The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

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

---

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

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

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


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

---

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

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

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

Here's a quiz for you.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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

Here's a quiz for you.

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

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

---

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

:wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

~:smoking:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

~:smoking:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

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

---

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

~:smoking:

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

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

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

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

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

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

His pledges will include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fantastic news! :D

Sounds cool.

Vive le engagement mutuel!

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

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

---

would you trust them if they said they were?

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

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

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

~:smoking:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

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

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

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

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

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

His pledges will include:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

fantastic news! :D

---

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

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


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

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

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Quote:

---

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

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/w...ity/ari40-2009

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

Wait, what did we do in Sierra Leone?

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

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

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


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

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

---

I agree with the last mantra at least.

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

How the boy george wants you to judge him:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/be...ment-100155902

How to judge George Osborne

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

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

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

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

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

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

Top Civil Servant: "Gordon Brown 'guillotined' defence budget six months into the iraq war":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ce-budget.html

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't know if anyone else saw PMQ's today but defence dominated the questions (I'd say over half of all the questions related to defence), but with the Green Paper on defence coming out today perhaps that isn't so surprising, although it wasn't actually mentioned in any questions. Only had a chance to glance over it so far but it doesn't seem to say much of substance, rather just helps set the scene for the Strategic Defence Review that will follow the election (which is basically the purpose of a Green Paper so not surprising).

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

excellent news, thank you.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Will Cameron be a radical when in office, or is his current timidity a sign of things to come?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...959/100024959/

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

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

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

Tories - we are coming to get youuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Subotan

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

---

indeed he is:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7014275.ece

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

Francis Elliott, Deborah Haynes and Tom Coghlan

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit]

The Times is providing really good coverage of the Defence debate, essential reading for Brits:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010497.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7011651.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7012792.ece
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7014270.ece

[/edit]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

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

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

---

....he's weak?

i want Brown and Labour out, out, out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Aye the tories are buggering up big time. Good.

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

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

---

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

But then again, that is just me.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/back...abmanecon.html

Some great ones....

Quote:

---

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

---

Quote:

---

We will increase the powers and responsibilities of parents.

---

Quote:

---

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

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

http://www.bbc.co.uk/election97/back...abmanecon.html

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

---

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

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

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

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

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

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

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

~:smoking:

---

Quite.

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

Edit:

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

Yeah.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

New Labour. New Britain.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

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

Deeply disturbing.

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

---

:laugh4:

The long descent of the Daily Mailograph continues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

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

---

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

valid point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

they have to stand on a coherent platform first, and that's before you even get to assessing the worth of that platform.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

OK, balls out and damn the consequences:

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

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

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

---

Well that's a function of economic demand for workforce, at the moment, there is indeed very little surplus demand.

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

---

Nope.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

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

---

it's quite simple:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Myrddraal

The Treason Act? I hope you're joking.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Nope.

---

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

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

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

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

---

that sounds like one of Beskars generalisations, i don't care what colour a person is (we are talking about racism right).


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

it's quite simple:

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

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

---

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

ditto.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

Uh? I think you mean uni-cultural ghettos.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Uh? I think you mean uni-cultural ghettos.

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

no, no i didn't.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

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

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

---

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

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

---

i don't care why immigrants might choose to vote labour, what is disgusting is that labour chose deliberately to engage in social engineering (for whatever) reason. labour are the servants of the people, not mad scientists in charge of a fun laboratory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

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

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

---

no, immigration should be permitted for the good of the nation, and thus the inhabitents of that nation, asylum accepted.

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