Bolitics The New Condem Government

[drat01]

Funny how you chose to ignore the declare from the IMF also that UK families are 1500 per year worse off

Funny how you appear to be unable to read the part of my post that clearly states

and families will be £1,500 worse off over the next five years

not aware the Tories also closed down Specsavers as part of the cuts :-)

I think you should go there then because if you actually read the post rather and answered the point re the whole statement and not tried to deflect again it may have been a bit better.

So as a Tory supporter and someone who frequents the various web pages of the party political marketing machine of the same party, can you hand on heart say that Gideon's plans are working and this is all good? The spin from party HQ is as you would expect in picking key phrases rather than the whole story, is that the views of the Tory supporters too. Do you not feel that the UK population are seeing through this, hence the lead in the polls that Labour currently has

[drat01]

it certainly appears to be nothing more than marketing BS

this week saw £600 million reason why you are wrong yet again

600 million? in what context?

.

[tonyh29]

deflect

you don't disappoint

as a Tory supporter and someone who frequents the various web pages of the party political marketing machine of the same party,

you get a F- minus for trying to use the same "jibe" that I use at you in a post back at me .. come on don't be soo lazy at least find your own insults :-) typical labour steal someone else's ideas and then try and pass it off as their own :-)

Osbornes plans appear to be working and both the IMF and CBI have confirmed this , that you tried to use them to prove your point just makes it all the more humorous

600 million? in what context?

in the context of the new bank that was launched this week ... hasn't the party briefed you on a response for this yet :shock:

[blandy]

So as a Tory supporter and someone who frequents the various web pages of the party political marketing machine of the same party, can you hand on heart say that Gideon's plans are working and this is all good? The spin from party HQ is as you would expect in picking key phrases rather than the whole story, is that the views of the Tory supporters too. Do you not feel that the UK population are seeing through this, hence the lead in the polls that Labour currently has

I'm most def' not a Tory supporter and don't go looking at party internets, but it's a good question, so I'll say something...

Gideon's plans are not working as well as he said they would, for sure. Whether they are working at all is at best debatable. The UK isn't exactly in a good state. I guess we should consider the things he can and can't control - such as the links between UK and EU and US economic fortunes. The US is [excuse the phrase] bombing and the EU is a fairly well fermented curate's egg - good in few parts. These have an effect on our ability to export and so hamper chances of growth. Whether having that as one of our main planks of the plan was a good idea is again debatable.

What we'd like to see is decent growth - more like that predicted than that experienced. If a Royal wedding can scupper growth (aren't the royal's claimed to be good for the economy, btw?) then the recovery is clearly feeble beyond argument.

We're also seeing things being hacked away at that should be left alone - baby and bathwater are both being thrown out.

So to judge them just on the economy - very meh!. To judge them on the whole shooting match - big NO. Not 100% bad, but about 10% good, 40% same as anyone else would do and 50% very much worse.

They're also avoiding or unable to take action on stuff which really needs doing. Long term investment, banking reform, environmental stuff (so much for the Liberals having influence) and harming "good" things that society needs are all big negatives in the ledger.

And that's before you get to the Murdoch links and such like.

[drat01]

Osbornes plans appear to be working and both the IMF and CBI have confirmed this , that you tried to use them to prove your point just makes it all the more humorous Laughing

But no it isn't as you well know. The growth rates are feeble, and as Pete says if things like a bit of snow and a Royal wedding are trotted out as excuses for failure to reach their targets then it shows that Gideon's plan just is not working. You keep claiming that IMF is some sort of justification to back up your claim that its all working, but the reality is that as stated before they have no interest whatsoever in the welfare of this country and even if they did, their comments are in now way whatsoever any sort of glowing endorsement of what is happening. Cameron and Gideon are taking the piss now, content that they have Clegg as a cuckold supporter backing their crazy idealogical led schemes. Luckily the electorate are seeing through them and to see Labour so far in front in opinion polls after so few months since the last election shows that for all the spin people are just not buying it.

Cameron keeps getting found out. As we saw recently with his BS about the rail contracts and Derby, and today's disclosure that it cost 15 million to consultants to tell them to go to a German company. What is your view on that? I remember you stating about the old Forgemasters thing it was not important, funny how more redundancies are now inevitable because of the lack of that loan. Still maintain that view?

There is no impetus or stimulus coming from this Gvmt to the UK and its people, it's a corrupt (morally at least) Gvmt that has little in the way of any feeling towards the rest of the country outside its core support areas as we saw with the revelations about where NHS funding was being hit.

It's relatively quiet at the moment, Dave is off on one of his many foreign holidays as is Gideon and Clegg (so much for holiday in Britain as Dave was shouting last year eh? - marketing BS? or just playing to the camera). He will have to come back soon though and answer all of the many points. No doubt we will see a flashman type performance from Cameron as we have seen recently trying to bully his way through PMQ's, but the reality is with all of the Coulson things and much more that will come out of that he will be shown up more and more for what he really is about and how that is not for the good of the country and the people.

[drat01]

It seems that Cameron and Gideon have also been telling lies or at the very best in denial about the massive cuts they are imposing on the military

link

Cuts to the UK's armed forces may leave them unable to fulfil required tasks after 2015, a report by MPs has warned.

The Commons defence committee rejected the prime minister's assurance of a "full spectrum" defence capability.

The committee warned that without firm commitments to improved funding in the very near future, politicians risked "failing" the country's military.

Defence Secretary Liam Fox said the idea that the military was not being funded for its role was "not true".

'Wish list'

Last year's strategic defence and security review (SDSR) outlined the future shape and size of the UK's armed forces.

It said Army numbers were to be reduced by 7,000, and the Royal Navy and RAF by 5,000 each.

And it saw the cancellation of equipment including Nimrod MRA4 reconnaissance planes and the early withdrawal of HMS Ark Royal and Harrier jump-jets.

The committee said the National Security Strategy, also unveiled last autumn, was in danger of becoming no more than a "wish list" unless the necessary money was committed to deliver the future armed forces envisaged for 2020 and beyond.

Last month it was announced that spending on equipment would increase by 1% above inflation each year after 2015, to pave the way for the so-called Future Force 2020.

However, the committee said it was "not convinced that, given the current financial climate and the drawdown of capabilities arising from the SDSR, UK armed forces will be able do what is asked of them after 2015".

Click to play

Defence Secretary Liam Fox says the government plans to ''reshape and rebalance'' the armed forces

It noted "mounting concern" that the military was falling below the minimum capacity needed to fulfil current commitments, let alone tasks it may face between 2015 and 2020, when ministers acknowledge there will be "capability gaps".

And it said plans to increase funding after 2015 were merely "government aspiration, not government policy".

The committee urged the government to outline its plans to manage the gap left by the loss of certain capabilities, and lay out detailed plans for their regeneration.

Committee chairman James Arbuthnot said: "If the ambition of a real-term funding increase is not realised, we will have failed our armed forces."

He warned that failure to maintain spending on the armed forces put the UK's influence in the world at risk.

"The government appears to believe that the UK can maintain its influence while reducing spending in defence and at the Foreign Office," said Mr Arbuthnot.

Continue reading the main story

“Start Quote

The capability gaps and budgetary black hole left by the rushed defence review have limited Britain's reach ”

Jim Murphy Shadow defence secretary

He said MPs on the committee "do not agree" with this.

'Real budgets'

But Mr Fox rejected the accusation that the UK risked failing its military.

The defence secretary said: "We have set out real plans with real budgets, quite different from the previous government, and that will enable us to continue to invest in the defence capabilities we require in the years ahead.

"When we have asked the military to do more, for example in Libya, excess funding is available and we are able to take that from the Treasury Reserve.

"That does not come from the core MoD budget. And so the idea that we are asking the military to do things without funding simply isn't true."

However, shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said the report was "damning".

"The rushed defence review has been much criticised, but now those who were disappointed will be dismayed and the anxious will be angry," he said.

"The capability gaps and budgetary black hole left by the rushed defence review have limited Britain's reach in the world."

'Rightly assessed'

The UK's most senior military officer, Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards, said "some tough decisions" had to be taken and the UK "will remain a formidable fighting force on the world stage".

Click to play

General Sir Nick Houghton said it was ''necessary to cut one's cloth...so that we do not overstretch ourselves''

"We are continually working with our international allies to share operational requirements," he said, which are "measures we rightly assessed in the SDSR could be relied upon to mitigate capability gaps".

General Sir Nick Houghton, Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff, said the report was "quite well balanced and quite constructive," adding that he did not feel there had been "scathing criticisms".

He said there had simply been "quite a lot of serious constructive counsel" in the report.

And, when asked about concerns that the UK's stature would diminish as a result of the cuts, he said: "We will remain the fourth biggest defence spending country."

In May, senior military figures voiced fears of the impact the SDSR would have on the UK's standing.

The heads of the Army, Royal Navy and RAF told the Commons defence committee that the UK could no longer aspire to the "full spectrum" of military capabilities in its wake.

But Prime Minister David Cameron later contradicted the warnings.

So now despite assurances on all of these they have cut back on NHS, front line services such as the police, raised VAT, cut the military etc etc

[Gringo]

Well not all the tories proposals are bad or mad

beeb"]Ministers should consider pulling the plug on the central part of the NHS IT programme in England, MPs say.

The Public Accounts Committee said mounting problems with the electronic records system were making the £7bn project "unworkable".

The group said the scheme - aimed at reducing the use of paper files - was beset by delays and uncertainty.

If it was stopped, the remaining budget could then be spent on a better system, they said.

E-records are part of the overall £11.4bn IT programme.

The scheme was launched in 2002 with the aim of revolutionising the way the health service uses technology.

It includes developments such as digital X-rays and fast internet connections.

Under the e-records scheme, every patient was to get an electronic file that could be used when they were treated in the NHS.

Undoubtedly it will still go ahead, as the main benefit of the e-records system is as an enabler for the privatisation of services.

[blandy]

There is no impetus or stimulus coming from this Gvmt to the UK and its people

This, most definitely. There is an ideological angle of "go to whoever is the cheapest at face value", rather than "which is the best long term value for the UK" in most of the decisions they are making re spending. A lot of false economy, a lack of understanding or appreciation of how society is knitted together - a wilful disregard for it, even. And this is IMO partly as a result of their backgrounds - home counties, Oxbridge, never had a proper job, ceetainly never got their hands dirty most of them. Prrivate School, Uni, "job" in media or PR or politics, gained via a network of "Chaps" looking after other "chaps". Which I guess is not their fault, but it's just a narrow set of experience, that doesn't give them the necessary broad appreciation of different aspects of the life of the UK. They're not all like that, but a lot of them are, particularly in the Cabinet.

[ender4]

I'm glad the defence budget is being cut, its way too large for a country of our size.

I wish we'd stop trying to be the policeman of the world, and scale back our military by half.

Though in a sensible, long-term strategic way that leaves us with capability to defend our interests, but without being able to go to war in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, and everywhere else we seem to stick our foot in.

[ender4]

Well not all the tories proposals are bad or mad

beeb"]Ministers should consider pulling the plug on the central part of the NHS IT programme in England, MPs say.

The Public Accounts Committee said mounting problems with the electronic records system were making the £7bn project "unworkable".

The group said the scheme - aimed at reducing the use of paper files - was beset by delays and uncertainty.

If it was stopped, the remaining budget could then be spent on a better system, they said.

E-records are part of the overall £11.4bn IT programme.

The scheme was launched in 2002 with the aim of revolutionising the way the health service uses technology.

It includes developments such as digital X-rays and fast internet connections.

Under the e-records scheme, every patient was to get an electronic file that could be used when they were treated in the NHS.

Undoubtedly it will still go ahead, as the main benefit of the e-records system is as an enabler for the privatisation of services.

i'm not sure if thats good news or bad.

bad that we've wasted £7bill, but good that we might not waste anymore.

[tonyh29]

The expansion in activity in Britain’s service sector accelerated in July, beating expectations and providing a welcome boost to the growth outlook following a dismal reading for manufacturing earlier this week.

Full Article at the FT

[drat01]

The expansion in activity in Britain’s service sector accelerated in July, beating expectations and providing a welcome boost to the growth outlook following a dismal reading for manufacturing earlier this week.

Full Article at the FT

Oooh Tony - as you well know unless you pay for the FT web site it is not available to anyone

The key indicators for the economy are still very gloomy and based on Gideon's policies there are no immediate signs of anywhere near the growth figures he was quoting for the headlines.

[drat01]

OK so I found the report - or one using the same wordage

link

Activity in Britain’s dominant services sector romped to a four-month high in July, a closely watched survey suggested on Wednesday, dampening fears over the lacklustre UK economic recovery.

Markit, a research group, said its purchasing managers’ index for the sector climbed to 55.4 in July, up from 53.9 a month earlier. Economists had expected a decline to 53.4, according to a Reuters poll.

The group branded the data a ‘pleasant upside surprise,’ saying a strong gain in new business had supported activity as panellists reported that market conditions had improved.

But lingering uncertainty over the direction of the economy undermined expectations and hiring decisions, it added. Business confidence remained historically low and payroll numbers were fractionally down following two months of negligible gains, according to the report.

Sterling shot up 0.5% versus the dollar to $1.637 on the back of the figures; the pound also jumped from a day low of €1.141 against the euro to €1.147.

Economists hailed the data as a welcome surprise following a raft of mostly downbeat reports on the UK and world economies.

‘The improvement in July’s UK CIPS/Markit report on services comes as a bit of relief after the recent run of poor data on the economy,’ said Vicky Redwood, economist at Capital Economics. ‘However, the big picture is that the balances are still well down on the levels reached during the high point of the recovery in 2010.’

James Knightley, economist at ING, pointed out that after Monday’s disappointing UK manufacturing data, the report offered ‘some encouragement’ on Britain’s growth prospects.

‘Taking them all together, along with yesterday’s firm construction PMI, it is consistent with gross domestic product growth of around 0.5% quarter-on-quarter – up from the 0.2% rate in the second quarter of 2011,’ he wrote in a research note.

Yet he continued: ‘With worries about sovereign debt continuing to weigh there is little prospect of a Bank of England rate hike anytime soon.

Doesn't sound like a real endorsement of Gideon economic strategy

[tonyh29]

Oooh Tony - as you well know unless you pay for the FT web site it is not available to anyone

actually I didn't know that ... I don't have a subscription , just went into it from Google news and read the story

yep just tried it again through google and went straight into the article so clearly there is a flaw with the pay web site idea here

[Richard]

Couple of things for me here. Firstly checking out this thread after a while away I have to say it is like putting on your winter coat after 6 months in the cupboard. it aint changed

Secondly I saw a report last night re the USA and its action to increase the borrowing limit and subsequently reduce spending. Seems the US have not gone far enough or quickly enough for a start and now they have to to catch up with the UK . Woohoo., specifically so in reducing the structural deficit. Uk being better placed than them

I keep hearing the "too far to quick" argument and to be honest it is getting boring now. I do not think anyone, especially those that left it this way, really understood the true extent of the shite we were in economically and now to berate those taking the action to resolve it to try and safeguard our future, well it is about the only thing that is a bit rich!

Then finally we have the comparison of what Randy is doing at Villa. Lots support him for trying to run a sound ship and take actions to bring our finances under control , to not spend on wages etc a greater portion of our revenue.

Do you think Randy is going too far too fast? Or is he doing the right thing.

[blandy]

We deeply regret the decision to dispense with the Nimrod MRA4 and have serious concerns regarding the capability gaps this has created in the ability to undertake the military tasks envisaged in the SDSR. This appears to be a clear example of the need to make large savings overriding the strategic security of the UK and the capability requirements of the Armed Forces

Tory effing twunts caught.

On the comment re defence spending - it's fine to reduce spending, perhaps even admirable and necessary IF you also reduce what you try and do. It is utterly a betrayal to cut spending, whilst sending people off to all parts to fight for the interests deemed necessary by the politicians.

Both labour and even more so the Tories have politically talked the talk, walked on the big stage, sending people to Libya/iraq/Afg etc whilst tying the hands of the men and women they are sending.

The SDSR was, as was said at the time, and has been verified now, more about bean counting than defence strategy or security.

[tonyh29]

Nimrod MRA4

I know we've discussed this before but my friend at BAE still reckons the plane wasn't airworthy .. they fixed the airframe issues only to find the wing then needed a redesign .. the fuel pipe was suspect and I think he also said the landing gear was another disaster waiting to happen (this was a discussion down the pub where he said more than he should have but he is a fairly senior bod at BAE , not that it makes him correct but I think he has touch of being ITK )

Now i agree the scrapping and leaving a capability gap is barking ..more so as I can see us then going off and purchasing something off the Americans ... but the whole Nimrod thing is clearly not the MOD's finest moment

[blandy]

Not anyone's finest hour, BAE, MoD, Tories

pm sent, but it's not true they weren't airworthy - they were flying before they were scrapped. And the fuel thing's not true either. All sorts of technical issues were addressed, as they are in any new aircraft programme, including the Fin, wing spars and so on.

[Dale]

Lets just say that BAE's sales (?) department didn't do themselves any favours in the aftermath of the strategic defence review by ringing around governmental/politicians offices and swearing down the phone at their staffers.

[snowychap]

Secondly I saw a report last night re the USA and its action to increase the borrowing limit and subsequently reduce spending. Seems the US have not gone far enough or quickly enough for a start and now they have to to catch up with the UK .

What 'report'? Where? According to whom, mate?

I keep hearing the "too far to quick" argument and to be honest it is getting boring now.

It is. I wish they'd shut up about it because it's starting to sound just like the moronic £x million per millisecond in interest 'argument' that was trotted out for six months or so by the Tory Dems until Coulsen suggested something else might play better.

Then finally we have the comparison of what Randy is doing at Villa. Lots support him for trying to run a sound ship and take actions to bring our finances under control , to not spend on wages etc a greater portion of our revenue.

Do you think Randy is going too far too fast? Or is he doing the right thing.

Is it fair or, even, sensible to compare AVFC to the UK economy?