The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Viking]

Do you expect cancer tomorrow?

[Skullheadhq]

I don't take chemo today...

[Beskar]

West has the threat of Russia and China, however, our Nuclear arsenal is basically the same as Chemo and Radiation therapy to kill a Cancer. Damage the body severely to get rid of the little problem.

[Furunculus]

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why do Western Countries even have an army

Because eastern countries have them.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Why do Western Countries even have an army, it's all a waste of money...

You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

[Skullheadhq]

do eastern countries have a greater justification for possessing an army that i wasn't aware of?

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...

You only say that because we have them, if we didn't we would be invaded.

By who? Evil belgium?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Eastern countries tend to be a little more unstable and the situation in, for example, the Causasus and Iran isn't exactly the same as here...



By who? Evil belgium?

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

[Skullheadhq]

Russia would be my favoured pick, actually. I'm not saying it would happen tomorrow, it probably wouldn't, but it would happen.

Philipus, the cold war is over
Just in case you forgot...

[Viking]

Philipus, the cold war is over
Just in case you forgot...

There was no Russia in the cold war, just in case you forgot.

[Furunculus]

Philipus, the cold war is over
Just in case you forgot...

not as long as we still have people who fail to understand why "comrade stalin" is hated so much.

[CountArach]

So how about that election eh? Crazy stuff.

Read something interesting in The Guardian today on the future direction that NewLab is likely to take in the post-election political climate. The conclusion:

Brown and his closest allies have been brought to heel, Blairite and Treasury orthodoxy has been re-established, and the government's recent crab-like shift towards a more recognisably social democratic stance has come to a #juddering halt. That was encapsulated at Monday's meeting of Labour MPs when Lord Mandelson, whose powers now extend well beyond those of a mere deputy premier, smilingly accepted Brown's pledge that he was merely "one of a team" who would not now be interfering in other people's jobs – such as running the party's election campaign.
[...]
Now they're back in charge of the government, the Blairites are setting out their stall to take control of the party after its expected defeat. David Miliband told Tuesday's cabinet meeting that Labour's early manifesto plans were not nearly radical enough, that a "game-changing" offer to the electorate was needed, #including proportional representation and sweeping political reform. That was echoed in this week's Guardian article by James Purnell, who resigned in the last failed coup and is now looking for allies on the centre-left.

But for all the talk of a new radicalism, neither man appears prepared to turn his back on New Labour's calamitous embrace of corporate power and its besetting failure to confront private wealth and inequality. Indeed, Purnell goes out of his way to emphasise his support in cabinet for talking about cuts and makes a case for a market in schools providers and a less powerful state that strikingly overlaps with the approach of David Cameron's Conservatives.

Despite everything that has #happened in the past couple of years, the #majority of the cabinet remain wedded to a model of free market capitalism and #corporate privilege that simply isn't delivering the goods to their voters, core or otherwise, while bailed-out executives in state-owned banks still stuff their pockets with impunity. Their #dominance has been strengthened still further in the past week. Unless that grip is broken, the crisis of representation in British politics can only deepen.

Food for thought I feel.

[Subotan]

Who cares about Blair/Brownites? They're two sides of the same, grubby coin.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Philipus, the cold war is over
Just in case you forgot...

Funny, the turning off of Russian Gas, and the invasion Georgia, suggest it might be otherwise.

In any case, history did not end with the Cold War, even the man who coined the phrase, "The End of History", has admitted he was wrong in the face of Muslim radicals and the rise of China.

Ultimately, we have armies because we have enemies.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looking back at the argument from the first couple of pages on whether or not the Conservatives are libertarian, I would have to say I don't think they are. But not for the same reasons other people are giving.

The Tories do hold more traditional values in terms of social policy, but that doesn't necessarily equte to having a big government to enforce them - generally speaking they tend limit the role of the government when it comes to educating about/enforcing morality, whereas Labour have always taken a more collectivist approach (even since they became less economically left-wing).

Also, issues such as the decriminalisation of drugs don't always sit along left-right lines, with the right being authoritarian and the left more liberal. Yes, the Tories tend to be socially conservative, and want a crack down on drugs due to them being seen as morally wrong. But Labour have always been tough on drugs due to it being part of their wider, more collectivist policies to help rejuvinate deprived areas - taking away the right of the individual to act responsibly, in order to get better results for society as a whole. The same used to be true with alcohol here in Scotland, with temperence leagues and what not having ties with the early labour movement - after all, drink was causing a lot of social problems and keeping the working man down.

Anyway, it's the economy in which the Conservatives have proved to be far from libertarian. Being opposed to left-wing policies doesn't automatically mean you support the idea of small government - just ask the Nazis (oh yes I just did that ). The whole neoliberal agenda since the Thatcher years has hinged on the principle of the government actively inserting markets into all sorts of areas in the public services - most notably the NHS. It might be capitalistic, but it's being driven from the state downward. That's why I get a bit annoyed at complaints that the Scottish Parliament is using its powers to push some sort of radical leftist agenda when it diverged from England's approach of using partially privatised 'foundation hospitals'. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament was staying much closer to the traditional idea of the NHS, unlike those right-wing fanatics down south.

As for who I'll vote for, the only party that interests me at all is the Scottish Unionist Party. Much in line with my sentiments above, I see them as a truer continuation of the Conservative and Unionist Party than the current Thatcherite radicals. Basically, they are a small party based in largely working-class areas of Scotland that keep the Tories tough stance on social issues and values such as personal responsibility, while at the same time keeping what I see as a fairly balanced stance on the left-right spectrum - basically in keeping with traditional ideas of the welfare state. It's nice to see amidst the polarised world of liberal muticultural left-wingism on the one hand, and fanatical neoliberalism driven more by ideology than sense on the other.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Looking back at the argument from the first couple of pages on whether or not the Conservatives are libertarian, I would have to say I don't think they are. But not for the same reasons other people are giving.

The Tories do hold more traditional values in terms of social policy, but that doesn't necessarily equte to having a big government to enforce them - generally speaking they tend limit the role of the government when it comes to educating about/enforcing morality, whereas Labour have always taken a more collectivist approach (even since they became less economically left-wing).

Also, issues such as the decriminalisation of drugs don't always sit along left-right lines, with the right being authoritarian and the left more liberal. Yes, the Tories tend to be socially conservative, and want a crack down on drugs due to them being seen as morally wrong. But Labour have always been tough on drugs due to it being part of their wider, more collectivist policies to help rejuvinate deprived areas - taking away the right of the individual to act responsibly, in order to get better results for society as a whole. The same used to be true with alcohol here in Scotland, with temperence leagues and what not having ties with the early labour movement - after all, drink was causing a lot of social problems and keeping the working man down.

Anyway, it's the economy in which the Conservatives have proved to be far from libertarian. Being opposed to left-wing policies doesn't automatically mean you support the idea of small government - just ask the Nazis (oh yes I just did that ). The whole neoliberal agenda since the Thatcher years has hinged on the principle of the government actively inserting markets into all sorts of areas in the public services - most notably the NHS. It might be capitalistic, but it's being driven from the state downward. That's why I get a bit annoyed at complaints that the Scottish Parliament is using its powers to push some sort of radical leftist agenda when it diverged from England's approach of using partially privatised 'foundation hospitals'. At the end of the day, the Scottish Parliament was staying much closer to the traditional idea of the NHS, unlike those right-wing fanatics down south.

As for who I'll vote for, the only party that interests me at all is the Scottish Unionist Party. Much in line with my sentiments above, I see them as a truer continuation of the Conservative and Unionist Party than the current Thatcherite radicals. Basically, they are a small party based in largely working-class areas of Scotland that keep the Tories tough stance on social issues and values such as personal responsibility, while at the same time keeping what I see as a fairly balanced stance on the left-right spectrum - basically in keeping with traditional ideas of the welfare state. It's nice to see amidst the polarised world of liberal muticultural left-wingism on the one hand, and fanatical neoliberalism driven more by ideology than sense on the other.

Oh, good you're back. Nice to see you again.

OT: That's a much better line of reasoning than has been offered thus far. I think it will be interesting to see if the next Conservative government does try to extend the (rather pointless) internal markets in public services, or not.

I lean towards not, simply because telling the NHS how much it is going to spend on something will be a way of forcing costs down.

[Rhyfelwyr]

As a side note. My Scottish friends are of the opinion that if the Tories come to power Scotland will push harder for independence. Which in all honesty would be a bit of a disaster.

I suspect there is some truth in this, although some people exagerrate it. There have been recent studies that I can't be bothered looking up that have shown Scotland is only very, very slightly to the left of England. Also, I doubt that the Tories will be much different from the current Thatcherite regime.

Nonetheless, it is ironic that often the most passionate defenders of the Union are likely to vote Conservative, and in doing so possibly damage the Union. People have become aware of this fact, leading to the somewhat unlikely alliance between Labour and the Orange Order, with the latter promising to mobilise 50,000 votes to keep out the SNP. Some of the comments in the aftermath have been pretty hilarious, with the ordinary members on both sides pretending they had nothing to do with it.

If the Scots really are that wedded that to their anti-tory politics that they would vote yes in a referendum on independence, then bring cameron on, the one thing that makes my teeth grate more than anything else is the continual whining and indecision from north of the border. if they are that undependable, and lack any clear commitment to the 'family' then we are better off without them.

Wow, it's like I've been blasted back in time to the 1760's. You realise I'm now going to have to go and make a thread over this?

Oh, good you're back. Nice to see you again.

OT: That's a much better line of reasoning than has been offered thus far. I think it will be interesting to see if the next Conservative government does try to extend the (rather pointless) internal markets in public services, or not.

I lean towards not, simply because telling the NHS how much it is going to spend on something will be a way of forcing costs down.

Hello!

Withdrawal symptoms got the better of me...

[Louis VI the Fat]

Here you go, you perfidious rosbifs. ()

Something to cheer you up in these bleak times.


While the world is still in recession, the UK embroiled in a war it can neither win nor finance, and every year brings a new set of major crises (food, resources, Russia, environment), both major parties are decidedly unfit to be entrusted with governing powers.

But then, British politics have always been like this. For three hundred years now, nothing has changed and British subjects have been governed like slaves by a bunch of incompetent, miserable thieves. You should take your cue from us continentals, free citizens of cultural and political superiority.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Furunculus]

haha, awesome cartoon, think i've seen it (or similar) somewhere before. thanks.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

that is precisely why the US is so keen on a more federal europe with a common foreign policy and unified army command, so that they have a real partner in the 21st century as US hegemony declines.

and it's why they want the UK inside the federal entity so bad, so that it maintains a pro-us theme in its governing organs.

As Louis referenced, a "Federal" Europe does appeal both to the political left and the political right in the USA. The left sees it as a means of coming one step closer to a single world government that can work, equitably, on addressing all of the world's real problems using global resources to do so. The right sees it as a means of being shut of the whole place. However, on the right, most would rather see the UK NOT join a federal Europe, but continue their special relationship with the USA (though there are some who no doubt hold the view you express).

Politically, at least to the extent that it had the political will to do so, a Federal Europe will be somewhat opposed to most U.S. foreign policy efforts. One of the implicit goals of a Federal Europe is to have a political entity with the economic/political strength to tell the USA to take a hike and be able to back it up.

I have few objections to Europe doing so, as long as they don't expect us to pay for Europe's defense into the bargain. NATO was founded as a means of opposing communist aggression/aquisitiveness. The USSR is now Russia, a more or less democratic country of largely European population. Threat's over folks. Bring the 1AD and others home, allow Europe to defend itself (as it certainly has the capability of doing), and force the USA to focus on its own knitting.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have few objections to Europe doing so, as long as they don't expect us to pay for Europe's defense into the bargain. NATO was founded as a means of opposing communist aggression/aquisitiveness. The USSR is now Russia, a more or less democratic country of largely European population. Threat's over folks. Bring the 1AD and others home, allow Europe to defend itself (as it certainly has the capability of doing), and force the USA to focus on its own knitting.

Do you honestly believe this? The murder of Litvinyenko (sp) and the invasion of Georgia strongly suggest otherwise. The Cold War didn't en because we won some ideological battle, it ended because the other side ran out of money; rather like WW1.

I know you see the parralel.

[Brenus]

"it ended because the other side ran out of money;rather like WW1." Well, and the fact that the German Front was punched few times and the Reich Army in full retreat...

"the invasion of Georgia " Was not Geogia which started the war by shelling Refugees Camps?
And there are as much Russian Troops in Georgian Territory than US troops in Serbian Territory, as the two (Russia and USA) gave independance to the territories they took...
And don't pretent it is different...

[Subotan]

"the invasion of Georgia " Was not Geogia which started the war by shelling Refugees Camps?
And there are as much Russian Troops in Georgian Territory than US troops in Serbian Territory, as the two (Russia and USA) gave independance to the territories they took...
And don't pretent it is different...

You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years, and that Russia escalated it far higher than what was necessary to protect the Ossetians. Georgia bears some blame, but the responsibility lies with Russia.

P.S. If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

"it ended because the other side ran out of money;rather like WW1." Well, and the fact that the German Front was punched few times and the Reich Army in full retreat...

In full retreat? Seriously?

[Brenus]

"In full retreat? Seriously?"
Yeap. Just read books... The German front just collapsed in front of the English, French and US offensives.
After the August September Allied Offensive, the Marshal Foch issued the command to attack and brake the Hindenburg Line itself (September 26).
The Allies (American, Belgian, British, and French) assemble 123 divisions and 57 divisions in reserve. 197 German divisions in strong positions opposed them
The British deployed tanks in numbers that proved highly effective in breeching trench fortifications. The Americans attacked the St. Mihiel Salient south of Verdun and then moved against the Argonne Forrest west of Verdun.
The Allies succeeded in breaking through the Hindenburg Line and the Germans began falling back.
The Germans finally began to crack and large numbers of soldiers began to surrender and desert for the first time in the War. The Allies forced the Germans to retreat.

In order to stop the invasion of Germany, Hinderburg told the Kaiser to stop the war and to surrender.

So , yes, the German Army totally collapse and rooted...

[Brenus]

"You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years" I don't as it is irrelevant.
Even Hitler said the Polish were provoking...
The facts are the Georgian President, suer to have the support of the uS wanted to play Croatian Tudjman ethnic cleansing...
He ignored that the times had change and failled then put his country under what we know...
His decision, his responsability...

"If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?"
Politic
Same: If USA is so frendly and recognise Kosova, why not Ossetia? Politic and self interest...

[Furunculus]

ah, the thorny question of taxation and why one will always be accused of protecting the rich if you offer to reduce taxes:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/da...vour-the-rich/

A distinguished constituent emails me the following story, to illustrate why virtually any party that seeks to reduce the tax burden on the general population will be accused of “looking after the rich”.

Suppose that every day, ten men went to the pub, and drank exactly £100 worth of ale among them. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, the breakdown would be roughly as follows:

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.

The fifth would pay £1.

The sixth would pay £3.

The seventh would pay £7.

The eighth would pay £12.

The ninth would pay £18.

The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that’s what they decided to do.

The ten men drank contentedly together in the saloon bar until the landlord, meaning to be helpful, presented them with a dilemma.

“Gentlemen,” he said, “you’re my best customers. To show you how much I appreciate your trade, I’d like to give you a discount. From now on, I’ll knock £20 of the total bill for your drinks”. Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group wanted to carry on splitting their bill in the way that we pay our taxes. So, obviously, the first four men, those least well off, would continue to enjoy free beer. What, though, of the other six? How could they divide the £20 discount in such a way that everyone got his fair share of the windfall?

They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they subtracted that from everybody’s share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink.

So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man’s bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, following the principle of the tax system they had been using. This is how the bill now looked.

The fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100 per cent saving).

The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33 per cent saving).

The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28 per cent saving).

The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25 per cent saving).

The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22 per cent saving).

The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16 per cent saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to enjoy free booze. But, as they left the pub, the men began to compare their savings.

“I only got a pound out of the £20 saving,” declared the sixth man. He jabbed an accusing finger at the tenth man,”Why should he get £10?”

“Too right,” exclaimed the fifth man. “I only saved a pound too. It’s unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!”

“That’s true!” shouted the seventh man. “Why should he get £10 back, when I got two measly quid? The system is rigged in favour of the toffs!”

“Wait a minute,” yelled the first four men in unison, “we didn’t get anything at all. It’s always the worst off who get neglected by the politicians!”

The nine men dragged the tenth into the carpark and gave him a thorough kicking.

The next night the tenth man didn’t show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beer without him. But when the bill came, they found that their money didn’t even cover half of it.

There is, of course, an argument for cutting tax in a way that disproportionately favours the poor: a rise in thresholds, for example, aimed at ending the disincentives that trap people in the squalor of dependency. Norman Tebbit, our newest Telegraph blogger, makes precisely that case here. (Do have a look, by the way, at the brilliant new contributors whom the blogs editor, Damian “The Dame” Thompson, has signed up: Andrew Gilligan, Douglas Murray and Toby Young as well as Norm.) The point is that any general tax cut – reducing income tax, lowering VAT, scrapping taxes on savings or inheritance – is bound to favour, in absolute if not relative terms, the people paying the most already.

Of course, if your objective is equality rather than prosperity, you can design a fiscal system around the expropriation of the tenth man. But, as in my constituent’s little parable, he is unlikely to hang around waiting for you to apply it. In fact, the chances are that his house in Belgravia is already on the market.

[Subotan]

"You neglect to mention the fact that the Russians had been provoking the Georgians for years" I don't as it is irrelevant.

Don't be stupid, of course it's not irrelevant. The Russian government has been plotting for years to keep Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestier (Yes, another ghost from Soviet Past). Without Russian support, these "states" would collapse.

Even Hitler said the Polish were provoking...

They're not even remotely comparable, since the Russians were actually provoking thew Georgians (Giving Ossetians Russian passports etc.)
Oh, and Sup Godwin

The facts are the Georgian President, suer to have the support of the uS wanted to play Croatian Tudjman ethnic cleansing

That's speculation. What did happen though is that many ethnic Georgians were chased from their homes in SO/Abkhz, by Russian forces.

He ignored that the times had change and failled then put his country under what we know...
His decision, his responsability...

"If Russia is so friendly to the Ossetians, why don't they recognise North Ossetia or Chechnya as independent countries?"
Politic
Same: If USA is so frendly and recognise Kosova, why not Ossetia? Politic and self interest...

They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo? (Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still)

[Sarmatian]

Don't be stupid, of course it's not irrelevant. The Russian government has been plotting for years to keep Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transdnestier (Yes, another ghost from Soviet Past). Without Russian support, these "states" would collapse.

And "states" created with western backing (Kosovo, Bosnia) are prime examples civil rights, rule of law and economic development?

They're not even remotely comparable, since the Russians were actually provoking thew Georgians (Giving Ossetians Russian passports etc.)
Oh, and Sup Godwin

Italy gave Istrians (region in Croatia Italy silently consider its own) Italian passports. If Croatia attacked Italy or commited ethnic cleansing against the undesirables, you would be ok with that?

That's speculation. What did happen though is that many ethnic Georgians were chased from their homes in SO/Abkhz, by Russian forces.

I'd wager still many times less compared to Serbs and other non-Albanians who were chased from Kosovo.

They're not the same. North/South Ossetians are the same people, whilst the Chechens fought various wars for their independence. And if Russia is so friendly, why didn't they recognise Kosovo? (Answer: The ghost of pan-Slavism haunts us still)

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

[Beskar]

Yeah, that's exactly what it is. Two states outside NATO have friendly relations, it must be some nefarious affair, some deep plot to bring doom upon the world...

You don't watch many movies. The Allies and NATO are the good guys, here to save the world. Russia are the hard-hearted stern Putin look-a-likes with a fondness for vodka and violence and mafia.

Then you go "Serbia loves Russia" and expect the Allies to go "That's cool, nothing wrong with that."