The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[rory_20_uk]

On the other hand; at least they aren't twisted enough to screw up their own children's lives for votes.

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

[Furunculus]

I agree. Idealists will destroy the world as the know they're right. Pragmatists can work towards something, without undue damage to everything else.

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

[rory_20_uk]

what we are talking about here is callous opportunists, happy to play class politics which screws over their own electorate whilst sending their kids to exactly the kind of school they are telling the electorate they shouldn't have.

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

[Myrddraal]

by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

[Furunculus]

Yes, they're politicians. In essence they are salesmen. Do financial advisers have the policies they flog? No. Do share analysts back their advice with their own money? No. Hell, do I go to the gym 3 times a week and eat a diet laden with green stuff and no meat? No. My parents believed that state schooling was "right", but it was so dire when I was growing up I was sent to a private school (on an assisted place) as they saw no reason to wreck my life just to prove a point that no one would know or care about.

In every walk of life it is always "do as I say, not as I do". Why should politicians be any different? It might not be right, but it is. As long as they were salso orting out the state system, by sending their own children elsewhere they are at least reducing the demands on it.

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establisment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

[rory_20_uk]

this is not about do-as-i-say-not-do-as-i-do, this is about nasty, chippy, idiotic, small-minded politics that treats education as a pawn of electoral positioning and willfully destroys the few remaining good parts of the educational establishment, and this from the party that likes to say that it helps the little man get a leg up in life.

I personally don't think that the way education has been addressed has been good, but I don't think that this has anything to do with attending Private Schools. Labour as a rule like to monitor everything centrally and half the mess is the attempt to do this; getting more to Uni has helped stoke exam result inflation with A levels now requiring a vintage to be adequately compared.

Labour does a far better job of dragging people and institutions down than it ever does of giving people a leg up. To give a real leg up would be to acknowledge that people are different, with different abilities and needs and that is Heresy. No! We are all the same, and thus must all have an equal sludge of "education" with any wealth being redistributed as fast as the taxes can be written to do so.

That's the single best argument against those who say that public schools should be abolished. In fact I'd go so far as to say it's one of the few good arguments in favour of public schools, but it is a very good argument.

And for the ultra rich banker / broker / hedge/vulture fund manager this is often extended a lot further to having a Private GP and Private Health Insurance so although they're paying a vast amount in tax, their use of the money is relatively low - . It might not be fair, but it takes a small army of people like me to give the government the same amounts.

[Furunculus]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.

fantastic news! :D

[Subotan]

Sounds cool.

Vive le engagement mutuel!

[Louis VI the Fat]

and yet more evidence that mainstream politics is convinced that Defence has once again become an important electoral issue:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7010508.ece

Brown goes into battle with billions for defence

Roland Watson, Political Editor, and Deborah Haynes, Defence Editor

Gordon Brown will put two new aircraft carriers at the heart of his vision for the military this week as he commits Labour to billions of pounds of extra defence spending.

At the same time, defence chiefs are exploring how closer military links with France and the potential benefits of an entente cordiale could tackle future dangers with limited resources.

The Prime Minister will use the launch of a Green Paper on the future of the Armed Forces to promise a new generation of warships and fast jets over the coming decade. He will also guarantee an extra £1.5 billion for the war in Afghanistan, and promise to safeguard defence spending from any cuts next year.

Mr Brown aims to display Labour commitment to the military while also forcing the Conservatives to say whether they would match such spending.

His pledges will include:

• going ahead with two 65,000-tonne aircraft carriers at a cost of £5 billion;

• maintaining troop numbers in the Army at more than 100,000; and

• committing a future government to the Joint Strike Fighter, costing £10 billion, and completing the £20 billion Typhoon programme.

The list will prompt questions about how an incoming government could afford such sums at a time of deep spending cuts across Whitehall. A government source said there would have to be “tough decisions elsewhere”.

The Green Paper, which paves the way for a strategic defence review after the election, will examine the nature of future threats and conflicts and Britain’s ability to respond. “It recognises that no country with the possible exception of the United States can do all this by itself,” said a source who has seen the report.

Britain’s partnership with the US will remain an important factor but France is also seen as a main ally, particularly in delivering joint leadership on defence in Europe. “We are like an old married couple who bicker a lot but we know that we can’t live without each other,” the source said.

He added that the outgoing French Chief of the Defence Staff held meetings in London last week in which he highlighted the need to work together.

Liam Fox, the Shadow Defence Secretary, said that Paris and Washington would be the two main strategic partners for a Conservative government. But he said there would have to be difficult decisions about spending, and procurement projects in particular.George Osborne, the Shadow Chancellor, has not given a commitment to the aircraft carrier programme. Both the aircraft carriers and jets that would operate from them have been subjected to delays and huge cost increases. Some analysts say that much of the planned hardware is no longer the best way of countering the most likely future threats of insurgency-style warfare, nuclear proliferation and international terrorist attacks.

A government source said the Ministry of Defence would look to cut up to 10,000 extra civilian jobs, without waiting for the Strategic Defence Review.

Britain and France, both nuclear powers, are the only two countries in the European Union that spend more than 2 per cent of national income on defence. They also face similar financial problems, making collaboration an attractive option, even though attempts in the past, such as a joint Frigate project in the 1980s and 1990s, failed to get off the ground.

fantastic news! :D

I am most pleased for you that defense should move up on the agenda in this election.

I am afraid I myself am mostly uninterested in military matters. Regardless, yes, I would heartily welcome a rapprochement bewteen the UK and France in defense. There is a lot of synergetic advantage to be had. Basically, more bang for our bucks, or the same bang for less bucks. (<- my preference)


The larger political framework is to me what defense is to you: a long-standing pre-occupation. My three mantra's: European co-operation is not anti-Atlantic. A further integration of the UK within Europe benefits both. The UK's double status as EU member plus the special relationship with America benefits Europe, the US, and most of all the UK itself.

I am happy that Brown is welcoming of Sarkozy's overtures. You may find the following article interesting, which gives a good analysis of French motives, especially those of Sarkozy's 'project', of which I am so fond.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Sarko the Brit
The French gave Sarkozy the nickname Sarko l’Américain. But it would be better to call him ‘Sarko the Brit’. Sarkozy’s rapprochement with NATO has other reasons than just those to please the Americans. The French President has learnt the lessons of Chirac’s two failed efforts of the 1990s. He knows that France’s splendid isolation does not work. And he knows that there is one country in Europe that is ‘the indispensible nation’ when France wants to build a credible European defence: Britain. All attempts to bind Britain closer in a European defence project, however, have failed until now because of Britain’s deep distrust of a partner that is suspected of wanting to undermine the Atlantic Alliance. Sarkozy’s return to the NATO fold is, in fact, a powerful charm offensive to woo London. Britain will no longer have to distrust a country that is a full fledged member of NATO. This means that closer defence cooperation between the two countries is no longer jeopardised by France’s ‘special position’. The former French Defence Minister, Michèle Alliot-Marie, alluded to this motive (without, however, mentioning Britain) in an article in Le Figaro (17 February 2009), when she wrote: ‘The unwillingness of certain European countries to make the necessary efforts to reinforce European defence will be easier to overcome when they will be assured that this will not be built against NATO’.

http://www.realinstitutoelcano.org/w...ity/ari40-2009