Org Mobile Site
Originally Posted by tibilicus:
It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.
Quite, to assume your country is in terminal decline is, basically, to give up.It's a shame that this sort of thinking is rampant when in reality, there is very few countries which have overtaken us. Germany, Japan and China are the only immediate ones which spring to mind.
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.
"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.Defense spending is public spending. As such, normal left/right impulses apply. What better way to artificially prop up hurting industries, reduce unemployment and subsidise lagging regions, than through defense spending? In recent decades, it has been the left in France and the UK that has done this, and consequently increased actual spending, whereas the right has done the cuts.
So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.
The fact is, we spend less than half the percentage of our national wealth on defence than we did 20 years ago, so we can almost certainly afford to spend more (as a percentage of GDP) over the next 20 years.
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla:
"Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.
So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.
I am afraid this is not correct. By all measures defense spending has increased since 1998, Labour's first full year in power."Actual spending"? You know, the "actual" price of lamb in the UK has increased in recent years, but it's still about 25% of what it was 20 years ago when one factors in inflation and the increase in wealth. Similarly, while the figure in £ of defence spending may have risen, it has fallen as a percentage of GDP, at a time when the country has become more wealthy, tax revenue has risen, and so has inflation. Frankly, it would be virtually impossible not to raise defence spending in "real" terms over such a period, as the armed forces would collapse if you did not.
So, by any meaninful measure defence spending has fallen.
Disregarding inflation, Labour has increased defense spending by fifty percent. This is not the most relevant figure. Better is a measure by constant 2009 pounds, that is, corrected for inflation. By this measure, Labour has increased defense spending by about 25%.
This enormous increase, incidentally, is almost singular within Europe. In stark contrast to the next three biggest European defense spenders, whose defense spending saw in this period a far smaller increase (France), or even a decrease (Germany, Italy).
In Western Europe, only Spain and Finland have seen a similarly large increase in defense spending. Spain, because of its long awakening from its dictatorship, and Finland because of the end of Finlandisation and the need to project neutrality.
Defense spending as a percentage of GDP has mostly been stabilised under Labour. Under Thatcher (especially after 1985) and Major, defense spending as percentage of GDP was severly slashed. Halved.
Labour put an end to these endless defense spending cuts.
Don't take my word for it! Use sources:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Thatcher came in power in 1979:
1980 230.8 5.85
Major came in power in 1990:
1991 589.739 4.14
Blair came in power in 1997:
1998 865.71 2.83
It is now 2010:
2010 1411 3.08
Two things are striking:
- The defense cuts happened under the Conservatives, whereas Labour stabilised defense spending.
- The last two Conservative PMs halved British defense spending. The vast majority of this outerworldly decrease happened before the fall of the wall, rubbishing the Tories' perennial excuse.
I think somebody in this thread said it earlier: Labour hates the military, but increases its funding. The Conservatives profes to love the military, but cut back its funding.
Don't blame me, blame the numbers.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus...
i willing to accept the good with the bad? Sir Humphrey? How so? he's a good civil servant (as well as a snake), he certainly has no party political views.... on the evidence of the discussions on this forum I don't think we can say that about Furunculus...
What really puzzle me is why the English still accept to have a Chamber of the LORDS and a Chamber of Common…
Gotta have somebody to look after the interests of the aristocracy.
And the reserved seats for the bishops of the Church of England.
Cool if you're a Scot or a Catholic.
Cool if you're a Scot or a Catholic.
Loius:
A quick search produced different figures to yours, slightly higher under the Tories, slightly lower under Labour.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...g+pmqs/3267817
Overall, it shows a trend toward decline.
A quick search produced different figures to yours, slightly higher under the Tories, slightly lower under Labour.
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...g+pmqs/3267817
Overall, it shows a trend toward decline.
Ironically I recently bought all the Yes, Minister series on DVD and have been watching them over the last few days. It's amazing how much still seems to hold true! The latest episode I watched (the first with Hacker as PM) even has the head of the army slagging off the navy and RAF...I guess politics really doesn't change all that much 
I reckon the BNP would increase war defence spending.
It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?
Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility. You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.
New Labour. New Britain.
It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?
Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility. You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.
New Labour. New Britain.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?
It's what you might call a global recession. Thought you might have heard of that, even in the dales.It seems this thread has been towed a little off course with the emphasis on defence spending. Labour has done a lot of damage in all areas of the UK. Gordon, if you're monitoring this, as I know you are, how did you manage to turn an annual surplus of £30 billion into an annual deficit of £200 billion in 12 years?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility.
Show me the stats please. Labour has always managed to leave the country with higher unemployment. Higher fiscal deficit. Higher inflation. Higher taxes. They do leave some things lower though, to be fair. Standards of living and social mobility.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.
So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?You'd think that these great intellectuals would have learned by now that the policies they pursue leave the country in a worse mess than before they came to power. Hurting everyone. Maybe that's the idea, spread the misery across society.
Originally Posted by alh_p:
So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?
Erm, that's what Labour has done - just bankrupted us doing it.So the conservative alternative is to entrench and concentrate the misery for those unlucky enough not to be born into the right circumstances or with the natural ability to help themselves?
To be fair, their redistribution of wealth has enabled many outside the UK to become richer.
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Erm, that's what Labour has done
Is it now? Please do me, and your own intelectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.Erm, that's what Labour has done
Originally Posted by alh_p:
Is it now? Please do me, and your own intellectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.
Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.Is it now? Please do me, and your own intellectual integrity, the favour of substantiating that.
Falling social mobility
Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.
Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?
I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.
New Labour. New Britain.
Originally Posted by :
Show me the stats please.
You are kidding right? Show me the stats please.
I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.
New Labour. New Britain.
Ok, so exactly how is that Labour's doing? That report was compiled by an all-party panel, welcomed by both sides of the house.
"In his foreword Milburn (Labour MP) says: "Britain's got talent – lots of it. It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity."
He argues that the professional classes have erected a host of new barriers to keep their jobs the preserve of the middle classes – including restricting work experience to the children of friends, internships that are only available to children in the south who have the parental wealth to work for nothing, and "qualification inflation" that prevents those without university degrees getting a job."
"In his foreword Milburn (Labour MP) says: "Britain's got talent – lots of it. It is not ability that is unevenly distributed in our society. It is opportunity."
He argues that the professional classes have erected a host of new barriers to keep their jobs the preserve of the middle classes – including restricting work experience to the children of friends, internships that are only available to children in the south who have the parental wealth to work for nothing, and "qualification inflation" that prevents those without university degrees getting a job."
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link!
Well otherwise we could just bray at each other like sheep -if you'd prefer.Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link!
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?
Fair point, it was an assumption based on the tone of your posts. I'm guessing you are (broadly speaking) right wing?Why is it that some people assume that if you disagree with the Labour party you must be a tory?
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
You are kidding right?
I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.
Well if we are both too lazy this isn't going to go very far... You are kidding right?
I'll do a Tribes and let you do the legwork, that is of course if you think I'm wrong.
Just to make it clear. I will not be voting tory in the election.
As for right wing, I'll let you decide.
The groundnut scheme is a template for all Labours disasters. Shall I provide a link?
As for right wing, I'll let you decide.
The groundnut scheme is a template for all Labours disasters. Shall I provide a link?
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk:
Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.
Falling social mobility
Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.
I'm sorry, but your link does not show a falling social mobility under Labour.Unable to use the internet, eh? Oh well.
Falling social mobility
Thank goodness you saved my integrity by finding you a link! If you need any help on Labour and the recession, Labour and the deficit, Labour and the goofy gold sale I'm pretty sure I can help there too.
In fact, the report on which it is based, by The Panel on Fair Access to the Professions, - though I must admit to not having read it back to front - makes it clear that social mobility in Britain has been declining for decades, but seems to have bottomed out under Labour.
http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/stra...ofessions.aspx
Social mobility has sharply declined under Thatcher and Major. 'Destroyed in class warfare from above' might be the better description. This decline has been halted and stabilised under Labour.
Of course, I resent NewLab for merely stopping the trend, instead of reversing it. But that is the nature of NewLab - too cowardly in the face of allegations of 'waging a class war' itself. Too cowardly to stand up for that part of the population which has to, you know, wake up and go to work everyday. As a result, in the West, social mobility in Britain is second only to the US. From the bottom that is.
Meanwhile, talented, hard-working Germans, Swedes, Canadians born into non-priviledged circumstances do get rewarded for their efforts.
Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)
Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:
1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20
Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.
For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.
Public debt:
year - GDP - Public debt as %GDP:
1979 197.438 44.01
1990 560.887 27.40
1997 815.881 43.76
2008 1419.55 43.24
2009 1439 55.20
Thatcher lowered public debt. Major returned it to pre-Thatcher levels again. Labour kept Public debt at the same level until the current crisis.
2009 saw an explosion of public debt throughout the free world. Until that, Labour governed fiscally responsible.
For those seeking a lowering of public debt, the question is: Will Cameron be a Thatcher, or a Major? If he is Thatcher, he might be just what Britain needs. If little Eton brat David is not of the stature of Thatcher, no need to bother with him if fiscal responsibility is your cup of tea.
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
Merci Louis le gros!Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)
No, all that shows is that as the country got richer, Labour kept borrowing instead of creating a surplus for hard times.Labour did not at all raise the UK's public debt. (Until the current international crisis)
Perhaps we should look at the amount of borrowing in real terms instead:
Year GDP Public Net Debt-total
1979 644.413 283.6
1990 819.007 224.4
1997 942.154 412.3
2008 1256.64 543.4
2009 1212.66 669.4
Spoiler Alert, click show to read:
So actually, as you can see...what Labour has done is given the UK the largest ever national debt in real terms, larger even than that created when it last peaked in 1946. I.E. This Labour government has managed to create a bigger debt pile than the one created by WW2 for us to deal with!
See, I can play with statistics too
.Originally Posted by Boohugh:
See, I can play with statistics too.
Spin.See, I can play with statistics too
.It doesn't matter to the millionaire if he owes a thousand quid. For the pauper it spells the end.
Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP.
No doubt to the delight of all those to the right of the Liberal Democrats, I'll be here all the way until election day.
How does Britain's military spending compare to that of other EU nations?
Originally Posted by :
Harriet Harman will reopen the politically explosive debate over class tomorrow by insisting that it remains the single biggest factor in determining individual achievement.
In a speech designed to put the fight against inequality at the heart of the general election campaign, the Labour deputy leader will unveil a new "inequality bible" which admits that the government has merely slowed the trend in rising inequality despite more than 12 years in office.
The 420-page report, commissioned by the government, has been written by a panel chaired by Professor John Hills.
In her speech, Harman will say the report, to be published next week, makes uncomfortable reading for Labour, and sets out home truths about the scale of the challenge.
But she will also seek to create dividing lines with the Tories by arguing that the evidence shows socio-economic background, not parental warmth, is the main determinant of an individual's success.
The report's findings are politically sensitive since they may revive accusations – furiously denied by Gordon Brown – that Labour is embarking on a "class war".
Harman will say that public policy can still have a significant impact on inequality by intervening at certain key points in a person's life, such as pre-school years or re-entry into work after having children.
She will insist that the big choice at the next election will be which party people trust to ensure that as a society "we do not return to the days when inequality was spiralling and where a tiny minorty of the population got all the rewards".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...neral-election
Good. This after David Milliband started a similar attack two weeks ago.Harriet Harman will reopen the politically explosive debate over class tomorrow by insisting that it remains the single biggest factor in determining individual achievement.
In a speech designed to put the fight against inequality at the heart of the general election campaign, the Labour deputy leader will unveil a new "inequality bible" which admits that the government has merely slowed the trend in rising inequality despite more than 12 years in office.
The 420-page report, commissioned by the government, has been written by a panel chaired by Professor John Hills.
In her speech, Harman will say the report, to be published next week, makes uncomfortable reading for Labour, and sets out home truths about the scale of the challenge.
But she will also seek to create dividing lines with the Tories by arguing that the evidence shows socio-economic background, not parental warmth, is the main determinant of an individual's success.
The report's findings are politically sensitive since they may revive accusations – furiously denied by Gordon Brown – that Labour is embarking on a "class war".
Harman will say that public policy can still have a significant impact on inequality by intervening at certain key points in a person's life, such as pre-school years or re-entry into work after having children.
She will insist that the big choice at the next election will be which party people trust to ensure that as a society "we do not return to the days when inequality was spiralling and where a tiny minorty of the population got all the rewards".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...neral-election
Labour needs to return to its roots. 'Old' Labour, the party of miners and dock workers, became obsolote and was clung onto for far too long. A New Labour had to be formed in the 1990's. This New Labour is now past it's expiration date too. Back to sticking up for the law-abiding, tax-paying, actual working man.
Let the people have something to choose between, instead of two parties battling over the same few square centimeters of neo-liberalism.
Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.
Oh Louis, please do stay until the election, I love your wind ups.
Oh Louis, please do stay until the election, I love your wind ups.
Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.
How is it hypocritical that she gives a Harridan Harperson! LMFAO. Only the neice of a Marquis. Very council house I'm sure. Typical hypocrit.
and is trying to change things?Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat:
Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP.:
That's incredibly basic economics. A growth in debt in real terms is totally meaningless if GDP grows by a faster or the same rate.Thus the relevant statistic for national debt is debt as percentage of GDP.
:Originally Posted by alh_p:
How is it hypocritical that she gives a and is trying to change things?
Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."How is it hypocritical that she gives a
and is trying to change things?Originally Posted by InsaneApache:
Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."
Am I being dense? Harriet Harman is a Labour MP, how does any of this make her a tory toff??? Tory toffs springs to mind. Still as Abie Baby said; "you can fool some of the people all of the time..."
Originally Posted by alh_p:
Am I being dense?
As they say in Yorksheer, if tha cap fits.....Am I being dense?
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO