Quo Vardis ConDems?

[InsaneApache]

So here we are. At last the UK has a new government. When the big three kept banging on about time for a change, they wern't joking were they? For the first time since the war (got Godwin in early!) we have a coalition government. Not sure what to think of it really. Will it hold? Can it run for a full parliament? How will the two sides keep their parties happy?

One bit of great news early on is the scrapping of ID cards. That's a biggy for me.

So, what are your thoughts on the coaltion? :idea2:

[Fragony]

Quo Vadis

[InsaneApache]

:embarassed:

:shame:

:oops:

:laugh4:

[Vladimir]

Quo Vadis

Looks like it's off to a bad start already.

[Hax]

One bit of great news early on is the scrapping of ID cards. That's a biggy for me.

Excellent. I don't fully trust Cameron, but I think he's better than Brown and Blair. And he can't possibly be worse than Thatcher.

[Hosakawa Tito]

Here's to hope & change.~:cheers:

[PanzerJaeger]

Excellent. I don't fully trust Cameron, but I think he's better than Brown and Blair. And he can't possibly be worse than Thatcher.

I've always wondered from where the visceral hatred of Thatcher comes. I'm certainly no expert on British politics, but from what I've read, it seems like she took a lot of painful, yet necessary steps to bring the British economy into competitiveness, not to mention reasserting British standing on the world stage by not backing down to the Argentineans. As I understand it, a lot of people in non-competitive industry lost their jobs; but without government subsidy, things were headed that way anyway. Considering the seemingly universal hatred aimed at her, who supported her? Oddly enough, across the pond she is quite admired as a sort of British Ronald Reagan.

[Vladimir]

I've always wondered from where the visceral hatred of Thatcher comes. I'm certainly no expert on British politics, but from what I've read, it seems like she took a lot of painful, yet necessary steps to bring the British economy into competitiveness, not to mention reasserting British standing on the world stage by not backing down to the Argentineans. As I understand it, a lot of people in non-competitive industry lost their jobs; but without government subsidy, things were headed that way anyway. Considering the seemingly universal hatred aimed at her, who supported her? Oddly enough, across the pond she is quite admired as a sort of British Ronald Reagan.

Think of how many and what types of people hate Regan. Hate isn't rational.

[CountArach]

Quo Vadis
Quo Vaditis.

[Idaho]

Scrapping ID cards is a good thing. Also interested in the move to push the tax free earning limit to £10,000. Although I think the effect of this may well be undermined by the raising of VAT (sales tax) to 20/21/22%.

[Vladimir]

Scrapping ID cards is a good thing. Also interested in the move to push the tax free earning limit to £10,000. Although I think the effect of this may well be undermined by the raising of VAT (sales tax) to 20/21/22%.

Hmm, VAT. Isn't that why it costs 12 USD for an appetizer?

[Fragony]

Quo Vaditis.

No it's not

[Rhyfelwyr]

Quo Vaditis.

Quo Vaditus.

[Gregoshi]

Oh Quo is us. :no:

[Ronin]

Think of how many and what types of people hate Regan. Hate isn't rational.

and think of the many people who love Regan but would condemn a politician that right now did the very same things Regan did (raise taxes)......love ain´t rational either.

[Idaho]

Hmm, VAT. Isn't that why it costs 12 USD for an appetizer?

What's an appetizer? And if things are costing too much in USD - try paying in sterling to get a better price :p

[Fragony]

Quo Vaditus.

Et tu Rhyfelwyr, et tu?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_'Quo_vadis'_in_English

[KukriKhan]

Quo Vaditis.

Heh. Where do you cry? :)

[drone]

Romanes eunt domus!

[Rhyfelwyr]

Et tu Rhyfelwyr, et tu?

http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_'Quo_vadis'_in_English

T'was a joke, I don't speak a word of Italian.

[therother]

ConDems: Conservative Democrats? I suspect Cameron would prefer Liberal Conservatives, although that would have the disadvantage of shortening to LibCon, which is no doubt what the right wing of his party think of the whole affair...

[Beskar]

and think of the many people who love Regan but would condemn a politician that right now did the very same things Regan did (raise taxes)......love ain´t rational either.

If that happens, it will be the 3rd American Civil War.


PanzerJaeger's post.

Don't worry about Thatcher, she isn''t as bad as your leaders. Obama makes her look like the socialist.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Cival War.

Civil War.

[Husar]

Quo Vadis

You can complain about my corrections as much as you want, you're obviously turning into me anyway. :laugh4:

And I'm also very interested about this and whatever new coalition we get here in NRW, looks like we get the greens + the left/confused + the even more left.

[Vladimir]

You can complain about my corrections as much as you want, you're obviously turning into me anyway. :laugh4:

And I'm also very interested about this and whatever new coalition we get here in NRW, looks like we get the greens + the left/confused + the even more left.

According to someone's Aunt (I don't know whose), Germany is the model for coalition governments. I know the UK's got a problem with the continent right now but there are good lessons to be learned.

[Furunculus]

Europe has a Tory Minister
Foreign & Commonwealth has a Tory Minister
Defence has a Tory Minister

I am happy.

[InsaneApache]

ConDems: Conservative Democrats? I suspect Cameron would prefer Liberal Conservatives, although that would have the disadvantage of shortening to LibCon, which is no doubt what the right wing of his party think of the whole affair...

Gregoshi put me up to it. Honest. :disguise:

[Fragony]

T'was a joke, I don't speak a word of Italian.

classy

[Louis VI the Fat]

Europe has a Tory Minister


I am happy.Ah, I see they picked David Lidington.

That's David 'racking in the cash with excessive expenses' Lidington: 'Aylesbury MP David Lidington cost £115,891 in expenses (http://www.bucksherald.co.uk/news/MPs-Expenses-The-price-of.5271666.jp)'. (That's a single year!) Quite a big fish, it seems. David makes your average Greek MP look like an amateur.



I'm already looking forward to David castigating the EU for corruption and demanding the Brityish taxpayers are given their money back. :2thumbsup:

[Louis VI the Fat]

This week's creation of a Conservative led coalition with the Liberal Democrats has brought the period associated with Margaret Thatcher after her election in 1979 to an end. The UK will continue to play its part in global capitalism but a new kind of domestic politics is on offer. One way of describing it, uncomfortable as it may be for me to report, is that the transition from New Labour to a Tory led coalition promises a distinctly more progressive government in the UK. If indeed the Coalition agreement (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8677933.stm) is carried out, then the new government will be to the left of its predecessor by being:


tougher on the bankers
more focused on helping the very poor
more democratic
ending New Labour’s assault on liberty
Europeanising Westminster politics
implementing greener policies
reintroducing cabinet government

This is relative praise. It remains a Tory government. The new coalition says it is planning to stuff the House of Lords with 200 cronies to secure its majority there, who will stay for their lifetimes; it will not investigate our use of torture; it says it will ask the British people to decide on how we vote yet, despite language about “grown-up” politics, it will treat us like infants and not permit us to consider a proportional system. And, of course there is the famous chasm between words and deeds.
An end to NuLab neo-Thatcherism (http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/end-of-thatcherism)?

[CountArach]

No it's not
It is plural.

[Idaho]

What we are seeing at the moment is the honeymoon. Lots of crowd pleasing announcements and scrapping of unpopular projects of the previous government.

It's all about 2011 - that will be the crunch year when tax increases, public sector redundancies and service cuts will really bite.

[Beskar]

I think the ConDem's will do far better than the Con's by themselves.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

An end to NuLab neo-Thatcherism (http://www.opendemocracy.net/anthony-barnett/end-of-thatcherism)?

Possibly, but the author's assumption that the Conservatives are fundamentally undemocratic hurts his otherwise good analysis. For one thing, it prevents him from questioning why it might be a good thing that we respect our politicians, i.e. because they are people of integrity worthy of respect.

[Beskar]

Possibly, but the author's assumption that the Conservatives are fundamentally undemocratic hurts his otherwise good analysis. For one thing, it prevents him from questioning why it might be a good thing that we respect our politicians, i.e. because they are people of integrity worthy of respect.

Especially when they fiddle the taxman to clean their moats.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Especially when they fiddle the taxman to clean their moats.

There was no fiddle. The scandal was that instead of upping wages the decision was made to give MP's Carte Blanche with their "expenses". It's important to retain an appreciation of what actually happened.

[Furunculus]

interesting recession statistics:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7731331/Rebuilding-Britain-the-economy-in-brief.html

@ beskar - really, you're above this cheap sniping.

[Slyspy]

There was no fiddle. The scandal was that instead of upping wages the decision was made to give MP's Carte Blanche with their "expenses". Ity's important to retain an appreciation of what actually happened.

Quite right. The tax fiddle was on the second homes, nothing to do with moats.

Any mp who made reasonable claims might be said to have integrity, but the group as a whole has been tainted by the affair.

[Furunculus]

interesting article on Britain's economic prospects post recession:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/7731232/Rebuilding-Britain-twilight-days-or-a-new-beginning.html

[tibilicus]

"Dear chief secretary, There's no money left."
Liam Byrne's message to successor as treasury chief secretary David Laws


Yup, we're in big trouble. Literally no money left. Cheers Gordon.

[Furunculus]

haha, just read that.

one more nail in labours coffin as the future of progressive-left politics in this country.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Yup, we're in big trouble. Literally no money left. Cheers Gordon.One finds that there is no money left in any Western country's coffers. One can scarcely claim this is the direct result of whichever party happens to have been in power in 2008/09/10.


Labour got in in 1997. Until 2008, Labour had a prudent spending policy. Public spending as percentage of GDP was kept at roughly the same level as the Tories left it. GDP, however, grew so much under Labour that public services could be expanded while net public debt was still brought down substantially (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=). :book:

Year GDP- Public Net Debt-total
1997 830.094 41.92
2008 1442.92 36.38
2009 1396 44.20
2010 1451.5 53.50

[tibilicus]

One finds that there is no money left in any Western country's coffers. One can scarcely claim this is the direct result of whichever party happens to have been in power in 2008/09/10.


Labour got in in 1997. Until 2008, Labour had a prudent spending policy. Public spending as percentage of GDP was kept at roughly the same level as the Tories left it. GDP, however, grew so much under Labour that public services could be expanded while net public debt was still brought down substantially (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1990_2010&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2010&chart=F0-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=). :book:

Year GDP- Public Net Debt-total
1997 830.094 41.92
2008 1442.92 36.38
2009 1396 44.20
2010 1451.5 53.50

Of course, lots of countries are skint, but Labours accountability can't be ignored. Numerous decisions such as the shameful raid on pension funds and the depletion of our reserves can't be forgiven. Arguably public spending did need to go up when Labour arrived in 1997, but it was reaching a point where it was simply unsustainable. Not the spending per se, but the way in which it was spent.

You have to remember that upon assuming power in 1997, Labour had the benefit of an actually quite sound economic spreadsheet. We had money reserves and despite all their criticisms, the outgoing Tory government did a pretty good job of keeping the books balanced. Indeed, had the financial crisis not happened then Labour probably could of got away with the spending, unfortunately when the banks needed bailing out though and the economy needed propping up, the money wasn't there.

[Beskar]

Can't forget how Thatcher sold all of our assets as well.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can't forget how Thatcher sold all of our assets as well.

Well, she left the Gold, Beskar. Maybe we could use that to pay.... oh, wait.

Tired of taking cheap shots yet? Honestly, you're starting to sound a little silly at this point.

Also, I don't buy Loius' figures, because we know Gordon has been cooking the burrowing/GDP figures for about five years.

[tibilicus]

Can't forget how Thatcher sold all of our assets as well.

One side of the coin. The other side being that she modernised our economy at a time when it was a joke. Britain was in danger of genuine decline in the 1980s, and not just the false terminal decline that we as Brits like to convince ourselves is constantly happening.

[Beskar]

Well, she left the Gold, Beskar. Maybe we could use that to pay.... oh, wait.

Tired of taking cheap shots yet? Honestly, you're starting to sound a little silly at this point.


Well, you are convinced that one man in a span of a couple of years destroyed the economy single-handedly.

I am saying it is a process of many years and decades, including external factors such as America, and international con-artists bankers. Including various incidents which caused the stituation to be worse than it could have been.

Which is sillier?

When I bring up Thatcher, it is not to blame her for it all, it is telling you, you are being far too narrowminded and forgetting/ignoring many more important factors. Many conservatives and some posters here make it come across that Gordon Brown is the man who engineered the World-wide Depression. Even though Gordon Brown was also the Chancellor under one of Britain's biggest bubbles too.

[Husar]

Do we have to bail out Britain too now?

I have a better idea, let them fail so I can import 40 pound games for 10€... ~;)

[Furunculus]

Do we have to bail out Britain too now?

I have a better idea, let them fail so I can import 40 pound games for 10€... ~;)

that's a bold statement from someone inside the eurozone..................

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,695111,00.html

[InsaneApache]

When I bring up Thatcher, it is not to blame her for it all, it is telling you, you are being far too narrowminded and forgetting/ignoring many more important factors. Many conservatives and some posters here make it come across that Gordon Brown is the man who engineered the World-wide Depression. Even though Gordon Brown was also the Chancellor under one of Britain's biggest bubbles too.

There's so much rubbish in this one paragraph, it's difficult to know where to begin.

[tibilicus]

Does anyone else find the ranting and raving over this mythical £6 billion in cuts hilarious? If people think £6 billion is bad they better gear themselves up for what's to come. I'm pretty certain we need to times that 6 billion by 10 to even get close to making a dent in the deficit.

[Furunculus]

Does anyone else find the ranting and raving over this mythical £6 billion in cuts hilarious? If people think £6 billion is bad they better gear themselves up for what's to come. I'm pretty certain we need to times that 6 billion by 10 to even get close to making a dent in the deficit.
very much agreed.

[Husar]

that's a bold statement from someone inside the eurozone..................

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,695111,00.html

Hey, we just saved the euro with all that...uhm, surplus money we stuffed away for such events...yeah...

They also already promised us mega-inflation for the aftermath of the current economic crisis.

But then it wasn't me who said New Labour ruined Britain, was it?

And why do you destroy my dreams like that? That's just mean...

[Beskar]

There's so much rubbish in this one paragraph, it's difficult to know where to begin.

I agree, but people have strange views like that.

[Furunculus]

Hey, we just saved the euro with all that...uhm, surplus money we stuffed away for such events...yeah...

But then it wasn't me who said New Labour ruined Britain, was it?

And why do you destroy my dreams like that? That's just mean...
well, you always said you were an internationalist, now you get to prove it, suck it up champ.

no, but i'll say it for you, as usual labour get handed a working economy (golden legacy in the case of 97) and turn it into a train-wreck, and the Tories get endless whining for doing the job of picking up the pieces.

you have these wonderful transnational progressivist dreams, you might as well see where they'll lead you..............

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, you are convinced that one man in a span of a couple of years destroyed the economy single-handedly.

I am saying it is a process of many years and decades, including external factors such as America, and international con-artists bankers. Including various incidents which caused the stituation to be worse than it could have been.

Which is sillier?

When I bring up Thatcher, it is not to blame her for it all, it is telling you, you are being far too narrowminded and forgetting/ignoring many more important factors. Many conservatives and some posters here make it come across that Gordon Brown is the man who engineered the World-wide Depression. Even though Gordon Brown was also the Chancellor under one of Britain's biggest bubbles too.

That is a total misrepresentation of my position, and you know it!

Gordon Brown had stewardship of the economy for ten years, and led the government for three. Among Western nations Britain is poorly placed, and cannot suffer another recession without probably having to call in the IMF. It is correct that most countries now have empty coffers, but ours were empty before the recession, and we borrowed to bail out the banks. Further, this is a better time than any to have a currency backed by gold...and ours is not.

So, try again to compare my dislike for Brown with your whining about how Thatcher ruined Britain.

[Husar]

well, you always said you were an internationalist, now you get to prove it, suck it up champ.

no, but i'll say it for you, as usual labour get handed a working economy (golden legacy in the case of 97) and turn it into a train-wreck, and the Tories get endless whining for doing the job of picking up the pieces.

you have these wonderful transnational progressivist dreams, you might as well see where they'll lead you..............

What does Britain destroying itself have to do with internationalism?
And where did I say we should let everyone join the eurozone right now?
And I can't say I'm a great fan of Brown or your labour party either.

[InsaneApache]

This Hilda versus James thing should be resolved in the ring.

My moneys on Hilda, cos when James gets handbagged, as we all know, it's Sues' fault.

[Furunculus]

que?

[Furunculus]

more news on labours scorched earth policy:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100040166/are-labours-spendthrift-ministers-just-going-to-get-away-with-it/

senior civil servants were so worried by the actions of their ministers that several of them asked for official letters-of-direction.

[Furunculus]

Clegg readies his Great Repeal Bill (really Daniel Hannan's), asking people which of the 4000 new criminal offences created under labour they would like torn up:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/nick-clegg/7738343/Nick-Clegg-tell-us-the-laws-that-you-want-scrapped.html

[Idaho]

more news on labours scorched earth policy:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/philipjohnston/100040166/are-labours-spendthrift-ministers-just-going-to-get-away-with-it/

senior civil servants were so worried by the actions of their ministers that several of them asked for official letters-of-direction.

No sources or actual examples on that one alas. Difficult to tell whether this really happened, or is the Tory friendly media softening us up for cuts and tax rises.

[Furunculus]

No sources or actual examples on that one alas. Difficult to tell whether this really happened, or is the Tory friendly media softening us up for cuts and tax rises.

here's more:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7737782/Big-increase-in-civil-servant-objections-to-Labour-spending-plans-in-2009-and-2010.html

[Furunculus]

the £6.25b in cuts are announced:

:: Department of Transport - £683 million

:: Communities and Local Government - £780 million

:: Local Government DEL - £405 million

:: Business - £836 million

:: Home Office - £367 million

:: Department for Education - £670 million

:: Ministry of Justice £325 million

:: Law Officers Department - £18 million

:: Foreign Office - £55 million

:: Energy and Climate Change - £85 million

:: Environment, Food and Rural Affairs - £162 million

:: Culture, Media and Sport - £88 million

:: Department for Work and Pensions - £535 million

:: Chancellor's Departments - £451 million

:: Cabinet Office - £79 million

:: Devolved administrations - £704 million

[Furunculus]

details of the queen's speech:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7763308/Queens-speech-point-by-point.html

[gaelic cowboy]

If there was any doubt as to the need to cut the fat from the devolved administrations I found this article in a thread on the Politics.ie website. If this is the level the DUP is at then then it is no wonder Peter Robinson lost out in the election.

Northern Ireland minister calls on Ulster Museum to promote creationism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Where to get that once-in-a-generation spending cut.

Just cut defense. That whole sorry excuse for living off the taxpayer's money just to feel tough. Dragging Britain into useless wars simply to justify it's enormous expense.

Germany and Japan know better.

I say cut defence. I don't mean nibble at it or slice it. I mean cut it, all £45bn of it. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article7049153.ece) George Osborne yesterday asked the nation "for once in a generation (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/08/george-osborne-ask-public-services-cut)" to think the unthinkable, to offer not just percentage cuts but "whether government needs to provide certain public services at all".

What do we really get from the army, the navy and the air force beyond soldiers dying in distant wars and a tingle when the band marches by? Is the tingle worth £45bn, more than the total spent on schools (http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_education_budget_2009_2.html)? Why does Osborne "ringfence" defence when everyone knows its budget is a bankruptcy waiting to happen, when Labour ministers bought the wrong kit for wars that they insisted it fight?

Osborne cannot believe the armed forces are so vital or so efficient as to be excused the star chamber's "fundamental re-evaluation of their role". He knows their management and procurement have long been an insult to the taxpayer. The reason for his timidity must be that, like David Cameron, he is a young man scared of old generals.

I was content to be expensively defended against the threat of global communism. With the end of the cold war in the 1990s that threat vanished. In its place was a fantasy proposition, that some unspecified but potent "enemy" lurked in the seas and skies around Britain. Where is it?

Each incoming government since 1990 has held so-called defence reviews "to match capabilities to policy objectives". I helped with one in 1997, and it was rubbish from start to finish, a cosmetic attempt to justify the colossal procurements then in train, and in such a way that any cut would present Labour as "soft" on defence.

Tony Blair, Gordon Brown and George Robertson, the then defence secretary were terrified into submission. They agreed to a parody of generals fighting the last war but one. They bought new destroyers to defeat the U-boat menace. They bought new carriers to save the British empire. They bought Eurofighters to duel with Russian air aces. Trident submarines with nuclear warheads went on cruising the deep, deterring no one, just so Blair could walk tall at conferences.

Each weekend, the tranquillity of the Welsh countryside is shattered by inane jets screaming through the mountain valleys playing at Lord of the Rings. With modern bombs, no plane need fly that low, and the jets are said to burn more fuel in half an hour than a school in a year. Any other service wasting so much money would be laughed out of court. Yet the Treasury grovels before the exotic virility of it all.

Labour lacked the guts to admit that it was crazy to plan for another Falklands war. It dared not admit that the procurement executive was fit for nothing but appeasing weapons manufacturers. No armies were massing on the continent poised to attack. No navies were plotting to throttle our islands and starve us into submission. No missiles were fizzing in bunkers across Asia with Birmingham or Leeds in their sights. As for the colonies, if it costs £45bn to protect the Falklands, Gibraltar and the Caymans, it must be the most ridiculous empire in history. It would be cheaper to give each colony independence and a billion a year.

Lobbyists reply that all defence expenditure is precautionary. You cannot predict every threat and it takes time to rearm should one emerge. That argument might have held during the cold war and, strictly up to a point, today. But at the present scale it is wholly implausible.

All spending on insurance – be it on health or the police or environmental protection – requires some assessment of risk. Otherwise spending is open-ended. After the cold war there was much talk of a peace dividend and the defence industry went into intellectual overdrive. It conjured up a new "war" jargon, as in the war on drugs, on terror, on piracy, on genocide. The navy was needed to fight drug gangs in the Caribbean, pirates off Somalia and gun-runners in the Persian Gulf. In all such "wars" performance has been dire, because each threat was defined to justify service expenditure rather than the other way round.

Whenever I ask a defence pundit against whom he is defending me, the answer is a wink and a smile: "You never know." The world is a messy place. Better safe than sorry. It is like demanding crash barriers along every pavement in case cars go out of control, or examining school children for diseases every day. You never know. The truth is, we are now spending £45bn on heebie-jeebies.

For the past 20 years, Britain's armed forces have encouraged foreign policy into one war after another, none of them remotely to do with the nation's security. Asked why he was standing in an Afghan desert earlier this year, Brown had to claim absurdly that he was "making London's streets safer". Some wars, as in Iraq, have been a sickening waste of money and young lives. Others in Kosovo and Afghanistan honour a Nato commitment that had nothing to do with collective security. Like many armies in history, Nato has become an alliance in search of a purpose. Coalition ministers are citing Canada as a shining example of how to cut. Canada is wasting no more money in Afghanistan.

Despite Blair's politics of fear, Britain entered the 21st century safer than at any time since the Norman conquest. I am defended already, by the police, the security services and a myriad regulators and inspectors. Defence spending does not add to this. It is like winning the Olympics – a magnificent, extravagant national boast, so embedded in the British psyche that politicians (and newspapers) dare not question it. Yet Osborne asked that every public service should "once in a generation" go back to basics and ask what it really delivers for its money. Why not defence?

There are many evils that threaten the British people at present, but I cannot think of one that absolutely demands £45bn to deter it. Soldiers, sailors and air crews are no protection against terrorists, who anyway are not that much of a threat. No country is an aggressor against the British state. No country would attack us were the government to put its troops into reserve and mothball its ships, tanks and planes. Let us get real.
I am all for being defended, but at the present price I am entitled to ask against whom and how. Of all the public services that should justify themselves from ground zero, defence is the first.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/08/cuts-armed-services-fantasy-enemies
Unfortunately, the extensive defense lobby, and defense being the favourite pasttime of many a conservative male voter, have made it impossible for the Cons to make any cut on defense. It is completely shielded of, while meaningful government tasks will be destroyed.

[Vladimir]

What have the Romans ever done for us? :inquisitive:

I think I understand the larger point.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Where to get that once-in-a-generation spending cut.

Just cut defense. That whole sorry excuse for living off the taxpayer's money just to feel tough. Dragging Britain into useless wars simply to justify it's enormous expense.

Germany and Japan know better.
Unfortunately, the extensive defense lobby, and defense being the favourite pasttime of many a conservative male voter, have made it impossible for the Cons to make any cut on defense. It is completely shielded of, while meaningful government tasks will be destroyed.

Ha! Absurd.

The opposite of War is not Peace, it is Slavery.

[tibilicus]

Also, some of the biggest employers in the country are the arms manufacturers. BAE is a massive globally renowned company and if you don't have a standing army, you don't really have any justification to produce arms and don't have a main customer for said arms (British Army). Also, if you get rid of the armed forces, there would be thousands on benefits. Of course, you would get that with any public sector cut but the problem is you can take an IT professional out of the public sector and they could find work at a private firm, at least in theory. Scrap the armed forces and what are thousands of people, most who joined the army specifically because they didn't like civilian life and most without any qualifications meant to do? Point being it's much easier to move the IT specialist, as a given example, into the private sector. It can't really be done for a soldier.

Oh, and of course there's the fundamental point as mentioned by PVC above..

[Husar]

Also, some of the biggest employers in the country are the arms manufacturers.

Well, that's like paying people with their own tax money and then taking income taxes from that. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

Where to get that once-in-a-generation spending cut.

Just cut defense. That whole sorry excuse for living off the taxpayer's money just to feel tough. Dragging Britain into useless wars simply to justify it's enormous expense.

Germany and Japan know better.
Unfortunately, the extensive defense lobby, and defense being the favourite pasttime of many a conservative male voter, have made it impossible for the Cons to make any cut on defense. It is completely shielded of, while meaningful government tasks will be destroyed.

the next time you guys across the water start butchering each other en-masse, you may rather regret that Britain has opted out of Defence.

even if you fight off the european herd instinct for blood-letting, what happens when the threat is external, you may further regret that we opted out of Collective Defence.

[Furunculus]

Well, that's like paying people with their own tax money and then taking income taxes from that. :laugh4:

not when you are the second or third largest arms exporter in the world.

[Hax]

the next time you guys across the water start butchering each other en-masse, you may rather regret that Britain has opted out of Defence.

I'm sorry, has there been some sort of event in the European Union? Have relations between country x and country z detoriated somewhere in the last...ten minutes?

[Rhyfelwyr]

If there was any doubt as to the need to cut the fat from the devolved administrations I found this article in a thread on the Politics.ie website. If this is the level the DUP is at then then it is no wonder Peter Robinson lost out in the election.

Northern Ireland minister calls on Ulster Museum to promote creationism (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/may/26/northern-ireland-ulster-museum-creationism)

"Nelson McCausland, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the museum's board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins."

This guy is my new hero. With all the liberal talk you here from those higher up in the church-political scene today, it's quite refreshing to see someone speak up for good old British Israelism. :laugh4:

[Furunculus]

I'm sorry, has there been some sort of event in the European Union? Have relations between country x and country z detoriated somewhere in the last...ten minutes?

I'm sorry, i hadn't realised that the European Union had reached such a transcendant state the we could put our hands on our hearts and say "never again" with a 110% certainty that peace would reign across beautiful europe for eternity!

[Hax]

I'm sorry, i hadn't realised that the European Union had reached such a transcendant state the we could put our hands on our hearts and say "never again" with a 110% certainty that peace would reign across beautiful europe for eternity!

If there were to be any threat, it would be external; as such, I am completely in favour of disbanding our nations' military and organising a European one.

[Furunculus]

If there were to be any threat, it would be external; as such, I am completely in favour of disbanding our nations' military and organising a European one.

i'm delighted you have such confidence, but i think you'll find you are in a minority.

[Hax]

i'm delighted you have such confidence, but i think you'll find you are in a minority.

Yes, I know. At least, I can't expect support from England, of all places, right?

[Furunculus]

Europe can always expect assistance form Great Britain, yes.

[gaelic cowboy]

"Nelson McCausland, who believes that Ulster Protestants are one of the lost tribes of Israel, has written to the museum's board of trustees urging them to reflect creationist and intelligent design theories of the universe's origins."

This guy is my new hero. With all the liberal talk you here from those higher up in the church-political scene today, it's quite refreshing to see someone speak up for good old British Israelism. :laugh4:

I tell you we must be up on what easily more Lost Tribes of Israel than actual tribes that are not lost I suppose. :beam:

[Louis VI the Fat]

the next time you guys across the water start butchering each other en-masse, you may rather regret that Britain has opted out of Defence.

even if you fight off the european herd instinct for blood-letting, what happens when the threat is external, you may further regret that we opted out of Collective Defence.There is a European tendency to start butchering each other regularly indeed.

However, I think you are mistaken about Britain's role in this phenomenon. The UK is not a reasonable outsider to Europe, rescuing Europeans when these children are at it again. The UK, rather, is usually right in the thick of it, wallowing up to its knees in blood. There has hardly been a major European war for four centuries without the active involvement of Britain right from the start.

Even France, by neither necessity nor kinship naturally allied to Britain, has always understood just whom to call when it was time wage agressive war - Britain will never refuse any amount of bloodshed in return for some gain.


So no, Europe does not regret Britain being a less belligerent country nowadays. What Europe has come to learn to regret, is the tendency of each European country to wallow in its own bizarre historical mythology.

[Furunculus]

the one obvious failure in our attempt to maintain a balance of power on the continent.............. Napoleon Bonaparte.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a European tendency to start butchering each other regularly indeed.

However, I think you are mistaken about Britain's role in this phenomenon. The UK is not a reasonable outsider to Europe, rescuing Europeans when these children are at it again. The UK, rather, is usually right in the thick of it, wallowing up to its knees in blood. There has hardly been a major European war for four centuries without the active involvement of Britain right from the start.

Even France, by neither necessity nor kinship naturally allied to Britain, has always understood just whom to call when it was time wage agressive war - Britain will never refuse any amount of bloodshed in return for some gain.


So no, Europe does not regret Britain being a less belligerent country nowadays. What Europe does regret, is the tendency of each European country to wallow in its own bizarre historical mythology.

We weren't in the 30 Years War, were we?

We are more often financing the losing side, balance of power and all that, what?

[tibilicus]

Historically speaking, British involvement in European conflicts has been on the basis of keeping balance within Europe. British colonial ambitions relied on there being no one dominant European power on the continent and thus, when balanced was maintained and the threat of invasion towards the British isles was not present, Britain was free to expand her colonial influences safe in the knowledge the central hub of the empire would be safe.

As for another European conflict, It's highly unlikely. There isn't really anything to fight about any more seeming rival imperial ambitions aren't a factor any more and perhaps more than ever, there seems to be a common European ideology emerging.

[Husar]

not when you are the second or third largest arms exporter in the world.

Well, that's like exploring the technology that makes your soldiers the best and then selling it to a lot of potential enemies.

But according to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_industry#World.27s_largest_arms_exporters) you're worse/better than us anyway.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Historically speaking, British involvement in European conflicts has been on the basis of keeping balance within Europe. British colonial ambitions relied on there being no one dominant European power on the continent and thus, when balanced was maintained and the threat of invasion towards the British isles was not present, Britain was free to expand her colonial influences safe in the knowledge the central hub of the empire would be safe.

As for another European conflict, It's highly unlikely. There isn't really anything to fight about any more seeming rival imperial ambitions aren't a factor any more and perhaps more than ever, there seems to be a common European ideology emerging.

True, but more pertinant is the fact that the majority of valuable European resources are near-tapped out. There is litterally very little left to fight ove.

[Fragony]

Quo bloody Vadis indeed Camaron wth, since when a dhimmi? Turkey in the EU? Kidding me? NO. Critisising Israel for wut? Ijjet go :daisy: a windmill you mole.

[Furunculus]

Turkey should absolutely be in the EU, if that is their wish. they already have a per-capita GDP higher than bulgaria and romania, and will be one of the worlds great economies by 2050, if europe wants influence in the world then it needs turkey.

[Beskar]

The problem is the Cyprus situation, with Turkey. If Turkey accepts Cyproit unification, and recognises the government. Then the biggest objection is removed.

Problem is with Turkey on another level, is that many countries such as Germany, Netherlands, etc, apparently have high immigration from Turkey and it is rubbing tensions there.

I think Turkey should be a frontier nation if it joins. That means Europe doesn't expand anymore in that direction. Only other nations which should be allowed in European Union would be:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Serbia
5. Montenegro
6. Croatia
7. Bosnia-Herzegovina
8. Macedonia
9. Albania
10. Andorra
11. Belarus
12. Moldova
13. Monaco
14. San Marino
15. Liechtenstein
16. Vatican City
17. Kosovo
18. Ukraine
19. Königsberg (Kalingrad)

Since I doubt there would be anymore seperations, especially not the seperation of Western Russia, with the minerals and resources in Central/Eastern Russia, perhaps the EU and Russia do a special treaty arrangement involving economics/other stuff, but never formally unite (as in, Russian Federation and European Union don't unite)

[Hax]

Quo bloody Vadis indeed Camaron wth, since when a dhimmi?

A: David Cameron is not opposed to Turkey entering the EU.
B: There are Muslims in Turkey

C: David Cameron is a dhimmi.


What the hell?

[Louis VI the Fat]

The UK Conservatives have been proponents of a Turkish EU membership for a very long time now.
Indeed, Britain has been the patron of Turkish interests for two centuries now.


Cameron's new foreign policy is based on three impulses: trade, trade and trade. (Which, come to think of it, isn't all that new for the UK either). His personal style is best summed up as 'Pander to the foreign audience, tell 'em whatever they want to hear, that the accompanying trade mission returns with lots of orders'. Which is exactly what David has done in Turkey, India and the US.

However, 'Gaza is a prison' and 'It is an insult to Turkey that as a NATO country it is not a member of the EU'? The former may not be what Cameron will defend before another audience, the latter does not make sense - should Canada and the US be allowed to join the EU too?

Other than these considerations, whatever gets him orders for Britain, eh? Good for him. I'd hire him!

[rvg]

should Canada and the US be allowed to join the EU too?

To be fair, US and Canada aren't European countries and thus have no business being in the EU. Turkey on the other hand, is.

[InsaneApache]

To be fair, US and Canada aren't European countries and thus have no business being in the EU. Turkey on the other hand, is.

Of course it's very un-european to speak in English, French and Spanish. God damn those Eueo-wussies for even suggesting it.

:book:

[Louis VI the Fat]

To be fair, US and Canada aren't European countries and thus have no business being in the EU. Turkey on the other hand, is.Three percent of Turkey lies within Europe. Twelve percent of France lies within South America. Is France a South American country? (Well apart from being a corrupt banana republic that is?)



Edit: That's right, French Guyana, an area the size of the Isle of Ireland within South America is fully part of the EU. Europe borders Brazil. Still, Brazil can't join either.

[Hax]

You should never have ceded Québéc and sold Louisiana, you darned Frenchies!

[gaelic cowboy]

Three percent of Turkey lies within Europe. Twelve percent of France lies within South America. Is France a South American country? (Well apart from being a corrupt banana republic that is?)



That's right, French Guyana, an area the size of the Isle of Ireland within South America is fully part of the EU. Europe borders Brazil. Still, Brazil can't join either.

I don't care how many GEO-POLITICAL (capitals intended) arguements are put in front of me Turkey is not European, I have absolutely no proof for this other than the fact I feel it the same as the reason why Ireland is a Republic and not a silly monarchy today.

[Beskar]

I don't care how many GEO-POLITICAL (capitals intended) arguements are put in front of me Turkey is not European, I have absolutely no proof for this other than the fact I feel it the same as the reason why Ireland is a Republic and not a silly monarchy today.

I disagree.

It only became "non-European" during the era Ottomen Empire and other pan-Arabian Empires. It was earlier the Byzantine Empire and before that, the Roman Empire. Even then, "Thrace" part of Turkey is definitely Europe.

Culturally speaking, other than the religion of Islam, it is closer to Europe than its neighbours (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Saudiarabia).

It is what I classify as a European perimetre nation. It is at the cross-roads of where Europe is, and where the rest is.

https://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6499/276pxtransasia.png

Technically, Cyprus is classified as part of Asia (geographically speaking), but we deem it as European. Also, having the whole of Turkey rounding Europe off, and allowing Europe full access to the Black-Sea.

Either way, that picture is where I would draw the lines of Europe. (Green and Blue bit)

[Fragony]

No Islamic country can be part of Europe we do things differently. Erdogan is an islamo-facist pure and simple, the meddling of Turkey in Germany is unnerving enough as it is,

[Brenus]

“No Islamic country can be part of Europe we do things differently” Agree. Err, what about Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria has a big Muslim Minority, Serbia (Bosniak and Albanian) -even without Kosovo/a- as well and Monte Negro…:sweatdrop:
Faith shouldn’t be criteria for EU. But just the plain rules of being a democracy…
However as most of the Countries within EU have a “official” religion, I can see the problem…:laugh4:

[Fragony]

“No Islamic country can be part of Europe we do things differently” Agree. Err, what about Bosnia, Albania, Bulgaria has a big Muslim Minority, Serbia (Bosniak and Albanian) -even without Kosovo/a- as well and Monte Negro…:sweatdrop:
Faith shouldn’t be criteria for EU. But just the plain rules of being a democracy…
However as most of the Countries within EU have a “official” religion, I can see the problem…:laugh4:

These countries also don't belong in the EU, nothing south of France or east of Germany, makes sens but sadly the EUssr doesn't.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I disagree.

It only became "non-European" during the era Ottomen Empire and other pan-Arabian Empires. It was earlier the Byzantine Empire and before that, the Roman Empire. Even then, "Thrace" part of Turkey is definitely Europe.

Culturally speaking, other than the religion of Islam, it is closer to Europe than its neighbours (Syria/Iraq/Iran/Saudiarabia).

It is what I classify as a European perimetre nation. It is at the cross-roads of where Europe is, and where the rest is.

https://img707.imageshack.us/img707/6499/276pxtransasia.png

Technically, Cyprus is classified as part of Asia (geographically speaking), but we deem it as European. Also, having the whole of Turkey rounding Europe off, and allowing Europe full access to the Black-Sea.

Either way, that picture is where I would draw the lines of Europe. (Green and Blue bit)

Beskar, you are factually incorrect on a number of historical points.

1. With the exception of Byzantium/Constantinople the whole area of what is now Turkey was considered part of "Asia Minor", not Europe, during the Classical period. The Southern most border of Europe was, and has ever been, the Bosporus and the Dardanelles. All East of this is Asia.

2. Thrace is not currently part of Turkey, as it sits above Greece, next to Illyria.

3. Culturally Turkey is Meditaranian, it shares elements with Italy and Souther Spain, as well as Morocco in Africa and the wider Lebonese shore (including Israel) in Asia. This does not make it "European".

Wiki, Turkish Straits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turkish_Straits

None of this, however, means that it should not be part of the EU, which has already expanded beyond traditioanl European borders (and plans to continue to do so), the Bloc will soon need to be renamed.

[Furunculus]

The problem is the Cyprus situation, with Turkey. If Turkey accepts Cyproit unification, and recognises the government. Then the biggest objection is removed.

Problem is with Turkey on another level, is that many countries such as Germany, Netherlands, etc, apparently have high immigration from Turkey and it is rubbing tensions there.
rubbish. turkey is seen as incompatible, from a socio-cultural point of view, with a federal union. that is the reason. cyprus is an excuse.


I think Turkey should be a frontier nation if it joins. That means Europe doesn't expand anymore in that direction. Only other nations which should be allowed in European Union would be:
1. Iceland
2. Norway
3. Switzerland
4. Serbia
5. Montenegro
6. Croatia
7. Bosnia-Herzegovina
8. Macedonia
9. Albania
10. Andorra
11. Belarus
12. Moldova
13. Monaco
14. San Marino
15. Liechtenstein
16. Vatican City
17. Kosovo
18. Ukraine
19. Königsberg (Kalingrad)

Since I doubt there would be anymore seperations, especially not the seperation of Western Russia, with the minerals and resources in Central/Eastern Russia, perhaps the EU and Russia do a special treaty arrangement involving economics/other stuff, but never formally unite (as in, Russian Federation and European Union don't unite)
i would have no problem with russia joining the EU either.

[Furunculus]

Three percent of Turkey lies within Europe. Twelve percent of France lies within South America. Is France a South American country? (Well apart from being a corrupt banana republic that is?)

Edit: That's right, French Guyana, an area the size of the Isle of Ireland within South America is fully part of the EU. Europe borders Brazil. Still, Brazil can't join either.
and of course the fact that iceland is a thousand miles from the nearest european mainland doesn't trouble you........?

turkey is not wanted, because it does not fit the mould for the grand european circle-jerk known as ever-deeper-union.

[Beskar]

2. Thrace is not currently part of Turkey, as it sits above Greece, next to Illyria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thrace_and_present-day_state_borderlines.png

The orangish part is where Thrace sits, which is in the modern day borders of Turkey, Bulgeria and Greece. I was mainly addressing the Turkish part.


None of this, however, means that it should not be part of the EU, which has already expanded beyond traditioanl European borders (and plans to continue to do so), the Bloc will soon need to be renamed.

Not really, the Green part on that map is what is considered Europe geographically speaking. Since the only non-Europe is the Blue part, which would be a minor fraction, nothing threatening anything.


i would have no problem with russia joining the EU either.

I have no trouble with Western/European Russia. However, Russia would never separate like that, so it might be easier having them in a partnership. This is mainly as non-European Russia is not European in any sense of the word.

[Furunculus]

No Islamic country can be part of Europe we do things differently. Erdogan is an islamo-facist pure and simple, the meddling of Turkey in Germany is unnerving enough as it is,

if you don't care for the idea of a european state, and happy to see the EU remain inter-governmental, then who cares what religion of culture turkey has?



I have no trouble with Western/European Russia. However, Russia would never separate like that, so it might be easier having them in a partnership. This is mainly as non-European Russia is not European in any sense of the word.

so..........?

[Beskar]

so..........?

There is also the balance of power. Russia is too large a terrority to be in a formal union with the other nations such as Germany, etc. It would get domination by Russia, having the largest majority say. Establishment of a European Unity would need to come far earlier, which would at least a century for this to become achieved at the current rate.

Though, there is a plus side to the EU forming. The current GDP (Millions) for Europe is 17 (16,905,620) while the USA is (13,843,825), and a formal union would cut on on waste exponentially and increase growth, easily making a Europe the most powerful force in the world.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Thrace_and_present-day_state_borderlines.png

The orangish part is where Thrace sits, which is in the modern day borders of Turkey, Bulgeria and Greece. I was mainly addressing the Turkish part.

I dissagree with "Thrace" spreading that far West or South, unless you are including part of "Dacia", but that is a different issue.


Not really, the Green part on that map is what is considered Europe geographically speaking. Since the only non-Europe is the Blue part, which would be a minor fraction, nothing threatening anything.

Yes really, the modern map has been extended East for political reasons, it no longer follows historical convention on the East-West divide.


I have no trouble with Western/European Russia. However, Russia would never separate like that, so it might be easier having them in a partnership. This is mainly as non-European Russia is not European in any sense of the word.

Turkey presents as many problems as Greater Russia, the latter may be geographically larger but the "European" segment is politically and economically dominant, whereas the former has it's power base in the non-European part.

[Furunculus]

There is also the balance of power. Russia is too large a terrority to be in a formal union with the other nations such as Germany, etc. It would get domination by Russia, having the largest majority say. Establishment of a European Unity would need to come far earlier, which would at least a century for this to become achieved at the current rate.

Though, there is a plus side to the EU forming. The current GDP (Millions) for Europe is 17 (16,905,620) while the USA is (13,843,825), and a formal union would cut on on waste exponentially and increase growth, easily making a Europe the most powerful force in the world.

i'm not saying this should happen now, but in forty years time britain and germany (and turkey) will each have populations of comparable size to that of russia, and much larger economies individually to boot.
plus a competence can only be dominated if you choose to relinquish sovereign control, which i would not choose to do. your comment also betrays the real reason you don't want turkey in, just as i have been saying, it is a large country with a culture foreign to the ideals of your western liberal democracy, therefore you fear to give it influence in a grand federal project lest it derail the shang-ri-la.

europe has a larger economy.................... for now, in twenty years time america will be larger again and will have done so without aggregating ever more nations. i laugh at the idea of your efficient pan-european federal beurocracy, there is no evidence to support the idea, and plenty to support the opposite. really, read the carnegie 2050 report, it might bring a little realism back into your thinking.

[Beskar]

your comment also betrays the real reason you don't want turkey in, just as i have been saying, it is a large country with a culture foreign to the ideals of your western liberal democracy, therefore you fear to give it influence in a grand federal project lest it derail the shang-ri-la.

I didn't speak against Turkey. Fragony did, though, and a couple of other posters.

I only said Turkey is a permeter nation, as it, on the crossroads of Europe/Asia and we shouldn't expand more than that. I have no issues with those "blue coloured areas" being part of Europe. Just not that Pink part.

Not just Europe though, I would want to unite different sections of the world, eventually resulting in a world government.
http://yfrog.com/jwworldmapkp

[Fragony]

Turkey as a buffer fine but not in the EU, secular or not it's still an islamic country it's too unstable. Turkey is sliding of, not getting closer. Secular forces aren't as powerful anymore the army reacting can' be taken for granted. The provocations towards Israel should be a wake up call.

[rory_20_uk]

Other than these considerations, whatever gets him orders for Britain, eh? Good for him. I'd hire him!

Yes. Pretty much my thinking on the matter too. We're not here to get into interscene feuds with those ghastly foreigners, merely sell things to them. If telling something to India that mildly upsets Pakistan gets orders, that's fantastic; not so sure why he's suddenly noticed Gaza. Will this please all those rich Arabs?

I think re: Turkey the long term plan of trying to break the EU is going into effect. Give it enough rope (i.e. dodgy countries) to hang itself and it'll implode. Germany can only support so many via handouts.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

is that statement expressing a belief that Germany will encourage Turkish membership?

[gaelic cowboy]

is that statement expressing a belief that Germany will encourage Turkish membership?

I cannot see Germany being happy with a Turkish expansion.

[rory_20_uk]

is that statement expressing a belief that Germany will encourage Turkish membership?

If you wree referring to my post, no was merely assuming that Turkey would be an even greater drain on resources for all sorts of projects than Eastern Europe is. Since Germany is the one bankrolling the EU, they'd be the ones paying.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

even if the big society was never quite understood, its opposite as peddled by labour was in fact thoroughly rejected, even by the labour electorate:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/7922677/Labour-lost-election-because-voters-turned-against-big-state.html

[Beskar]

"Big Society" is a complete joke though. It is just removing some key roles which they usually employed someone to do, hoping for some one to do it for free (which will not happen) and make them non-effective.

[rory_20_uk]

"Big Society" is a complete joke though. It is just removing some key roles which they usually employed someone to do, hoping for some one to do it for free (which will not happen) and make them non-effective.

Cobblers. Paying someone to look into every area of peoples' lives is wasteful and non-effective. Expecting people to take care of their own health for example is better than an army of community outreach assessors. Having doctors assess what the patient needs is better than non-clinical managers doing it.; grandparents and friends might be able to look after children without requiring a CRB (per job of course). Many people like getting others involved in the activity they like. And if they could, y'know, just get on with it without a vast number of forms and end up as a community sports consultant facilitator to have 20 children kick around a football then so much the better.

One can have someone managing, reviewing or assessing almost every task, and Labour, bless them, tried to do this. Most things wern't improved by this - but no matter! have a NGO or QUANGO look into it...

The world did manage to function before Labour tried to oversee everything.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

"Big Society" is a complete joke though. It is just removing some key roles which they usually employed someone to do, hoping for some one to do it for free (which will not happen) and make them non-effective.

lol, looks likw rory beat me to it, and regardless of whether you recognise the limitations of the big state a large proportion of the rest of the left-wing vote certainly recognised the abyss for what it was when it stared back at them.

[Beskar]

Not really, since half the examples listed are untrue scaremongering and the other half require a reality check

Granparents, Uncles, Aunties, Family friends, Parents, etc, have never needed a CRB check to babysit. If they are employed and therefore workers, then they have to have a CRB to make sure they are not kiddyfidders, and other sensable and logical reasons. This CRB has to be renewed every so often (which rarely happens) by the employer. If they keep changing employer then their existing CRB check would apply, unless it is after the renewal date. Again for obvious and sensable reasons.


Many people like getting others involved in the activity they like. And if they could, y'know, just get on with it without a vast number of forms and end up as a community sports consultant facilitator to have 20 children kick around a football then so much the better.

Even more hilarious, I don't think Captain Obvious would need to come to the rescue, when mr. Joe random ends up with a sex offence list as long as my arm and fiddling the children, and how all the parents, etc, cry about how the government and people don't do anything because they allowed a random unchecked stranger to fiddle their kids. Opposed to the government getting people get a licence to hold these clubs with CRB checks, to help protect our children.

Then of course, instead of having some one CRB'd, they cry about Joe random has to get CRB checked in advance to run an activity, crying about big government, when the first people to get blamed if it turns out that person is a kiddie fiddler is the government and the police, which were getting complained against for wanting to stop stupid parents sending their childs to the paedophiles.


I have worked with children in the community and with vulnerable adults and varies activities, and I have been CRB'd for these activities and been rechecked during the course of them. I have also received specialist training and mandatory courses on the various fields. I have zero complaints about being checked and I think they should still be mandatory.

The only main objectors are those who applied and failed because they fiddled children or abused their positions and they receive zero sympathy from me. As for those who are not, they are people who think they know what they are talking about, but clearly don't.

[InsaneApache]

I have worked with children in the community and with vulnerable adults and varies activities, and I have been CRB'd for these activities and been rechecked during the course of them. I have also received specialist training and mandatory courses on the various fields. I have zero complaints about being checked and I think they should still be mandatory.

So you have no problem being assumed to be guilty rather than innocent? :inquisitive:

Years ago, when I was in short pants, we never noticed the government. I was in the scouts, boys brigade and the ACF and not once did the government of the day get involved in anyway sort or manner. Also I managed to grow up with my sphincter muscle intact. :sweatdrop:

It's a truism that when government gets involved in anything it turns to merde.

:balloon2:

[Furunculus]

*thinks back to all those years in cubs/scouts/ventures.........*

nope, no-one ever tried to touch me up either.

[Beskar]

*thinks back to all those years in cubs/scouts/ventures.........*

nope, no-one ever tried to touch me up either.

That is because they were CRB'd, etc. :nod:

[rory_20_uk]

CRBs are only valid per job. The insanity was two police officers who technically weren't allowed to look after each others children. My wife requires on per hospital / per agency etc. As a doctor I required one every time I changed hospitals. Of course, they take so late to come that you're often leaving before the update arrives. Never mind, as long as the wheels of bureaucracy are turning, eh?

I agree in the Society that we've currently got parents of course would take no personal responsibility and would blame the Police / Social services / School / anyone else as they've been brought up to take no responsibility.

Ask other parents in the community? See how your child is doing. Ask others who have previously been at the club? NEVER! Get a piece of paper that checks if the person has been convicted of a crime is far better than using common sense or taking an interest in one's child. After all without a piece of government backed paper it would be the parents who take some responsibility... :wall:

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So you have no problem being assumed to be guilty rather than innocent? :inquisitive:

Years ago, when I was in short pants, we never noticed the government. I was in the scouts, boys brigade and the ACF and not once did the government of the day get involved in anyway sort or manner. Also I managed to grow up with my sphincter muscle intact. :sweatdrop:

It's a truism that when government gets involved in anything it turns to merde.

:balloon2:

Me too, and I grew up in the evil modern world with paedophiles around every corner.


That is because they were CRB'd, etc. :nod:

We are too old for them to have had CRB's


CRBs are only valid per job. The insanity was two police officers who technically weren't allowed to look after each others children. My wife requires on per hospital / per agency etc. As a doctor I required one every time I changed hospitals. Of course, they take so late to come that you're often leaving before the update arrives. Never mind, as long as the wheels of bureaucracy are turning, eh?

I agree in the Society that we've currently got parents of course would take no personal responsibility and would blame the Police / Social services / School / anyone else as they've been brought up to take no responsibility.

Ask other parents in the community? See how your child is doing. Ask others who have previously been at the club? NEVER! Get a piece of paper that checks if the person has been convicted of a crime is far better than using common sense or taking an interest in one's child. After all without a piece of government backed paper it would be the parents who take some responsibility... :wall:

~:smoking:


This is indeed the insanity, and a friend of mine who visits schools as a Roman soldier is having horrible trouble because of it. It's a true example of regulation stiffling bopth education and businness.

[Fragony]

It's a truism that when government gets involved in anything it turns to merde.

:balloon2:

Huzzay. Way too many people for way too little problems. It's pathetic how the goverment sees it as their duty to herd the flock and leave no sheep astray. I don't want to be taken cared of the price is too high, these creepy fingers slipping into places where they have no business it's disgusting. Leave me alone.

[Furunculus]

it would seem the lib-dems are rather invisible inside gov't:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/liberaldemocrats/7931836/Voters-fail-to-recognise-invisible-Lib-Dem-ministers.html

[Louis VI the Fat]

The Cons and Libdems lied.
[/URL]


"This is completely different from the budgets of the past," wrote Nick Clegg after the June emergency budget. "This time, the richest are paying the most … as a proportion of their income."

Ever since the Liberal Democrats signed up as junior partners in this coalition they had faced one question above all others – namely, how could a party committed to social justice go along with the biggest spending cuts since the war? Here was the deputy prime minister's answer: his party would ensure austerity was fair, with the tax rises and spending cuts falling mostly on the richest. The Conservatives took up this theme, with the chancellor describing his measures as "progressive".

Both parties are going to have to take back their words after today's report from the respected Institute for Fiscal Studies. The most comprehensive analysis of the social impact of the budget – which takes into account tax rises and, for the first time, changes to benefits – flatly contradicts Mr Clegg and George Osborne. Most of the progressive tax rises to come in over the next couple years, says the IFS, are Labour's handiwork. As for the new measures brought in by the new coalition, they are "generally regressive" – that is, hitting the poor harder than the rich.

[URL]http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/25/emergency-budget-unfair (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/aug/25/emergency-budget-unfair)

[InsaneApache]

Paul Myners says…

“There is nothing progressive about a Government who consistently spend more than they can raise in taxation, and certainly nothing progressive that endows generations to come with the liabilities incurred by the current generation”.

:coffeenews:

[Louis VI the Fat]

:coffeenews:That's all very well, but does not adress the two main points:

- They lied.
The cuts are not progressive, but regressive. Whether one applauds or regrets this attack on the working class, the fact remains the Cons and Libdems lied about this.

- If the austerity measures are desperately needed to avert imminent British bankruptcy (or something like that), then by all means impose austerity measures - across the board. Apparantly though, the budget is not so dire that the Southeast millionaires or even the city billionaires should face any meaningful austerity measures.
Apparantly the deficit is nothing that the working class can't solve. Austerity measures are imposed on working Britons with families, while the rich are left mostly unaffected.
All of which leads me to suspect the austerity measures are not about cutting the (future, theoretical) deficit, but about social engineering.

[InsaneApache]

Of course, the evil torys and their lap dog limp dem pals. I'm such a fool.

Now, remind me again who buggered up the economy in the first instance?

Was it a monocular scotsman who loved to spend other peoples money?

Or the evil tories?

:idea2:

[Furunculus]

Apparantly the deficit is nothing that the working class can't solve. Austerity measures are imposed on working Britons with families, while the rich are left mostly unaffected.
All of which leads me to suspect the austerity measures are not about cutting the (future, theoretical) deficit, but about social engineering.

roflmao!

we already have a progressive tax system, and a spending program that heavily features multiple benefits applied to the very poor.

if you are going to cut spending in order to prevent taxation remaining above the 40% figure considered to depress long-term growth (and kill the deficit) then of course it will be a regression, but that does does not make the system as a whole regressive.

this can only be deemed a bad thing if you consider it a moral imperative to ratchet up taxes on the rich, now that is what i'd call social engineering!

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's all very well, but does not adress the two main points:

- They lied.
The cuts are not progressive, but regressive. Whether one applauds or regrets this attack on the working class, the fact remains the Cons and Libdems lied about this.

- If the austerity measures are desperately needed to avert imminent British bankruptcy (or something like that), then by all means impose austerity measures - across the board. Apparantly though, the budget is not so dire that the Southeast millionaires or even the city billionaires should face any meaningful austerity measures.
Apparantly the deficit is nothing that the working class can't solve. Austerity measures are imposed on working Britons with families, while the rich are left mostly unaffected.
All of which leads me to suspect the austerity measures are not about cutting the (future, theoretical) deficit, but about social engineering.

Oh Loius, I believe you know you are spouting vitrollic rubbish. Will the budget his poor people hard? Yes of course it will, because you can't take enought money away from millionairs for them to notice before they just up sticks and move to another tax location.

So over taxing them is counter productive, they already face 50% tax on the majority of their earnings anyway - while I only pay 20%.

[Furunculus]

Austerity measures are imposed on working Britons with families, while the rich are left mostly unaffected.
All of which leads me to suspect the austerity measures are not about cutting the (future, theoretical) deficit, but about social engineering.

yes, if you look only at benefits, which makes up only 28% of government spending, and neglect the impact of growth:

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/neilobrien1/100051517/three-big-things-that-are-wrong-with-today%E2%80%99s-ifs-report-on-whether-the-budget-was-%E2%80%9Cfair%E2%80%9D/

http://www.libdemvoice.org/coalition-puts-up-strong-defence-on-ifs-report-20861.html

[Louis VI the Fat]

Now, remind me again who buggered up the economy in the first instance?

Was it a monocular scotsman who loved to spend other peoples money?

Or the evil tories?

:idea2:The economy is buggered up everywhere. So neither the Scotsmen nor the Southeast England Lobby Party is responsible.


Oh Louis, I believe you know you are spouting vitrollic rubbish. Will the budget his poor people hard? Yes of course it will, because you can't take enough money away from millionairs for them to notice before they just up sticks and move to another tax location.
Ah, I see.

Tax breaks for the rich, or else they'll return / move abroad. And the lash for working British families, because they are tied to Britain.


Oh, and the Cons lied about it too, about who they meant to have to face the 'unavoidable' austerity measures, until found out by the IFS report of today. Apparantly, not a balanced budget is the policy, but a drastic shift in the British taxation system. A more regressive system, not deficit cuts is the main concern.

The Cons didn't have the balls to say so, the Libdems are found out as Tory Lite.



neglect the impact of growth 'You can’t expect the IFS to build in speculative effects of growth in employment that may never happen and even if it did happen could not be confidently traced to government policies'

'You can wriggle all you like but it does seem pretty clear that it will hit the working poor hardest and you cannot rely on new jobs solving the problem when these jobs do not at the moment exist. '

[Furunculus]

'You can wriggle all you like but it does seem pretty clear that it will hit the working poor hardest and you cannot rely on new jobs solving the problem when these jobs do not at the moment exist. '

I am not wriggling at all:

> poor people consume more public spending per head, if you cut spending they are more likely to be effected.
> our tax system remains progressive, despite this regressive act, it is just less progressive than it was, fine.
> the report is flawed, as it considers only a small proportion of Gov't spending and ignores the impact of growth.

I am not overly concerned by this IFS report.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, I see.

Tax breaks for the rich, or else they'll return / move abroad. And the lash for working British families, because they are tied to Britain.


Oh, and the Cons lied about it too, about who they meant to have to face the 'unavoidable' austerity measures, until found out by the IFS report of today. Apparantly, not a balanced budget is the policy, but a drastic shift in the British taxation system. A more regressive system, not deficit cuts is the main concern.

The Cons didn't have the balls to say so, the Libdems are found out as Tory Lite.

This is just a malicious misrepresentation of what I said.

Poor people have much less money, so they will obviously loose more proportionally when benefit is cut, but the tax threshhold has already risen, and is likely to continue to do so, that does not benefit the rich proportionally as much as the poor. Get off you high horse.

Graph: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11086137

The IFS is talking twaddle, look at the raw amount of money being taken from the richest, it is incalculably more than from the poorest.

If you raise taxes and make them more "progressive" then the rich just up sticks and leave, and you get no taxes from them at all.

[Furunculus]

This is just a malicious misrepresentation of what I said.

Poor people have much less money, so they will obviously loose more proportionally when benefit is cut, but the tax threshhold has already risen, and is likely to continue to do so, that does not benefit the rich proportionally as much as the poor. Get off you high horse.

Graph: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11086137

The IFS is talking twaddle, look at the raw amount of money being taken from the richest, it is incalculably more than from the poorest.

If you raise taxes and make them more "progressive" then the rich just up sticks and leave, and you get no taxes from them at all.

There is a reason why London is sometimes called Frances second city, and its existance is an afront to the level playing field demanded by Louis' punative social democracy, for it allows the rich to escape from receiving the 'just' rewards of their hard work.

The same could be said of the Financial markets in London; they are STEALING french tax money!!!!!!

[Beskar]

Though, we do have an unfortunate system where you need money to create money. Therefore, the Rich remain rich and the poor remain poor as they require money.

For example, "Property Developers", they buy cheap houses, do them up cheaply then sell them on at a significant mark-up. It is "easy money" however, you require money in the first place to do it. This goes on into other areas, such as 'contacts', where who you know is more information than what you know or how good you are.

[gaelic cowboy]

The same could be said of the Financial markets in London; they are STEALING french tax money!!!!!!

The finacial side of things does not just steal from France it steals from all of us everywhere even yerself there. The City is pretty much like the curse of oil the greater profits in the City due to finacial wizardy or chicanery suck all the capital from everywhere. The lower profits in other more standard business like a shop or a factory etc offer far less profit and are ignored it is still profit but it aint enough.

[Furunculus]

they don't steal, the non-financial services business merely have to demonstrate a decent return on investment if they wish to borrow money to expand.

Though, we do have an unfortunate system where you need money to create money. Therefore, the Rich remain rich and the poor remain poor as they require money.

For example, "Property Developers", they buy cheap houses, do them up cheaply then sell them on at a significant mark-up. It is "easy money" however, you require money in the first place to do it. This goes on into other areas, such as 'contacts', where who you know is more information than what you know or how good you are.

i'm not sure i accept this, in the same way i refuse the argument that it is cruel to force people to move from their comfortable council flat to another area to find work, plenty of polish and other eastern europeans have moved far farther and they have managed to earn sufficient wealth which they have exploited to their benefit, and more power to them, why should geoff from stockport be considered any different?

if you have the ambition and talent to advance you will, if not you will stagnate.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Though, we do have an unfortunate system where you need money to create money. Therefore, the Rich remain rich and the poor remain poor as they require money.

For example, "Property Developers", they buy cheap houses, do them up cheaply then sell them on at a significant mark-up. It is "easy money" however, you require money in the first place to do it. This goes on into other areas, such as 'contacts', where who you know is more information than what you know or how good you are.

It's interesting that you pick property developers; most take it on as a second job, buy a mortgage to get their first house and only much later start making any "serious" money off. It definately isn't "easy", not least because you do most of the hard physical work yourself at least in the beginning.

[rory_20_uk]

The finacial side of things does not just steal from France it steals from all of us everywhere even yerself there. The City is pretty much like the curse of oil the greater profits in the City due to finacial wizardy or chicanery suck all the capital from everywhere. The lower profits in other more standard business like a shop or a factory etc offer far less profit and are ignored it is still profit but it aint enough.

They don't steal - they merely hide the need for innovation and reform of other industries as other areas are bought off with the money the City provides.

"money to make money..." No companies that have come from nothing and have flourished? No ideas at all? Might want to google any, or check on facebook.

Yes, these are exceptions but as a consequence any small successes are not reported on

As Furunculus said - get up and get workin or someone else will. I know it's easier to sit and whinge that one's perfect job isn't 10 mins away from one's house and to earn a lot one needs to work more than 35 hours a wee but it you want to have a chance at succes effort will be required.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Just in case anyone was still in any doubt - one of the cleverest politicians around on matters of finance:

http://www.johnredwoodsdiary.com/?p=6859

[tibilicus]

Is it not impossible to make any budget which outlines cuts progressive? Lower income families and households typically rely more on the public sector for jobs and income. There's also a second factor that inevitably benefit cuts will of course effect the poorest. I don't see what the fuss is about, it isn't hard to put two and two together, people should of realised this when the budget was first announced.

I am amused at Labour's reaction to all this though. A leadership candidate, Ed Balls, stated in a tv interview that this deficit reduction would be more more radical than Thatcher's in the 1980s. Funny how he failed to mention the remarkable turn around of the economy in the 1980s and how a deficit reduction was needed then because of years of poor Labour governments who showed an embarrassing ability to handle the economy. The Labour Party today is in £20 million worth of debt itself. The inability to manage its own finances surely points towards the fact it was never fit to run the British economy. Brown continued to borrow even in the boom years. The general verdict of economists from all schools of though is that such a thing was madness. Labour spent and spent, simply to sure up its position electorally and now, "the nasty party" gets the stick because it has to sort it out.

Basically, as John Prescott's denunciation of anyone who seeks to work with the new Coalition from Labour's ranks as a "collaborator" demonstrates, the UK Labour Party currently represents to tribalist, skulduggery and knuckle dragging form of British politics at its best. Alistair Darling said and still says, cuts were needed. Now the current Labour Party and most of its members, including a majority of the leadership candidates, refuse to acknowledge the problem even exists. They deny the scale of the deficit.

We may be in for a rouge ride but I'm prepared to give the Coalition a chance, simply because the colossal scale of the mess the previous government left will take a lot to clean up.

[InsaneApache]

Hear, hear.

[Furunculus]

x2 - a very sensible analysis.

[gaelic cowboy]

delete

[Vladimir]

delete

Gladly.


https://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3526/cybermenonbbc.jpg

[gaelic cowboy]

Gladly.


https://img822.imageshack.us/img822/3526/cybermenonbbc.jpg

:laugh4::laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Why bother to address a long term problem when office is for 5 years and few if any parties get more than two terms? Cycles often take over 5 years to show themselves so there is the inbuilt incentive in the system to spend to day in the first term to get a second, and OK by the end of the second things are starting to look a bit ropey... Time to boo and hiss as someone else tries to sort it all out. Again. Although it is probably a pipe dream, I would like it if Labour became the 3rd party again and can join with the Commies and all the utter nut jobs in the fringes. The Liberals are well, liberal enough to be a good counterbalance.

I fail to find the words to describe Prescott as anything I try comes out as a eulogy compared to the true loathing I have for him; Balls tends to think with his name.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Again. Although it is probably a pipe dream, I would like it if Labour became the 3rd party again and can join with the Commies and all the utter nut jobs in the fringes. The Liberals are well, liberal enough to be a good counterbalance.

I fail to find the words to describe Prescott as anything I try comes out as a eulogy compared to the true loathing I have for him; Balls tends to think with his name.


agreed. that would be a happy result, as i'm sure the reality of government would force the Libs to find a real foreign policy.

[tibilicus]

Let's lurch back to our old government for a moment.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/aug/31/tony-blair-gordon-brown-disaster

So now we have the truth, in concrete and not just rumours. It's remarkable to think the country was run by two men, so different in private and who disagreed on so many fundamental issues. For what it's worth, I think it reflects worse on Brown than on Blair. I actually think the first Blair term was successful in many ways and significant reforms were made. It appears that once the second Labour term begun Brown's ego took over which kind of makes sense. We saw the spending rise and the gold plated economy of the 1990s begin to crumble. Voting reform was continuously blocked by Brown and other efforts to truly reform society were abandoned in favour of government spending to solve all our ills. Not just spending, but government action full stop. Rising crime? more CCTV. Inability to control immigration? ID cards. You get the idea. Perhaps the problem was that Brown was more from the Old Labour stock than Blair was..

Anyway, I wasn't sure whether to start a new thread or not but seeming this is going to be pretty big news, for the next couple of days at least, I thought I would start the discussion here.

[Beskar]

Surprised this hasn't come up yet, but what are the forums opinions on the Robin Hood (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) tax on banks?

It would generate billions per year which will means a lot of the cuts wouldn't even be needed and it won't affect the common man on the street. This video sums it up -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM

BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8506718.stm)

[Louis VI the Fat]

Surprised this hasn't come up yet, but what are the forums opinions on the Robin Hood (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) tax on banks?

It would generate billions per year which will means a lot of the cuts wouldn't even be needed and it won't affect the common man on the street. This video sums it up -


BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8506718.stm)Oh please, oh please!

Runaway financial markets created a recession and caused massive government deficits. How to respond:

A) Legislate, regulate and tax the financial markets, to prevent a repeat.
B) Abolish the welfare state. Abolish everything our grandparents have worked so hard for since WWII. Have your grandchildren pay for the bailouts still.


Me I vote A. Apparantly, I am alone.
The whole of Europe has shifted to the right the past two years, all elections are won by the (populist) right. The European model is dismantled at a breakneck speed. Well done to neo-liberalism, its back to 1850 for Europe. I wonder when the electorates will vote to have their children work in the mines fifteen hours a day again.

[Brenus]

“Me I vote A. Apparently, I am alone.”
Nope.

"C’est un joli nom camarade, c’est un joli nom, tu sais,
Qui marrie cerise et grenade, aux cent fleurs du mois de mai…” Jean Ferrat.

“Que venez vous faire, Camarade, que venez-vous faire ici,
Ce fut a cinq heure à Prague que le mois d’aout s’obscurcit”

“C’est un joli nom camarade, c’est un joli nom tu sais,
Dans mon coeur battant la chamade pour qu’il revive à jamais”

Are you questioning the Big Society? You don’t believe in the market auto-Regulations? Aargh… Do you want to break the Dream?

Back to the past… You want to see the future, look behind… They have a project…
“Que le monde des mines descende des collines…”

"Cet air de liberté au-delà des frontières
Aux peuples étrangers qui donnaient le vertige
Et dont vous usurpez aujourd'hui le prestige
Elle répond toujours du nom de Robespierre
Ma France

Celle du vieil Hugo tonnant de son exil
Des enfants de cinq ans travaillant dans les mines
Celle qui construisit de ses mains vos usines
Celle dont monsieur Thiers a dit qu'on la fusille
Ma France."

Sorry for all of you who don’t speak/read French…

In memory of Jean Ferrat who died in 2010

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surprised this hasn't come up yet, but what are the forums opinions on the Robin Hood (http://robinhoodtax.org.uk/) tax on banks?

It would generate billions per year which will means a lot of the cuts wouldn't even be needed and it won't affect the common man on the street. This video sums it up -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qYtNwmXKIvM

BBC link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8506718.stm)

I think Robin Hood stole from the government to give to the people when they were over taxed.

Which makes the point..... taxes imposed on the rich will, after a certain point, simply be passed on to the poor. If Britain taxes the rich the rich will go elsewhere, we know this because it happened the last time Labour tried it.

[Brenus]

“If Britain taxes the rich the rich will go elsewhere, we know this because it happened the last time Labour tried it.”

Who and where? That is a legend.
Labour didn’t tax Rich. Proof is Russian Milionaires came to live a happy life with the money they took from the Russian.

Labour followed Conservative policy in hammering the Middle Classes, in creating fiscal niches and not prosecuting tax evasion for them.

The Big Society will carry on this policy and will (yet they do) focus on the most vulnerable as they can’t go…

They cancelled the repairing of kids yards. That will save millions. That is what they do…

[InsaneApache]

You lot can bleat all you want to. The reality is, as Liam Byrne said.


6 April 2010


Dear Chief Secretary

I’m afraid there is no money.

Kind regards – and good luck!

Liam

That is all.

[rory_20_uk]

The Russians don't pay tax on all their money as they are foreign nationals. So using them as an example is extremely misleading. They are doing exactly the same sort of tax evasion that either the very rich can do or those with desirable and transferable skills can do.

The massive complexity of the tax code managed to create has only truly benefited Accountants and lawyers. A well thought out flat tax would bring in the same income and be a lot simpler for all to understand. But I imagine all in Westminster either are or have people close to them who quite like these arrangements.

People grasp all they can from the Welfare State. Locally there is "outrage" about closing down a community centre for the Elderly. Oh, the horror!...

Dig a bit deeper... the Elderly wanted to have individual provision for themselves which they like... AND they wanted the centre except they aren't keen on parting with their own provision for it.

Kids yards need sorting out? I imagine that the local parents are unable to y'know, group together and repair it for their own children? It mist be hard to envisage a world where they might be expected to do anything for themselves or their own children.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Runaway financial markets created a recession and caused massive government deficits. How to respond:

A) Legislate, regulate and tax the financial markets, to prevent a repeat.
B) Abolish the welfare state. Abolish everything our grandparents have worked so hard for since WWII. Have your grandchildren pay for the bailouts still.

Me I vote A. Apparantly, I am alone.

roflmto (translates as rolling-on-floor-laughing-my-mammaries-off)!

so it had nothing to do with artificially low interest rates kept that way long after it was needed in order to keep the boom times rolling?
or nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie being leant on to encourage 'social' lending to those who really should not have had a mortgage?

if europe wishes to continue employing gender quotas of lesbian homoeopathy home carers then it needs long-term economic growth to achieve this, and maintaining government spending at artificially high levels to pay for continued structural debt is a great way to depress this.

two reports:
BIS report stating that by 2040 western nations will be spending a significant proportion of GDP on debt-interest, here's a clue for you louis; you can't afford much social spending when your budget is used to pay off your creditors.

Carnegie 2050 report that shows just what a challenge europe faces to preserve growth, and by extension standard of living in the next forty years.

Read them, and if you still want to penalise the rich make sure you do it in France, not Britain!


The whole of Europe has shifted to the right the past two years, all elections are won by the (populist) right. The European model is dismantled at a breakneck speed. Well done to neo-liberalism, its back to 1850 for Europe. I wonder when the electorates will vote to have their children work in the mines fifteen hours a day again.

awwwww!


6 April 2010

Dear Chief Secretary

I’m afraid there is no money.

Kind regards – and good luck!

Liam

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

“If Britain taxes the rich the rich will go elsewhere, we know this because it happened the last time Labour tried it.”

Who and where? That is a legend.
Labour didn’t tax Rich. Proof is Russian Milionaires came to live a happy life with the money they took from the Russian.

Labour followed Conservative policy in hammering the Middle Classes, in creating fiscal niches and not prosecuting tax evasion for them.

I said Labour, not New labour. why do you think thatcher drove down the tax threshholds? It worked too, money flowed into the City as it is now called.


The Big Society will carry on this policy and will (yet they do) focus on the most vulnerable as they can’t go…

They cancelled the repairing of kids yards. That will save millions. That is what they do…

Well The Big Government fired my father who did exactly this work on a freelance basis and gave the job to a big contracting firm they employ year-round to mostly sit on their backsides.

[Furunculus]

I said Labour, not New labour. why do you think thatcher drove down the tax threshholds? It worked too, money flowed into the City as it is now called.


correct, lowering the top rate of income tax ended up increasing the amount of revenue paid by the richest in society.

[gaelic cowboy]

roflmto (translates as rolling-on-floor-laughing-my-mammaries-off)!

so it had nothing to do with artificially low interest rates kept that way long after it was needed in order to keep the boom times rolling?
or nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie being leant on to encourage 'social' lending to those who really should not have had a mortgage?

I have to stop ye there Furunculus one of the major factors was the finnacial people leaning on gevernment to open up these very subprime markets your talking about.

Labour campaigned in it's early days on a policy of non-interference in the economy mainly because it was afraid the money people would oppose them or at least nonintererence in the City.

This non-interference seemed to work like a dream but it had a dark side as it became dogma and allowed this current crisis to reach unheard of proportions as we all know now the fabled genius of these ejits was zero.

Honestly think about it Debt was seen as an Asset how metal is that

[rory_20_uk]

I'm generally keen on the light handed approach in government, but I don't think that light handed = forcing F&F into making dangerous loans either for socio-political reasons or at the behest of the city.

Complete non-interference always looks good in the good times as bubbles will get bigger before popping - especially when governments are indirectly pumping them bigger.

Considering that the amount of money that is traded every few days is c. 4 trillion dollars a tax as a percentage can be miniscule yet still the absolute numbers will be quite large.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

F&F are not British, therefore not the fault of the British government. :shrug:

[rory_20_uk]

I know, and I've never stated that anyone in Europe is responsible for F&F.

Although very different, I'd argue that PFI was our government's equivalent with effectively masses of monies pumped into the economy now to be repaid of at a rather unspecified time in the future.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

F&F are not British, therefore not the fault of the British government. :shrug:

i didn't say they were, but louis was blaming the global recession exclusively on those perfidious bankers again, so i pointed out some other causes from the originating country.

[Beskar]

Yes, it is America's fault.

[Brenus]

“It mist be hard to envisage a world where they might be expected to do anything for themselves or their own children.” Right, except than for this year, in a Conservative held borrow, I give more than one month of my salary as local tax, and I give money to the State. So, at this price, I can expect some good services for the money…

“They are doing exactly the same sort of tax evasion that either the very rich can do or those with desirable and transferable skills can do.” My point.

“the Elderly wanted to have individual provision for themselves which they like... AND they wanted the centre except they aren't keen on parting with their own provision for it.” We probably don’t speak of the same. Mine are the one who have to choose between heat or eat…

“A well thought out flat tax would bring in the same income and be a lot simpler for all to understand.” LOL. It is must easier to live with £ 2.000.000, even if the State takes ½, than with £ 10.000 without paying taxes.
Go for a simple progressive tax without fiscal niches and I follow…

And strangely enough, if there is no money, why not to cancel fiscal advantages? Easy to do, same with the rich Foreigners…

And the fact is the “Robin Hood tax” doesn’t go on the profit, incomes or properties, but on the transaction. So, if a person wants to play the market and sell and buy ten times, one small, very tiny bit will go to the treasure… Fair enough, I think.

A debt a State can pay in 3 years is not a big debt any way.
But the choice to make the poorest to pay for it instead to go for the tax “evasionists” is an ideological choice made the Conservative for obvious reasons.
I even don’t speak to create a new tax here.
Conservatives are not interest in the welfare of the people or the better for the Country, are interested in patriotism only to send the kids of the poorest on the battlefield.
The shareholders are their concern, and profits of the richest. Social cohesion is obtained by repression, and no care for the weakest link.

“so it had nothing to do with artificially low interest rates kept that way long after it was needed in order to keep the boom times rolling?
or nothing to do with Fannie and Freddie being leant on to encourage 'social' lending to those who really should not have had a mortgage?”
Whose decision was it? Banks. Who sold “toxic” assets? Banks. Who claimed exorbitant bonuses under the pretext of efficiency (a blatant lie as we know now)? Bankers.
Who should be asked to reimburse the money obtained by deception, and who is not asked to do so: Bankers.

6 April 2010
Dear Chief Secretary
I’m afraid there is no money.
Kind regards – and good luck!
LiamAs you know, it was supposed to be a joke.

And as the profit showed by the banks we know it was… A bad one, I grant you.

“I said Labour, not New labour.” Sorry…

“why do you think Thatcher drove down the tax thresholds? It worked too, money flowed into the City as it is now called.”
Because she was a Real Conservative more interested in the City and the shareholders’ profit than the social welfare of the English.

“Well The Big Government fired my father who did exactly this work on a freelance basis and gave the job to a big contracting firm they employ year-round to mostly sit on their backsides.”
Sorry.
However, that is nothing to do with Big Government but in fact is the future with the Big Society. Big Society will take on small freelance as they have more power to influence their friends in Power…

“correct, lowering the top rate of income tax ended up increasing the amount of revenue paid by the richest in society.” Nope. It just made the Rich richer…

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It “why do you think Thatcher drove down the tax thresholds? It worked too, money flowed into the City as it is now called.”
Because she was a Real Conservative more interested in the City and the shareholders’ profit than the social welfare of the English.

Thatcher was not a real Conservative, Conservatives value social cohesion, Thatcher valued the individual. Looking at Thatcher as the Arch Conservative is like taking Blair as the Arch Socialist.


“Well The Big Government fired my father who did exactly this work on a freelance basis and gave the job to a big contracting firm they employ year-round to mostly sit on their backsides.”
Sorry.
However, that is nothing to do with Big Government but in fact is the future with the Big Society. Big Society will take on small freelance as they have more power to influence their friends in Power…

So it was the Big Government, who hired a Big Firm? It certainly sounds like it.


“correct, lowering the top rate of income tax ended up increasing the amount of revenue paid by the richest in society.” Nope. It just made the Rich richer…

Actually it did both, because the richer the rich got, the more taxes they paid.

[Beskar]

Looks like Brussels will be doing the Robin Hood tax. G20 agree. and the IMF's report fully backs it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00tnf4m/Newsnight_03_09_2010/

[rory_20_uk]

Is it utterly universal?

My concern is that unless everyone does it, those that don't will attract more of the business, such as the countries which already survive on weak / non existent checks on where money comes from.

~:smoking:

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

200 pounds says it only bitchslaps the British.

[Furunculus]

i won't take you up on that bet.