Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

The bottom seems to have dropped out of the campaign - and we've still got 4 weeks to go!

The farce surrounding Nicola Sturgeon and the French ambassador, was something to behold.

This was reported on BBC radio last week.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
This was reported on BBC radio last week.

And four days on, the fallout is still hanging about. Alistair Carmichael, Secretary of state for Scotland (Portsmouth) has reacted to the leak by shrugging his shoulders and saying these things happen.

Better ministers have resigned for less than that, but the guy has no honour.

I knew Labour were desperate for victory, but God Almighty, rolling out Tony Blair is a step too far!

He's just said that normal people can't be trusted to vote on Britain's membership of the EU...

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I knew Labour were desperate for victory, but God Almighty, rolling out Tony Blair is a step too far!

He's just said that normal people can't be trusted to vote on Britain's membership of the EU...

Rolling out Tony Blair? Are you sure they aren't desperate for failure?

Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.

That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.

 Paradigm wrote:
Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.

That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.

I don't know, they've got Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Green party in a few places. While it might not have much of an impact overall, it could easily cost them a couple of seats here and there; Tony Blair is mostly remembered for his involvement in the Iraq war.

I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.

But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?

 Ketara wrote:
I think that Blair saying that nobody should be given a say on anything because people might disagree with them is generally symptomatic of Labour's approach to government. It reeks of the 'We know what's best for you' approach that left wing governments often fall into, and highlights the fact that they don't seem to realise that they're not there to do what they think is best for the country. They're there to do what the majority of the public wants done. If most of Britain decides tomorrow we want to withdraw from NATO, scrap the NHS, and declare war on Tajikistan, that's what the government should be doing, however crazy it might seem.

But then again, perhaps I'm simply naive. All hail our upper middle class/lower upper class political overlords?

I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.

On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Paradigm wrote:
Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.

That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.

I don't think it'll make much of a difference. Latest poll suggests Labour are heading for a wipeout in Scotland, and most people seem to agree that Ed isn't PM material, regardless if Sturgeon said it or not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 -Shrike- wrote:

 Paradigm wrote:
Possibly a mistake bringing out Blair. So far, Milliband has done a good job of admitting 'yeah, the last Labour government made some big mistakes, but we want to move forward and fix them'. Perhaps having the figurehead of said previous government support you while making comments such as the above undermines that somewhat... Deserved or not, Blair does have something of a bad reputation for a range things.

That said, I doubt it'll have that big an impact; at this point, I'd imagine most have made up their minds in terms of leaning if not Party, and while on the Right there is actually a choice (in places) there's no real alternative to Labour on the Left. Maybe the SNP in Scotland, but outside of that, Left pretty much equals Labour.

I don't know, they've got Plaid Cymru in Wales and the Green party in a few places. While it might not have much of an impact overall, it could easily cost them a couple of seats here and there; Tony Blair is mostly remembered for his involvement in the Iraq war.

Agreed. Labour need this like a hole in the head.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.

On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.

Fortunately, he was elected before I was old enough to vote. So I actually get to blame you for it.

I voted for Cameron last time around, and I'll be voting for *groans* Cameron again this time around.

Next time, I'll pick somebody else. I don't want the Tories to have three terms.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I agree - democracy always seems to be a major pain for Westminster when it doesn't suit the main parties.

On another note, though, Ketara, be honest. You and I both voted for Tony Blair, and we're regretting every minute of it until the day we day.

Fortunately, he was elected before I was old enough to vote. So I actually get to blame you for it.

I voted for Cameron last time around, and I'll be voting for *groans* Cameron again this time around.

Next time, I'll pick somebody else. I don't want the Tories to have three terms.

I'm ashamed of what I did, but it just made sense at the time, like buying a coldplay album or a sting solo album, or painting the living room walls lime green

The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?

When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.

None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.

I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.

So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.

 Wolfstan wrote:
The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?

When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.

None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.

I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.

So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.

I agree, I think one of the reasons most people don't vote is because nothing is clear at all. I was saying before, there's no point listening directly to the MPs. You have to go through a third party who can hopefully explain what that really meant.

I don't have children, I'm employed with an average paying job. I'd like to be better off but I'm ok with things as they are. I feel voting the Conservatives for all they are, cant ruin that with their next 5 year term. The other parties I feel, do run the risk.

 Wolfstan wrote:
The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?

When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.

None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.

I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.

So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.

Fair points, but none of that matters. We've still got 4 weeks to go, and I'm losing the will to live. If their plan was to bore the electorate to death, then it's succeeding.

I thought 2010 was bad, but this has got to be the most dull and insipid general election campaign I've ever seen

That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?

Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever

 Wolfstan wrote:
That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?

Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever

Do they need to be charismatic? I just want them to do their jobs and keep the wheels turning.

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Wolfstan wrote:
That's the thing isn't it? It's already making you wander what's the point?

Do you think it's the coalition years that have done that? It seems to me that none of them stand out. There isn't a charismatic leader amongst the lot of them. Nothing to inspire you whatsoever

Do they need to be charismatic? I just want them to do their jobs and keep the wheels turning.

And for that, the Tories seem to be the best bet. The only problem is that whilst they don't seem to screw up the economy much and keep the government ticking over, they don't exactly do much to make everything else (poverty, education, etc) any better. If you're well or alright off, under the Tories, you'll probably continue to be well or alright off. If you're on the bottom? That's where you'll stay, most likely.

 Wolfstan wrote:
The latest 'Non-Dom' balls up just makes me think WTF! Can't any of them sort themselves out when it comes to policies?

When I vote I will put my cross against my usual party candidate, not because I really believe in them, just that there is nothing else. The two big parties are so up themselves it's unbelievable. The Lib Dems are on a hiding to nothing and all the others have no real chance. In fairness the SNP might be in a position to have a say with regards to a coalition.

None of them seem to have any back bone and none of them are capable of telling the truth, certainly not when it comes to 'where is the funding coming from'. I look at them and think, "Really? This is the best you can come up with?" Here's an idea, try actually releasing a manifesto that you believe in, that explains in b&w how you intend to achieve it and stand by it, come what may.

I still have an issue with the lot of them with regard to the expense's scandal. This came out due to a reporter, not a MP whistleblower. If nothing had been reported, nothing would of changed. Wringing your hands and saying that you personally didn't agree with the system and didn't make claims isn't good enough. It should of been the MP's themselves that brought this out in to the open, especially new ones. They should of seen what was happening and had the balls to stand up and denounce it.

So for me it's a real struggle to actually care about any of them.

Cameron himself was one of the worst offenders, claimed a huge amount of expenses to pay off his mortgages. And yet he got off largely Scott free peter hitchens at the mail on Sunday has been quite vocal about it.
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2010/04/david-camerons-answer-on-why-you-have-to-pay-for-his-big-country-house.html

I don't think any party has a clear path to solving poverty

The main thing that cases poverty in a country like the UK is not having work. Nearly half of all family's in poverty don't have anyone working.
There's too many people competing for the same job. The labour pool is massive. It not only has access to the high population of the UK but everyone in the EU as well.
If you're an employer and you find that you have a choice of hundreds of people for you job, you can get skills for a job at a cheaper price.

Increasing benefits treats the symptoms of the problem but not the cause. Plus that money is gone once paid. It is not an investment in the UK, there will never be anything regained from it.

Being in the EU means we cannot control the supply of labour from the EU as its a fundamental part of being an EU member.
That simple law is what allows wages to be kept low.

Leaving the EU means risking companies who want access to that labour pool and free market leaving to work in another EU country. The EU in this respect is great for business, bad for workers.
As it looks like we're stuck with the EU I think the best thing to do would be to concentrate on the infrastructure of the country and bring more business here.

Building more roads, more rail lines, making travel around the country more easy so it doesn't matter where you live. IF you're able to get to work faster, it means you can go further and not be as restricted on what jobs you can have
You create more jobs whilst these projects are being built and businesses will open in new areas creating even more jobs.

At the same time the government needs to start building houses, it doesn't work being left in private sector control, they control supply and demand to make money. Going on a massive building drive will again produce more jobs, and will help with the population that will continue to immigrate here for work. Increasing housing supply will lower housing prices and reduce poverty.

Benefit is not meant to be paid to people because there is no work, that is a toxic situation, they are meant for people who can't work.

When the US was going through the depression they borrowed money and started building roads, they build huge lengths of road all over the country, that investment paid for itself thanks to the industry that formed around it. They literally spent their way out of the depression because the did it cleverly.

I think we could do with something like that here.

As long as house building is accompanied by a block on buy to let - too many houses have a for sale sign one day and a to let sign the next by people and companies who are pricing out first time buyers and people wanting to buy to live in.

However, house building must be government led - developers want to keep the market value of land and houses high by restricting rate of development - they dont want to build more houses faster as that will lower the price they can get at retail.

Fair points from everybody above my message, but we're all forgetting one thing: vision.

Where is the party with a big vision for Britain in the 21st century?

Every party seems to be acting like a bank manager. A tax cut here, a pension shake up there.

It's dull, uninspiring stuff. You look at 1945 and the welfare state, that was probably the last time Britain had a vision for a better society.

I fear for this island's future, I fear we have nothing to look forward too but a slow decline as Brazil, China, India, USA, et al, surge ahead of us.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Fair points from everybody above my message, but we're all forgetting one thing: vision.

Where is the party with a big vision for Britain in the 21st century?

Every party seems to be acting like a bank manager. A tax cut here, a pension shake up there.

It's dull, uninspiring stuff. You look at 1945 and the welfare state, that was probably the last time Britain had a vision for a better society.

I fear for this island's future, I fear we have nothing to look forward too but a slow decline as Brazil, China, India, USA, et al, surge ahead of us.

There's a very identifiable trend in Modern British history towards what's dubbed as 'declinism'. You have all these books which chart the slow decay of British industry and waning influence from the 1860's onwards, which point to declining share of world trade and banking, comfortable industries failing to innovate and adapt and falling behind high tech foreign competition, ever shrinking military budgets outside of the wars, and so forth. It paints a very sad picture of Britain.

Except of course, it's mostly all rubbish.

Recent more detailed historiographical study has shown that whilst British share of world trade might have declined pre-1914, for example, the total amount exported still increased astronomically. The great recession of the 1890's actually wasn't a recession, just a smaller growth rate than the previous decade. Some of the biggest British industries, like iron, decayed, but other newer ones, like pharmaceuticals, subsequently improved astronomically. British military budgets usually shrink historically, when not faced with an imminent threat/war.

Our main problem was that our economy was based upon industrial, medium-tech production by the 1960's and 1970's, and with WW2 well out of the way, we faced increasing competition from the likes of a resurgent Germany and Japan. Our Unions crippled us, competitively speaking, and we had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That was as a direct result of a 'vision for a better society', where the state was forced to subsidise unproductive industries, national service had only just been disbanded (leading a widespread cultural contempt for the Army), and the country barely functioned. Keynesian economics had become increasingly irrelevant/outdated in a globalised economy, and trying to integrate them with socialist economic principles just lead to financial ruin.

I'm not a big fan of Thatcher or her methods. But economically, she completely threw this country into a reverse gear. By refocusing our productive capacities purely on the profit-making and the high-tech, things we had less direct competitors in, breaking the unions, and starting the housing bubble, she essentially put in place the economic prosperity Blair's lot rode the wave of. After that, we've further built on that by focusing on the services and financial sectors.

In other words, we're actually doing alright at the moment. There's no immediate decline in the future. Our economy is doing alright, and we're well placed, both geographically and financially to continue doing so for the time being. India and China cannot cut into the industries our economy is currently focused on in such a way as damages us, and in some ways, we're actually benefiting nicely from the rise of China (being one of the few offshore sites for the Renmibi, for example) We've cut the military down to bare minimum numerically, but that's always been the case in times of peace. As long as the quality is top notch, it's not a concern, and we retain the armaments industries to rearm as/when necessary.

The problem most politicians face, is that our country is actually more or less the most prosperous and equal it has ever been (bar perhaps a few years in the l;ate 90's/early 2000's). And it's extremely hard to convince people that we need a radical new policy/style of government/basis for our economy, when what we're doing more or less works.

So they all either end up arguing about issues of no substance, or reiterating their identical committal to issues of substance, because that's all they have left to do. Our system is not utopia. It's not heaven. But it's a damn sight better than most other systems in the world, taken as a whole, and provides security and shelter reasonably well for the vast majority of us.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Fair points from everybody above my message, but we're all forgetting one thing: vision.

Where is the party with a big vision for Britain in the 21st century?

Every party seems to be acting like a bank manager. A tax cut here, a pension shake up there.

It's dull, uninspiring stuff. You look at 1945 and the welfare state, that was probably the last time Britain had a vision for a better society.

I fear for this island's future, I fear we have nothing to look forward too but a slow decline as Brazil, China, India, USA, et al, surge ahead of us.

There's a very identifiable trend in Modern British history towards what's dubbed as 'declinism'. You have all these books which chart the slow decay of British industry and waning influence from the 1860's onwards, which point to declining share of world trade and banking, comfortable industries failing to innovate and adapt and falling behind high tech foreign competition, ever shrinking military budgets outside of the wars, and so forth. It paints a very sad picture of Britain.

Except of course, it's mostly all rubbish.

Recent more detailed historiographical study has shown that whilst British share of world trade might have declined pre-1914, for example, the total amount exported still increased astronomically. The great recession of the 1890's actually wasn't a recession, just a smaller growth rate than the previous decade. Some of the biggest British industries, like iron, decayed, but other newer ones, like pharmaceuticals, subsequently improved astronomically. British military budgets usually shrink historically, when not faced with an imminent threat/war.

Our main problem was that our economy was based upon industrial, medium-tech production by the 1960's and 1970's, and with WW2 well out of the way, we faced increasing competition from the likes of a resurgent Germany and Japan. Our Unions crippled us, competitively speaking, and we had to go cap in hand to the IMF. That was as a direct result of a 'vision for a better society', where the state was forced to subsidise unproductive industries, national service had only just been disbanded (leading a widespread cultural contempt for the Army), and the country barely functioned. Keynesian economics had become increasingly irrelevant/outdated in a globalised economy, and trying to integrate them with socialist economic principles just lead to financial ruin.

I'm not a big fan of Thatcher or her methods. But economically, she completely threw this country into a reverse gear. By refocusing our productive capacities purely on the profit-making and the high-tech, things we had less direct competitors in, breaking the unions, and starting the housing bubble, she essentially put in place the economic prosperity Blair's lot rode the wave of. After that, we've further built on that by focusing on the services and financial sectors.

In other words, we're actually doing alright at the moment. There's no immediate decline in the future. Our economy is doing alright, and we're well placed, both geographically and financially to continue doing so for the time being. India and China cannot cut into the industries our economy is currently focused on in such a way as damages us, and in some ways, we're actually benefiting nicely from the rise of China (being one of the few offshore sites for the Renmibi, for example) We've cut the military down to bare minimum numerically, but that's always been the case in times of peace. As long as the quality is top notch, it's not a concern, and we retain the armaments industries to rearm as/when necessary.

The problem most politicians face, is that our country is actually more or less the most prosperous and equal it has ever been (bar perhaps a few years in the l;ate 90's/early 2000's). And it's extremely hard to convince people that we need a radical new policy/style of government/basis for our economy, when what we're doing more or less works.

So they all either end up arguing about issues of no substance, or reiterating their identical committal to issues of substance, because that's all they have left to do. Our system is not utopia. It's not heaven. But it's a damn sight better than most other systems in the world, taken as a whole, and provides security and shelter reasonably well for the vast majority of us.

[/thread]


Exalted, Ketara.

Excellent post Ketara!

Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.

Ketara, you overlook two important points:

1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.

2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.

Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!

Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.

Ketara, you overlook two important points:

1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.

2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.

Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!

Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?

I don't think we need our government to have a vision, big sweeping changes are too risky, slow structured change is safer. I'd argue that the wealth concentrated in the south east and London is the amount of people who live there. If you can get people move around more freely it wouldn't be a problem but its stuck in a cycle now. People live in the south because there's well paying jobs, business open because there are workers there.

The UK does rely on its financial industry, at least now the banks are forced to have a buffer of cash to bail themselves out from now on.

What would you do to change it?

That's the thing with politics, boring and steady is generally what is required. Most of us just want to be able to go to work, pay our way and have the infrastructure working ok. It's not rocket science, but isn't very exciting.

For me things haven't been too bad personally. I've seen a drop in my mortgage repayments (and as my mortgage isn't huge, I saw the benefits), the price of goods on the high street dropped and there are many more sales/deals available. Ok I have no control over energy prices but they have been dropping recently and supermarket price wars have helped a lot. I would imagine that there a lot of people in a similar position in this country. So for me political things haven't really had an impact, therefore what Ketara says holds mainly true.

However looking at the bigger picture and outside of my world I have to say there are plenty of issues that need to be looked at and resolved and that for me is the crux of the matter. None of them seem know what they really stand for. I would imagine that Cameron would love to put the EU issue to bed and stay in it, but the trouble is he's frightened of potentially losing power so will faff around the subject. Have some balls man and say what you think and stick with it, no matter what the cost to you is. The others are just as bad, but that one stands out the most in my eyes.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.
1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.

The Empire didn't pay for itself, financially speaking. The cost of maintaining the security of such a vast expanse was one of the things that broke it, it wasn't just the two world wars. Having resources, 'there for the taking' is all very well and good, but when you don't have industrial or educational base outside of the homeland to exploit it, it becomes somewhat irrelevant. I can mark lots of goldmines on a map, but if I have no equipment or men to get it, it's not worth much.

In other words, we're actually better off without the bloody thing in the short-mid term. It would have probably worked out for us long term, but even if we still had it today, it would be causing vast problems.

2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.

Firstly, I feel that I should state that economics is no longer like managing a household in today's economy. National debt and deficits are not in themselves inherently issues anymore, something I've only recently come to understand. I know it runs counter to basic intuition, but managing national economics is actually very different to managing personal finances, both in scope and form.

Thatcher took us out of a rut, and gave us some economic breathing space. We're comfortable for the time being, and whilst doubtless there will be crashes in the future, I think we'll more or less be alright. The economy that can give continuous growth and no recession ever has yet to be discovered. When it is, we can possibly think about changing over to it, but I think for now, we're really no worse or better off in our economic position than most.

As things stand with regards to exports, we sell money, oil, nuclear and aerospace expertise, cars, pharmaceuticals, and education. It's a diverse enough and flexible range of things, and assuming we act competitively to keep our advantage, we not going to lose these markets in the short-mid term. You can argue that such a view is ignoring long range planning, but honestly? Planning for long term economics is a fools game. A wonderful exercise on paper, but it'll have changed by next year.

Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!

Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?

Perhaps then the sensible thing is to accept that we cannot provide continuous high quality employment evenly spread across the UK, and focus on building one or two key alternative centers alone. That's more or less the current wisdom, hence the focus on Birmingham and Manchester.

I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to work with the art of the possible. You can't have everything. We'd all like a continuously growing economy providing equal job opportunities across the entire UK, but it just isn't going to happen, no matter who you elect, or what policies they enact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a charlatan.

 Ketara wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.
1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.

The Empire didn't pay for itself, financially speaking. The cost of maintaining the security of such a vast expanse was one of the things that broke it, it wasn't just the two world wars. Having resources, 'there for the taking' is all very well and good, but when you don't have industrial or educational base outside of the homeland to exploit it, it becomes somewhat irrelevant. I can mark lots of goldmines on a map, but if I have no equipment or men to get it, it's not worth much.

In other words, we're actually better off without the bloody thing in the short-mid term. It would have probably worked out for us long term, but even if we still had it today, it would be causing vast problems.

2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.

Firstly, I feel that I should state that economics is no longer like managing a household in today's economy. National debt and deficits are not in themselves inherently issues anymore, something I've only recently come to understand. I know it runs counter to basic intuition, but managing national economics is actually very different to managing personal finances, both in scope and form.

Thatcher took us out of a rut, and gave us some economic breathing space. We're comfortable for the time being, and whilst doubtless there will be crashes in the future, I think we'll more or less be alright. The economy that can give continuous growth and no recession ever has yet to be discovered. When it is, we can possibly think about changing over to it, but I think for now, we're really no worse or better off in our economic position than most.

As things stand with regards to exports, we sell money, oil, nuclear and aerospace expertise, cars, pharmaceuticals, and education. It's a diverse enough and flexible range of things, and assuming we act competitively to keep our advantage, we not going to lose these markets in the short-mid term. You can argue that such a view is ignoring long range planning, but honestly? Planning for long term economics is a fools game. A wonderful exercise on paper, but it'll have changed by next year.

Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!

Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?

Perhaps then the sensible thing is to accept that we cannot provide continuous high quality employment evenly spread across the UK, and focus on building one or two key alternative centers alone. That's more or less the current wisdom, hence the focus on Birmingham and Manchester.

I know it sucks, but sometimes you have to work with the art of the possible. You can't have everything. We'd all like a continuously growing economy providing equal job opportunities across the entire UK, but it just isn't going to happen, no matter who you elect, or what policies they enact. Anyone who tells you otherwise is a charlatan.

I'm disagreeing again

I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.

India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.

And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.

I agree with you that no country will ever escape a deficit in this day and age, but ours seem to happen more often and with more ferocity, due to weak economic and regulatory foundations. Remember that bull about light touch regulation!

Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.

As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!

One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 obsidianaura wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Obviously, I'm going to disagree with Ketara on this one.

Ketara, you overlook two important points:

1) In the 19th century, we had an Empire. Resources and markets were always ours for the taking, and we always had the nuclear option of grabbing a chunk of Africa if we needed a morale boost or expansion for economic growth. Look at the grand vision for a Cairo to Cape Town railway as an example for this.

2) Thatcher may have changed Britain's path (and not for the better in my view) but as a result we have wealth concentrated in London and the South east. Our main industry is finance and because of this we have an endless cycle of boom and bust, property bubbles, and banks needing bailed out every 10 years, at a huge cost to the taxpayer. Our national debt is off the scale, and the deficit gets worse by the year. Debt has doubled under Osborne's 'grand' plan.

Because of the focus being on London and the SE, the North of England and the Midlands are in decline, Scotland is a problem that will not disappear, and constitutional questions are beginning to rear their head again - and nobody has the answer to this. Not Ed, not Dave, and never in a million years, turncoat Clegg!

Again, I ask the question to everybody: who has a vision for Britain's future?

I don't think we need our government to have a vision, big sweeping changes are too risky, slow structured change is safer. I'd argue that the wealth concentrated in the south east and London is the amount of people who live there. If you can get people move around more freely it wouldn't be a problem but its stuck in a cycle now. People live in the south because there's well paying jobs, business open because there are workers there.

The UK does rely on its financial industry, at least now the banks are forced to have a buffer of cash to bail themselves out from now on.

What would you do to change it?

I would have let the banks crash in 2008. Yeah, short term pain, but long term, it would have sent out a message to the banks to pull the finger out and stop wrecking the economy. The billions that were wasted bailing them out could have been spent on helping people recover, rather than prop up these corrupt institutions, in my view.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Wolfstan wrote:
That's the thing with politics, boring and steady is generally what is required. Most of us just want to be able to go to work, pay our way and have the infrastructure working ok. It's not rocket science, but isn't very exciting.

For me things haven't been too bad personally. I've seen a drop in my mortgage repayments (and as my mortgage isn't huge, I saw the benefits), the price of goods on the high street dropped and there are many more sales/deals available. Ok I have no control over energy prices but they have been dropping recently and supermarket price wars have helped a lot. I would imagine that there a lot of people in a similar position in this country. So for me political things haven't really had an impact, therefore what Ketara says holds mainly true.

However looking at the bigger picture and outside of my world I have to say there are plenty of issues that need to be looked at and resolved and that for me is the crux of the matter. None of them seem know what they really stand for. I would imagine that Cameron would love to put the EU issue to bed and stay in it, but the trouble is he's frightened of potentially losing power so will faff around the subject. Have some balls man and say what you think and stick with it, no matter what the cost to you is. The others are just as bad, but that one stands out the most in my eyes.

I'm pro-EU, but it's high time the British people had their say. We need a referendum. It's absence is bad for democracy, and I hope we get one within the next 2-3 years.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


I'm disagreeing again

I think you vastly overestimate the cost of running the Empire. During the 1920s, when the British empire was at its zenith, 40 people administered the Empire from the colonial office. 40 people looking after 500 million! And it still ran smoothly.

Yes. Extremely smoothly. If you consider the fact that there was no healthcare, no education system, no democracy, and indeed, most of the apparatus of a modern government.

India is a good example of this low cost. There were never more than 100,000 soldiers/police in the country, but the cost wasn't too high, because Imperial troops were supplanted by forces (usually policemen) from the local maharajas who paid their cost out of their own pocket.

And the best example is the dominions. Although technically part of the Empire, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, South Africa et al, would have paid their own security bills and pretty much everything else.

You're looking in the wrong place, and still wrong regardless I'm afraid.

Firstly, the primary defence cost of the Empire was the Royal Navy. When we were desperate for extra Dreadnoughts pre-WW1, and the Canadian Prime Minister (Borden I think?) offered to try and raise the money to pay for a few, the Canadians shot him down. We shouldered that burden alone more or less, although Australia built a few ships (but didn't want them sent abroad). Secondly, we were the ones who contributed the vast majority of the finance to two World Wars, and shouldered the repayments as well. The gold we sent over to America was stashed in Britain, not New Zealand. Now that's the defence of Empire, not Britain. If we weren't busy trying to saddle the world, we'd never have ended up in WW1 most likely.

Finally, you're overlooking the local administrative costs. The systems for local taxation were primitive and inefficient, and barely gathered in enough to pay for their own administration. The maintenance of ports/recoaling stations/fuel stations were only just about met by taxation on trade.

Other countries like Norway and Switzerland have their bad times, but they bounce back quicker than us due to stronger financial foundations.

Hardly comparable. They don't have economies based on the same things as us, they don't subsidise an armaments trade, they have a far smaller population, and they tack taxation a lot higher. You might as well be comparing us to Saudi Arabia for all the economic sense that relevance has.

As for the regions, I agree with you that equal opportunities spread across the country is pie in the sky, but it doesn't divert from the black hole effect that London has on the rest of us. The North of England has effectively been abandoned at times!

But what would you do? The low-mid tech industrial sector is bloated. There are few natural resources to exploit, with the main one, coal, being unprofitable. The financial sector isn't going to move from London.

It's gakky, but sometimes, the world is gakky. If there's nothing there, there's nothing there.

One final point, we're in a housing bubble s you know, and it will burst as you know. The depressing thing is, though, you can set your watch by when it's going to happen. Again!

Sure. Welcome to boom and bust. I repeat, the system of continuous growth has yet to be invented. If you have a solution, I'm sure the political class would like to know it.