Some comparable countries, primarily France and Germany (although only in some of the indices). Our growth rate and financial stability (e.g. inflation/interest rates) have been decidedly run-of-the-mill. Which is why I did neither of those things. Although for the record, a lot of Eastern European countries have outstripped us in terms of economic performance in the past 10 years anyway. Yeah, but the converse doesn't apply. An abundant supply of cheap money such as we are experiencing now is a distortion of economic norms: the house price levels we are currently enjoying (mine's almost quadrupled in value since I bought in 1999) don't serve as a sensible measure of economic well-being. In fact, it serves as a catalyst for lots of bad things, economically speaking, such as overextended personal debt and demographic distortions caused when entire swathes of society cannot afford to live in their own communities anymore because prices have risen beyond their means (as is the case in much of the South-East right now). This paragraph makes no sense - there's nothing contingent in it. I'm talking about the tax burden as a factor of personal economic wealth, you're talking about ... well, I don't actually know. Actually, only those governments who lack the necessary administrative flair and lean operations to make tax money spent on public services actually work struggle to keep a lid on things. The health services in most Western European countries are far superior experiences than the NHS - and still free at point of delivery. Sure, taxes there are usually even higher, but that's the sort of fair trade I'd happily make. Well they couldn't. Blair's lot had to use Tory policies to deliver anything of substance at all. Callaghan, Foot and Kinnock's policies were all preposterous nonsense. In the case of Callaghan, a spell in government proved them to be. And gave rise to Margaret Thatcher ... It was politically brave, yes. He had nothing to gain and everything to lose. But being politically brave and totally, abjectly wrong doesn't - and shouldn't - get you any brownie points. Margaret Thatcher was politically brave too and I hope she dies a slow and agonising death sometime soon. Cliched blah blah, Andy. Come on ... Well like I said, I'd like to see such figures. Well, in the specific case of the pensions robbery, mine. Sure, so that makes it all the more appalling that he wiped out billions of people's savings by a waft of his tax-legislator's pen, just so that he could meet his own fiscal parameters (which, just to rub salt in the wound, were subsequently broken repeatedly anyway). He diverted money from people's retirement programmes into his treasury funds - and we have only the government's grandiloquent pronouncements (and yours) to take as evidence that the money has been well spent. Actual, on-the-ground evidence is that much harder to come by.
Sure... for Germany or Switzerland. Not for Britain over the past 40 odd years they haven't. As I pointed out to the other guy, you can't compare them because they started from a much lower base. Er.... WHAT? CHEAP money? I don't think so. The euro's about 3.75 at the moment and the US dollar, (although it's completely different housing market), is about the same as us... a bit lower I think. Hey! You don't need to convince me. I think that, in many respects, it's a disaster, (apart from the social costs), because it diverts investment from manufacturing and services. But that's a totally different thing to whether or not it's a good measure of how successful the economy has been. In that simple respect it's actually pretty good. Er... yeah... I had to read it again to remind myself What I'm talking about is the tax burden not being a good measure of the standard of living in a society which has personal health care paid from state funding. To give you some idea, a while ago I looked at the possibility of buying a holiday/retirement home in the US. However, after checking the rates for health insurance for more matu... more exper.. OK Old!... people, it became obvious that it wasn't practical because the costs were extortionate to achieve the same level of cover we have in the UK. More so in our case because we weren't US citizens of course, obviously. Well, as you suggest, the reason why we get worse health care, (which we do in some areas, I admit), is because we spend less on it. Frankly, as I get older I too would happily increase taxes to pay for an improved service. I'm also happy to admit that some of the cock-ups they've made in that regard are lamentable such as the senior doctors and surgeons pay deals which have been ludicrous. But, as I said before, I think you're working under the mistaken impression that they're alone in that regard... they're not. They're just the ones in power at the moment over here. Most governments, (in fact, most large organisations), are equally useless when it comes to overall efficiency. However, according to the report I provided the link to we're not actually that bad apparently. Also, let's get it straight, that report had NOT come from any labour supporting organisation. It's a US based research organisation as I understand it. Er... NO! The trebling of the oil price had a lot more to do with it than anything else. After 1979 the increases in the oil price actually benefited us. A benefit that Thatcher spent on 3-4 million people sitting around with their thumbs up their arses. Well that's one area we can agree upon Cliched? Moi? Possibly, but I think you underestimate the level of vitriol from people who run the meeja and don't take kindly to being ignored. That's impossible to get away from in modern Britain. I seem to remember it was part of a study done by some guy at cambridge university into levels of income. As I've said, it also pretty much matches information I've ben told by people in that particular position. As I understand it the MIG and other benefits have had the biggest effect. Mind you, it was from a very low base... that's certainly true. I mean, 30% of sod all is still sod all. Well, with any decision like this there will always be winners and losers. As you say, you may be one of the losers and others might be.... er... yeah, well that would be me wouldn't it. No, seriously, the benefits of providing incentives to invest have been one of the engines of growth over the past 10 years and, as I said, the ending of final salary pension schemes have made far more difference. Also, like I said, it doesn't actually make any difference because you'd have lost it in tax anyway unless services are cut. There's no way you actually get your own money back anyway because that's not how these things work. The plain truth is that you have a lot more chance of being better off in the long run if investment is made in the economy and that's the other part of what the policy helps provide. AH! Now hang on a minute... I never said it's all been well spent, did I. Some of it has been poorly spent, like the doctors pay deal. I'm afraid I have to say, though, that I think what you're expressing the end result of 40 years of the meeja in this country. What Sir Alex Ferguson, (although god forbid I should quote him but there we are), we have now what he called a 'mocking culture'. http://football.guardian.co.uk/News_Story/0,,2047103,00.html He was talking about football but the point is a good one. As I said, it's moving increasingly to the position that a politicians job has been made impossible in this country because people aren't willing to accept any responsibility for the decisions they themselves make. Whether it's obesity or debt or any of a hundred other things, 'somebody' should do something... just not them. I suppose what I'm saying is that mistakes may have been made but that these are blown out of all proportion when compared to the overall position which is, generally, quite good. However, if you study the meeja you'd think everything is terrible. Well, that just ain't so. Iraq is what Blair will be remembered for, and rightly so. That has turned out to be pretty much a disaster. Most of the rest of it hasn't been too bad which is why, of course, he got elected 3 times, the last time only a coupe of years ago.
This is getting a bit intractable, so I'll just pick up on one point. The phrase "cheap money" is commonly used within an economic frame of reference to describe the accessibility and affordability of credit, not the exchange rate that applies to our currency relative to others. In most of the western world, but particularly in the UK and the US, there has been a credit bonanza for most of the 10 years of this government's tenure. And that, as I've said, has been a pretty serious and pretty constant distortion of many economic indices - and does render house prices a particularly useless measure of economic health. To finish - intersting factlet from the ONS: average quarterly growth during the Major years (0.77%) was higher than average quarterly growth has been under the Blair/Brown duopoly (0.69%). I got that from The Spectator though, so let 'er rip with that whole "meeja" thing.
Actually I can. For instance I can remember when I could get the bus to work, before the services were cut. So what have Labour done to improve trains? What does that have to do with modern day refuse collection? The government can fiddle with unemployment figures as long as they want. The fact is, today it's harder to get a job. It's easy to prove, the demand for jobs is the same, yet the supply is vastly increasing due to immigration. Therefore it's harder to get a job, and pay and conditions deteriorate.
Er... that's two! So you're saying that the vast bulk of people are worse off despite being better off. You also don't seem to be providing an alternative so I'll try and help you with that. In a country where they ain't making any more land, where family break-up creates ever more need for housing and where a free economic system dictates what the market does... there isn't any. Well, unless we're gonna raise taxes and start building council houses again. Unfortunately people decided they didn't like that idea, so... As if I needed promting SO, presumably tory history started when Major took over, did it? You don't think the fact that they were starting from a low base might have anything to do with that? Come on Matt, you can do better than that. Of course I don't expect the Spectator to point that out. The plain truth is that we've had a greater level of economic prosperity and stability over a greater period under Blair and brown than at any time since the war. The fact that the tories managed a few years of decent growth, (from a very low base), until they would have fkcved it up left to their own devices, is neither here nor there.
What part of IT WAS PRIVATISED is it that you don't understand? They're private companies now... if you've got a problem complain to them. What part of IT WA... oh, forget it! As I said, it's lot easier to destroy a system than to create one, particularly when people have got used to a bad one and don't feel inclined to have their taxes increased when they're not sure they'll see any benefit. As I've also pointed out to Matt, you seem to imagine it would be any better with the other lot. It wouldn't... it would be a bloody site worse. Fiddling? Er, where? I think you'll find we've just continued to count them on the same basis as the tories did. Mind you, they were fiddled as well so I suppose that's a fair point. having said that I think we altered the basis for counting a while ago to make it more meaningful and the figures went up in one month so maybe not. In any event the current position in this regard is because of the entry into the EU of Poland and the other eastern European countries. There are some good parts to that equation and some bad parts. Over a period of time the eastern European countries will provide another market for our goods but, as you say, in the meantime it makes the job market more difficult. However, I would ask you the same as Matt. What do you propose as an alternative? More to the point what do you think the tories would do as an alternative? Do you think THEY would stop Polish workers coming in because, frankly, I doubt that very much.
Having said what I have in the guy's defence I have to admit it's not like I'll be holding a wake or anything.
It must be admitted that he worked hard in the facilitation of a peace-based ostensible end to the Troubles. Yet that work is dwarfed by the precedent-setting he shared in in Iraq. Lord Goldsmith knows, but probably will never tell.
Let's hope his talent for peace-making allows him to make some progress as he assumes his new role as Middle East envoy. He was adamant that action in Iraq must be coupled with renewed efforts to resolve the Israel-Palestine conflict. I feel his failure to secure cooperation from Washington on the issue was the biggest failure of his premiership. Misunderestimated the depth of the 'special relationship' it would seem. Good luck then, Tony. Success would go some way toward atoning for his sins in Iraq.
i would have thought that his involvement in the iraq mess would preclude him being any use as a middle-east "peace envoy" as the palestinians and their supporters will have either no confidence in him, or more likely open animosity towards him.
Yeah, possibly... but there are two parts to that conflict and like they used to say, 'Only Nixon could go to China'. It might be his past that allows him to push the Israelis into greater concessions. We'll see I suppose.
Yeah, that's what is needed. Pushing the Israelis into even more concessions. Can't we find any Jews to blow sh!t up in London and Glasgow??? Obviously terrorism works.
E, what? Anyway, simmer down there Ben... All I'm saying is that his position in Israeli and the US might stand him in good stead in some quarters, that's all. No need to get your knickers in a twist mate.
Hehe, sorry. I just can't help but feel that in general terrorism pays and in particular people are a lot more afraid of pissing off Muslims than Jews. I mean, what's the worst that will happen?
I see. Scotland and England attempts tie in. One thing I felt with Scotland attack. It seems like that car sat there for a long period of time. I think. Here in States. The foam application would extinguish fire rapidly. At least; its seen through movies. The fire might not take all that long but it did seem that way. I also thought maybe harpooning vehicle and drag it out from under overhead structure. Just seem like alot of water and fire stay strong past its time. But I would diffenetly try something else next time. Foam or drag it out of the way could help. Lets hope these persons are apprehended. I thought. It could have been better. I mean if your gonna go full speed with plans. I just cannot figure out. Why there wasn't a large death toll? If I was to go Jihad; I would want a large death toll. That would make a statement. I guess. Since the attacks over there fail; USA should be worrisome with an even more brutal attack. It does seem like terrorists are working a pattern. Over there... Here.... Over there.... Here.... Only this time; Scotland includes along with possibly France and Spain.... Good job in containment anyhow.
Every group in that region of the world (and most peoples most places, no doubt) has a history that simply doesn't allow them to make claims to peacemaking as their priority, but only to excuse-making for their violence. Every group.
You honestly think there isn't a qualitative difference? None of us are without sin Mel, not even you. Just because you have sinned, Mel, does that mean that you aren't qualitatively different from other people?
At the risk of sounding somewhat un-PC, there are 1600 people (presumably mostly Islamic jihadis) under surveillance in England. Maybe there should be less people under surveillance and more of them under *arrest* so stuff like this can be somewhat curtailed. Time for the Brits to take the gloves off and start shutting down the mosques that they know are spewing their verbal diahreaa and to put the imams who are doing the spewing in jail for sedition. Anything, because the jihadis understand only one language - action and respect only one word. Force.
All of which would guarentee we'd then have 3200 hundred additional terrorists to cope with. Brilliant! Also, how the hell do you think we know about the 1600? We know largely because the Muslim community has told us about them yer twit.