Org Mobile Site
Greece might prove to be a blessing in disguise. That could soon be us. The electorate might not like what is going on, and might be sceptical - but when they can see insurrection in a European country occurring now due to their inability to cut their debt might help focus the public.
The other option is if there is unrest after the Budget to call a further election. If the populace is mad enough to go for a party promising fairy gold well, so be it - history will prove their folly.
The other option is if there is unrest after the Budget to call a further election. If the populace is mad enough to go for a party promising fairy gold well, so be it - history will prove their folly.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate. A government without any sort of mandate for the austerity needed is going to have real problems.
They quibbled about inconsequential things to a nauseating degree, but carefully avoided the biggest question of all.
Performance-wise, Brown was most improved, but still irrelevant. Cameron did enough but was still utterly unconvincing - I thought he made a small tactical error by continually referring to Brown as "Prime Minister". Last week he scored by referring to himself as "if I were your Prime Minister". Clegg was adequate but dealt with Cameron's occasional attacks pretty well. He was the most engaging, but since this is not a presidential election, I was looking for more substance on policy.
I shall be voting Conservative, but with a heavy heart and a deep sense of unease. Cameron is likely to make a useless Prime Minister since he hasn't displayed any spine at all. He will have a feeble mandate, and none whatsoever for the necessary decisions. I think the Governor of the Bank of England was quite correct in his observation, and a Tory government with a wafer-thin majority will be paralysed, indecisive and cowardly - ultimately forced to make swinging cuts and substantial tax rises, which will re-establish all the bad characteristics associated with Conservative rule - and then fall out of power and be punished for a very long time ahead. This would be a very good election to lose, methinks.
I have even less time for George Osborne, but can only hope that he is given the poisoned chalice of introducing the cuts and taxes, then to be Lamonted out of office and Ken Clarke brought in as Chancellor. At least the Tories have someone of Clarke's calibre in the wings, whereas pretty much everyone else of any party is a real lightweight. I actually believe that Brown has the capability, but he has shown himself to be a rank coward politically so many times, there is no way he could handle the coming years and he could certainly no longer bring the electorate with him.
There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.
I would tend to agree on every point, with the proviso that I am unlikely to be liable for large amounts of inherritence tax.I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate. A government without any sort of mandate for the austerity needed is going to have real problems.
They quibbled about inconsequential things to a nauseating degree, but carefully avoided the biggest question of all.
Performance-wise, Brown was most improved, but still irrelevant. Cameron did enough but was still utterly unconvincing - I thought he made a small tactical error by continually referring to Brown as "Prime Minister". Last week he scored by referring to himself as "if I were your Prime Minister". Clegg was adequate but dealt with Cameron's occasional attacks pretty well. He was the most engaging, but since this is not a presidential election, I was looking for more substance on policy.
I shall be voting Conservative, but with a heavy heart and a deep sense of unease. Cameron is likely to make a useless Prime Minister since he hasn't displayed any spine at all. He will have a feeble mandate, and none whatsoever for the necessary decisions. I think the Governor of the Bank of England was quite correct in his observation, and a Tory government with a wafer-thin majority will be paralysed, indecisive and cowardly - ultimately forced to make swinging cuts and substantial tax rises, which will re-establish all the bad characteristics associated with Conservative rule - and then fall out of power and be punished for a very long time ahead. This would be a very good election to lose, methinks.
I have even less time for George Osborne, but can only hope that he is given the poisoned chalice of introducing the cuts and taxes, then to be Lamonted out of office and Ken Clarke brought in as Chancellor. At least the Tories have someone of Clarke's calibre in the wings, whereas pretty much everyone else of any party is a real lightweight. I actually believe that Brown has the capability, but he has shown himself to be a rank coward politically so many times, there is no way he could handle the coming years and he could certainly no longer bring the electorate with him.
There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.
PVC, what is your prediction?
Maybe we should also have a list of voting intentions, might be interesting to tally against the predictions?
Originally Posted by :
----------------------------------
Furunculus = Con
----------------------------------
----------------------------------
Furunculus = Con
----------------------------------
Originally Posted by Furunculus:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...on-debate.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...on-debate.html
Originally Posted by :
The report said that non-EU immigrations make up one fifth of foreign workers, but only when students are excluded from the figures.
I don't see where the problem is. Foriegn students pay lots of money into university (which doesn't get taken from tax payers) and they only fill up the places which are not taken up by Homegrown students. They are only here for a few years and then they leave, or they are simply here for a year.The report said that non-EU immigrations make up one fifth of foreign workers, but only when students are excluded from the figures.
This includes a great many students mostly from American, Canada and Europe.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate.
I got a few ideas on how to tackle it. Equip me with the red box and a team of number crunchers, and you will see us debt-free by 2025-30 with my five year plans.I found the debate profoundly depressing. Not one of the aspiring leaders of the United Kingdom appears to have any clue as to how to address the deficit, and if they have a clue, they are not willing to share it with the electorate.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I found the debate profoundly depressing.
There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.
I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.I found the debate profoundly depressing.
There's another, entirely selfish reason for a Tory vote, and that is the inheritance tax reduction. It's horribly unjust, but I am liable for enormous amounts of inheritance tax and any reduction will be welcome.
As to my own intentions. For about 3 nanoseconds I thought about voting Lib-dem to push up their share of the vote and further show how undemocratic FPTP is. But then I came back to my senses.
None of the above. (I'll even be out of the country on election day).
On the subject of last nights debate, I don't see how on earth any one thought Cameron won.
He failed to explain his economic policies coherently without dropping in the word "waste" at every possibility. What does it even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards. This is actually what he's said in both debates. Yes, I gather the other two are also fairly awful but at the end of the day an ideological commitment to getting rid of "big government" isn't an economic solution. I get it may be part of the solution but when the Tories fail to explain where the rest of the money will come from, because quite frankly cutting back on paper clips isn't going to do sweet F all, it leaves us in a worrying position. Cam and co's opposition to tax rises is also absurd. No one wants higher taxes, but the point is with a deficit this big taxes are going to have to go up some where. To promise you wont raises taxes is absurd and a flat out lie, no matter which party wins next week taxes will inevitably have to go up at some point, that's my reasoning.
I would feel much easier about Conservative economic policy if Ken Clarke was shadow Chancellor. Clarke is a man with credibility and experience with tough economic situations. Just a shame we lack credible political alternatives. I will say this as a warning to anyone who's voting tory next week; If George Osborne is going to be as affective at his job as chancellor as he is at his role as a constituency MP, your all in for a pretty bumpy ride. The guy quite frankly abuses the comfortable tory majority round her, much like a certain MP before him. You will never find George walking round the streets, reassuring the locals. In fact, you will most likely find him posing for staged photos once every blue moon (if he even bothers to do any activities at all) and as for local surgeries, they're pretty much non existent. Even his predecessor made time for those he represented, you know, in between taking money in brown envelopes.
Anyway, end rant. Point being Ken Clarke>George Osborne + tories inability to explain economic policy coherently angers me.
He failed to explain his economic policies coherently without dropping in the word "waste" at every possibility. What does it even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards. This is actually what he's said in both debates. Yes, I gather the other two are also fairly awful but at the end of the day an ideological commitment to getting rid of "big government" isn't an economic solution. I get it may be part of the solution but when the Tories fail to explain where the rest of the money will come from, because quite frankly cutting back on paper clips isn't going to do sweet F all, it leaves us in a worrying position. Cam and co's opposition to tax rises is also absurd. No one wants higher taxes, but the point is with a deficit this big taxes are going to have to go up some where. To promise you wont raises taxes is absurd and a flat out lie, no matter which party wins next week taxes will inevitably have to go up at some point, that's my reasoning.
I would feel much easier about Conservative economic policy if Ken Clarke was shadow Chancellor. Clarke is a man with credibility and experience with tough economic situations. Just a shame we lack credible political alternatives. I will say this as a warning to anyone who's voting tory next week; If George Osborne is going to be as affective at his job as chancellor as he is at his role as a constituency MP, your all in for a pretty bumpy ride. The guy quite frankly abuses the comfortable tory majority round her, much like a certain MP before him. You will never find George walking round the streets, reassuring the locals. In fact, you will most likely find him posing for staged photos once every blue moon (if he even bothers to do any activities at all) and as for local surgeries, they're pretty much non existent. Even his predecessor made time for those he represented, you know, in between taking money in brown envelopes.
Anyway, end rant. Point being Ken Clarke>George Osborne + tories inability to explain economic policy coherently angers me.
All politicians have doubtlessly been having lessons on language to appeal to key voters.
It's like an Evangelical Church - they're not there to have a in-depth theological debate. They're there to increase the numbers for the church, and thus simple messages that resonate with key groups is the key.
Parties might get more votes in certain niche groups with a fully thought out budget - but nowhere near the numbers of votes that declaring that all will be solved by reducing "waste" - which after all no one associates with themselves whatever they do.
It's like an Evangelical Church - they're not there to have a in-depth theological debate. They're there to increase the numbers for the church, and thus simple messages that resonate with key groups is the key.
Parties might get more votes in certain niche groups with a fully thought out budget - but nowhere near the numbers of votes that declaring that all will be solved by reducing "waste" - which after all no one associates with themselves whatever they do.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.
I thought you might. I find the reasons for your voting intention profoundly depressing.
I am responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods, many of whom have worked all their lives for my family. When my father died, the death duties were substantial and it has only been through tough decisions (and the staff's extraordinary dedication) that I did not have to lay off any of the long standing workers. (The irony is, because of inheritance tax, it's not even practicable to set aside savings for the evil day to protect their future, because that's just more tax to the Inland Revenue). If I can reduce that burden for my successor, I believe that I have that duty.
My obligation to my hard-working staff on both sides of the Celtic Sea, in two seriously crocked countries, means that the more of my money made unavailable to the ravenous taxman, the more I can keep them and their families safe. I don't have the luxury of moving to a nice tax haven somewhere warm. Whilst I recognise the injustice of the rich benefitting from a tax concession, I would also note that the Tories are going to keep the 50% rate on my income. My choice is to do what is possible to protect people I know from the storm to come (including myself, naturally) rather than "donate" even more cash to the waste-bucket of welfare that supports people for whom I don't have any responsibility.
Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost:
I thought you might.
I am responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods, many of whom have worked all their lives for my family. When my father died, the death duties were substantial and it has only been through tough decisions (and the staff's extraordinary dedication) that I did not have to lay off any of the long standing workers. (The irony is, because of inheritance tax, it's not even practicable to set aside savings for the evil day to protect their future, because that's just more tax to the Inland Revenue). If I can reduce that burden for my successor, I believe that I have that duty.
My obligation to my hard-working staff on both sides of the Celtic Sea, in two seriously crocked countries, means that the more of my money made unavailable to the ravenous taxman, the more I can keep them and their families safe. I don't have the luxury of moving to a nice tax haven somewhere warm. Whilst I recognise the injustice of the rich benefitting from a tax concession, I would also note that the Tories are going to keep the 50% rate on my income. My choice is to do what is possible to protect people I know from the storm to come (including myself, naturally) rather than "donate" even more cash to the waste-bucket of welfare that supports people for whom I don't have any responsibility.
If they work for your business, and the business is limited liability, then inheritance tax doesn't come into it. I don't understand - unless you run the business as a personal fiefdom, or these are servants and butlers you are talking about....I thought you might.
I am responsible for a lot of people's livelihoods, many of whom have worked all their lives for my family. When my father died, the death duties were substantial and it has only been through tough decisions (and the staff's extraordinary dedication) that I did not have to lay off any of the long standing workers. (The irony is, because of inheritance tax, it's not even practicable to set aside savings for the evil day to protect their future, because that's just more tax to the Inland Revenue). If I can reduce that burden for my successor, I believe that I have that duty.
My obligation to my hard-working staff on both sides of the Celtic Sea, in two seriously crocked countries, means that the more of my money made unavailable to the ravenous taxman, the more I can keep them and their families safe. I don't have the luxury of moving to a nice tax haven somewhere warm. Whilst I recognise the injustice of the rich benefitting from a tax concession, I would also note that the Tories are going to keep the 50% rate on my income. My choice is to do what is possible to protect people I know from the storm to come (including myself, naturally) rather than "donate" even more cash to the waste-bucket of welfare that supports people for whom I don't have any responsibility.
The business is an asset. Thus the government will want 40% of its cash value. If you don't have that - fire sale.
Originally Posted by tibilicus:
What does it [waste] even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards.
Lol, just let him try and seperate me from my empire of pot plants and paperclip millions.What does it [waste] even mean? From what he has said in last nights debate and previous debates I'm incredibly concerned that Dave and co's plan to reduce the deficit is to reduce the number of paper clips going around Whitehall and to cut up senior civil servants credit cards.
As the Yanks see us....
http://tv.gawker.com/5527780/jon-ste...tical-scandals
I think I had a little wee watching that!
http://tv.gawker.com/5528164/jon-ste...tical-scandals
This link works.
http://tv.gawker.com/5527780/jon-ste...tical-scandals
I think I had a little wee watching that!
http://tv.gawker.com/5528164/jon-ste...tical-scandals
This link works.
Originally Posted by Idaho:
If they work for your business, and the business is limited liability, then inheritance tax doesn't come into it. I don't understand - unless you run the business as a personal fiefdom, or these are servants and butlers you are talking about....
Some parts are businesses, to be sure - the core is the latter, but there is more to such than simply servants and butlers.If they work for your business, and the business is limited liability, then inheritance tax doesn't come into it. I don't understand - unless you run the business as a personal fiefdom, or these are servants and butlers you are talking about....
@tibilicus: “waste” typically means “the myriad ways governments fail to invest and stick to a single coherent plan”. The follow up explanation can be summarized mostly thus: “And I am going to waste some more, but pretend I am not by cutting the amount of money other projects get: this will look like reducing waste, but really means that the actual, `effective' funds are reduced while waste is kept at a higher level over all”. Hardly ever means it making a though concession and choosing one project (i.e. voter group) over the other (i.e. different voter group presumably feared to vote opposition next time for such heresy).
For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.
For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
Originally Posted by shlin28:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
The Economist has also ditched Labour, in favour of of the Conservatives as opposed to the lib dems however. Looks like that leaves Labour with pretty much nothing, minus the Mirror. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
Yet another torpedo to the New Labour hull. Will the ship sink at last?
Originally Posted by tibilicus:
The Economist has also ditched Labour, in favour of of the Conservatives as opposed to the lib dems however.
I would have been more surprised if the Economist had supported labour. They even supported McCain for christ's sake. Their support for Tony Blair was the exception, rather than the rule.The Economist has also ditched Labour, in favour of of the Conservatives as opposed to the lib dems however.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
They even supported McCain for christ's sake.
Thats not true the front page of the economist showed a picture of Obama with some kind of byline about time for change or summit like thatThey even supported McCain for christ's sake.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
I would have been more surprised if the Economist had supported labour. They even supported McCain for christ's sake. Their support for Tony Blair was the exception, rather than the rule.
Media defaults to supporting the centre-right, unless it looks like the public are up for a sea change to er... centre less-right. In that case they try and back the winning horse.I would have been more surprised if the Economist had supported labour. They even supported McCain for christ's sake. Their support for Tony Blair was the exception, rather than the rule.
Just a few blasts from the past for you English election punters.....
I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.
Originally Posted by zelda12, in a British elections post dated 7 May 2005:
You may have neglected to mention that the Labour party has not failed in its promises in keeping the NHS and education system together and improving it. When it comes right down to it the ordinary person on the street trusts Labour more than any other party when it comes down to running the economy and investing in services. They still do not trust the Tories with those responsibilities and frankly I doubt they ever will. The reason and the only reason the Tories made such startling gains in this election was because Labour voters voted Lib Dem as a protest against the war. Now they have Tory MP's and will not make the same mistake.
Remember one thing when the Labour Government inherited the NHS the education system public transport and almost all the other public services they were decrepit and starved of funds and any real hope. Within 8 years the NHS is rapidly rising in efficiency and expertise, schools are getting better, and public transport is finally being drawn inexorably back to Nationalisation. And of course the Economy is in the best of health and with this age of mortgages and credit cards who wants an economy that had so many fluxes it looked like a seismograph, the simple fact is people trust Labour on almost all issues a lot more than they trust the Tories.
As such I can comfortable predict that within 10-20 years the Conservative party will be the Third Party in the country with the Lib Dems in second.
Have a nice day.
You may have neglected to mention that the Labour party has not failed in its promises in keeping the NHS and education system together and improving it. When it comes right down to it the ordinary person on the street trusts Labour more than any other party when it comes down to running the economy and investing in services. They still do not trust the Tories with those responsibilities and frankly I doubt they ever will. The reason and the only reason the Tories made such startling gains in this election was because Labour voters voted Lib Dem as a protest against the war. Now they have Tory MP's and will not make the same mistake.
Remember one thing when the Labour Government inherited the NHS the education system public transport and almost all the other public services they were decrepit and starved of funds and any real hope. Within 8 years the NHS is rapidly rising in efficiency and expertise, schools are getting better, and public transport is finally being drawn inexorably back to Nationalisation. And of course the Economy is in the best of health and with this age of mortgages and credit cards who wants an economy that had so many fluxes it looked like a seismograph, the simple fact is people trust Labour on almost all issues a lot more than they trust the Tories.
As such I can comfortable predict that within 10-20 years the Conservative party will be the Third Party in the country with the Lib Dems in second.
Have a nice day.
Originally Posted by JAG in a post commenting on the Labour party 3 June 2005:
...
EA - I am of the opinion that a blanket benefit system like you state, however fair in theory, it is not. We should have a welfare system which is disproportionately helpful to those at the very bottom not simply equal all round. This is in fact the biggest difference between the Lib Dems and Labour - still. The Lib Dems favour a middle class welfare state, with everyone given equal chances and everyone given the same, from the lowest working class to the highest payed middle class. Where as Labour are still about giving more to those at the very bottom before anyone else and if necessary without giving anything to anyone but those in the worst off positions, it is why they are still to the left of the Lib Dems and why they are still a lefty party.
It should be disproportionately better for those further down because it is those people who struggle most and so need more. The forms are a neccesary evil, even if it can seem the opposite.
...
EA - I am of the opinion that a blanket benefit system like you state, however fair in theory, it is not. We should have a welfare system which is disproportionately helpful to those at the very bottom not simply equal all round. This is in fact the biggest difference between the Lib Dems and Labour - still. The Lib Dems favour a middle class welfare state, with everyone given equal chances and everyone given the same, from the lowest working class to the highest payed middle class. Where as Labour are still about giving more to those at the very bottom before anyone else and if necessary without giving anything to anyone but those in the worst off positions, it is why they are still to the left of the Lib Dems and why they are still a lefty party.
It should be disproportionately better for those further down because it is those people who struggle most and so need more. The forms are a neccesary evil, even if it can seem the opposite.
I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.
Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy:
Thats not true the front page of the economist showed a picture of Obama with some kind of byline about time for change or summit like that
Hmm, I remember articles where after the paper's positivity for Obama over Clinton was quenched by it's support for McCain's Republican politics. Thats not true the front page of the economist showed a picture of Obama with some kind of byline about time for change or summit like that
I just did a quick search through passed Economist articles and came accross the following single page of responses to their endorsement of Obama, seems others were baffled too. Barring their routine columnists e.g. Lexington, the Economist uses articles from various sources -it's possible they stray from a strict editorial line? Or they were unsure and plumbed for Obama at the last minute...
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh:
Just a few blasts from the past for you English election punters.....
I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.
I actually remember Zeldas post. How sad is that? Just a few blasts from the past for you English election punters.....
I'll add a few more in as time permits. Scanning back there it appears as though Gawain started about 1 thread in every 5.
BTW Good digging SF
Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios:
@tibilicus: “waste” typically means “the myriad ways governments fail to invest and stick to a single coherent plan”. The follow up explanation can be summarized mostly thus: “And I am going to waste some more, but pretend I am not by cutting the amount of money other projects get: this will look like reducing waste, but really means that the actual, `effective' funds are reduced while waste is kept at a higher level over all”. Hardly ever means it making a though concession and choosing one project (i.e. voter group) over the other (i.e. different voter group presumably feared to vote opposition next time for such heresy).
For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.
canada tried it, i doubt they would say the exercise was a success. wrong again.@tibilicus: “waste” typically means “the myriad ways governments fail to invest and stick to a single coherent plan”. The follow up explanation can be summarized mostly thus: “And I am going to waste some more, but pretend I am not by cutting the amount of money other projects get: this will look like reducing waste, but really means that the actual, `effective' funds are reduced while waste is kept at a higher level over all”. Hardly ever means it making a though concession and choosing one project (i.e. voter group) over the other (i.e. different voter group presumably feared to vote opposition next time for such heresy).
For example consider the MOD (and this is a problem the US has as well, incidentally):
How much money Britain could save itself (the same goes for quite a few countries, incidentally) if army, navy and air force weren't 3 separate castles all crying “if the other gets something, then by God we shall get something too”. And if it could choose not the most militarily exciting but costly and inefficient plans possible; but rather more items of more austere equipment. So right now, if your army in the middle east needs helicopters to supply itself, you can be sure that there is no money for that because it was just spent on fighter planes that only serve to sit in a hangar all day. If you need carriers you can be sure that there won't be planes, because some other military branch has just ordered a batch of completely different and incompatible ones, too. It would literally save billions if armed forces were on a tighter financial leash; and government could effectively force it through ingrained institutional intransigence in the armed forces and dictate that there is only one budget to serve all military needs, rather than three budgets to fail to meet even a single need.
Originally Posted by shlin28:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
don't know that anyone should be surprised, the guardian has always been as solidly left-wing just as the torygraph has been right wing, and the former doesn't even have the reputation as being a paper of record!http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...oment-has-come
... and the Guardian backs the Liberal Democrats. Hardly surprising, but I do feel that they timed it rather badly, surely it would have a bigger effect if this was announced before the debate?
According to Wikipedia.
IMHO, Broadsheets are a more valuable indicator of prestige than "Newspaper of Record"
IMHO, Broadsheets are a more valuable indicator of prestige than "Newspaper of Record"
if only it were both........... oh wait!
I received this 'contract' this morning (even though I can't vote yet ). I don't think this would effect the election results here, as even though Sutton and Cheam is a 'battleground' seat, the current Liberal MP is very popular and (according to a local Lib Dem organiser I talked to) will probably get lots of Labour votes too. In 2005 the current MP gained 47% of votes, whilst the Tory candidate had 41%. Somehow I don't think this year's results will change much, especially with Cleggmania.
There is also the fact that all the houses around the Tory candidate's house have Lib Dem posters, which personally I find hilarious
). I don't think this would effect the election results here, as even though Sutton and Cheam is a 'battleground' seat, the current Liberal MP is very popular and (according to a local Lib Dem organiser I talked to) will probably get lots of Labour votes too. In 2005 the current MP gained 47% of votes, whilst the Tory candidate had 41%. Somehow I don't think this year's results will change much, especially with Cleggmania.There is also the fact that all the houses around the Tory candidate's house have Lib Dem posters, which personally I find hilarious
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO