I'm sure that's just a coincidence
So no public spending review this autumn. Significantly, the confirmation came not from the Treasury or the Chancellor but from the ubiquitous Peter Mandelson, who now seems to have as much of a government-wide remit to pontificate on policy as the Prime Minister. Of course announcing there would be no spending review also helped deflect attention from the fact that the Business Secretary has been forced to pigeon-hole his plans for part-privatisation of the Post Office -- but I'm sure that's just a coincidence ....
Peter Mandelson tells us it's all too uncertain to make a three-year forecast for public spending. But spending reviews are, by their nature, uncertain and the government has already published its debt requirements for the years ahead, so it could also take a stab at its tax and spend.
The Tories claim the review has been conveniently postponed until after the election because any credible review would show that a Labour government would have to cut spending too.
Many independent (and even centre-left) commentators agree. To some extent it's given the Tories a "get-out-of-jail" card: how can we go into details of what we'd cut, they'll now be able to say to people like me, when the government won't tell us its tax-and-spend plans?
So what does it all mean? It doesn't much affect spending for the current financial year (2009/10) or the next (2010/11). But a spending review would have given us the course of spending for 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2013/14. We're now pretty much in the dark over what happens to spending from April 2011 onwards. But not entirely.
The Budget Red Book contained a spending "envelope" which showed spending rising from £702 billion in 2010/11 to £756 billion in 2013/14. But that's in nominal terms ie before allowing for inflation (and nominal spending has risen every year since 1947). Factor in the government's own inflation forecasts and the spending trend goes from £702 billion to £700 billion -- in other words a fall in real terms of 0.3% over the four years. A spending review would have had to spell this out in more detail -- or explained why these projections no longer held.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies already has done the detail -- and the Treasury has not challenged its sums. You might think a 0.3% fall not huge after a massive spending-and-borrowing boom. But the spending totals to 2014 include an 8% rise in interest payments (to service our ballooning debt, which will cost as much every year as the defence budget) and transfer payments that rise automatically in a downturn, such as the dole.
When the IFS took account of these it discovered that what was left for departments to spend fell 7% over what should have been the new spending review period (or down 10% if you ring-fence health and down over 13% for all other departments if you ring-fence health and education).
I've said several times on-air that, with that sort of spending envelope, you wouldn't want to be Alistair Darling compiling this autumn's spending review -- especially not when your next door neighbour is talking constantly about never-ending rises in public spending.
Well, now Mr Darling doesn't even have to be Mr Darling. For there ain't no spending review to worry about -- which is not the same as saying there's nothing to worry about public spending from 2011 onwards.
Peter Mandelson on his position regarding a possible government spending review this year
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~05~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
More evidence, if it were needed, that the Governments priority is managing its prospects of re-election whilst applying a policy of Torch & Burn to the UK economy...
Complain about this comment
Politics is politics
Lies are lies
Why is it no one has the courage to confront Labour?
Complain about this comment
What's the point of Speaker Bercow trying to get Ministers to make statements to the house first when Minister Lords are outside his jurisdiction and free to pontificate on government policy to any media at any time of choice?
The Prime Minister should be held accountable for all the statements of all Ministers outside the house of commons. If he must have departmental heads in the Lords then they should have a deputy minister in the commons who has to launch policy announcements in the commons first. Failure to comply should incur censure or even temporary suspension. At the same time that Labour are bringing in legislation on reform for which they have no mandate, they still show nothing but open contempt for parliament.
I'm pleased that the 10% cut line is getting little traction. Ed Balls was on again Today promising education spending increases so even the 13% figure you mention is fanciful (of course that's if you believe Gordon's preferred chancellor and not the actual one). I never thought I would have sympathy for Darling, but he and Hilary Benn are the only two cabinet ministers that remember what honesty is.
Am I the only one who is utterly frustrated that the Government owns the civil service, the civil service owns the information about governance, and if either one decide to withhold, doctor or selectively release information, holding either to account by the opposition is impossible? Equally frustrating is that the opposition can't put forward alternatives because they don't know the numbers. I find this political deadlock cynical and utterly counterproductive. I hope that one thing that comes out of parliamentary reform is that the civil service becomes independent and answerable only to the people and required to share our information with parliament, not just government, to facilitate transparent and honest government.
One last point, Balls nailed Tories for IHT tax again today. The Balls on the the radio this morning was that the Tories will cut Health, Education and a whole host of other things (fill in your own blanks, the truth doesn't matter) to pay for this tax relief for the few. It's still a lie, but unlike the 10% which most see as commentary on Labour figures, IHT is real, it will benefit the few being increasingly irrelevant to the many as house prices continue to fall (or does anybody believe that recent rises are anything but temporary?). Why do the Tories allow themselves to be put on the rack time and time again for this silly policy (should be aspiration). If the Tories can't prioritise properly which this clearly shows they can't, how can they be trusted with governance? I despair.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
Facts are facts. Drastic measures will have to be taken simply to keep the ship of state afloat and by whoever captains Her after the election. However there is no need to rely on either the red-block or the blue-block having control.
We, who must pay and who must suffer must also maintain influence in the next parliament. All reforms will be as nothing if it is left soley in the hands of one party.
We all must look squarely at the choices before us at the next election: Red, Blue, Amber and Independent candidates. If we cannot respect party polititians we should keep them fearfull.
Complain about this comment
...perhaps the last line should have read...
If there is no respect between electorate and party politico we should keep them in fear of us.
For we are generally ignored bar at election time.
Complain about this comment
Re:3 Good comment and good points!
Mandelson can essentially do what he likes, because he's not a member of the House of Commons and as a member of the House of Lords he never has to be put before the electorate ever again...
All he's got to be concerned about really, is whether his actions are so unpopular that Labour loses control of Government...
Mandelson will be OK. He'll still have a job of course, but the Labour MP's could easily be at the end of the dole queue if he continues with unpopular policy, like privatisation of the Post Office...
Complain about this comment
Andrew, I am regularly banned from posting but I will persevere. Mandleson is the new Emperor but just as with Jimmy Brown, he too has no clothes. When even The BBC are unable to find any kind of modesty sparing cameras, the plot is doomed for our less than noble Emperor!
Complain about this comment
We all complain about government wasting time and money on pointless excercises. So why do we want them to waste time and money proving we havn't got anything more to spend?
Complain about this comment
Our Glorious Leader repeats promises and initiatives already promised and initialised a half dozen times before. Does he know that 96% of those suspected of a cancer already get to see a specialist with in two weeks?
Balls spouts balls on the radio, so machine-gun fast as to be almost incoherent! Tory cuts (we wont cut) ...a reduction in IHT (we've done that already) ...spending to continue to increase and tractor production continues to rise, forever and forever!
And meanwhile outside a golden palace in a city not so very far away, Lord Mandy of Everything tells us that all is well and we really shouldn't worry our pretty little heads about anything ...which is nice.
I increasingly read these days, in the papers and on line, reference to labour's "scorched earth" policy. There is the growing belief that Labour are attempting to leave the economy in such a bad state that the Tories will have to be so tough that the electorate will throw out the Tories after just one term and like the mugs we so often are, re-elect Labour.
While it's an view gathering traction, do you see any evidence, Mr Neil, that gives it credence?
Complain about this comment
Yet again both main parties are planning to hack the education system about with exotic schemes, in the interests of 'choice', 'rights', responsibilities', and every other buzzword you can think of - except 'education'. When are they going to stand back, see what's needed, and focus intensely on achieving that?
Primary schools are the principal subject, at the moment. Their central function is fairly simple: to teach children to read, write, and understand basic maths, and to broaden their knowledge and interests in a few other areas. If every primary school met these requirements adequately there would be no need for 'choice' or buying or cheating to get into certain catchment areas. All schools would be roughly equal, and that should be the target of any government.
To achieve this fairly uniform standard, every school would need one or two dedicated specialist teachers for 'early years' pupils - say in the first two to three years - to kick-start them in english and maths, and to follow up on the small number of slower learners. This concentration in the early stages should open the way for a broader curriculum later, together with consolidation of standards in reading, writing, and maths.
So government focus should be purely on (a) teacher training and selection, (b) competent head teachers for recruitment of staff, organisation of school teaching, and enforcement of discipline, (c) a minimal national curriculum leaving scope for variations in individual schools, and (d)limited standard tests and inspections to ensure that schools were making progress towards the required standards.
If necessary, experimental procedures might be tried out, such as temporarily interchanging staff or head teachers in local schools where one is underperforming, so that lessons could be learned and remedies established.
Whatever the techniques - and there could be many - governments of all persuasion should, in everybodies interests, concentrate solely on a standard level of education quality in every school. It would be cheaper, less complicated, more satisfactory, and less exhausting in the long run.
Complain about this comment
Its a shame really because I was rather looking foward to the spending review. It would have finally put out there at least some of the important figures. I do not see the logic in not getting to grips with our spending now, Mandelson is trying to tell us the figures are so uncertain that we should not have a spending review. Figures for Government are always uncertain that does not mean you should not be making projections, there is plenty of information on which way the economy is most likely to go. Even if we were to have the most rapid recovery in history spending would still have to be cut. The reason is that since 2002 we have been running a deficit year on year. As King said we were spending far too much even before the recession and this was unsustainable.
Labour should not make the assumption that they have lost the next election and that they will leave all the difficulties to the Conservatives to sort out. It could be that the public do believe that Labour can keep spending for ever. The fact is the polls are narrowing and the Conservative lead may not be as strong as people think. If Labour continue with their spending as they are, this heavy burden of not making cuts could well come back to haunt them.
On inheritance tax, I floated an idea this morning actually that the Conservatives should change their policy. It seems that Labour use this as a stick to beat the Conservative with. In actual fact the proposal by the Conservatives will have a theshold of a million pounds therefore it is not to help millionaries as Labour say. It is already funded so it will not be doctors teacher etc that will be cut to provide for this policy. It was so ordinary people who had saved hard and had bought their own home would not be subject to this death tax. With the cost of housing in some parts of the Country of much higher value than when they were bought years ago this is not an unreasonable amount. I think the Conservatives should make the family home exempt from this tax thus pleasing many more people. with the theshold at the moment only 325,000 it means many people are caught in this tax because of the cost of their home. If they were to exempt the family home, you would see many more people trying to move upwards in the property market, thus making more homes available to first time buyers. There would not be this rush to downsize in later life to free up money to avoid this tax as the knowledge would be there that you could pass it onto your heirs.
The reason for no review can only be to wrong foot the opposition. The figures would prove the Conservatives were right that the Government is intending to make cuts themselves. It also prevents the Conservatives of any knowledge they would need to decide where cuts will be made.
Complain about this comment
Entitlements?
Isn't this just John Major's Citizen's Charter warmed up?
Plus ca change...
Complain about this comment
Andrew: I think the debate about the Comprehensive Spending Review is irrelevant, except where the Government can be accused of scrapping an action it had in hand because it thought the outcome might impose an unnecessary shackle and cause embarrassment. I constructed a Comprehenve Spending Review in 1997 for a relatively small government department, and it was time consuming and quite difficult. The process will have moved on since then, and Finance Directors would not be starting from scratch this time. However, if it were to have real meaning I do not believe there is enough time between now and the election to construct a set of new CSRs, to have them cleared by management and then by Ministers and to be published (assuming that is what the Government had in mind) so that there would be time for proper analysis before the election.
However, there is a great deal of information in the public domain of the kind included in a CSR (from departmental Reports, Estimates, Parliamentary statements etc), and it would not be impossible for those with the resources to construct a meaningful set which could be of value in the run up to the election. In the absence of such an approach we are going to be stuck with Government Ministers like Mr Balls yesterday and Mr Byrne today simply ignoring reality and painting the issue as simply Labour spending increases against Tory cuts to fund hand outs to the rich. On the other side the debate has increased to one of claims of dishonesty at a level that I dont believe I have heard before.
Incidentally, I fail to understand why the Tories a) are silent about the fact that the Government doubled the IHT threshold for married couples and civil partners and b) why they dont simply scrap their idea as unaffordable.
I suggest someone needs to point out to the Chief Secretary (Byrne) how much the 50% tax rate will bring in and how much the Tories plans on IHT would cost, both set against debt interest. Is that something you could have a guest tackle for your next programme please?
Complain about this comment
"Tory cuts - Labour investment"
Okay - now what ?
The problem is that this was found out to be not quite true, and by using doctored figures, Gordon has made himself appear, at best, incompetent and at worse, deceitful. The brain numbing ignorance of the soccer style chant was also insulting to people who are not as dumb as politicians may wish to believe. They may spot rather more easily the incongruity of politicians verbal posturing against their actions.
Lord Minky likes to think he floats over the political stage 'Deus ex machina', and that his interference is so deftly achieved that he does so without disturbing the ornaments. He must see himslf as some latter day Lord Cecil. Unfortunately, he has a tarnished reputation and such love of the limelight, where he can receive regular smugness fixes, he is specially unsuited to his self chosen role.
Labour are now caged into an unsustainable policy argument for a whole year, while the economy tears itself to shreds in slow motion.
Complain about this comment
I am still trying to understand the nostalgia felt by some bloggers about a past that was safer,more stable and generally nicer.This is often combined with an arbitrary condemnation of a period in the recent past which is alleged to be the source of our present discontents.(See Thursday,146)
It should be clear that because of the rate of social change,each generation has a different outlook and expectations to their parents.Or as Heraklitas put it,`We do and do not step into the same river twice.`
One consequences of the impact of social change on the family is shifting patterns of authority and I can only repeat the distinction between authority,(Greek derivation meaning to let grow), and authoritarian, which is the antique rubbish spouted by dictators and recycled by their followers.Or as Auden put it. "And when he smiles,children die in the streets.)
Bryher
Complain about this comment
#2
Perhaps you would like Cameron to meet Brown behind the commons bike sheds and get it "sorted out"!
Complain about this comment
#10
Well the main purpose of Primary Education should be indoctranation. Children are not pre-prgrammed to be Citizens. Forget "reading" and tell them about "respect", respect for their Elders, Law and Order. Tell them about Responsibilities, not just Rights. Resposibility means telling spooty little erks to keep it in their pants if they can't afford to bring up their prodginy.
Complain about this comment
15 I saw your 146 and sadly for me I didnt understand it all. In my view there is no such thing as a golden age - there is just the one you live in, which is wholly random, and in which you do your best before the black age descends. If you are lucky it spans childhood, youth, adulthood, your own children, grandchildren and luck with your health. In my life we have had Nazis, Communists, Razor Gangs, Mods and Rockers, Skinheads, Teddy Boys and a list of others I have probably forgotten. They were no better or worse than the thugs you see today, sadly including recently on a rugby pitch. Interestingly, none of the above were organised by women, who bring all men into the world and then spend the rest of their lives wondering why live is as it is.
In politics I like to understand what is going on, indeed I believe I need to, but it is becoming increasingly difficult. Who do you think is to blame, and what are they to blame for?
Complain about this comment
#15
'Nostalgia' is a somewhat cheap way of dismissing observations on the pivotal social changes that took place broadly between the mid-fifties and the mid-seventies, widely referred to as 'the sixties revolution'. As has been said in earlier posts, our society is in a constant state of flux. However, the rates of change and the nature of the changes normally go virtually unnoticed or are recognised as inevitable consequences of events such as war, technological innovation, major political upheaval, or economic facrors.
The sixties revolution was out of character in many ways, not least in the speed at which it took place, its psychological impact on the nations it affected, and the imprecise nature of its driving forces.
It is not unreasonable to look back at the 'sixties' and draw inferences on how that era has affected today's society. It was a significant period - in his book 'Modern British History since 1900' (Macmillan Press Ltd, 2000), Jeremy Black observed that:
'The 1960s destroyed a cultural continuity that had lasted from the Victorian period'.
And that had consequences for all of us - not all good.
Complain about this comment
Is Labour a political party or a mixed up jumble of 'not so slick' soccer chants ?
Labour have given us more wars than Maggie Thatcher, Russian bankers fleeing the law have made the UK their first port of call, unemployment is becoming trendy and Labour is pondering nuclear weapons, nuclear power stations - all in Green I suppose.
I object to Labour on Human Rights grounds. There's only one reason to suppress the spending review, and that's so that Gordon's only election plank (splinter) doesn't immediately turn to dust.
The figures must be truly awful that the Grand Ayatollah feels the need to issue a fatwah. Can we expect them to appear in the Daily Telegraph soon ?
I diagnose Gordon and Lord Minky to be in end stage Venal collapse, but under their new scheme they have a guarantee of treatment, it just won't do them any good.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
mike-jay and others
I have to say you all talk about the past times as though they had, despite the problems, a charm about them. In a sense as though there where enormous difficulties but it was coming through them that gave a sense of purpose. I regularly speak with older people who talk about the old times during the war and onwards and there are things which run through everything that is said, they had hope for the future, a belief that they were doing what was right, a sense of community and dreams for their children that they would live in a better world. To be honest they do not seem too happy with how things have turned out.
You see I do not feel there is any charm about the time I live in. The difficulties seem too far gone to be corrected. With problems of drugs, drink, violence, fear of walking the streets in a lot of places, lack of respect, bad parents and so on. Lack of education will in time make our underclass bigger and the problem deeper. There are not that many people who care anymore due to either fear or lack of having caring instilled into them. Morals these days are awful with celebrities setting the moral compass instead of people who set out to do good. Michael Jackson is a good example where his death marks more money making than anything else. The grief felt by people who did not even know him tells us how far down the superfluous celebrity track we have gone. The way to success is to be a non celebrity rather than education. All this will only become worse as the years ahead are difficult due to this recession. The public figures, the police, teachers no longer command our respect the whole fabric of our society is diminishing.
No, there is nothing good to be said about being young in this society now. Blade Runner may not be that far off.
Complain about this comment
~17jer1956
Talking of 'indoctrination' I was listening the other week to Harriet Harman (I think it was - just caught it on the hop) on Radio 4 discussing lowering the voting age to 16. She said what the government had in mind was to give students lessons about 'government' whilst at school and then to send them off to vote. It was quite strange to hear her state it in such a matter of fact manner.
Did anyone else hear anything about this?
Does anyone know if this got any mileage?
Complain about this comment
It just gets worse doesn't it? The hapless committee chairman on your programme today, who was dutifully echoing the tripe Ed Balls was purveying to Andy Marr on Sunday just sounded more and more hollow. The guest teacher's contribution today was just terrific and as a retired head, I really appreciated the de-bunking of the myth that standards have gone up under labour. They haven't and everyone knows it. The postponement of the public spending review is a sure sign that there is great disquiet in Downing Street and a realisation that Gordon's 'Labour's investments versus Tory cuts' has badly misfired.
Complain about this comment
Seems like its a case of pulling the other wool: http://moralorder.mediumisthemess.com/blog
Complain about this comment
#22
Susan, most of what you say I wouldn't disagree with. Looking back at the 1940s and 50s from today;s perspective inevitably has an element of rose tinted spectacles about it, but no one who didn't live through those days can understand the atmosphere that existed, totally different from now. However, I know that there was still a lot of suffering and misery for many people; it wasn't all pleasant.
But I question your despair about being young in today's society. Things can change - sometimes rapidly as in the 1960s. It needs a groundswell of public opinion and a government willing to serve the people and concentrate on making life better for everyone - not purely by money and services, but by community spirit and the important intangible factors in life.
You might be interested in listening to today's fourth Reith lecture, which was on Radio 4 this morning. I think you would find it interesting if you can replay it.
Complain about this comment
As Labour ditch their baggage like ID cards I smell an early election. If they dump Trident in the next few weeks what is the betting on an Autumn poll, before the unemployment figures really hit the roof and while there is utter confusion in the country about spending and cutting?
You can see the "team" already taking place, with the attack dogs coming more and more to the fore. It wont be the Straws, the Darlings, the Harmans. Instead it will be engineered by Lord Snooty, with Balls and Byrne by his side as the bad cops. Alan Johnson will lead the good cops while Brown will keep out of the noise. The Labour slogans of "Same old Tories. 10% cuts of public spending to give to the rich, whereas we in Labour are going to spend to retain jobs and to help the poor".
Funny how after 12 years of dumping the left the whole idea will be nothing less than rampant socialism. Deep down I think they believe that the expenses issue will hurt the tories more than labour and the sick thing is they couldd be right..
Complain about this comment
Susan,
The 40s and 50s were awful and it wasnt just the effect of the War. Everyone knows we had rationing and utility clothing well into the 50s, and we, like a lot of other people, had a tin bath hanging outside the back door. The only hot water we had came from boiling it on the stove. We didnt have a fridge until the late 50s. Yes we had brilliant family connections, but a lot of people stayed together mainly because nobody moved - work was local and that helped to cement chronic immobility.
The establishment ruled us with a rod of iron. The radio (the BBC and nothing else) had to play religious music on a Sunday. When pop music first came in with Frankie Laine and Doris Day the BBC had to play English versions by people like Jimmy Young. I joined the Army in 1954, and suddenly discovered a bunch of people from places I had only heard of in books like Liverpool and Newcastle.
For me the defining moment came from Bill Haley and Elvis Presley. Cleverer people on here may disagree, but the advent of rock and roll brought with it gaberdine suits, bootlace ties, brothel-creeper shoes, and, for the first time, DAs and crew cuts rather than short back and sides. Women got nylons rather than drawing lines up the back of their legs (they really did that!).
This is the best time, because I look at my nine grandchildren and I see the same hopes and ridiculous optimism that I had in the 1940s but now they can be realised.
Sorry to go on.
Complain about this comment
27major
Yes, you maybe right. Looks very likely to be an election coming up - I think maybe the 'Cameron cuts' brought it on - almost as though Labour were waiting for it to be mentioned so they could go into 'attack mode'.
Complain about this comment
mike-jay 26
majorroadaheadagain 28
I found that fascinating, you read things, but it is not same as hearing it from the people who lived through these times. I have a friend who plays Elvis all the time and dresses a bit from back then. Must admit I picked the red lipstick look from old movies that I have watched, never go anywhere without it now. My favourite movie is 'Gone With the Wind', fell in love with Rhett Butler when I was very young and never recovered since. Still waiting to find someone like that.
Complain about this comment
Japanbytes 29
Major 27
Yes I think an election is on the cards fairly soon as well. Main reason is I believe Brown will not be able to contain the true extent of our economy problems much longer.
Complain about this comment
Susan
A lot of people I know used to be called Rhett, but now we are just plain old rhettrospective...
Complain about this comment
To Mike-Jay
Susan Croft.
Thank you for your comments,first Mike-Jay
Why do you think the social changes of the sixties `Were out of character" Innovation is part of an open society,successive waves of youth cultures like Teds,Mods,Rockers,Crombies were made possible by relative affluence,as was the breaking down of class barriers in drama,film and music.In all previous generations,poverty had restricted the opportunities of the majority,the sixties released it. Its culture was only out of character in not being produced by a small elite.
If that destroyed a cultural continuity that had last since the Victorian period,my response to that is good!
Susan Croft.
Your strictures on present day society are so comprehensive,so diffuse,so universal,so pessimistic. it is like reading a late Roman historian who has just seen the Goths sacking the city.One can only commiserate with your pessimism, and look for better times five hundred years from now.
All the best.
Bryher
Complain about this comment
I have to admit that I am not sure what obligation the Government has to conduct a spending revue. I do however treat any announcement that something will not happen until after the election as an invitation to believe that they have something to hide. I would invite others to take the same view.
I am however open to hearing an argument as to why the revue should wait.
By the way, the one that the financial situation is too uncertain at present does not wash. The Chancellor would never be able to have a budget if this was the case
Complain about this comment
#33
Increased affluence, breakdown of class barriers, and all the other things you mention don't explain or excuse the detrimental 1960s cultural changes relating to loss of respect and self-discipline by children and young people, changes in the nature of personal relationships, and increases in crime, violence, and vandalism.
My view is that these changes were the forerunners of our present society. You are obviously happy with it; many people are less so.
Complain about this comment
suse @ 30
fell in love with Rhett Butler when I was very young and never recovered since. Still waiting to find someone like that
what, a Male Chauvanist Pig? ... right, thanks for the tip! ... so from now on, I'm going to start bossing you around a little bit
Complain about this comment
Andrew, the cancellation of the spending review is of course exactly what we would expect from a government that is pretending it can carry on spending money it hasn't got.
The ship has sunk and now the crew are just treading water with nowhere to go.
Brown is mistaken if he thinks the voters will forgive him by the time the election comes, but he clings to the hope that the economy may yet pick up. Lord Mandelson on the other hand knows the game is up, but whispers soothing words into Gordo's ears in order to persuade him to delay the election for as long as possible. Mandy knows that his days in high office are numbered, so might as well make the most of it.
Can't help feeling a bit sorry for Mr Darling. Having saved his job in the reshuffle, he finds Brown and Lord M making all the announcements. When Gordo was chancellor, I doubt he would have allowed similar 'input' from colleagues.
Complain about this comment
Susan
Appropos your touching comment on Gone with the Wind yesterday, today is the 93rd birthday of Olivia de Havilland, two-time Oscar winner who played Melanie Hamilton Wilkes in the film. Her sister is Joan Fontaine, also an Oscar winner, and her cousin was the de Havilland who designed the aircraft bearing his name. Quite a family.
On my post yesterday about an early election - now the news that they are thinking of selling Northern Rock as quickly as possible means that there are two of the three legs in place. In my view Trident would be the clincher. What would be do with five more years of Gordon Brown?
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
an October election, must be. No Queens speech with this lot in power.
Wonderful Today programme with Lord Adonis and another state grab. No compensation, talk of nationalisation.
Then there is the question of the Dockyards, now this one will be most interesting, because again Brown will cover up the fact that the carrier orders will have to be cancelled, as will Trident, because it is squaddies they need, young fit squaddies, who can't get jobs because there are none. Now that the war in Iraq is over it would appear that there are now an awful lot of people from our war zones who now want to do a reverse take-over. Surely we have made Iraq so safe that nobody could possibly be under threat.
Now that the inqury into the war in Iraq will be in public, why not hold it in Baghdad, maybe Brown would like to walk down the streets with Blair, unprotected, just a gently evening stroll in the early evening. I mean it is so safe, come on Brown, we need to know.
Chaos, just listening again to Today, absolutely brilliant, what did Lord Adonis say. It's the model, wonderful stuff. Really can't wait for PMQs. Public ownership, is that like what we did to the banks.
Complain about this comment
To majorroadaheadagain
Mike Jay.
I think I was suggesting that golden ages don`t exist,my intention was satirical. The imaginewd past (nicer,cleaner,more respectful) is a means by which old reactionaries lambast the present.
Mike Jay: You can`t make an omelette without breaking eggs.Of course the sixties were excessive,so was the Italian rennaissance.Perhaps you remember Harry Limes` famous remark in the Third Man.`The renaissance had war, assasination,the Borgia popes, and it produced Leonardo Da Vinci and Michaelangelo,the Swiss had five hundred years of peace and what did they produce?, The cuckoo clock!`
Were you recently endorsing the idea of a revolution? I think you`d run a mile.
Best wishes.
Bryher
Complain about this comment
majorroadaheadagain 38
Yes I know all about the old movies I am an advid fan. How Clark Gable did not want to do 'Gone With the Wind' and nor did Leslie Howard, the search for Scarlet which ended with Vivien Leigh coming from London to take the part as an unknown. Joan Fountaine was the original choice for Melanie apparently but recommended her sister instead for the part, a wise choice. Before she was a star Joan Fountaine was a very good athlete too. I am a great fan of Bette Davis films as well. Oh do not get me started I will just go on and on, I just love it all.
Anyway to a more serious point I believe we could very well see Labour returned to office. I do not believe the case has been made both through the media or by the Conservatives well enough for the public to appreciate what deep trouble our economy is in. With such a closed Government the Conservatives are unable to obtain the figures to prove to the public that cuts need to be made. With no spending review this makes the Conservatives task even harder. I was also reading this morning that some of the media are still sticking to the line that the Labour will spend while the Conservatives will cut. The polls are showing the Conservatives losing ground. There will never be a better time for the Labour Party to go to the Country and I think that is what they will do in the near future. They are positioning themselves as such by recent announcements.
There has also been a shift in public opinion as the recession bites, the old class wars are starting to rear their heads and this will count as another factor against the Conservatives I believe.
This election when it comes could turn very nasty indeed with Mandelson in charge.
Complain about this comment
sagamix 36
Yes but most of all he had humour, looks, great dress sense and a man you could rely on in a crisis. Now where do you find that these days. Anyway a strong women needs a man who she can respect.
Complain about this comment
Good morning each & Andrew.
#41
SC, your tone regarding the likely outcome of the next election is welcome (nudge nudge-wink wink).
By all means let us talk-up the likelyhood of a Nul win; this, at least, will encourage them to call the GE soonest.
Complain about this comment
...The next election.
"It's the economy stupid."
But, moreover the next election should also be about;
Representation
Voting reform,
The Lords AND
Honesty.
Anybody who has been found to have been dishonest [caught, that is] can promise not to do it again. But rewarding them with five more years of untrammeled power is a bit more than Parole.
Party politics would have carried-on regardless if their system had not been found to be wanting in a BIG way.
If only the House of Commons lived in fear of the voter day-in-day-out instead of, at present, the voter dreading every move the government takes.
Complain about this comment
Bryhers
I agree with you entirely about golden ages (at 72 I would say that). The only trouble is that now there is an uneasy feeling that things are so wrong in ways that we think we have never seen before. Maybe that is a misreading, and it is a fact that every wart gets magnified by the media in a way that it didnt in the past but something is different.
I fear most of all an authoritarian streak running through the Government that is different. In Mrs Thatcher's time they stood up and lambasted her and resigned (Heseltine and Howe were prime examples). Now they rarely seem to do it in such a pronounced manner (the late Robin Cook was a magnificent exception). They just seem to wait until they get the sack in the hope that they will get a seat in the Lords as a consolation prize. Shakespeare would have had great fun writing about the many plots and dark characters in our government today.
There is an interesting blog on Fraser Nelson/Coffee House "Talking Balls". Apparently, according to Nelson, Balls rang him about his post, hopping mad, and instructed Nelson to "take that post down now". He is a fearsome man (the word toad nearly came to mind) and we are going to be stuck with him and Lord Snooty for at best a few months and at worst seventy.
If Labour are reelected I suspect Blogs like this will have to endure a second and overriding moderator called Ed (which presumably doesnt stand for Editor?)
Complain about this comment
More doulblethink from the Minister of Truth...
Complain about this comment
Lord Minky appears to have plotted the downfall of Labour with single minded enthusiasm and no little skill.
The 'Tory cuts' chant will become the single largest shot in the foot known to British politics over the coming weeks, as the economic situation deteriorates and it becomes impossible to hide the truth.
What's Lord Minky going to do next ? - ship unemployed graduates off to 'Labour' camps, declare news blackouts on economic figures, make police raids on the Commons for political dissidents. The worst thing is that the Tories will win by default without making much effort. Labour have delivered victory to them.
Short snappy chants are fine until they blow up in your face, then they seriously burn you. This has been an epic, long in the making, and the ending will be as dramatic as it is poignant. The more important question will be where the Labour Party goes thereafter.
..... and I'm no Tory supporter but Labour suffers from pretending to represent som moral superiority, which is always a mistake for a politician.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
may I explain how a fall of 0.49 could actually be a zero percent rise. You see in statistics there is something called rounding, so zero is actually 0.49 to plus 0.49 so you could, if you were totally mad, you could say that a fall is a rise of zero because as a percent it could be if rounded. Brown would have been honest if he had not used the word 'rise' as in 'there will be a zero percent rise' there could be a zero percent rise or fall, but you can't say there will be a zero percent rise, if in all truth there is even a one penny reduction. The double speak of Brown is truely an insult to our intelligence.
I thought that the comments about Alastiar Darling, who I think is actually still an honourable man, were very reflective. I would hope that he, if he is the honourable man which I think he is, then he should resign now. By staying silent he is just like the person who says I did not know what was going on, that the ends justifies the means. I am actually beginning to feel sorry for him, he should resign now, with dignoty. It will bring about a general election in the autumn, but there was going to be one anyway. How Darling could go to the party conference and stay silent would I think not be honourable. Therefore, if you must wait until the party conference, but then bring in down, bring it all down.
This is a disgrace, on the day that a new medal from the Queen is announced, then it shows just how far this country has fallen. Millions throughout the world have died for democracy, and this is what we end up, a zero percent rise. Two famous sayings, 'there are lies, damned lies, and statistics' and the other one 'you can fool some of the people some of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time'. The time is up, Brown has completely lost it, and the people around him ought to be ashamed at what is happening. This is actually just so sad, as for the speaker going to the lords, well if Mandelson can become a lord then everybody can, it proves what a fantastic society we live in. A true democracy, a truly forgiving society.
Complain about this comment
#40
Who has mentioned a golden age?
And I think that to mention a 'groundswell of public opinion' and a government with a different outlook hardly amounts to 'a revolution'.
It's a sign of panic to distort the facts (ask Brown), to resurrect old jokes about Swiss cuckoo clocks, and to start throwing personal insults.
Complain about this comment
Andrew,
listened to Adonis on the Radio 4 news at One. He was asked why wait a year, there was mumbling, there was sounds in the back-ground, then I am sorry I can't hear you clearly you are breaking up, now he wasn't talking about Brown he was talking about the line, Martha then asked again 'why wait a year over the franchise' can you hear me, yes I can hear you now, only you are breaking up again, I am sorry says Martha, we will have to end the interview.
Absolutely brilliant, I used to do that at school when the teacher used to ask me a question, then I would say sorry sir, didn't hear you, and whilst he was asking the question again, the question which I had actually heard, I was scanning my book for the answer. Griffin come to the front, six strokes with the strap, and don't try that one again. Yes sir!
A zero percent rise, still can't get over that one! Now Brown should come on the media and explain exactly what did he mean when he refrrred to a zero percent rise, a gem, nearly as good as picking his nose when behind Blair, or the non shaking of the policemans hand when Obama had done. You can't make this up, it's fantastic. Beyond belief, its not the bunker, its the madhouse, what is it they say, 'the lunatics have taken over the asylum'. Well that's what I think anyway, and as Descart would say 'I think therefore I am'. The body and mind have become detached in the case of certain politicians, there is a body but the mind has gone.
Complain about this comment
It does look as if Labour are making a definite effort to position themselves to call an election the moment they think the time is ripe. That would be as soon as they could credibly claim that the recession has bottomed out and things can only get better (heard that one before?).
So far, the Tories, in spite of their poll leads, haven't been totally convincing as a government-in-waiting. They really need to start laying out a strong philosophy and clear strategy - not necessarily detailed policies, which could be dangerous - that will persuade voters that they are a better bet than Labour. Their efforts to date have been poor.
The Lib-Dems are still lingering in the doldrums, so it's unlikely they will have a big effect on any election.
It would be a tragedy if the electorate suffered a communal loss of memory when deciding how to cast their votes. But is it a possibility?
Complain about this comment
To Mike Jay:49)
I have mentioned a golden age as incapsulating a general feeling which insists the past (often indeterminate) was superior to the present rather than different.
I would hate to distort facts, or seem discourteous, so I checked the quotation where you appeared to endorse revolution.(Thursday 99).I trust my quotation is accurate: "...as you say its a mess,the only remedy is another revolution,the sixties in reverse..."
Perhaps you were only agreeing with George Orwell that `England is a family with the wrong members in charge`
All the best,
Bryher
Complain about this comment
#52
So 'golden age' was only your phrase, based on your feelings. Fine.
The 'revolution' quote is correct - I referred to a later post. But it clearly related to a sixties-style revolution in reverse, not something to run a mile from. In other words, it was consistent with the later reference to a groundswell of public opinion that had an impact on our cultural and moral values.
Politicians regularly promise policies that will lead to such beneficial lifestyle changes, but in the end it is always down to the people.
Complain about this comment
52 and 53 In my view there has never been a so-called golden age, but there has only been one dark one in my lifetime, and even then we still came through the shelters and the restrictions, and kicked a ball around in the street without a car in sight to interrupt our games. And chalked on the pavements for our hopscotch without being accused of writing graffiti. And flicked our pens at the master in his black gown as he went past. And scrumped other peoples apples because we didnt have any of our own. Etc Etc.
This I would call the funny age, not just because of Gordon's howler at Question Time, or Nick Clegg firing blanks by trying to implicate both parties and missing by being too wide. It is funny because things are so preposterous that you couldnt make it up. I could quote hundreds of examples but will stick with my favourite, Lloyds, which has raised its head again today. We have a decent well-run bank and a duffer. Like the policy of putting together good and bad schools so the Government engineered a marriage between Lloyds (the goodies) and HBOS (the living dead). In the end you have one bad bank. There are competition issues in the marriage - Niellie or whatever her name is tells us that they and RBS will have to divest themselves of assets. This is July and the bid was finalised this year. The Government agreed that monopoly considerations (which Lloyds is) should be waived. Now Nielle or whatever her name is has come up with the idea that there are competition issues. Where was she and the EU in October 2008 when the Government was putting the bid together?. Where was she in the months that followed before January this year? Presumably she could stopped the bid, or raised such a fuss at the creation of a monopoly that the Government would have got cold feet and put HBOS in a sort of Michael Jackson movie where the Northern Rocks and Bradford and Bingleys walk around while their arms drop off.
If Lloyds is made to sell assets now it will be a fire sale. I hope they resist, and that shareholders get a bit active over unelected people who come out of the woodwork when it is far too late
Complain about this comment
#37
"Brown is mistaken if he thinks the voters will forgive him by the time the election comes, but he clings to the hope that the economy may yet pick up."
Most people complaining never voted for New Labour. The Tory vote is recent elections is stuck on the same number of voters they got in previous "disastrous" elections. New Labour can win if their lost voters, whom clearly don't want the Tories, return in the next General Election.
Complain about this comment
I just saw the Conservative Shadow Transport spokes person going on about the difficulties of the East Coast Mainline. Are the Tories going to blame every bad decision a company makes on New Labour? SKY's news indicated that National Express are geared up to the gills with bad debt. Consequently they can't afford to borrow more to make payments the franchise requires. The Railways are not immune from the downturn in people wanting to travel. Even British Airways are in diffucties. How long before New Labour get blamed for that!
Be Warned, the Tories believe in Never-Never land where companies don't make bad decisons and never go bust in global recessions.
Complain about this comment
Jer1956
A great deal of what has gone wrong belongs squarely at the feet of the Government, which in case you havent noticed is New Labour, and has been since the song Things Can only get better rang out in 1997. They didnt get better. They got monstrously worse. Some of this is global but a great deal is due to Gordon's version of boom and bust and his sworn objection to the concept. He messed up savings and pensions, encouraged the housing boom, failed to regulate the banks, appointed a bunch of losers who got shifted between jobs until their incompetence became too much for even Tony and Gordon to bear. He spent and borrowed, and has spent the past twelve years in the Never Never land you accuse the Tories of being in. None of this is the fault of Tories, in the same way that none of what went on between 1979 and 1997 was the fault of Labour. If you are the Government you carry the can (or get the plaudits). Incidentally, Gordon was talking today about Tory spending plans for this year. Cameron didnt pick him up on it, but the only plans that matter are those that can be implemented, ie by the government in power. Unless Gordon is planning an election in the Autumn in which case i concede the Tories would have a couple of months in power this year. Those affected by Gordon Brown, Lord Snooty and their putrid government will not forget in a hurry - certainly not before they throw him out.
Complain about this comment
# 55 jer1956
You say "Most people complaining never voted for New Labour."
I think you will find at the last election in 2005 most people didn't vote labour, full stop. Labour won 35 percent of the total vote, with the Tories close behind on 33.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/scoreboard.stm
But given the unprecedented low ratings in recent opinion polls, it is quite clear that many of Labour's supporters are now turning away in droves.
You say "New Labour can win if their lost voters, whom clearly don't want the Tories, return in the next General Election."
No doubt Gordo will take much comfort from your words and I expect this is what Mandy is telling him. The latest U-turn on ID cards, though welcome, seems like a last ditch attempt to woo back the deserting voters. But I suspect it is much too late. Time's up!
Complain about this comment
No spending revue, no PO sell off, no ID cards ,and no other coherent policies apart from attempting to con the electorate into giving the most incompetent government this nation has ever been saddled with another term in office. No lie seems to be beneath this abyssmal prime minister and his underlings and it seems his desire for power far outweighs any regard he has for the populace. He has destroyed the economy , yet continues to pursue the line that he is financially competent. The man is in denial, I suspect that if he had been working for BA, he would have been grounded long since on account of his mental state.
Complain about this comment
To Mike-Jay;
I am glad we have cleared up the confusion about what you meant to say,wanted to say,intended to say and actually said: I quote:
"...As you say it is a mess and the only remedy is another revolution,the sixties in reverse."
You are clearly advocating a counter-revolution, so what aspects of the sixties would you reverse?:Feminism?,designer clothes?,the Beatles?,consumerism?, or what?
I think the public demand an answer.You and your fellow revolutionaries can then proceed to a banner,a manifesto,EEC funding and an office.
Best wishes,
Bryher
Complain about this comment
I think we may have been mistaken about there being a credit crunch. Real Madrid has just bought Benzema for £35m, to add to Ronaldo £80m and Kaka £56m. The combined wages for the three will be anywhere between £20m and £30m per year. With that sort of spending money it is a wonder that Lord Snooty didnt tap them up to take over the Royal Mail... it could have been known as the Real Mail, with the posties being known as Galacticos.
Complain about this comment
Labour are nothing more than a decaying carcasse falling apart in front of our eyes.
'We are the party of the many'.
Who does he think he's kidding ?
Isolated, deluded and totally out of touch.
Complain about this comment
"The Government had already agreed to make a concession on the Parliamentary Standards Bill by dropping plans to make a new code of conduct for MPs legally enforceable."
Why ????
They're at it again. This is not accepable.
Complain about this comment
susan @ 42
Now where do you find that these days?
frankly my dear, I don't give a damn!
... weak at the knees?
Complain about this comment
A very interesting discussion on Newsnight.
The conclusion was that Financial Instutions were not regulated by the authorities but were effectively running the economy. Gordon got far too close to them and just let them run amok, as he saw everything was going swimmingly, but he failed to exercise any oversight of what they were doing.
The question as to why the governments guarantee should apply to the 'casino arms' of banks is demanding an answer. If banks feel the need to indulge in high risk speculation then it shouldn't be at the cost and risk of the taxpayer. The taxpayer is unwittingly backing the operations of multi million pound 'funny money' deals with little to do with regular banking finance. That's why they're termed the casino arms of banks, but the government guarantee was never intended to support this type of high risk transaction.
One speaker referred to banks as being like the robot in Terminator that is seen dashed to pieces and then alarmingly begins to reform exactly as before, which is what is happening now. I doubt that there's any imminent threat of a re-run simply because the economy is so weak, but there's no way they should be allowed to get their funny deals backed by the taxpayer as before.
Surely Gordon won't get seduced by the banks again ?
Complain about this comment
Andrews blog is so much more civilized but tends to die off. Even Croftie and and saga flirt whilst being daggers drawn on Nicks blog.
I have tried and failed on NIcks blog to engender interest in the most Orwellian aspirations of this govt. The National Identity Register. Fifty major details of YOUR life will be recorded , where you live, other addresses you stop at, your previous addresses and not to advise a change of address will attract a thousand pound fine.
The addresses are just one aspect. No point going on about govt policy if your entire life is controlled by a govt database which unlike the ID cards is still going ahead 100%.
I hope Andrews posters are more aware than Nicks.
Complain about this comment
Two of the more interesting effects of issuing ID cards would have been to pull illegal immigrants into the taxation system and also into becoming registered voters.
Would I dare accuse the Government of such selfish cynicism ? Yes judging by their past record.
Complain about this comment
xTunbridge 66
xTunbridge I am a bit hurt by that, I am not flirtiing with anyone, Saga is the guy that put a public notice on me remember. In fact last night I asked him for an apology for saying I was speaking garbage over the issue of who introduced the first spending review.
If you go into my name you will see I have written two or three long posts on the economy recently which included the fact that this Country is turning into a Police state and we are only allowed to know what the state allow us to know. I believe there were a few people who agreed with me. I do not engage with the cut and thrust, I write my posts and if I am asked questions I answer. I never engage in name calling or anything of that nature.
I am very aware of 'The National Identity Register' it has been hinted though that the Conservatives will massively cut down the amount of information allowed to be held. The Labour Party want every detail of your life on there. I am hoping that the Conservatives are true to their word.
Our freedoms is one reason why this Government must go because they have not only been able to control every aspect of our lives with big state, but I believe they have had control of a lot of the media and the police as well. Lets be honest about this this, Government has not been telling the truth about the economy or anything else for a very long time, but apart from the expenses row how much investigation has the media done to search for the truth. They have just taken the Government line until it has become blindingly obvious that the Government have told us untruths about the economy and even then we are not allowed to know the true extent of our problems. I do exclude A. Neil from this as I believe he has always tried to be fair and get at the truth.
I get as frustrated as anything that I do not have the time to impress on people the need to understand just what is happening in our Country particularly about our economy and freedoms. I am just as passionate as Exxon about it, but I do wonder sometimes if blogs really are spreading the word. It was this need to express these thoughts that I started to do posts in the first place.
It still remains though, that Labour may very well still win the next election. People are not as engaged in politics as we are on here, and I believe Labours spend and Conservative cuts could still very well remain in the voters mind. Also you mention to people about freedoms and this massive Identity Register and they will still say 'if you have nothing to hide you have nothing to worry about'. It seems true in this Country that we only catch up with things when it is too late. That is why we need people like exxon so much.
I do not think it does die out on here, I think it is a nice gentle pace and when there is discussion it is of a high quality.
Talking about exxon where has he gone, hes not allowed a holiday.
Complain about this comment
Another thing which has been of interest to me is this bidding by oil companies in Iraq. I have to marvel at the sheer hypocrisy that Britain fought a war for these people (who now cannot wait to get rid of us) that they will become rich as a Country on the blood of our young people and our money.
Here is Britain on its knees and in debt and part of this has been our engagement in this expensive war and Iraq will become rich on the back of it. Why on earth where we there at all, I have to ask myself will Britain never learn.
Complain about this comment
majorroadaheadagain 54
There you are, there it is again, the charm the innocence of youth. You talk about kids engaging in games and innocent fun. That is worth more than any material gain we have made in this Country. Kids do not have that any more. They know everything now and have done everything by the time they are twenty and are so bored from then onwards they engage in all the bad things. What will it take to get that back.
I was lucky I had very strict parents and it was education, education, education in our house even though I was from a poor background. My mum until she died talked about books and encouraged us to read and tried as much as possible to shield us from the bad behaviour around us. It was instilled in us that good manners and being polite were very important. Both parents were not averse to the odd slap or two when we stepped out of line. My siblings have all done well and agree with me that we live in a much changed world where there is no respect, no ambition and under achievement is accepted as the norm. We accept more and more bad behaviour as normal and this is quite wrong because in time we need to ask what kind of Country do we want to live in. Do we want to have to live in security blocks because our streets have become so dangerous, for the old and the young. I personally have been shocked by the type of crime happening now. The violence involved is so brutal. Just taking one the two French students that were murdered. In the past we would have been horrified by this crime and this is just one of many. Things need to change and quickly.
Complain about this comment
We do have some interesting characters running our country. Jack Straw has been taking a decision that affects prison places, which we all know are in short supply and will need to be expanded if we are to house all the alleged criminals in the Commons and the Lords who will undoubtedly have their collars felt by the Bill in the not too distant future for fiddling public money.
I have no truck with Ronnie Biggs, who by all accounts has shown a disdain for law and order, and was part of a gang that caused injury to a train driver during the Great Train Robbery. He has cost a great deal of public money over the years, and his incarceration was wholly fair and justified. However, the Probation Service recommended that he should be paroled after serving ten years since his recapture.
In his infinite wisdom Straw has rejected the recommendation and decided that Biggs should remain in prison. Given thst prison is for retribution, rehabilitation and protection for the public and given that Biggs is 80 and apparently in poor health it seems to me that to keep him incarcerated must be purely an act of retribution on the Minister's part. He has said that there are grounds to suspect that Biggs could reoffend nd that he has not benefited from taking courses while incarcerated but I dont buy into that.
We are currently paying for Biggs to be in hospital, and for a 24 hour guard to watch over him. It is a nonsense, and totally inconsistent with how the Government and the Courts have treated murderers, terrorists, rapists and other awful people. I for one think it is time to get rid of Biggs out of the prison system as the probation Service has recommended and give his place up to one of the Whitehall cheats. If Biggs revertss to type and puts on a balaclava and goes around mugging poor defenceless MPs then he can be rearrested and tried for the new offence.
Complain about this comment
Susan
You write with great sensitivity and yet anguish. I am by nature far too much of an optimist, but the reality of life is usually restricted to what you see on TV or read in the papers. If you have the misfortune to live in an area where life has become intolerable (which I dont) then I can imagine that everything seems so dark and without hope. Who to blame? Should we ask that question or concentrate on trying to put it right? There are some families who are beyond redemption. It is not that they couldnt improve. It is just that they dont care about anyhting. They moan about "Bloody government" or the police or the NHS or anything that comes to mind. Few such people contribute anything to society.
I am one of life's fortunates - even when I was paralysed (I am better now) I had little people brought in to sit on my bed and was able to watch their wide open faces. They are much older now, but I know they will be just fine.
There is one statistic that bothers me more about this Government than any other and that is child poverty. When they came in I believe they pledged to eradicate it (was it by 2010?). More lately they have been talking about targets to get it down to 1 million. My figures may not be accurate, but that doesnt matter. As we all sit at our computers banging on about this or that just imagine what it must be like to living in 2009 Britian and classified as living in poverty (as if you were living in parts of Africa). Anyone running the country should make their first pledge the total eradication of poverty. What good are league tables about anything else?
Complain about this comment
Good Morning Andrew,
I have a problem. The government has organised a parade of soldiers returning from Afghanistan, attended by the duke of Edinburgh, through the streets of Exeter. Now then, when a few people offer an alternative view to the great job that our boys do, being part of an invasion force which has manifestly failed in its job, they are still being killed, and killing many innocents, then those people feel very threatened.
We originally succeeded in Afghanistan, only the politicians took their eyes off the ball, they took on Iraq, a disaster from the very beginning. So, now the Americans are going in very heavy, we will kill you to bring you democracy, this is not revenge, this is not about bin Laden, it is because we are free democrats, we are here to bring you all the wonderful things from the west. We will bring you secularism, we will bring you the likes of Michael Jackson, this is bizarre.
We cannot afford Afghanistan, we could not afford Iraq, all we have done is to delay the inevitable. We have lost all moral authority, which we never actually had anyway, we just had the bomb, and the gun, and those who follow orders.
Complain about this comment
#69
Pa-lease!
Britain did not take a full part in an invasion and occupation and help to kill perhaps a million Iraqi's for their (those dead Iraqi's) own good.
We waged an aggresive war without provocation, destroyed Iraqs infrastructure killed and maimed at will, spread lethal weaponry and toxins all about, wiped whole families off the map AND you say they owe us!
Surely the same charges laid against the Nazis after WWII could be laid against us?
Any suffering we in Britain feel are as a result of a self-inflicted-wound.
There could yet be years and years of horror and strife ahead for the people of Iraq.
Roll-on our victory games.
Complain about this comment
#58
"But I suspect it is much too late. Time's up!"
That may be true. But a test for Cameron's honesty will be resisting the temptation that, when elected on the same number of voters that failed to get previous Tory Leaders elected, to say there has been a clear shift back towards Tories Values.
Complain about this comment
#69
"I have to marvel at the sheer hypocrisy that Britain fought a war for these people (who now cannot wait to get rid of us) that they will become rich as a Country on the blood of our young people and our money."
We went in to Iraq for our own reasons. Gratitude shouldn't have been one of them. That could only be hoped for, not expected at the point of a gun. Gratitude dosn't mean giving your assets away on the cheap either. I didn't notice the USA being grateful enough for our help in WW2 to right off all the lend/lease debts! Even more pertinent to your view, the French didn't pay our USA debt either!
Complain about this comment
majorroadaheadagain 72
No where I did come from is a relatively deprived area, but I move around a lot now and live in fairly good areas because I have a good job. No it is not anguish more observation. I have a long time to live on this Earth and I do not like the look of the way it is going.
What is child proverty now, is it not having a computer or a mobile phone or is it like only having one white shirt that you have for school uniform as my brothers did and that had to be washed every night for the next morning. Of course by the time I was born things were a little bit better when my mum worked nights. Is it living on bad Council estates as I did. I heard what the definition of child poverty by this Government was and it is not what I call poverty. Poverty you see is more to do with parents, education and the economy than it is to do with Government. You have a good economy you create more wealth, more jobs for people to move up in the world. Education gives you the tools to succeed, parents instill the values to succeed. All of which this Government has failed at. State control has never improved child poverty and it never will.
A lot of parents these days do not want to sacrifice anything for their children. They still expect to go on nice holidays, spend their money on TVs, cars, drink and going out even if they are on benefits. They deprive their children and then cry child poverty. In some instances children are merely a means to collect extra benefit.
The parents I feel sorry for are those who have stuck to the rules waited until they could afford children worked hard at their jobs and are doing the best they can for their children. All they get from Government is taxes and pressure to provide for those who have no ambition and have children on benefits they cannot afford.
Complain about this comment
Oudies 74
I agree, my question was what were we doing there in the first place. It was more an anger at Government than anything else. I have always said I did not agree with the war.
The situation is America and Britain are pouring aid into Iraq. With this and the cost of the war we have impoverished ourselves for nothing. There is no doubt that in time Iraq will become a rich Country and another rogue state. They will bring in a Government that will nationalise the oil, as in other Countries and throw the oil companies out once they have the expertise. We have seen it all before. When will we learn not to meddle.
Complain about this comment
The news coming from Afganistan is not good. Another two soldiers killed, how many injured is the question which also needs to be asked. For what. What exactly is the point. Please somebody tell me what the point is. It gets more like the War of jenkins Ear every day. There is the old WWI tune, 'we're here because' we're here, because we're here, because we're here' etc...Why are we there. Not to be there for years. Pull out, don't reinforce defeat, we are the problem and never the solution, the next thing we will get concentration camps being set up so as to protect the locals. Anybody outside the camp will be an enemy and justifiably killed.
This is not fantasy, this what we did in South Africa during the Boer war, the ends justify the means, this is for your own good, trust me, we will bring you democracy at the point of a gun! We are bringing you freedom, democracy, the vote, education. Now for those who don't get it, exactly how many young people in Britain will be leaving education this year and who will not be getting a job, mind you they could go and join the army and get sent to Afghanistan where they can show the Afgan people the benefit of an education.
Complain about this comment
73
You need to separate out the soldiers parading through the streets from any discussion about the rights and wrongs of Afghanistan or Iraq. They are totally blameless (except where it could be proved that they acted in a manner not expected of one of our servicemen or women, in which case they have been subject to the law of the land). I was delighted with yesterday's announcment about the Elizabeth Medal, which I think is a most fitting memorial to our troops who have died in our name and our brilliant Queen.
I favoured the war with Iraq's Saddam on the basis that it was an evil regime up to no good, killing hundreds of thousands of its own people and a totally destablising force in the Middle East (Kuwait, Iran and all that). However, the case was not helped at all by the fact that it was sold on a false prospectus. That has nothing to do with our soldiers but it does serve for some to pity them for being put in danger on what most people see as a lie.
Sadly, we dont choose carefully enough which demonic regimes we seek to overthrow. We cant get them all, although the world would be a much better place if we did. Pol Pot would have been good example, as would Idi Amin and Mugabe. The trouble is the device for such action, the United Nations, is worse than useless, as is the European Union, whose notions on a European Army owe more to a Swiss Guard model rather than a modern army able to look after its own people.
There are wicked people out there who would think nothing of dropping an atomic bomb on us if they could get their hands on one. No more blogging, no more life as we know it. Back to the Dark Ages. Just around the corner is Pakistan, and they do have stacks of nuclear weapons and are looking decidely flaky. The Taliban and Osama are already there, and the only prize they seek is to kill as many of us as possible, all of us if that were possible. This is not about bogeymen, but about self preservation. Afghanistan is not about winning or losing. It is much more important than that.
Complain about this comment
Jeri1956 76
I do not disagree with that view at all.
However if they are not grateful to us for getting rid of their dictator, why were we there in the first place.
This seems to be the only reason given now for why we were there, to rid them of this evil tyrant, (for which the Government is saying the Iraq people are grateful), there where no weapons of mass distruction.
Complain about this comment
Iraq and Afghanistan are increasingly lumped together as being similar in political and military terms, but their backgrounds and causes were quite different.
The invasion of Afghanistan was a UN operation, undertaken following 9/11 because the Taleban were harbouring the 9/11 terrorists, Al Quaeda. There are, therefore, soldiers from a range of UN countries there, although their deployment and contributions to the fighting have been subject to criticism. Nevertheless, it is not an American-British war and the factors to be taken into account for withdrawal are consequently complex.
Iraq was different and, apart from its dubious 'justifications', turned out to be a disastrous distraction from the UN-backed operations in Afghanistan. It would have been more sensible to have kept up the UN pressure on Saddam and relied on the UN inspectors to either find evidence of WMD or deter the dictator from doing anything obviously foolish or provocative.
We're now left with the worst of both worlds, and many have died unnecessarily. Our government should not have duped the country into following the USA into Iraq, and this action may well have lost us the chance of destroying the leadership of Al Quaeda, and dealing a powerful blow to terrorism.
The outstanding question is whether the UN can afford to give up on Afghanistan with the likelihood that the country could soon return to its pre-9/11 situation and its support for murderous global terrorism.
Complain about this comment
68 Croftie
Sorry Suze , it would have been more correct to say Saga flirts with you, although you did throw him the strong woman line and got a suitable response from him !
Pleased you know avout the National Identity Register, just wish more people would take an interest in it, well in stopping it that is.
Complain about this comment
xtun @ 83
the girl blows hot and cold, is how I'd put it - anyway, the name of (my) game is to get Susan to change her opinion on something ... any little thing will do! ... before the curtain finally comes down
Complain about this comment
sagamix 84
Blows hot and cold, I never in my life met a man that blows in all directions like you. There I knew it, that there was a devious plan in action.
Complain about this comment
Mike-Jay an interesting post
I think it was politically expedient of Bush and Blair to let the two become entwined in the minds of the public, perhaps for funding reasons or in some odd way to try to deflect the public's attention away from the fact that we were losing lives in two separate campaigns? 9/11 for Bush was everything, but quite how he thought the invasion of Iraq would be a payback for that is odd. I am not sure I buy into the argument that he was settling family scores. What was also odd was how prepared they were to go down the UN route for putting troops into Afghanistan (even in full knowledge of the experience of the Russians) but shunned the UN route for Iraq. No doubt it was influenced by the fact that the allies were supporting the first and thereby sharing the cost. I am sure they had made up their minds to do it and Hans Blix was too close to the truth for their comfort. I hope the truth does come out in the Inquiry because I was quite happy with the War based on the Colin Powell video "evidence", However, I am glad Saddam has gone even if it was under a false prospectus.
Your post prompted me to look up the latest figures for deaths of allies in Afghanistan, and I was surprised to see the Danish (25) the Romanians (11) and the Polish (8). I knew the French and Germans were there too, and their figures of 28 and 35 respectively were surprising given the popular misconception that they were holed up. The article talks about deaths in combat, but the Americans have some odd ways of counting.
As I said in my earlier post I am quite sure that there has to be some continued presence given the nuclear problem with Pakistan. I think that country looks increasingly vulnerable. Whether we can win, or at least draw a line, by trying to win the hearts and minds of the Afghanis is debatable. That is the line we are being spun, not least because it is a very expensive operation in lives and money. Will our allies stay the course?
You left your last paragraph in the air. What do you think should happen? Out? Stay? Stay and surge? Hearts and minds (and guaranteed very long haul?).
Complain about this comment
84 saga
85 croftie
To which of you should I send my introduction agency invoice ?
Complain about this comment
@ 87
the man always pays ... doesn't he, Susan?
Complain about this comment
#86
It's a difficult question. No country has ever 'won' in Afghanistan, but that was when the whole country, in a sense, was opposed to the invaders. The current situation is slightly different, with all sorts of factions having different vested interests, and some vague semblance of a possible democracy.
Given the dangerous Pakistan problem that you mention, together with the risk of escalating terrorism if the Taleban 'win', I think, on balance, there is little option but to stay and try to finish the job. I've always thought it logical, in a straight battle situation, to throw the highest number affordable into the conflict to shorten the total timescale. However, there may be sound arguments for alternative strategies, such as attention to infrastructure and 'winning hearts and minds'.
Complain about this comment
71 majorroad etc
And aquitted by any jury you care to pick.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Susan @ 91
that's as rare as a hen's tooth, you breaking the rules and being moderated! ... were you saying something particularly controversial and spicy?
Complain about this comment
sagamix 92
You can bet your life I was.
Complain about this comment
... well if it's one of the other bloggers getting on your nerves, just tell me who it is and I'll go round and have a word ... you know, sort them out
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS