The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Louis VI the Fat]

How does Britain's military spending compare to that of other EU nations?

By comparison, Britain's defense spending is enormous.


This Wiki list seems as good as any:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eu_military

France and the UK are the two countries with a will to power, and consequently spend enormous amounts of money on defense. Within Europe, their expenditure is surpassed only by Turkey, Greece and Bulgaria. (All three NATO members, with their arms pointed towards each other.
Or, in the case of Bulgaria, arms simply being absent.)

Eastern European spending is ever on the increase. Poland in particular is starting to make its weight felt. (No, no sarcasm. Poland is great to have at your side)


Note that numbers alone do not provide the full picture. For example, Greek spending is mostly on personel. Consequently, these are equiped with outdated, even antiquated equipment.
To a large extent, this is true for France as well. The UK military, despite having about similar financial means, has a far greater actual operational capacity. Also, the French military expenditure includes the Gendarmerie, which in other countries might be considered a police force and be included in the budget of the ministry of internal affairs.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Does Europe enjoy a free ride? The Economist says this claim should not be made too rashly:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

HE argument about Jim Manzi's interesting article outlining a conservative vision for reestablishing American competitiveness has largely wound down by now. But something in a response by one of Andrew Sullivan's readers is still bugging me: "what Manzi has accurately characterized as Europe's free riding on the US for defense." Mr Manzi actually doesn't quite say this in such explicit terms, but it is a frequent assertion that European social spending is only made possible by implicit American subsidies on defence; so let's take a look at this claim.

Defence spending by Britain and France is around 2.5% of their GDP, which is about the world average. This is interesting in that neither Britain nor France, nor any other country in Western Europe, faces any conceivable territorial military threat. German defence spending is considerably lower, but (as Charlemagne noted in a 2008 column) it still fields the only other serious expeditionary force in Europe. In any case, Germany faces no military threat either, nor has there been any serious likelihood of military conflict anywhere in the region since the Yugoslavian wars wound down. The only European countries that face any risk of military conflict in the coming decades are those that border Russia, and indeed the Baltics are increasing their military spending; one could vaguely imagine Poland getting into a dicey situation someday (a blow-up involving Estonia's Russian-speaking minority leads to Russian intervention and Warsaw begins feeling the heat, or something), but it's a stretch, and Poland, too, is increasing its military spending to almost 2% of GDP.


America, for its own reasons, has decided to spend 4.7% of its GDP on its armed forces and on warfighting. But why should Europe match that? For the sake of comparison: India and Pakistan are actual nuclear-armed enemies with disputed territorial claims and huge armies facing each other across a hostile border. Each country is fighting active counterinsurgency campaigns inside its own territory. Yet Pakistan spends 3% of GDP on its military, while India spends just 2.5%, about as much as France. The world abounds in countries that enjoy no American security guarantees, yet spend no more than France does on defence: Brazil, Chile, Vietnam, South Africa, Nigeria, Ukraine, even, by some accounts, Iran. These countries are clearly not "free riding" on America; why should Europe be?


To say that Europe is "free riding on the US" implies that Europe is getting something. Yet those who make these kinds of claims never explain just what it is they think Europe gets out of America's colossal levels of military spending. Most Western Europeans don't see themselves as deriving any great benefit from America's disproportionate defence outlays; it is not clear how Europe's security would be harmed if America did cut its defence budget. And it is not clear how European security would be enhanced if Europe dramatically increased its defence spending. Now that China is ramping up its defence spending, American officials say they are troubled because Beijing does not explain what threats it seeks to counter. Anyone who wants Europe to increase its defence spending ought to do the same.


http://www.economist.com/blogs/bageh...uropes_defense

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Will European politicians finally listen NATO and to the military experts and embark on more European collaboration? Or will fears over 'loss of sovereignity' indefinately hold back European means to, like, actually preserve sovereignity?

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In a speech in December before NATO’s Parliamentary Assembly, Dr Adrian Kendry, NATO’s Senior Defence Economist, said that “a big disparity” was beginning to emerge between EU nations and the US and Canada and that while the European emphasis on domestic defence investment was a natural response to the economic crisis, it was “good for the local economy but not the best use of funds…we have to think about collaborative defence expenditure”. Echoing these comments, Canadian parliamentarian Leon Benoit said that if European budgets were proportionately 40% lower than the US, then due to the fragmentation of the European market, it would only be 20 % as effective as US investment.

“We cannot continue with the way things are now,” he said.

Falling budgets have led to increased calls for European collaboration. In a December speech on Europe’s naval defence technological industrial base (DTIB), European Defence Agency chief executive Alexander Weis said that “innovation does not come from the export but from the domestic market…the current naval DTIB is characterised by overcapacities, fragmentation and redundant structures”.

To illustrate his point, Weis said that despite a far inferior defence spend, Europe has 7.2 naval systems, overall, for each US naval system; the continent has seven different types of diesel submarines and 11 different frigates; and most starkly of all, there are 25 naval prime contractors, many of which encompass more than one shipyard.

>He outlined three scenarios which can be applied to the defence industrial base as a whole. In a worst case scenario, industry would continue in its current form, with no consolidation or cooperation; operating profits and costs would come under increasing strain and yards would eventually be unable to compete with cheaper equipment from Asian yards.

A 'single European market scenario' would see consolidation of demand and the creation of EADS-type companies in the naval sector. However, none of the major European shipbuilding countries would abandon their national capacities, making such a scenario unrealistic.

A third, 'realistic scenario' would see the launch of major co-operative projects, such as a logistics ship in the mid term and even an aircraft carrier project in the long term.

"On this basis the European naval industry increases project-oriented co-operation aiming at specialisation while avoiding duplication of capacities and technological capacities," Weis said.

The coming year will certainly see European countries cut their defence budgets even further. More optimistically, however, it could present a unique opportunity. The parlous state of the global economy could lead to more co-operation, less duplication and more rationalisation: a money-saving goal long cherished by many in the industry. With budgetary pressures also weighing heavily in Washington, there is also the potential for more transatlantic industrial co-operation.

http://ukdf.blogspot.com/2009/12/eur...lls-short.html

[Brenus]

The missions to the French Army are different from the UK.

UK’s post-imperial ambitions are limited in following USA when the French still has the confetti of Empire like the “pré-gardé” in Africa, and few islands in the Caribbean, plus of course French Guyana (Rocket Launcher Ariane), New Caledonia and Mayotte. And probably others spots…
So the French has a huge capacity in fast but light development, design to control population who basically know by memory what means to have a battalion of Foreign Legion in there. And it is not said in a nasty way…
E.g. my sister working in Cambodia told me that the only unit never attack by the remaining Red Khmers was the Foreign Legion, this for, IMHO, 2 reasons:
They remember the Legion
The Captain commanding officer said openly in front of the UN civilian official recommending restrain in case of attack and ask authorisation before answering: “If my legionnaires are under attack they will bring a maximum of “censored” “censored” with them in hell and any way all radio communication will be impossible”.
My sister having been a staunch anti-militarist (with 3 brothers in the army, I know) I give credit to this witness.
On another hand, I suspect something like “il m’a aimé toute la nuit mon legionnaire” (Edith Piaf). I will never know…

New Labour:
It is time now to put on my Leftist battle gear and uniform: These social traitors just did the same policy than Thatcher and consort (and yes I think of Major).
In fact, it is so obvious than Cameron can not decide what he could have done different from Brown:
- Selling all the factories to private and foreign companies: done.
- Deregulations of bankers: done
- Taxing the middle-classes and exoneration of taxes for the richest: done
- Transformation of the Anglo-Normans Islands in a fiscal paradise: done
- Privatisation and mutation of energy, transport, water companies in machine to make money for friends: done
- Declaring few wars to prove whatever: done
- Laws in favour of the employers and destabilisation of unions: done
- Sabotage of free education: done

Same things can be said for the French Social Traitors known as Socialist Party.

All of them just forget what work means: It was to be proud of a job, to earn by your sweat and labour your money and to raise your kids. To be able to hope they will be better than you thanks to the Public School open to every body and giving the same opportunities without discrimination. To defend our freedom against internal and external oppressors, to dream of a better world where people would have dignity, even the less fortunate by luck or gift.
They sold their souls (if they still have one) to the Market, and exchanged the DREAM for ACTION PLAN.
J’irai cracher sur vos tombes: I will go to spit on your graves.

Ouf. I feel better.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Transformation of the Anglo-Normans Islands

Ther term "Anglo-Norman" refers only to the French-speaking aristrocracy who ruled England after the deposition of Harold II by William the Bastard. It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.

[Brenus]

Anglo-Norman islands (or Channel Islands) constituted by Jersey, Guernesey, Jethou, Herm, Sercq and Aurigny, near Normandie (so norman) and being English (so Anglo).
It is a geographical name.

“It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.”
To whom else?
The English referring about the Channel qualify it as English, for the astonishment of the French, Belgium, Dutch and German.
And nobody care really...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Anglo-Norman islands (or Channel Islands) constituted by Jersey, Guernesey, Jethou, Herm, Sercq and Aurigny, near Normandie (so norman) and being English (so Anglo).
It is a geographical name.

Really? The Channel Islands have been as much a "fiscal paridise" for a very long time, however de-rgulation of the City was a Labour project. So can you see why I would miss-interpret?

“It is impolite to refer to the British Isles as an "Anglo-Norman" possesion, and not only with regard to England.”
To whom else?
The English referring about the Channel qualify it as English, for the astonishment of the French, Belgium, Dutch and German.
And nobody care really...

To the Scots, for starters, it would probably be akin to suggesting Scotland was part of England, and as far as the "English" Channel goes, it seperates England from the Continent. Otherwise what are you going to call it? There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

[Brenus]

“Otherwise what are you going to call it?” La Manche.
The French Channel

“So can you see why I would miss-interpret?”. Yeap, I see.

[Furunculus]

I personally am delighted; the UK elections debate has been dominated by matters of Defence, rather than relegated to an afterthought as usually happens, and i can only hope that the same happens in the wider national debate.

[Subotan]

There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

Really?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...and as far as the "English" Channel goes, it seperates England from the Continent. Otherwise what are you going to call it? There is more than one Channel in the world, so you might as well refer to it by function.

"North Sea Drainage Channel Number One?"

"The Larger Extension of the Scheldt?"

"Ultimate Repository for Hats Accidentally Dropped in the Upper Rhine?"

....I see real possibilities here!

[al Roumi]

"North Sea Drainage Channel Number One?"

"The Larger Extension of the Scheldt?"

"Ultimate Repository for Hats Accidentally Dropped in the Upper Rhine?"

....I see real possibilities here!

What about the "Bonaparte barrier"

[Subotan]

Or the British Barrier

[drone]

Chunnel cooling system.

[InsaneApache]

I always liked the headline...

'Fog in The Channel, Europe cut off'.

[Louis VI the Fat]

'Fog in The Channel, Europe cut off'.

Soon this will be: 'Frog in La Manche, Britain cut off'.

Because, did I mention yet that the French Marine for the first time in three centuries replaced the British Royal Navy as the biggest European Naval power?

Behold these Weapons of Mass Destruction, ready to strike England in 45 minutes. And there is notHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT:



Look at all those shiny new ships, Furunculus, that we can, and you can't, afford!!

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Edit: It has begun!!1!

Nuclear subs collide in Atlantic

A Royal Navy nuclear submarine was involved in a collision with a French nuclear sub in the middle of the Atlantic, the MoD has confirmed.

HMS Vanguard and Le Triomphant were badly damaged in the crash in heavy seas earlier this month.
First Sea Lord Admiral Sir Jonathon Band said the submarines came into contact at low speed and no injuries were reported.
Both the UK and France insisted nuclear security had not been compromised.

BBC defence correspondent Caroline Wyatt said the incident was "incredibly embarrassing" for the Ministry of Defence (MoD).
HMS Vanguard returned to its home base Faslane on the Firth of Clyde under her own power on 14 February.

"Very visible dents and scrapes" could be seen as tugs towed her in to the port on the final stage of the journey, our correspondent said.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7892294.stm

Clearly, the Atlantic is not big enough for both our navies. Let this be a forewarning of what's to become of what little there is left of your fleet, or British pride, should the Royal Navy cross our path again.

[Boohugh]

Umm, you do realise that article is a year old Louis? You know...when our navy was still bigger than yours?

I miss those days...

[Furunculus]

Soon this will be: 'Frog in La Manche, Britain cut off'.
Because, did I mention yet that the French Marine for the first time in three centuries replaced the British Royal Navy as the biggest European Naval power?
Behold these Weapons of Mass Destruction, ready to strike England in 45 minutes. And there is notHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT IT:

Look at all those shiny new ships, Furunculus, that we can, and you can't, afford!!

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

Edit: It has begun!!1!
Clearly, the Atlantic is not big enough for both our navies. Let this be a forewarning of what's to become of what little there is left of your fleet, or British pride, should the Royal Navy cross our path again.

lol, you're a funny man Louis, i'll never deny it.

of course its embarrassing, unlike the continent, we tend to give our guys a sound thrashing when they prang their countries warships, it's not taken as given that half your fleet will naturally lie at the bottom of the harbour whether from fair means or foul. its why we titter and you mutter when brest is mentioned.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Planning to revisit Beachy Head eh Louis?

[InsaneApache]

Aye, well, you Frenchies might have a head start but we do still have rum sodomy and the lash. Just goes to show, you can't be too careful.

[Furunculus]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...-a-carton.html

If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

[CountArach]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:

I don't see anyone here claiming that NewLab are trying to create some sort of liberal paradise. They are an authoritarian party and I don't think that anyone could possibly contest that theory.

I've noted a lot of people who think that being more anti-immigration would win either Party a lot of votes from disgruntled people who have moved over to the BNP. This blog isn't so sure.

Every day during the campaign Populus asked 250 people what they recalled the Conservative party saying recently. Over 30% of people recalled the Conservative message on immigration after Michael Howard announcement at the end of January that the Conservatives would impose an annual limit on immigration. Apart from 3 days after the council tax announcement, it remained the most recalled message when people were asked about the Conservative party for the rest of January and February. In March it remained amongst the most recalled issues, but was topped for a while by opposing anti-terrorism legislation, sacking Howard Flight and cracking down on travellers. Once the election was actually called, on every single day throughout the whole of the campaign the most recalled Conservative message was anti-immigration. Immigration is indeed a very salient issue, and it completely swamped Conservative messages on health, taxes, policing and so on. At the end of the campaign Populus asked people to characterise this Conservative campaign which people had recalled as being almost wholly about immigration. The most popular options were negative and aggressive.

There is no denying that Immigration is a huge issue, and that more people want tighter Immigration laws, however it also cannot be denied that a campaign of picking on Immigrants is characterised as inherently aggressive.

[InsaneApache]

I don't think that anyone is picking on immigrants, except the BNP that is. The influx of immigrants has been unprecendented in our history and many parts of the country are struggling with housing, schools, hospitals etc. etc. Especially in the south-east.

That it was a deliberate policy by Blair and Brown, "to rub the noses of the right in it", has come back to bite them on the bum. Many of the white working classes are moving towards the BNP and away from Labour because of this. Too late the realisation has dawned on Labour ministers that they can no longer rely on the white working class vote, hence recent announcements from the politburo. Stable doors and horses springs to mind.

[Subotan]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...-a-carton.html

If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

That's a terrible article. I hate journalists who use "At this rate X is going to happen", as they make it look like X is actually real, and it's lazy journalism.

Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

How is that authoritarian? That's just common sense, to prevent looting.

I highly doubt that if either the Tories or the Lib Dems get in that they will fail to stop this "legislative diarrhoea".

The influx of immigrants has been unprecendented in our history

Really?

and many parts of the country are struggling with housing, schools, hospitals

I highly doubt this, especially the last two. Immigrants are usually young men, who have no need of the latter.

That it was a deliberate policy by Blair and Brown, "to rub the noses of the right in it", has come back to bite them on the bum.

I'm not sure if you're talking about EU immigrants or otherwise. If it's the former, then that is the result of other European countries closing their doors to Poles etc, and a communication failure by the government. If it's the latter, again, I highly doubt it.

Too late the realisation has dawned on Labour ministers that they can no longer rely on the white working class vote, hence recent announcements from the politburo. Stable doors and horses springs to mind.

Immigrants are just a scapegoat. The real reason the white working class are defecting from Labour is because Labour's economic policies have disproportionally favoured the rich/Middle England, and because the working class are no longer as influential as a voting bloc as they were in the past.

[Furunculus]

That's a terrible article. I hate journalists who use "At this rate X is going to happen", as they make it look like X is actually real, and it's lazy journalism.

I highly doubt that if either the Tories or the Lib Dems get in that they will fail to stop this "legislative diarrhoea".

what you need to focus on is:

[snip]This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. [snip]

oh really, i have to confess i think the cons might have created a whole lot less new offences during their last period of government....

[Crazed Rabbit]

I don't see anyone here claiming that NewLab are trying to create some sort of liberal paradise. They are an authoritarian party and I don't think that anyone could possibly contest that theory.

Most political parties, especially those on the left, are authoritarian. The whole platform is based on forcing people to behave - they are told how they can go about business, how they should raise their children, what car they should drive, that they should recycle, what fair trade food they should buy, what insurance they must have, etc.

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption
of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the
Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers
of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to
govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good
masters, but they mean to be masters."

-Daniel Webster

CR

[Louis VI the Fat]

the authoritarian tendancies of labour, necessary to achieve the 'liberal' paradise they seek:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/p...-a-carton.html

Bollox, the lot of it. Populist nonsense. Written by somebody without the faintest clue about laws, regulations and legal matters. Or, more worryingly, as I shall argue in the post below, written by somebody with an insidious political agenda.


Here we go:

1)

However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

I suggest any Briton goes to a supermarket tomorrow, armed with his copy of the Daily Outragograph, and insists he must be given something for free with his purchase.
Watch yourself being laughed out of the shop. Watch yourself being laughed out of your lawyer's office when trying to get your due based on this misreporting.


2)

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion.

Legislation was brought in after 9-11, to close loopholes that might prevent terror suspects from being prosecuted. 'Illegal to cause a nuclear explosion' - nothing wrong with that law. In fact, it is so bloody obvious that perhaps previous governmets forgot to mention it, leaving room for crafty lawyers to get terrorists of the hook, even when caught red-handed with a nuclear device on the London Underground.



3)

disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer

Spreading salmonella by interfering with eggs declared as contaminated with it?

4)

Others:

Switching the ear tag of an animal which has been declared disease-free to one which hasn’t?
Fishing out endangered species and hiding what you’ve done in an “unsorted” batch?
Gaining some advantage by claiming qualifications you don’t have?

'Legal diarrhea'?
Not at all. I say the people who are laughing at these silly laws, outraged at the Labour 'police state', are either unaware of, or haven't thought through, the underlying issues behind these laws/local regulations/court decisions.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Do you know that genius postmodern text generator? It is a program that automatically produces an interesting (at first glance) postmodern text. Out of just a few words and concepts, endlessly mixed and re-arranged, the programs manages to produce an infinite number of texts.

I say the Telegraph has managed the same. The paper is filled by spambots, several programs written by the Telegraph, which automatically create daily, endlessly repetitive articles based on just a few concepts and phrases, written into a new daily outrage article simply by tossing about the order of these handful of concepts.

I feel like Groundhog Day when reading the Telegraph.



Here you go, if one wants to have a real laugh, instead of laughing at legislation that actually makes Britian safer for British people, read how the Telegraph simply repeats its own articles with intervals of eighteen months. The trick behind this is, the reader vaguely remembers he has read it all before, so thinks to himself that what is written is probably true - since he has heard it from multiple sources.

This is how you are being taken for a ride.

This is the real problem of British politics: the media moguls, the clique of billionaires in London, their lackeys in Westminster.
In the case of the Torygraph, the two billionaire tax exiles who run their channel island - made into and kept a s a private tax haven by London - as feudal barons. And who hold a disproportionate stake in British media, to spew an endless daily diarrhea of false or misleading information to the British people.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Labour has created 3,600 new offences since 1997.

The Government has created more than 3,600 criminal offences since it came to office in 1997, almost one for every day in power.

By Chris Irvine
Published: 7:40AM BST 04 Sep 2008




Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrat home affairs spokesman, will reveal the statistic as he sets out a fresh initiative to cut crime.
Critics of the new laws blame a government addicted to pushing complicated legislation through Parliament, and keen on grabbing a cheap headline.

A total of 3,605 offences have been introduced since May 1997, an average of 320 a year.
They include 1,238 brought in as primary legislation, which means they were debated in Parliament, and 2,367 by secondary legislation, such as orders in council and statutory documents.

The worst offender is the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, which has created 852 new offences.
This is followed by the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform, and its predecessor the Department for Trade and Industry, which between them have created 678 offences.
Meanwhile the Home Office is responsible for 455 offences.

Among some of the more bizarre criminal offences created in the past five years include disturbing a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officer, or offering for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day.
Under Tony Blair, Labour introduced 160 new offences in his first year, but in 2003, 493 offences were created.

Mr Huhne said "In what conceivable way can the introduction of a new criminal offence every day help tackle crime when most crimes that people care about have been illegal for years.
"This legislative diarrhoea is not about making us safer, because it does not help enforce the laws that we have one jot. It is about the Government's posturing on punishments."

Here is a list of some of the new criminal offences brought in under Labour:
- Creating a nuclear explosion
- Selling types of flora and fauna not native to the UK, such as the grey squirrel, ruddy duck or Japanese knotweed
- To wilfully pretend to be a barrister or a traffic warden
- Disturb a pack of eggs when instructed not to by an authorised officers
- Obstruct workers carrying out repairs to the Dockland Light Railway
- Offer for sale a game bird killed on a Sunday or Christmas Day
- Allow an unlicensed concert in a church hall or community centre
- A ship's captain may end up in court if he or she carries grain without a copy of the International Grain Code on board

If disturbing eggs is illegal, someone fetch me a carton
With Labour's laws creating a new kind of crime every day, Bryony Gordon is not sure which to break first.

Published: 7:58PM GMT 22 Jan 2010

I don't know what you're planning to do this weekend: a spot of shopping, perhaps. Some household chores. A nice walk in the park with the family. If you're anything like me, you will spend it doing absolutely nothing at all, apart from lying under your duvet with only a good book for company, the good book perhaps later being joined by your close chum, self-loathing.

Anyway, whatever the case, stop! Stop shopping, and cleaning, and walking, and wallowing in self-pity! Drop everything! For I have a suggestion about how to spend your two days off, and it is this: go swimming in the wreck of the Titanic.

Pardon? Eh? What's that you say? You're not sure that exploring a shipwreck is really a safe activity for all the family? You don't much fancy the depths of the north Atlantic in January and, anyway, you wouldn't know where to get a wetsuit at such short notice? Ah. Probably just as well, seeing as it is now a crime to enter the hull of the Titanic – at least without receiving permission from a Cabinet minister first.

This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. It's a wonder they've had time to do anything else.

Last night, Chris Huhne, the Liberal Democrats' home affairs spokesman, attacked the Government for an "acute and prolonged bout of legislative diarrhoea". Thanks for that image, Chris. Huhne wrote to the Justice Secretary, Jack Straw, asking him to repeal some of the laws. Straw, referring to the crime of disturbing a pack of eggs, responded thusly: "Egg marketing inspectors must be able to ensure that eggs suspected of being marketed in contravention of EU regulations are not tampered with." He added that he was "sorry that you regard these offences as unnecessary. In their different ways, they are important pieces of legislation."

So. It is OK for the Government to invade a country illegally, but if you fiddle with a packet of eggs, it's off with your head? The phrase that springs to mind here is, of course, "law unto themselves" – but since, for the time being, they're still running things, here are some suggestions for a few other criminal offences they could create before being booted out later in the year:

• In future, it will be illegal to keep food beyond its sell-by date. Why? Because it could kill you, you absolute idiot. Although you're not allowed to throw it away. No. That would just be wasteful.

• On that point, we don't do waste. Not any more. Waste is bad, especially when your local council doesn't bother to pick it up for weeks on end. Also, some of you stupidly mix your plastics with your paper, which just won't do. From now on, it's a crime to create waste of any kind, unless of course that waste happens to be in the form of legislation such as this.

• However, it is now illegal for supermarkets to sell you something without giving you something else for free.

• After the roaring success of the Asbo, we will introduce the SuBo, under which anti-social beings will be rehabilitated in X Factor-style boot camps under the guidance of Lord Cowell of Wembley.

• Any scrutiny of the spending habits of Members of Parliament is to be made illegal. Offenders will be given community service, which might involve repairing bell towers or sorting out dry rot.

• Thinking freely, for yourself, without instruction from the Government, is also banned. Who on earth do you think you are? A sentient human being? Honestly, the cheek of you people.

[Strike For The South]

Europe is like....different.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Europe is like....different.

That's what you get when you let an entire continent be run by atheist homosexuals.

[Strike For The South]

That's what you get when you let an entire continent be run by atheist homosexuals.

I didn't realize they had put you in charge

[Furunculus]

Bollox, the lot of it. Populist nonsense.

as i said to subotan, concentrate on the bolded text:

[snip]This wacky regulation, we learnt this week, is just one of almost 4,300 crimes created by Labour since they took power. I barely need mention the big ones that we all know – smoking in a pub, for example, or hunting a fox – but it's worth taking a look at some of the lesser publicised ones, if only for a laugh.

For example: disturbing a pack of eggs when directed not to by an authorised officer, selling game birds shot on a Sunday (or Christmas Day), and "reporting to the master or other officer in charge of the bridge a door to be closed and locked when it is not in fact closed and locked" (that one from Merchant Shipping Miscellaneous Amendment Regulations).

Also illegal: causing a nuclear explosion. You'd have thought – nay, hoped – that this would already be classed as a crime. But never mind – I can't imagine there will be all that many police around to ask "What's going on here, then?" in the event of an A-bomb going off.

The law, then, is an ass – but who knew quite how many weird and wonderful ways one could break it? Under Gordon Brown, the Government is dreaming up about 33 a month, beating his good pal Tony, who only managed a measly 27. In total, criminal offences have been created at the rate of about one for every day that Labour have been in office. [snip]