economic situation is dire

[Awol]

I marvel at the hypocrisy of republicans who go on and on about too much spending, but when it comes to cutting spending on our bloated and functionally retarded military, they scream bloody murder.

Just out of interest, what does "functionally retarded" mean in this context?

[chrisp65]

I marvel at the hypocrisy of republicans who go on and on about too much spending, but when it comes to cutting spending on our bloated and functionally retarded military, they scream bloody murder.

Just out of interest, what does "functionally retarded" mean in this context?

would it mean asking for, buying and storing several billion pounds worth of supplies they don't want and can't use?

[snowychap]

I see NatWest's systems went tits up again yesterday (and some claims of it still not being right today):

Furious NatWest customers pledge to leave bank following latest IT crash

NatWest is facing a growing backlash from angry customers who claim they will shut their accounts after another IT problem at the bank left millions without access to their money on Wednesday night.

Customers were unable to withdraw cash, pay for goods and services, or carry out telephone and online banking on Wednesday 6 March and into the early hours of Thursday 7 March after an apparent IT error caused the bank's systems to crash.

NatWest said in a statement it was "disappointed" with the disruption but that the problem, which it declined to elaborate on, had been resolved.

...

A spokeswoman for RBS was unable to say what caused the latest problems and whether or not affected customers would be compensated. However, the bank does not appear to be offering any additional assistance to customers. Those who are tweeting it to complain of fees incurred because of failed direct debits are being told by the bank to "speak to the charges team".

[Awol]

I marvel at the hypocrisy of republicans who go on and on about too much spending, but when it comes to cutting spending on our bloated and functionally retarded military, they scream bloody murder.

Just out of interest, what does "functionally retarded" mean in this context?

would it mean asking for, buying and storing several billion pounds worth of supplies they don't want and can't use?

Clever, I see what you did there. Thing is if your job is to fight the wars the government instructs you to then its far better to have and not need something, than need and not have it - as guys who crossed the start line in Iraq with 30 rounds of ammunition and no body armour will testify.

EDIT: That's not to say military procurement hasn't historically been a colossal mess, driven largely by the requirements of defence manufacturers rather than defence professionals.

Edited March 7, 2013 by Awol

[blandy]

Awol, on 07 Mar 2013 - 21:46, said:

chrisp65, on 05 Mar 2013 - 19:45, said:

would it mean asking for, buying and storing several billion pounds worth of supplies they don't want and can't use?

Clever, I see what you did there. Thing is if your job is to fight the wars the government instructs you to then its far better to have and not need something, than need and not have it - as guys who crossed the start line in Iraq with 30 rounds of ammunition and no body armour will testify.

EDIT: That's not to say military procurement hasn't historically been a colossal mess, driven largely by the requirements of defence manufacturers rather than defence professionals.

In the UK, the Forces and MoD only (in Gov't accounting terms) "spend" the money they, er, spent on equipment once that equipment is issued or used. That incentivises them to procure all sorts, as they don't get billed for it until or unless they actually use it. It's bonkers, obviously.

As for procurement having "historically been a colossal mess, driven largely by the requirements of defence manufacturers rather than defence professionals." Kind of, but I'm not sure I completely agree. Yes it's been a mess, but I'm less sure it's manufacturers that have caused it. It's (to me, who works for one) more to do with the way the MoD has proceeded.

They often don't know what they really want, but they always have less than what they think they want would cost. They change their minds frequently, often because of their own budget issues, as it's a year by year thing, where a project might take 5-10 years.

SO as a made up example they'll want a 100 new aircraft, with all bells and whistles. But when they see how much that would cost, they say " we'll have 'em without the radar, please, and just 50 not 100" then a year later they say "can you put a radar in?" and the cost of adding the radar after build is more than if they'd gone for it from the start, so they say "can you deliver them next year, as we've no money left and we only want 35 now". So the manufacturer has to still employ all the people, but they have to work more slowly, and so the unit cost goes up and by now the delays mean a new version of Radar has been invented, which is better. SO they say "can you fit the new new radar, not the old new radar.... and so on.

That's not to say industry hasn't at times been awful in delivering what it says it can, but it's really not (to my eyes) driven by the requirements of the manufacturers.

The MoD and Gov't knows that things (Libya, Iraq, Afghan. etc) "pop up. Things where THEY decide they want to intervene. So they want to keep a UK capability to meet UORs (Urgent operational requirements). Which means industry has to have a core of skilled people ready and able to deliver. It actually works well. You get very very little criticism of UOR performance, especially compared to normal procurement, and one of the reasons is the money is there from the off. there's no changing minds, it's "We need this now, how can you help" and Industry delivers, the people work their nads off to get kit to troops, and then the money's handed over. We in the UK are excellent at that type of thing, and it's because it's simplified down to "give us the best you can ASAP". There's no mucking about. MoD does a good job, there, and so does Industry.

I could go on about this for hours, but it's a side issue.

[CI]

So Lloyds TSB rack up a loss of almost £600m this year and have set aside £400m in bonuses for staff.

You couldn't make this shit up.

[chrisp65]

suck it up you ****' pleb

 

we're all in this together

[Xela]

So Lloyds TSB rack up a loss of almost £600m this year and have set aside £400m in bonuses for staff.

You couldn't make this shit up.

 

Bankers get bonuses. Always have, always will. 

 

As for Lloyds, wasn't the loss down to the one off charge of PPI? Haven't seen the figures but I would imagine the underlying financial performance for the year was pretty decent?

 

Not saying its right...

[villaajax]

Those bankers will also get a tax break on top of that as of next week

 

That's David Cameron's Britain for you.

[drat01]

Those bankers will also get a tax break on top of that as of next week

 

That's David Cameron's Britain for you.

 

Some of the Tory parties biggest supporters, those who make millions from Hedge Funds etc will benefit next week by the changes brought in by the Tory party. Meanwhile so many of the poorer in society will be a lot worse off. Says a lot of what priorities Cameron, Gideon and the Tory party (and its supporters) have

[tonyh29]

Another 1.4 Bn on odd way to Europe courtesy of the taxpayer due to overspending on regional projects ... No say on the matter if Ze Germans say so , sorry I mean if a minority pass it

So much for the headline grabbing EU budget freeze

[Awol]

Another 1.4 Bn on odd way to Europe courtesy of the taxpayer due to graft and corruption on regional projects ... No say on the matter if Ze Germans say so , sorry I mean if a minority pass it

So much for the headline grabbing EU budget freeze

Fixed that for you, Tone.

[CI]

Another £25bill to the banks courtesy of us tax payers

[peterms]

So, as well as the IMF now changing its mind on UK austerity and telling Georgie boy to think again, an influential study which claimed that high government debt was causally related to low growth turns out to be based on several spreadsheet errors which when corrected fundamentally change the results.  Like changing a growth rate of -0.1% to +2.2%, for example.

 

[drat01]

The bastards on the eve of Mrs Thatcher's funeral they chose to break this news criticising a Thatcherite Gvmt. Have they no shame, don't they care about the children, won't anyone think of the children ......

 

IMF are sponsored by Miss Take the accountancy package for proving that 2+2=It depends

[peterms]

The ideas behind austerity are nonsense.  This stuff about "expansionary fiscal contraction" is as contradictory and stupid as it sounds.  The whole policy behind what Osborne is doing, what the ECB and the EU are doing, and what the IMF has been arguing until very recently, is just bollocks.  It makes no sense in theory, and it is demonstrably false in practice.

 

But how completely astonishing to see the Telegraph now admitting this.

 

[Dr_Pangloss]

To be fair the IMF were actually communicating that austerity is 'not working' as early as the middle of last year.

 

There seem to be two type of people who advocate austerity:

 

(1) Economists or finance type who are completely anti-government (their arguments range from government spending crowds out the private sector therefore removing that will 'stimulate' private demand (the basis of the fiscal expansion contraction BS), to arguments that government is just, well evil).

 

(2) Economic-illiterates who think nation-states like the US and UK operate like a household. 

[chrisp65]

To be fair the IMF were actually communicating that austerity is 'not working' as early as the middle of last year.

 

There seem to be two type of people who advocate austerity:

 

(1) Economists or finance type who are completely anti-government (their arguments range from government spending crowds out the private sector therefore removing that will 'stimulate' private demand (the basis of the fiscal expansion contraction BS), to arguments that government is just, well evil).

 

(2) Economic-illiterates who think nation-states like the US and UK operate like a household. 

 

3) people wealthy enough to enjoy an experiment that knocks the little people down a peg or two and restores the proper order of things

[colhint]

To be fair the IMF were actually communicating that austerity is 'not working' as early as the middle of last year.

 

There seem to be two type of people who advocate austerity:

 

(1) Economists or finance type who are completely anti-government (their arguments range from government spending crowds out the private sector therefore removing that will 'stimulate' private demand (the basis of the fiscal expansion contraction BS), to arguments that government is just, well evil).

 

(2) Economic-illiterates who think nation-states like the US and UK operate like a household. 

 

Whilst much of what you say has merit, unless you can convince the majority of voters, it will be a non starter. I think it is one of the Taboos. Borrowing more money  is a bit like doing anything with the NHS, the voters wont stand for it, whether its right or wrong, IMO

[drat01]

The right wing have pretty much supplied the agenda that the mass media (not surprisingly supporters of the Gvmt) have taken up and rammed down the throats despite the validity of the message or with any care for the impacts. Look at the garbage that is written re "benefit claimants", look at the stupidity that comes out about debt, conveniently forgetting that debt as per countries has little if any relevance to personal debts.

 

Osborne especially now is like a child with a toy that he will not share. He and Cameron have embarked on the massive cuts schedule, based not on what is actually the best way to help the UK but more on to appease backers and "attack" long term "enemies" (using Thatcherism language). Despite many independent, eminently more qualified, views saying they are doing things wrong they continue to hold on and things get worse. The messaging from the media etc remains pretty much the same, fed by the Tory Gvmt, and the whole idea that changing of policy, e.g. a Plan B or C or D, cannot happen.

 

The new head of the BOE is giving out mixed messaging so it seems, organisations like the IMF (who in past have been used by Gideon etc as justification) are raising concerns, but Gideon and Cameron, assisted by the LibDems, just ignore this and continue down the wrong road. The Sat Nav is telling them they should have turned left but they are happy to continue down this back road despite there being a whole load of obstacles along it