The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[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.

[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?

[tibilicus]

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.

Yet another torpedo to the New Labour hull. Will the ship sink at last?

[al Roumi]

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.

[gaelic cowboy]

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 that

[al Roumi]

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.

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...

[Idaho]

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.

[Furunculus]

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!

[Subotan]

According to Wikipedia.

IMHO, Broadsheets are a more valuable indicator of prestige than "Newspaper of Record"

[Furunculus]

if only it were both........... oh wait!

[Furunculus]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...-with-britain/

[shlin28]

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

[Subotan]

if only it were both........... oh wait!

The Guardian is a broadsheet newspaper, is it not?

[Furunculus]

but not a paper of note.

[Furunculus]

@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.