hostage taking, etc…

Mind you, I do not remember a debate on how these people dare to attack Russia proper as the war is only in Chechnya…
As I can read you even approve them "wars for their independence".
So these were wars, not terrorism...

“And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo?” Kosova. Kosovo is the Serbian name (I Metohija). Kosova is the Albanian version. In employing Kosovo you recognise it is a Serbian territory.
Friendly to whom? Why Russia should recognise a State created to put a US base?

“Then you go "Serbia loves Russia" and expect the Allies to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that.":
Then you go "Kosova loves USA" and expect the Serbs to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that." See, easy to try to understand the other point of view…

Only one country can decide to recognise Kosovo as Kosova and it is Serbia.
This could be achieve by negotiation as I don’t think the Serbia are really willing to have around 2,000,000 hostile citizens in her South, and citizens very costly indeed…

I like how from the UK elections we end to speak about Russia, Kosovo and others problems.
:beam:

[Furunculus]

In this current election, Labour's policy is to not cut back on defense. By contrast, the Conservatives have made no so commitment. Rather, the Tories look firmly set to decrease defense spending. As they always do. Because UK conservative governments have a proven track record of decreasing military spending.


Why do the Tories get away with always cutting on defense yet retaining their image of staunch protectors of the defense budget? Because the Tories realise that the 'defense vote' goes to the Tories anyway, based on Tory rhetoric that creates the impression of Tory commitment to defense. Track record and current policy intention show the exact opposite.

ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7029008/Iraq-inquiry-Gordon-Brown-cut-budget-for-helicopters.html
Gordon Brown forced cuts on the defence budget that reduced the number of helicopters available to British forces today, Geoff Hoon told the inquiry into the Iraq war.

By James Kirkup Political Correspondent
Published: 5:50PM GMT 19 Jan 2010

The former defence secretary revealed that in 2003, Mr Brown, then the Chancellor, insisted on a reduction in Ministry of Defence spending, which forced him to make “difficult cuts” in orders for equipment including helicopters.

He also told Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq war that he delayed ordering body armour for British troops going into Iraq after being told by Tony Blair not to make any visible preparations for war.

Mr Hoon, the first former Cabinet minister to give evidence at the inquiry, was defence secretary from 1999 to 2005.

The Prime Minister has rejected repeated claims that he has denied the Armed Forces the helicopters they need in Afghanistan. British commanders say that fewer British servicemen would have died in roadside bomb attacks in Afghanistan if more helicopters were available

There would be more helicopters available today if Mr Brown had not made cuts in 2003, Mr Hoon told the inquiry.

He revealed that in a Whitehall row over departmental accounting, Mr Brown insisted on recouping some earlier spending from future years’ defence budgets.

Mr Hoon said: “We had to look hard at our budget and we had to make some rather difficult cuts in the future equipment programme as a result.”

“It is reasonable to assume that by now, had that budget been spent in the way that we thought we should spend it, then those helicopters would probably be coming into service any time now.”

Mr Hoon also suggested that Mr Brown never gave the MoD enough money, which was underfunded when he arrived in 1999.

He said: “In the subsequent Comprehensive Spending Review programmes, we asked for significantly more money than we eventually received.”

Mr Brown will not give evidence to the inquiry until after the general election, but Mr Hoon’s testimony will renew pressure on the Prime Minister over his support for the Armed Forces.

ARMOUR

Mr Hoon also set the scene for Mr Blair to face difficult questions when he gives evidence next week.

He told the Iraq Inquiry that he had been explicitly ordered by Downing Street in the autumn of 2002 to avoid any “overt” preparations for the conflict that was to begin the following year. When he pressed for authorisation to begin vital planning, he was told to “calm down”.

Under pressure from No 10, the Ministry of Defence delayed an order for extra sets of Enhanced Combat Body Armour until November 2002.

When the war began the following year, there was not enough body armour for servicemen to have one set each. At least one soldier, Sergeant Steve Roberts, was shot dead after being told to give his armour to a colleague because there was not enough to go around.

Mr Hoon said in September 2002, he said that he and Admiral Lord Boyce, then the chief of the defence staff, were told by No 10 that they could not make preparations that might attract publicity.

“We were both made very well aware of the attitude in Downing Street towards the requirement for minimizing publicity and for avoiding the visibility of preparations,” he said. “We could not go out, either of us, and overtly prepare.”

Mr Hoon said that he and Lord Boyce had urged Mr Blair to give a clear instruction to begin preparing for war.

But the Prime Minister refused, worrying that could make it harder to agree a new United Nations Security Council Resolution on disarming Saddam.

As a result of that pressure, Mr Hoon said he did not take action on a military request to order more body armour from manufacturers until November 2002.

ah, the working mans hereoes, dependable friends of Her Majesty's Armed Forces!

......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?

[Brenus]

“Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing?” Croatia did ethnic cleansing. Flash and Storm Operation,.

“Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing”
Shelling Refugees camps? Fortunately, The Russian Army stop this and gave a blood nose to Georgian President.
Unfortunately I would prefer NATO doing the job as Russia is not a model of democracy, but I couldn’t pick.
If only we have done this at the start in former Yugoslavia…

“NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism” I think NATO (1949) pre-exited Warsaw pact (1955)…
So, for Russian eyes “Warsaw Pact basically exists because of US Imperialism”.
Now we can start to list all the post WW2 conflicts and debate who started them, but is it really useful?

Seamus, the fighting retreat is a legend. The complete disaster / rout was avoided by the German Generals who lost the war in asking Civilians to negotiate the peace with no cards to play.

The collapse within Germany was preceded by the collapse on the front.

This is the reason why the Treaty and the conditions were so harsh.
The German Army was so badly that it wasn’t a possible threat for the Allies.
With the entrance of the USA, Germany had to face an endless supply of men and potentially material as the WW2 will show.

[Sarmatian]

Bosnia and Kosavo are both better off now than they were Define "better off". GDP many times smaller than it was before the war, industrial production constantly declining, foreign debts are getting larger, instability, extremely expensive, complicated and ineffective administration, civil amd human rights trampled and in the case of Kosovo, sky-high crime rate, which is only natural when you put drug lords and war criminals in charge.

And after a few decades, after hundreds of thousand people are expelled, after tones of narcotics pass through and thousands of organs are sold on the black market it will probably become a better place and someone somewhere will declare a "win" for the western democracies, a proof that it all works and that everything was justified.



irrc the Kosovans want to build a statue of Tony Blair.

Speaks for itself.


Don't you mean, "If Italy attacked Croatia", which is what Russia did, or perhaps, "If Croatia attacked Istria", maybe that's what you think Georgia did.

Actually, Georgia broke the agreement they had with South Ossetia and moved in the troops, attacking both local troops and Russian peacekeepers. Russian troops moved in and kicked them out.

But I actually meant what I said. Italy is "provoking" with offering passports. The issuing of passports is hardly a provocation. There are a lot of countries doing that. Spain issues passports to people from her ex-colonies. Does that mean Spain is trying to provoke a war with South American countries?


Is Croatia likely to engage in ethnic cleansing? Can you demonstrate that Georgia was engaged in ethnic cleansing.


Thank God it ended before any ethnic cleansing could take place. We'll never know.


You're probably right, mainly because the war didn't last as long. In any case, Kosovo wishes to be a seperate country, but South Ossetia looks likely to be annexed to Russia.

We'll see. If they wanna be a part of Russia they just might become, but I doubt it.



NATO basically exists because of Russian Imperialism.

Wasn't it Soviet imperialism? Those two terms are not interchangeable, even though some try to present it that way.

[Louis VI the Fat]

ahem, bringing this discussion back to matters relating to the 2010 election in general, and defence politics in particular:

Iraq inquiry: 'Gordon Brown cut budget for helicopters':
[/URL]

......... what was that from our resident expert on British defence matters; Louis?What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade. :book:

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:


Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
[url]http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/defence-trident-ippr-aircraft (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7029008/Iraq-inquiry-Gordon-Brown-cut-budget-for-helicopters.html)



Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade. :knight:

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-8454173-french-navy-now-bigger-than-ours.do

[Brenus]

“From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.”
That is if we can pay for our armies and renew our material. Or even we have material. The tanks level is historically lower than ever...

Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…
:laugh4:

[Furunculus]

What that was from me? The same as ever: Labour drastically increased UK defense spending over the past decade. :book:

The problem is, this increase was not enough to fund all the tasks that were politically required of the UK armed forces: two costly wars, the maintainance of 'Great Power' illusions, fulfillment of treaty obligations, protection of the UK.


Because defense spending is too low to fund all of these requirements, Labour underfunded all of them despite massively increasing expenditure.

What really needs to happen, but which no Conservative Briton wants to hear, is a change in UK defense policy. To fulfill every role, defense spending would have to be raised so much that it would bankrupt the UK.

That not being an option, tough choices will have to be made:


Defence spending unsustainable, warns think-tank

Government should consider scrapping £24bn of weapons programmes including Trident, says IPPR

The UK cannot sustain current defence spending and should consider abandoning plans to renew the Trident nuclear missile system, a think-tank report has warned.
The report by the centre-left Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) said that at least £24bn of weapons programmes should be reviewed “with a view to making cuts”.



“Fundamental choices are necessary. The attempt to maintain the full spectrum of conventional combat capabilities at the current scale has produced acute strains on resources and, increasingly, on operational effectiveness,” it said.




The IPPR report calls for spending on the new aircraft carriers and on the RAF's Tornado and Eurofighter-Typhoon aircraft to be urgently reviewed.



It also says that Britain’s defence system needs to be overhauled to reflect the “post 9/11 and post recession world”, calling for investment in cyber-warfare and in special forces designed to respond to a Mumbai-style terror attack in the UK.



It adds that it is “delusional” for Britain to believe that it can continue to rely on US military protection as an alternative to greater European defence co-operation.
It warns: “There will be a future crisis that leaves us vulnerable to shifting American interests and opinion, relative US decline and European disunity and weakness, when Nato's political glue fails to hold and Europe is left more exposed than at any time since the Second World War.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/2009/06/defence-trident-ippr-aircraft



Either:
- Cut back on foreign missions. (Yes, it's way cool to have this many soldiers in Afghanistan, and previously in Iraq. But these troops are underfunded, and suffer high casualties and a low mission achievement rate because of it)
and/or
- Join common European defense initiatives.
and/or
- Give up the illusion that the UK can maintain a force capable of performing each and every one of the conventional tasks required of a Great Power. British military efficiency would drastically increase if this illusion was cast aside.

- And lastly, build some ships. In three months time, not a joke this, for the first time in 300 years, the French Navy wiLL BE BIGGER THAN YOURS.
As soon as Global Warming has turned Britain into a habitable land, we'll invade. :knight:

From this May 1st, you'll be officially at our mercy, the destruction of the UK only a telephone call from the Élysée away, and the continued existence of Britain will be only owing to any French leniency.
You may refer to me from that day on as 'God'.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-8454173-french-navy-now-bigger-than-ours.do

i read the IPPR report when it came it, and it is drivel.

[Boohugh]

“This year, as part of a package of savings measures identified to enable the MoD to remain within ’09-10 budgets, cover outside the hurricane period has been temporarily withdrawn.”

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6994452.ece

Good to know we can't even fulfil our basic humanitarian assistance tasks because of limitations in the defence budget (not to mention the massive successes our frigate enjoyed in a counter-narcotics role when it was deployed in the area earlier in the year, a role no longer being performed).

Also a whole host of other articles floating around about defence spending in general. Seems defence may play a significant role in the election debate if this amount of news coverage and analysis continues all the way into the election campaign.

[al Roumi]

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article6994452.ece

Good to know we can't even fulfil our basic humanitarian assistance tasks because of limitations in the defence budget (not to mention the massive successes our frigate enjoyed in a counter-narcotics role when it was deployed in the area earlier in the year, a role no longer being performed).

Also a whole host of other articles floating around about defence spending in general. Seems defence may play a significant role in the election debate if this amount of news coverage and analysis continues all the way into the election campaign.

Unless the main parties actually make a stand, it's unlikely. Especially not while the service heads are apparently at each other's throats. No politician will wade in untill it's been resolved internally, unless they are very coragious, in the political sense.

[Boohugh]

No politician will wade in untill it's been resolved internally,

Problem is it probably won't get resolved until there is a Defence Review, which won't happen until after the election. Personally, I'm fairly happy to see some senior armed forces members finally come out and say they have basically been underfunded for some time. Makes a mockery of Brown's claim he has always fully supported the armed forces (all the more damning with Hoon's recent revelations in the Iraq enquiry).


unless they are very coragious, in the political sense.

Is that a 'Yes, Minister' reference? :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

article on the Defence civil-war being conducted by the service chiefs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7033237/Whitehalls-civil-war-will-decide-our-place-in-the-world.html

Whitehall's civil war will decide our place in the world
The demand of Gen Sir David Richards to focus on troops over high-end technology makes sense in this current financial mess, writes Thomas Harding.

By Thomas Harding
Published: 6:40AM GMT 20 Jan 2010

On the fifth floor of the Ministry of Defence, out of sight of the public, a battle is raging as fierce as any firefight in Afghanistan. In the offices of Britain's three Service chiefs, and those of the ministers and senior civil servants, pencils are being worn to the nub in drafting and redrafting arguments that will largely determine Britain's place in the world in the next few decades.

Two key speeches this week, the first by the head of the Army, Gen Sir David Richards, and the second 14 hours later by Admiral Sir Mark Stanhope, the First Sea Lord, have set out the basic positions. Gen Richards believes the wars of tomorrow will need more troops, and less high-end technology; Stanhope argues that his Service must retain the "blue-water" capability to protect the sea lanes and fight another Falklands.

It is a debate that the public needs to hear, for what it boils down to is what kind of nation we want Britain to be – a global power that is able to influence world events, or simply a big fish in the European pond? The former requires military might, without which we could soon be dropped as America's closest ally, a relationship that gives us the stature to punch above our weight.

Having been denied a proper defence review for a decade, the Armed Forces are desperately out of shape, and need to be reorganised rapidly for the wars of the 21st century. With larger slices of the cake going to the RAF and Navy, it is only natural for the Army, which has done most of the fighting in the last decade, to want to redistribute the wealth.

Gen Richards's arguments on this theme are compelling. He claims that we can no longer afford the "exquisite" technology to fight some undefined foe with hardware equivalent to our own.

While there will be "state-on-state" wars, these will probably be fought by proxy and be similar to Afghanistan. So we have to take the risk of devoting our limited resources to the most likely and dangerous scenarios. In Afghanistan, he points out, we are using multi-billion-pound aircraft to fight insurgents armed with $50 AK47s.

Why not use the Tucano instead – a propeller-driven, well-armed and reconnaissance-capable aircraft? After all, you could buy 16 – an entire squadron – for the cost of one Eurofighter Typhoon.

Needless to say, the other Services have a fair distance to travel before they accept this point. I put the Tucano option to RAF commanders at their headquarters in High Wycombe a year ago and was met with snorts of derision from a community whose jets clock up the cost of a Ferrari on every sortie over Afghanistan.

In the current financial mess, with the MoD facing an £8 billion black hole in its funding, we simply cannot have all we want. This means that the Services have to accept that nothing is secure in the equipment programmes. The overwhelming requirement, Gen Richards argues, is for more troops – "boots on the ground" – to occupy territory and win consent among the local population. That can't be done by a jet pilot at 25,000ft, or a submariner deep below the waves.

Other countries have seen the light – Australia, Canada and others have increased land forces by nearly 20 per cent. But it would mean accepting limits on our other capabilities: Admiral Stanhope mentioned the Falklands three times in his speech yesterday, to labour the point that we need a Navy that can slug its way through 8,000 miles of hostile waters, carrying three brigades and enough air power to defend them.

In a world flush with money, that would be helpful. But today it sounds antediluvian. Many naval officers are cringing at the billions being spent on fantastic warships that will probably never face a foe. You could buy half-a-dozen corvettes for the £1 billion Type 45 air defence destroyers, which are in any case likely to struggle against multiple attacks by fast, small boats.

What is more, all thise high-tech equipment is actually pricing Britain out of the export market: no one can afford to buy our destroyers, submarines, helicopters or aircraft carriers. If British ship-builders were churning out dozens of affordable warships, there is every chance that jobs in the industry would be sustained by foreign contracts rather than taxpayers' wallets.

And even the argument that we need to keep up with the Americans doesn't ring entirely true. Interestingly, those in the Pentagon have been discreetly sounded out about what they want from any reform to the British military. Their response was: "You don't have to be there from day one to fight your way in – but when you commit to a campaign, make sure that you are there to see it through to the end."

Last year was the toughest for the Army since Northern Ireland in 1972, with 108 fatalities in Helmand, and the public prepared for worse in 2010. The offensive is going to be taken to the Taliban, which means risk, and more casualties in the short term.

General Richards's message – which appears to be inexorably winning the argument – is that if we have to make tough choices, the best option is to structure our military around winning this kind of war, not buying fighter jets that can do multi-million-dollar handstands.

Thomas Harding is defence correspondent of 'The Daily Telegraph'

[al Roumi]

Problem is it probably won't get resolved until there is a Defence Review, which won't happen until after the election. Personally, I'm fairly happy to see some senior armed forces members finally come out and say they have basically been underfunded for some time. Makes a mockery of Brown's claim he has always fully supported the armed forces (all the more damning with Hoon's recent revelations in the Iraq enquiry).

It's an interesting and important discussion to be sure. You can only really prepare for what you already have experience of dealing with, and the last thing you worked on will always appear the most likely future task to respond to.

This argument is as much about what the UK armed forces are asked to do, a demand itself based on an appreciation (educated guess) of what the response the most likely next engagement(s) will require.

it's kind of another no-win situation. To retain absolute flexibility, you would hold off investing and only do so on proper evaluation of needs -but have no short term response capability. Equally, to fully commit to a single type of warfare, e.g. COIN in Afghanistan would leave you under-prepared for a conflict with a more industrialised opponent (with MBTs, air-power etc).

I'm glad I don't have to make that call!


Is that a 'Yes, Minister' reference? :laugh4: indeed, it's a timeless programme :2thumbsup:

[Furunculus]

it's kind of another no-win situation. To retain absolute flexibility, you would hold off investing and only do so on proper evaluation of needs -but have no short term response capability. Equally, to fully commit to a single type of warfare, e.g. COIN in Afghanistan would leave you under-prepared for a conflict with a more industrialised opponent (with MBTs, air-power etc).


or to pose the other option; the ability to pull off the next Sierra Leone.

there is another option other than COIN that will maintain Britain as a Great Power, as stated in the first link in my sig.

[al Roumi]

or to pose the other option; the ability to pull off the next Sierra Leone.

there is another option other than COIN that will maintain Britain as a Great Power, as stated in the first link in my sig.

So more COIN or 21st Century gunboat diplomacy/military aid? Sounds exciting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

i read the IPPR report when it came it, and it is drivel.

The basic assumption seems to be that the UK is in terminal decline, that sort of thinking about your own country just isn't healthy.

[Boohugh]

article on the Defence civil-war being conducted by the service chiefs:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/defence/7033237/Whitehalls-civil-war-will-decide-our-place-in-the-world.html

I think there are a couple of interesting points made in that article although I don't think the author really grasped them. It basically comes down to a debate of numbers vs individual capability of each platform (and by each platform I include troops).

For example, as he points out, you can have lots of less capable warships or one with a range of advanced capabilities, same with the aircraft example; numbers vs individual capability. With the more recent procurement, the balance has clearly landed on the capability side, we are getting fewer but individually more capable weapon platforms. However, I think the author misses two key points:

1) General Sir David Richards argument isn't just for more troops, it's for more specialist troops/special forces who, compared to your average soldier, cost vastly more to train and equip. He isn't advocating sticking a $50 AK47 in some random British guys hand and packing him off to Afghanistan, which would obviously be the cheapest method and (if you could get the volunteers) provide the most numbers. General Richards is therefore landing on the capability side of the numbers/capability debate too, he is just advocating the other services need to suffer to pay for the army to get increased numbers of more capable platforms.

2) I think there is an argument to be made that even if the Royal Navy and RAF only asked for less capable platforms, they would still be told to have fewer of them. You don't see other nations with massive fleets of less capable warships, they just generally have fewer, less capable warships (http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp). Why do people think the same thing wouldn't happen in the UK? You just need to look at the numbers of minehunters and offshore patrol vessels procured compared to initial requirements (both relatively cheap weapons platforms compared to the destroyers) to see this in action. In this situation, it seems natural both the Navy and RAF would push for the most capable platforms they can, in the knowledge they would only get a few of them, come what may.


This is also ignoring the fact that General Richards wants to prepare the Army for a conflict we are very unlikely to want to fight again anytime soon. Can you really see the British public supporting another long, drawn-out affair "to occupy territory and win consent among the local population"? It is too late to restructure the armed forces for Afghanistan, that boat sailed long ago and I believe it's unlikely we would get sucked into another such conflict anytime soon and, even if we did, what are the chances it would be in a landlocked country with such inhospitable terrain? There are virtually no other countries with the same environmental conditions.

[Furunculus]

1. I think there are a couple of interesting points made in that article although I don't think the author really grasped them. It basically comes down to a debate of numbers vs individual capability of each platform (and by each platform I include troops).

2. For example, as he points out, you can have lots of less capable warships or one with a range of advanced capabilities, same with the aircraft example; numbers vs individual capability. With the more recent procurement, the balance has clearly landed on the capability side, we are getting fewer but individually more capable weapon platforms. However, I think the author misses two key points:

3. General Sir David Richards argument isn't just for more troops, it's for more specialist troops/special forces who, compared to your average soldier, cost vastly more to train and equip. He isn't advocating sticking a $50 AK47 in some random British guys hand and packing him off to Afghanistan, which would obviously be the cheapest method and (if you could get the volunteers) provide the most numbers. General Richards is therefore landing on the capability side of the numbers/capability debate too, he is just advocating the other services need to suffer to pay for the army to get increased numbers of more capable platforms.

4. I think there is an argument to be made that even if the Royal Navy and RAF only asked for less capable platforms, they would still be told to have fewer of them. You don't see other nations with massive fleets of less capable warships, they just generally have fewer, less capable warships (http://www.globalfirepower.com/navy-ships.asp). Why do people think the same thing wouldn't happen in the UK? You just need to look at the numbers of minehunters and offshore patrol vessels procured compared to initial requirements (both relatively cheap weapons platforms compared to the destroyers) to see this in action. In this situation, it seems natural both the Navy and RAF would push for the most capable platforms they can, in the knowledge they would only get a few of them, come what may.

5. This is also ignoring the fact that General Richards wants to prepare the Army for a conflict we are very unlikely to want to fight again anytime soon. Can you really see the British public supporting another long, drawn-out affair "to occupy territory and win consent among the local population"? It is too late to restructure the armed forces for Afghanistan, that boat sailed long ago and I believe it's unlikely we would get sucked into another such conflict anytime soon and, even if we did, what are the chances it would be in a landlocked country with such inhospitable terrain? There are virtually no other countries with the same environmental conditions.

1. I disagree with the author entirely, but i am pleased the debate is getting coverage.

2. True, there is a balance to be made.

3. Absolutely, he wants the other services to pay for his expanded army, and while i'm sympathetic to shrinking the RAF i am absolutely against a RN that is any smaller, as Louis pointed out, its plain embarrassing! :whip:

4. Too true, every time the Navy have been asked to decommission a destroyer early here, and put a few frigates into 'extended readiness' there in order to ensure future equipment programs................. they get screwed, again, and again, and again.

5. Good point, this is yet another reason for Britain to head in the direction of Strategic Raiding, (in addition to the fact that it is a capability unavailable to virtually anyone else and therefore valuable), because it is quick and usually used for 'punchy' and exciting operations that the public find easier to support.

[tibilicus]

The basic assumption seems to be that the UK is in terminal decline, that sort of thinking about your own country just isn't healthy.

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

[Furunculus]

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.
too true, don't think i have read a less strategic document that the IPRR drivel Louis quotes.

[Louis VI the Fat]

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:
Context

There is no doubt that a defence review is well overdue and the recent announcement by the MoD that one will take place is welcome news. Whether it reports before the next general election is of course another point, any incoming Conservative government will have their own ideas. The IPPR report is not to be scoffed at because of the breadth and depth of it’s analysis. Many commentators have chosen to characterise it as left wing rubbish produced by a pet New Labour think tank. This is to do the report a disservice; it deserves some consideration even if one might not agree with its conclusions.
The report summary is split into 4 parts, a set of observations on the current security environment, a statement of principles that should underpin the UK’s response to this environment, a summary of conclusions and finally a list of its 109 recommendations.
Observations

Without seeking to repeat verbatim what the report states (go and read it yourself) they are summarise here;


The process of globalisation and power diffusion continues
Unstable and fragile states are growing in number and outnumber stables ones by 2 to 1
Climate change, poverty and inequality are exacerbating the problem of instability
Transnational criminal networks continue to expand
A globalised neo-jihadist ideology has emerged
Proliferation of nuclear weapons continues
Rapid advances in information and biotechnologies have created new dependencies and vulnerabilities
Humanity is exposed to a greater risk of pandemic
Critical infrastructure is increasingly fragile and in private hands
The position of the US is changing
Individual EU nations continue to decline
Spending constraints on security will continue and worsen

These all paint a fairly bleak picture but the report is at pains to offer some optimism and steers away from the ‘we’re all doomed’ position. It is hard to disagree with any of these observations; they apply equally to the UK and many other nations.
Principles

Underpinning the IPPR’s recommendations are 9 key principles, these being;


The objective of national security is to protect the UK population from the full spectrum of risks
These risks must have a wide definition including man-made and natural
British sovereignty must be exercised responsibly
Increases in multilateral cooperation is needed
Extensive partnerships between the public and private sector must feature in security policy
Demonstrating and establishing the legitimacy of state action is a strategic imperative
A commitment to building national resilience is an integral element of national security
A range of flexible national capabilities, both civil and military, should be forged into a cohesive whole

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/07/ippr-and-the-future-security-of-the-uk-%E2%80%93-our-response-1/



~~-~~-~~<<oOo>>~~-~~-~~




Louis,if you don’t, go to Libé blog “Secret Défence”.
Make me crazy…

In fact it is the same than England. The Right pretends to be patriotic and to keep the Army in order when de facto destroying what the Left built previously…
:laugh4:Yes, it is clear where I get my inspiration from. ~;)

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.



Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. :cry:)
More importantly, I note that Jean-Dominique Merchet is almost 51 years old, franc-comtois, and blogs about military matters.

c toi!! It is you, isn't it, mon pote? :sweatdrop:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Also: (Franglais alarm! 'Defence' or 'défense'. Franglais mixtures will spell the end of French. :cry:)

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I would prefer we went back to the original nomenclature -- war department. Defense is something you do just long enough to ready a knockout counter-punch.It is a weird euphemism, isn't it?

Then again, considering it is 2010, one wonders if it isn't a misleading euphemism nowadays to still speak of departments of 'education'. :wink:




Edit: ffs, try to avoid glaring spelling mistakes Louis, when lampooning declining educational standards. :shame:

[Furunculus]

This seems like a fine summary of the IPPR report:http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/07/ippr-and-the-future-security-of-the-uk-%E2%80%93-our-response-1/


you quote some bullet points from their introduction, how about you try these on for size:

http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2009/08/ippr-and-the-future-security-of-the-uk-%E2%80%93-our-response-3/



13. The future defence investment programme should pursue greater UK defence capability specialisation within the context of a deepening of European defence integration and the wider NATO alliance of which we are apart. We need a focus on command and control assets, tactical ground-air support, heavy lift aircraft, cyber warfare capability, and special-forces. We also need to emphasise high quality Service personnel training and an increase in overall service numbers.We absolutely refute the recommendation that the UK should deepen European defence integration. Given the recent farcical EU mission to Dharfur and ongoing ‘commitment issues’ in Afghanistan our EU partners are simply too unreliable and any further integration would be beset with the same old national priorities and self interest that are the current realities. Whilst one should be under no illusions about our position in the transatlantic ‘special relationship’ we must recognise that the US, NATO and even the Commonwealth represent the future of our security. The EU is simply unable to commit to any operation where there is any serious opposition and we need to be realistic. The selection of capabilities that we need to concentrate on also seem rather ill thought through and arbitrary, lacking any real insight or recognition of where our EU partners might take up the slack in the areas we neglect. The desire to concentrate on high quality training and an increase in overall numbers is sensible.



15. The Government should thoroughly re-examine, as part of a Strategic Review of Security, its projected defence equipment requirements. This re-examination should explore all viable options for capability downgrading and quantity reductions, as well as for complete cancellation of some equipment programmes. For illustrative rather than comprehensive purposes, we suggest that programmes such as the Future Carrier, the Joint Strike Fighter, and purchases of Type 45 Destroyers and of Astute class submarines should be in the frame.

No programme or capability should be off limits in any review but the recommendation here is to trade off so called high end assets in favour of the unconventional capabilities discussed elsewhere, for example special-forces or close air support. Although only mentioned for illustrative purposes those in the frame would seem to centre on the maritime domain, these would not be easy choices. Without, for example, the Type 45 destroyers, any amphibious or maritime task group would be completely vulnerable to air and missile attack.




17. The future of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent should be considered as an integral part of the recommended Strategic Review of Security. This should consider:

Whether, as the Commission believes is the case, a minimum UK deterrent is still needed

* The best and most cost-effective way to provide it, including consideration of whether we should replace the Trident system, as is currently planned, seek to extend the life of the current system further or decide that some other system for providing Britain’s deterrent in a nuclear armed world would be better suited to the strategic circumstances in which we then find ourselves
* The opportunity costs of maintaining our deterrent, in all its possible forms, for other sectors of the UK defence and security budget. This must take into account the costs that would be involved in decommissioning Trident and its facilities.

We also believe the UK nuclear capability is intimately tied into our security and status as a nation and in these matters perception IS reality. We must not be perceived, in the growing uncertainty and proliferation in the next 50 years, as going weak on our ultimate means of security. There may be more economic means of wielding the system but whatever means chosen, it must be credible, effective, instantly deployable and survivable. These factors point to a submarine launched system, i.e. Trident or its replacement.

wrap your laughing tackle around that oh expert on UK strategic thought. try reading the RUSI report instead, written by a real strategic think tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_United_Services_Institute

[Boohugh]

Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

If this were really true, why has the Labour government dithered so much over our 2 new aircraft carriers, cancelled some of our new submarines and destroyers and made absolutely no progress over the Future Surface Combatant (replacement for our Type 22 and 23 frigates) and our nuclear deterrent?

All it has achieved is increase the long term costs of all these projects, created uncertainty in the defence industry and put British jobs at risk as companies don't know what expertise they need to keep, if any! Most of the current UK fleet was ordered under the Conservative government, so I don't quite understand how you come to the conclusion Labour has been the one propping up our defence industry.

Just because Labour has increased spending, does not mean they have put that money to good use! As seems to be the case with all the other departments, much of the increase in government spending appears to have just been lost in bureaucracy rather than usefully spent. If you believe Labour, then the defence budget wasn't used for operations (i.e. Iraq and Afghanistan) but rather they were paid wholly from the contingency fund, as is normal - if this is the case then what has all this extra money you claim has been spent on defence gone? You can't really count the extra money provided from the contingency fund as extra defence spending as it is only designed to pay for the extra costs incurred due to operations, i.e. it provides no additional investment. If you don't believe Labour, then they have been skimming the defence budget to pay for operations (and lied about it), in which case they have been shortchanging the armed forces and forcing them to survive on an smaller budget than before whilst being more operationally committed. Neither scenario can really be described as caring for the armed forces.

[Beskar]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

[Furunculus]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

you mean always having an answer? yes, on defence, that about sums it up.

[al Roumi]

Furunculus reminds me of the civil servant guy from Yes Minister in many ways with his posts and opinions.

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus... :beam:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.

Quite, to assume your country is in terminal decline is, basically, to give up.


Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.

The fact is, we spend less than half the percentage of our national wealth on defence than we did 20 years ago, so we can almost certainly afford to spend more (as a percentage of GDP) over the next 20 years.

[Louis VI the Fat]

"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.

So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.I am afraid this is not correct. By all measures defense spending has increased since 1998, Labour's first full year in power.

Disregarding inflation, Labour has increased defense spending by fifty percent. This is not the most relevant figure. Better is a measure by constant 2009 pounds, that is, corrected for inflation. By this measure, Labour has increased defense spending by about 25%.

This enormous increase, incidentally, is almost singular within Europe. In stark contrast to the next three biggest European defense spenders, whose defense spending saw in this period a far smaller increase (France), or even a decrease (Germany, Italy).
In Western Europe, only Spain and Finland have seen a similarly large increase in defense spending. Spain, because of its long awakening from its dictatorship, and Finland because of the end of Finlandisation and the need to project neutrality.


Defense spending as a percentage of GDP has mostly been stabilised under Labour. Under Thatcher (especially after 1985) and Major, defense spending as percentage of GDP was severly slashed. Halved.
Labour put an end to these endless defense spending cuts.


Don't take my word for it! Use sources:


Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 13.5
1981 253.154 14.6
1982 277.198 16.7
1983 302.973 16.2
1984 324.633 17.4
1985 355.269 19.1
1986 381.782 20.1
1987 421.559 20.4
1988 470.748 20.9
1989 517.075 21.5
1990 560.887 23.3
1991 589.739 24.4
1992 614.776 26.0
1993 645.5 26.3
1994 684.067 26.3
1995 723.08 25.6
1996 768.905 24.9
1997 815.881 25.2
1998 865.71 24.5
1999 911.945 26.7
2000 958.931 27.7
2001 1003.3 28.8
2002 1055.79 29.0
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1184.3 32.3
2005 1233.98 33.5
2006 1303.92 35.0
2007 1343.75 36.3
2008 1419.55 38.1
2009 1439 41.9
2010 1411 43.5http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1980_2011&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2009&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=


Year GDP- (2000) Defence-total
1980 630.963 36.9
1981 621.78 35.8
1982 633.662 38.2
1983 655.979 35.1
1984 672.787 36.1
1985 696.582 37.4
1986 724.263 38.1
1987 757.452 36.7
1988 795.317 35.3
1989 812.725 33.8
1990 819.007 34.0
1991 807.814 33.4
1992 809.54 34.2
1993 827.886 33.7
1994 863.623 33.2
1995 889.041 31.4
1996 913.8 29.6
1997 942.154 29.1
1998 973.748 27.5
1999 1003.37 29.4
2000 1041.52 30.0
2001 1066.22 30.6
2002 1088.11 29.9
2003 1118.24 29.9
2004 1154.68 31.4
2005 1175.92 31.9
2006 1210.29 32.5
2007 1247.28 33.7
2008 1256.64 33.7
2009 1212.66 35.3
2010 1227.82 37.8


Year GDP- Defence-total
1980 230.8 5.85
1981 253.154 5.76
1982 277.198 6.04
1983 302.973 5.35
1984 324.633 5.36
1985 355.269 5.38
1986 381.782 5.26
1987 421.559 4.84
1988 470.748 4.44
1989 517.075 4.16
1990 560.887 4.15
1991 589.739 4.14
1992 614.776 4.23
1993 645.5 4.07
1994 684.067 3.84
1995 723.08 3.54
1996 768.905 3.24
1997 815.881 3.09
1998 865.71 2.83
1999 911.945 2.93
2000 958.931 2.88
2001 1003.3 2.87
2002 1055.79 2.75
2003 1118.24 2.67
2004 1184.3 2.72
2005 1233.98 2.71
2006 1303.92 2.68
2007 1343.75 2.70
2008 1419.55 2.68
2009 1439 2.91
2010 1411 3.08What do these numbers mean? The most acutely relevant measure is defense as percentage of GDP:

Thatcher came in power in 1979:
1980 230.8 5.85

Major came in power in 1990:
1991 589.739 4.14

Blair came in power in 1997:
1998 865.71 2.83

It is now 2010:
2010 1411 3.08

Two things are striking:
- The defense cuts happened under the Conservatives, whereas Labour stabilised defense spending.
- The last two Conservative PMs halved British defense spending. The vast majority of this outerworldly decrease happened before the fall of the wall, rubbishing the Tories' perennial excuse.



I think somebody in this thread said it earlier: Labour hates the military, but increases its funding. The Conservatives profes to love the military, but cut back its funding.


Don't blame me, blame the numbers. :book:

[Furunculus]

Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus... :beam:

i willing to accept the good with the bad? :2thumbsup:

[Brenus]

What really puzzle me is why the English still accept to have a Chamber of the LORDS and a Chamber of Common…:yes:

[rvg]

Gotta have somebody to look after the interests of the aristocracy.

[Louis VI the Fat]

And the reserved seats for the bishops of the Church of England.

Cool if you're a Scot or a Catholic. :smash:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Loius:

A quick search produced different figures to yours, slightly higher under the Tories, slightly lower under Labour.

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/uk/factcheck+defence+spending+pmqs/3267817

Overall, it shows a trend toward decline.

[Boohugh]

Ironically I recently bought all the Yes, Minister series on DVD and have been watching them over the last few days. It's amazing how much still seems to hold true! The latest episode I watched (the first with Hacker as PM) even has the head of the army slagging off the navy and RAF...I guess politics really doesn't change all that much :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

I reckon the BNP would increase war defence spending. :smash:

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?

Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility. You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

New Labour. New Britain.

[al Roumi]

It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?


It's what you might call a global recession. Thought you might have heard of that, even in the dales.



Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility.

Show me the stats please.



You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.

So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?

[rory_20_uk]

So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?

Erm, that's what Labour has done - just bankrupted us doing it.

To be fair, their redistribution of wealth has enabled many outside the UK to become richer.

~:smoking:

[al Roumi]

Erm, that's what Labour has done

Is it now? Please do me, and your own intelectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.

[rory_20_uk]

Is it now? Please do me, and your own intellectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/21/all-party-report-on-social-mobility)

Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?


Show me the stats please.

You are kidding right? :inquisitive:

I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.

New Labour. New Britain.

[al Roumi]

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/21/all-party-report-on-social-mobility)

Ok, so exactly how is that Labour's doing? That report was compiled by an all-party panel, welcomed by both sides of the house.

"In his foreword Milburn (Labour MP) (http://www.alanmilburn.co.uk/) says: "Britain's got talent – lots of it. It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity."

He argues that the professional classes have erected a host of new barriers to keep their jobs the preserve of the middle classes – including restricting work experience to the children of friends, internships that are only available to children in the south who have the parental wealth to work for nothing, and "qualification inflation" that prevents those without university degrees getting a job."



Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link!

Well otherwise we could just bray at each other like sheep -if you'd prefer.

[al Roumi]

Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?

Fair point, it was an assumption based on the tone of your posts. I'm guessing you are (broadly speaking) right wing?




You are kidding right? :inquisitive:

I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.

Well if we are both too lazy this isn't going to go very far... :laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Just to make it clear. I will not be voting tory in the election.

As for right wing, I'll let you decide.

The groundnut scheme is a template for all Labours disasters. Shall I provide a link?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.

Falling social mobility (http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2009/jul/21/all-party-report-on-social-mobility)

Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.

~:smoking:I'm sorry, but your link does not show a falling social mobility under Labour.


In fact, the report on which it is based, by The Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, - though I must admit to not having read it back to front - makes it clear that social mobility in Britain has been declining for decades, but seems to have bottomed out under Labour.

http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/strategy/work_areas/accessprofessions.aspx



Social mobility has sharply declined under Thatcher and Major. 'Destroyed in class warfare from above' might be the better description. This decline has been halted and stabilised under Labour. :book:


Of course, I resent NewLab for merely stopping the trend, instead of reversing it. But that is the nature of NewLab - too cowardly in the face of allegations of 'waging a class war' itself. Too cowardly to stand up for that part of the population which has to, you know, wake up and go to work everyday. As a result, in the West, social mobility in Britain is second only to the US. From the bottom that is.
Meanwhile, talented, hard-working Germans, Swedes, Canadians born into non-priviledged circumstances do get rewarded for their efforts.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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



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

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

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


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



Year GDP- Public Net Debt-total
1900 1.885 30.17
1901 1.893 33.24
1902 1.906 35.92
1903 1.881 38.02
1904 1.881 37.81
1905 1.949 36.29
1906 2.033 34.42
1907 2.113 32.35
1908 2.011 33.30
1909 2.052 32.39
1910 2.14 31.65
1911 2.227 29.22
1912 2.327 27.30
1913 2.42 25.83
1914 2.451 25.30
1915 2.943 36.59
1916 3.434 61.36
1917 4.276 93.25
1918 5.108 114.52
1919 5.484 135.20
1920 5.975 130.70
1921 4.907 154.00
1922 4.458 171.33
1923 4.254 181.68
1924 4.366 174.70
1925 4.508 168.25
1926 4.349 173.51
1927 4.599 164.00
1928 4.599 163.41
1929 4.692 159.59
1930 4.615 161.58
1931 4.316 171.49
1932 4.223 175.76
1933 4.298 177.57
1934 4.517 172.91
1935 4.72 165.01
1936 4.987 156.08
1937 5.334 145.95
1938 5.502 145.65
1939 5.918 137.71
1940 7.183 109.97
1941 8.654 119.79
1942 9.482 137.54
1943 10.093 156.77
1944 10.18 182.34
1945 9.908 215.64
1946 9.968 237.12
1947 10.772 237.94
1948 11.988 213.72
1949 12.732 197.67
1950 13.285 194.22
1951 14.793 175.23
1952 16.023 161.58
1953 17.147 151.93
1954 18.148 146.48
1955 19.505 138.09
1956 20.966 128.97
1957 22.111 122.15
1958 23.05 118.14
1959 24.347 112.44
1960 25.974 106.77
1961 27.404 103.09
1962 28.691 99.94
1963 30.366 98.29
1964 33.162 91.15
1965 35.802 85.02
1966 38.099 82.26
1967 40.191 79.58
1968 43.53 78.55
1969 46.883 72.49
1970 51.523 64.20
1971 57.469 58.19
1972 64.342 55.70
1973 74.02 49.83
1974 83.793 48.28
1975 105.864 43.83
1976 125.203 45.19
1977 145.663 46.11
1978 167.905 47.16
1979 197.438 44.01
1980 230.8 41.30
1981 253.154 38.79
1982 277.198 41.05
1983 302.973 41.32
1984 324.633 40.82
1985 355.269 40.42
1986 381.782 41.12
1987 421.559 38.55
1988 470.748 35.65
1989 517.075 32.37
1990 560.887 27.40
1991 589.739 25.76
1992 614.776 24.56
1993 645.5 25.69
1994 684.067 40.68
1995 723.08 43.36
1996 768.905 44.58
1997 815.881 43.76
1998 865.71 40.87
1999 911.945 38.84
2000 958.931 33.32
2001 1003.3 32.06
2002 1055.79 33.06
2003 1118.24 34.00
2004 1184.3 35.62
2005 1233.98 37.40
2006 1303.92 38.41
2007 1343.75 44.80
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20

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

[al Roumi]

http://forum.piratesahoy.net//public/style_emoticons/default/doff.gif Merci Louis le gros!

[Boohugh]

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

No, all that shows is that as the country got richer, Labour kept borrowing instead of creating a surplus for hard times.

Perhaps we should look at the amount of borrowing in real terms instead:

Year GDP Public Net Debt-total
1979 644.413 283.6
1990 819.007 224.4
1997 942.154 412.3
2008 1256.64 543.4
2009 1212.66 669.4



Year GDP- (2000) Public Net Debt-total
1900 159.936 48.3
1901 163.303 54.3
1902 165.759 59.5
1903 164.222 62.4
1904 166.111 62.8
1905 170.976 62.0
1906 175.265 60.3
1907 178.599 57.8
1908 171.957 57.3
1909 176.024 57.0
1910 180.658 57.2
1911 186.619 54.5
1912 189.377 51.7
1913 197.178 50.9
1914 201.13 50.9
1915 212.002 77.6
1916 214.415 131.6
1917 213.105 198.7
1918 217.201 248.7
1919 200.145 270.6
1920 180.532 236.0
1921 163.001 251.0
1922 171.655 294.1
1923 176.74 321.1
1924 185.082 323.3
1925 191.595 322.4
1926 185.617 322.1
1927 199.892 327.8
1928 201.676 329.6
1929 207.431 331.0
1930 205.78 332.5
1931 196.234 336.5
1932 196.368 345.1
1933 202.613 359.8
1934 214.702 371.2
1935 222.643 367.4
1936 233.259 364.1
1937 241.423 352.4
1938 243.296 354.4
1939 254.002 349.8
1940 279.206 307.0
1941 303.518 363.6
1942 308.961 424.9
1943 314.269 492.7
1944 300.44 547.8
1945 286.701 618.3
1946 279.653 663.1
1947 276.084 656.9
1948 284.961 609.0
1949 294.407 582.0
1950 303.773 590.0
1951 312.06 546.8
1952 312.223 504.5
1953 324.201 492.6
1954 337.531 494.4
1955 349.24 482.3
1956 352.483 454.6
1957 358.33 437.7
1958 359.473 424.7
1959 374.832 421.5
1960 394.798 421.5
1961 403.924 416.4
1962 408.141 407.9
1963 425.622 418.4
1964 448.934 409.2
1965 458.957 390.2
1966 467.807 384.8
1967 479.351 381.5
1968 499.428 392.3
1969 509.811 369.5
1970 521.235 334.6
1971 531.786 309.5
1972 550.752 306.8
1973 590.009 294.0
1974 581.985 281.0
1975 578.338 253.5
1976 593.63 268.3
1977 607.844 280.3
1978 627.546 295.9
1979 644.413 283.6
1980 630.963 260.6
1981 621.78 241.2
1982 633.662 260.1
1983 655.979 271.1
1984 672.787 274.6
1985 696.582 281.6
1986 724.263 297.8
1987 757.452 292.0
1988 795.317 283.5
1989 812.725 263.1
1990 819.007 224.4
1991 807.814 208.1
1992 809.54 198.8
1993 827.886 212.6
1994 863.623 351.3
1995 889.041 385.5
1996 913.8 407.4
1997 942.154 412.3
1998 973.748 398.0
1999 1003.37 389.7
2000 1041.52 347.0
2001 1066.22 341.9
2002 1088.11 359.7
2003 1118.24 380.2
2004 1154.68 411.3
2005 1175.92 439.8
2006 1210.29 464.8
2007 1247.28 558.8
2008 1256.64 543.4
2009 1212.66 669.4
2010 1227.82 883.4

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1900_2010&view=1&expand=&units=k&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP


So actually, as you can see...what Labour has done is given the UK the largest ever national debt in real terms, larger even than that created when it last peaked in 1946. I.E. This Labour government has managed to create a bigger debt pile than the one created by WW2 for us to deal with!

See, I can play with statistics too :yes:.

[Louis VI the Fat]

See, I can play with statistics too :yes:.Spin.


It doesn't matter to the millionaire if he owes a thousand quid. For the pauper it spells the end.
Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP. :sweatdrop:



No doubt to the delight of all those to the right of the Liberal Democrats, I'll be here all the way until election day. :balloon2:

[Vladimir]

How does Britain's military spending compare to that of other EU nations?

[Louis VI the Fat]

Harriet Harman (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/harrietharman) will reopen the politically explosive debate over class tomorrow by insisting that it remains the single biggest factor in determining individual achievement.
In a speech designed to put the fight against inequality at the heart of the general election campaign, the Labour (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/labour) deputy leader will unveil a new "inequality bible" which admits that the government has merely slowed the trend in rising inequality despite more than 12 years in office.
The 420-page report, commissioned by the government, has been written by a panel chaired by Professor John Hills.


In her speech, Harman will say the report, to be published next week, makes uncomfortable reading for Labour, and sets out home truths about the scale of the challenge.
But she will also seek to create dividing lines with the Tories by arguing that the evidence shows socio-economic background, not parental warmth, is the main determinant of an individual's success.
The report's findings are politically sensitive since they may revive accusations – furiously denied by Gordon Brown – that Labour is embarking on a "class war".


Harman will say that public policy can still have a significant impact on inequality by intervening at certain key points in a person's life, such as pre-school years or re-entry into work after having children.
She will insist that the big choice at the next election will be which party people trust to ensure that as a society "we do not return to the days when inequality was spiralling and where a tiny minorty of the population got all the rewards".


http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/20/harriet-harman-class-general-election

Good. This after David Milliband started a similar attack two weeks ago.

Labour needs to return to its roots. 'Old' Labour, the party of miners and dock workers, became obsolote and was clung onto for far too long. A New Labour had to be formed in the 1990's. This New Labour is now past it's expiration date too. Back to sticking up for the law-abiding, tax-paying, actual working man.

Let the people have something to choose between, instead of two parties battling over the same few square centimeters of neo-liberalism.

[InsaneApache]

Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.

Oh Louis, please do stay until the election, I love your wind ups. :laugh4:

[al Roumi]

Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.

How is it hypocritical that she gives a :daisy: and is trying to change things?

[Subotan]

Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP. :sweatdrop::

That's incredibly basic economics. A growth in debt in real terms is totally meaningless if GDP grows by a faster or the same rate.

[InsaneApache]

How is it hypocritical that she gives a :daisy: and is trying to change things?

Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

[al Roumi]

Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."

Am I being dense? Harriet Harman is a Labour MP (http://www.harrietharman.org/), how does any of this make her a tory toff??? :inquisitive:

[InsaneApache]

Am I being dense?

As they say in Yorksheer, if tha cap fits.....:laugh4:

[Louis VI the Fat]

How does Britain's military spending compare to that of other EU nations?By comparison, Britain's defense spending is enormous.


This Wiki list seems as good as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_military

France and the UK are the two countries with a will to power, and consequently spend enormous amounts of money on defense. Within Europe, their expenditure is surpassed only by Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. (All three NATO members, with their arms pointed towards each other. :wall:
Or, in the case of Bulgaria, arms simply being absent.)

Eastern European spending is ever on the increase. Poland in particular is starting to make its weight felt. (No, no sarcasm. Poland is great to have at your side)


Note that numbers alone do not provide the full picture. For example, Greek spending is mostly on personel. Consequently, these are equiped with outdated, even antiquated equipment.
To a large extent, this is true for France as well. The UK military, despite having about similar financial means, has a far greater actual operational capacity. Also, the French military expenditure includes the Gendarmerie, which in other countries might be considered a police force and be included in the budget of the ministry of internal affairs.



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



Does Europe enjoy a free ride? The Economist says this claim should not be made too rashly:


HE argument about Jim Manzi's interesting article (http://nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/keeping-americas-edge) outlining a conservative vision for reestablishing American competitiveness has largely wound down by now. But something in a response by one of Andrew Sullivan's readers (http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/01/chait-vs-manzi-readers-thoughts.html#more) is still bugging me: "what Manzi has accurately characterized as Europe's free riding on the US for defense." Mr Manzi actually doesn't quite say this in such explicit terms, but it is a frequent assertion that European social spending is only made possible by implicit American subsidies on defence; so let's take a look at this claim.

Defence spending by Britain and France is around 2.5% of their GDP (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditures), which is about the world average (http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2009/05). This is interesting in that neither Britain nor France, nor any other country in Western Europe, faces any conceivable territorial military threat. German defence spending is considerably lower, but (as Charlemagne noted (http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=E1_TTSJTQPV) in a 2008 column) it still fields the only other serious expeditionary force in Europe. In any case, Germany faces no military threat either, nor has there been any serious likelihood of military conflict anywhere in the region since the Yugoslavian wars wound down. The only European countries that face any risk of military conflict in the coming decades are those that border Russia, and indeed the Baltics are increasing their military spending; one could vaguely imagine Poland getting into a dicey situation someday (a blow-up involving Estonia's Russian-speaking minority leads to Russian intervention and Warsaw begins feeling the heat, or something), but it's a stretch, and Poland, too, is increasing its military spending (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/12/world/europe/12poland.html?_r=1) to almost 2% of GDP.


America, for its own reasons, has decided to spend 4.7% of its GDP on its armed forces and on warfighting. But why should Europe match that? For the sake of comparison: India and Pakistan are actual nuclear-armed enemies with disputed territorial claims and huge armies facing each other across a hostile border. Each country is fighting active counterinsurgency campaigns inside its own territory. Yet Pakistan spends 3% of GDP on its military, while India spends just 2.5%, about as much as France. The world abounds in countries that enjoy no American security guarantees, yet spend no more than France does on defence: Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, South Africa, Nigeria, Ukraine, even, by some accounts, Iran. These countries are clearly not "free riding" on America; why should Europe be?


To say that Europe is "free riding on the US" implies that Europe is getting something. Yet those who make these kinds of claims never explain just what it is they think Europe gets out of America's colossal levels of military spending. Most Western Europeans don't see themselves as deriving any great benefit from America's disproportionate defence outlays; it is not clear how Europe's security would be harmed if America did cut its defence budget. And it is not clear how European security would be enhanced if Europe dramatically increased its defence spending. Now that China is ramping up its defence spending, American officials say they are troubled (http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3599316&c=ASI&s=BUD) because Beijing does not explain what threats it seeks to counter. Anyone who wants Europe to increase its defence spending ought to do the same.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2010/01/defense_europes_defense





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



Will European politicians finally listen NATO and to the military experts and embark on more European collaboration? Or will fears over 'loss of sovereignity' indefinately hold back European means to, like, actually preserve sovereignity?

In a speech in December before NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly, Dr Adrian Kendry, NATO’s Senior Defence Economist, said that “a big disparity” was beginning to emerge between EU nations and the US and Canada and that while the European emphasis on domestic defence investment was a natural response to the economic crisis, it was “good for the local economy but not the best use of funds…we have to think about collaborative defence expenditure”. Echoing these comments, Canadian parliamentarian Leon Benoit said that if European budgets were proportionately 40% lower than the US, then due to the fragmentation of the European market, it would only be 20 % as effective as US investment.

“We cannot continue with the way things are now,” he said.

Falling budgets have led to increased calls for European collaboration. In a December speech on Europe’s naval defence technological industrial base (DTIB), European Defence Agency chief executive Alexander Weis said that “innovation does not come from the export but from the domestic market…the current naval DTIB is characterised by overcapacities, fragmentation and redundant structures”.

To illustrate his point, Weis said that despite a far inferior defence spend, Europe has 7.2 naval systems, overall, for each US naval system; the continent has seven different types of diesel submarines and 11 different frigates; and most starkly of all, there are 25 naval prime contractors, many of which encompass more than one shipyard.

>He outlined three scenarios which can be applied to the defence industrial base as a whole. In a worst case scenario, industry would continue in its current form, with no consolidation or cooperation; operating profits and costs would come under increasing strain and yards would eventually be unable to compete with cheaper equipment from Asian yards.

A 'single European market scenario' would see consolidation of demand and the creation of EADS-type companies in the naval sector. However, none of the major European shipbuilding countries would abandon their national capacities, making such a scenario unrealistic.

A third, 'realistic scenario' would see the launch of major co-operative projects, such as a logistics ship in the mid term and even an aircraft carrier project in the long term.

"On this basis the European naval industry increases project-oriented co-operation aiming at specialisation while avoiding duplication of capacities and technological capacities," Weis said.

The coming year will certainly see European countries cut their defence budgets even further. More optimistically, however, it could present a unique opportunity. The parlous state of the global economy could lead to more co-operation, less duplication and more rationalisation: a money-saving goal long cherished by many in the industry. With budgetary pressures also weighing heavily in Washington, there is also the potential for more transatlantic industrial co-operation.

http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2009/12/european-defence-spending-falls-short.html

[Brenus]

The missions to the French Army are different from the UK.

UK’s post-imperial ambitions are limited in following USA when the French still has the confetti of Empire like the “pré-gardé” in Africa, and few islands in the Caribbean, plus of course French Guyana (Rocket Launcher Ariane), New Caledonia and Mayotte. And probably others spots…
So the French has a huge capacity in fast but light development, design to control population who basically know by memory what means to have a battalion of Foreign Legion in there. And it is not said in a nasty way…
E.g. my sister working in Cambodia told me that the only unit never attack by the remaining Red Khmers was the Foreign Legion, this for, IMHO, 2 reasons:
They remember the Legion
The Captain commanding officer said openly in front of the UN civilian official recommending restrain in case of attack and ask authorisation before answering: “If my legionnaires are under attack they will bring a maximum of “censored” “censored” with them in hell and any way all radio communication will be impossible”.
My sister having been a staunch anti-militarist (with 3 brothers in the army, I know) I give credit to this witness.
On another hand, I suspect something like “il m’a aimé toute la nuit mon legionnaire” (Edith Piaf). I will never know…

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

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

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

Ouf. I feel better.
:yes:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Transformation of the Anglo-Normans Islands

Ther term "Anglo-Norman" refers only to the French-speaking aristrocracy who ruled England after the deposition of Harold II by William the Bastard. It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.

[Brenus]

Anglo-Norman islands (or Channel Islands) constituted by Jersey, Guernesey, Jethou, Herm, Sercq and Aurigny, near Normandie (so norman) and being English (so Anglo).
It is a geographical name.

“It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.”
To whom else?
The English referring about the Channel qualify it as English, for the astonishment of the French, Belgium, Dutch and German.
And nobody care really...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anglo-Norman islands (or Channel Islands) constituted by Jersey, Guernesey, Jethou, Herm, Sercq and Aurigny, near Normandie (so norman) and being English (so Anglo).
It is a geographical name.

Really? The Channel Islands have been as much a "fiscal paridise" for a very long time, however de-rgulation of the City was a Labour project. So can you see why I would miss-interpret?


“It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.”
To whom else?
The English referring about the Channel qualify it as English, for the astonishment of the French, Belgium, Dutch and German.
And nobody care really...

To the Scots, for starters, it would probably be akin to suggesting Scotland was part of England, and as far as the "English" Channel goes, it seperates England from the Continent. Otherwise what are you going to call it? There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

[Brenus]

“Otherwise what are you going to call it?” La Manche.
The French Channel:smash:

“So can you see why I would miss-interpret?”. Yeap, I see.

[Furunculus]

I personally am delighted; the UK elections debate has been dominated by matters of Defence, rather than relegated to an afterthought as usually happens, and i can only hope that the same happens in the wider national debate.

[Subotan]

There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

Really?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...and as far as the "English" Channel goes, it seperates England from the Continent. Otherwise what are you going to call it? There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

"North Sea Drainage Channel Number One?"

"The Larger Extension of the Scheldt?"

"Ultimate Repository for Hats Accidentally Dropped in the Upper Rhine?"

....I see real possibilities here! :beam:

[al Roumi]

"North Sea Drainage Channel Number One?"

"The Larger Extension of the Scheldt?"

"Ultimate Repository for Hats Accidentally Dropped in the Upper Rhine?"

....I see real possibilities here! :beam:

What about the "Bonaparte barrier" :2thumbsup: