Bolitics The New Condem Government

[markavfc40]

Absolutely no chance Tony. As much as I'd love you to be right.

Far too big a risk for the Conservatives. They were out of power for 13 years so are not after 6 months or so going to risk being out of power again. Regardless of Labour not being in the best of shape they'd still have a great chance of being elected. Besides the Conservatives have stated where the cuts will be, all be it the pain hasn't even started to be felt yet. Their hope will be that in 3 and half years and in the last year of their term they are in a position to offer a few sweeteners to get re elected and hope that people have very short memories.

[tonyh29]

Yeah I've said pretty much the same in other threads , Osborne was on US tv today and reckons the deficit will be wiped out in 4 years so that looks as though it's going to be the gambit

I just smell a rat with this tuition fees thing and wonder what is at stake here...

[Awol]

Blandy,

Must not punch computer, must not punch computer.... Can I C & P your last post for use somewhere else please?

This should probably be in the wikileaks thread but is appropriate here:-

WikiLeaks cables: Mervyn King had doubts over Cameron and Osborne

[snowychap]

This should probably be in the wikileaks thread but is appropriate here:-

WikiLeaks cables: Mervyn King had doubts over Cameron and Osborne

On the back of that, David Blanchflower has called for Merv to go:

King must go

Mervyn King is one smart guy and that has always been abundantly clear. Unfortunately, it is his thirst for power and influence that has clouded his judgment one too many times. He has now committed the unforgivable sin of compromising the independence of the Bank of England by involving himself in the economic policy of the coalition. He is expected to be politically neutral but has shown himself to be politically biased and as a result is now in an untenable position. King must go.

During my time on the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC), King made it abundantly clear that members should not comment on fiscal policy and should stay out of party political matters. He has failed to follow his own advice. How could Ed Miliband or Alan Johnson ever trust King to give them advice on economic policy, now he has shown his true party political colours? Once independence has been compromised it can never be restored.

There was so much in those leaked diplomatic cables, though, that made sense, much of which will be highly embarrassing to the government.

King confirmed my long-standing view that on economic policy the coalition is totally out of its depth. In a devastating critique he told US ambassador Louis Susman that David Cameron and George Osborne lacked experience, dealt in broad generalities, tended to think about issues only in terms of their political rather than their economic impact and surrounded themselves with a very narrow and weak team of young advisors. That is a recipe for bad economic policy making.

Other information emerged showing that the ever acerbic Tory party deputy chairman and member of the Treasury select committee, Michael Fallon, also has little confidence in Osborne's economic leadership.

The governor pointed out that both Cameron and Osborne have failed to grasp the pressures they will face when attempting to cut back on spending, when "hundreds of government officials will make pleas of why their budgets should not be reduced". This is essentially the same view taken by my ex-MPC colleagues and Rachel Lomax and John Gieve who recently both questioned the government's ability to deliver their planned cuts.

There were insights, though, in the embassy documents that I found truly shocking, not least the details of King's attempts to co-author the coalition's strategy on the deficit. That is definitely not part of his job description.

And this information emerged only a few days after revelations by Adam Posen at the Treasury select committee that members of the MPC were uncomfortable that statements King had made were overly political. The Financial Times, in a recent article, made it clear that others on the staff at the Bank shared that view. The governor of the Bank of England should not be in the business of shaping one political party's macro-economic policy.

Mervyn King should consider his position. It's time for a change at the top at the Old Lady of Threadneedle Street.

[blandy]

thats just disgraceful!

if they can't afford to run to keep them running, then can't we just sell them to another friendly govt, or even just stick them in a hangar somewhere for the next 5 years, and then see whether we want to use them or not.

They can't be sold because of ITAR - some of the technology used is US tech, and there are very strict rules which mean that the tech' can't be sold on, lest it get in the hands of people we wouldn't want to get it.

They most certainly could be mothballed, and should be, IMO - as with the decision to delay the, er, decision on the subs - the two things go hand in hand. Like I said destruction is basically wanton and criminal.

[blandy]

Blandy,

Must not punch computer, must not punch computer.... Can I C & P your last post for use somewhere else please?

It (my post) is on a public forum. S'up to you. Best not use my real full name, though, please.

[Risso]

Blandy,

Must not punch computer, must not punch computer.... Can I C & P your last post for use somewhere else please?

It (my post) is on a public forum. S'up to you. Best not use my real full name, though, please.

Just change it to something that the UK intelligence services will never be able to work out. Bete Pland or similar.

[PauloBarnesi]

I had a tour round one of the new (to be scrapped) Nimrods today. The thing is a brand new, built, ready to go, aircraft, already paid for. In perfect working order. There are others ready, too. And they're going to spend 1 billion pounds destroying them, literally sawing them up, so that they can never be used. There are 100 engines, brand new, paid for, going to be destroyd and so it goes on.

Aside from the utter stupidity of willfully destroying, at great cost, what you've (we've all) paid for - a cost that would have kept them flying for 5 years, they are being sawn up out of spite.

The gov't decided to keep the nuclear deterrent submarines, but the Nimrods are the things which protect the subs from hunter killer threats, they clear potential enemy subs out of the way. It's mad. It's criminal.

The willful destruction so they can never be used is out of spite at the way Industry negotiated with the last gov't over shipyward closures. The last Gov't wanted to maintain a UK military shipbuilding capability, when there was not the work to keep the capability going. So they asked industry to keep the yard open and in return guaranteed work to keep the yards busy. The work could have taken either the form of smaller ships - destroyers, frigates etc, or alternatively 2 carriers. The carriers were more expensive, but over a longer time. The gov't chose the carriers and contracted to guarantee payment for the carriers.

Thus the new gov't couldn't break the guarantee given, cancel the contracts to save money, because it was there in black and white.

Because of this, is why the Nimrods are being destroyed.

Not only will it leave the country short of the defence of the Nuclear subs, short of the capability to consuct long range search and rescue (civilian as well as military) not only will it deprive the country of Maritime surveillance capability, anti terrorist reconnaissance, of a brand new state of the art airborne communications and special forces command and control platform, it will also result in communities in Scotland around Kinloss and in England in Lancashire being massively harmed through job losses. And the saving overall will be minimal, if anything when all is taken into account.

If the subs were going there'd be half an argument to do what they've done, but it's incoherent, incompetent and in many senses criminal.

The best defence the Gov't could mount against this vandalism is that they don't know what they're doing. Any other argument would be worse.

The views expressed are of course personal.

Worse than the TSR2 debacle?

[PauloBarnesi]

I just came across this

All modern aircraft have four dimensions: span, length, height and politics. TSR-2 simply got the first three right.

[snowychap]

The Grauniad"]

The Daily Mail's Ephraim Hardcastle carries this joke from Labour's Chris Bryant:

'Phoned Lib Dem Head Office and asked for copy of manifesto. They said they'd sold out. I said, "I know, but can I have a manifesto?"

[tonyh29]

and there are very strict rules which mean that the tech' can't be sold on, lest it get in the hands of people we wouldn't want to get it.

Out of interest Is that a new rule ? I seem to recall a few of our ships getting hit in the Falklands as they deemed it to be friendlies incoming .. so wondered if it was a result of that ?

Was down at Pomepy Harbour not long back with the kids , a few ships there are just sitting there waiting to be got shot of ..Some were sold to Chile and a few others have had bids for them but are currently waiting for someone in government to decide if it's a good idea or not to sell them

My mate at BAE who is rather senior ( even been to a few cabinet meetings) was telling me once down the pub how they had water tight contracts signed with our government(s) that basically made it more expensive to cancel contracts than to fulfill them ..it all seems rather baffling to me but he gave me the impression that BAE seems to dictate terms to HM government

[tonyh29]

As it's a Bolitics thread

nice to see Ed had another storming PMQ's

wonder if he will even make it to the end of 2010 as leader ..

[drat01]

I thought Cameron was disgusting in that, showing none of the attributes that a PM should. He really acted as a smug git, considering his dependence on the Tory part of the LibDem's it's obvious that he feels he is above anyone and everyone.

As for Milliband's "performance", what was the problem for you Tony? Not enough "quips" and "jokes"? - The facts raised were simple, Cameron, Hague and Osborne have been ridiculed by a senior figure, Cameron tried to joke his way out of that. Cameron has had to do a massive U turn on school funding, not exactly a good point for him. For once though he let his guard slip and actually admitted he was a Thatcherist supporter, something he has often denied in the past.

As the Grud put it

Rather dreary economic seminar evolved into an unseemly insult-fest, which Cameron dominated with punchier soundbites.

So soundbites are the order of the day are they now? Interesting

On PMQ - and the farce that it is I did like this

Labour's Steve Rotherham asks about the satellite navigation system used in ministerial cars. Nick Clegg used to visit universities all the time. Now he does not go near them.

Interesting also how Cameron with one of his staged questions on BA, basically said that people should not be allowed to strike. Bit by bit the real nasty Tory party starts to show it's true face.

[ender4]

why does it matter how people perfom at PMQ?

surely it how good they are/will be at governing the country which is more important, not how good he is at talking, waffling, sniping, & presenting.

[tonyh29]

As for Milliband's "performance", what was the problem for you Tony?

nowt to do with what I think , it had a few labour peers in the balcony putting their heads in their hands , even the mirror journalist said Ed was outclassed , and for a mirror journalist to say that things MUST have been bad ...

Soundbites .. I doubt Dave will ever beat "No more Boom and Bust" and "British jobs for British workers " but Ed was given pretty much an open goal today with Kings comments and he still couldn't score .. I wonder if Ed's middle name is Ivanhoe ?

[tonyh29]

why does it matter how people perfom at PMQ?

interesting point .. from the grooming and practice in front of the mirror lessons that Ed is / has been having I'd say it must hold some importance

It's interesting because i'm sure there are people on VT that are advocates about wearing a shirt and tie for business and looking the part .. I wonder if they will be posting to say that PMQ's and performance , appearance etc has no relevance :winkold:

[markavfc40]

why does it matter how people perfom at PMQ?

Against the fact hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs, public services are being cut all over the place and millions of people will be worse of due to the up coming rise in Vat, the rise in energy/fuel prices etc then in that context it really doesn't matter at all. Sad thing is some deem it necessary to mention it as though it does.

[drat01]

Stop playing silly games Tony, a shirt and tie has no relevance to what point you are trying to make. interesting how so many MP's wear them, but that seems to be an issue for you alone

I still remember a certain smug younger Mr Cameron stating how he did not want to play "punch and judy" politics and how he wanted to "avoid glib remarks", how soon he reverted to type though. I love reading PMQ report rather than the charade that happens with the stage managed questions and the silly waving of papers, you actually see a lot more of the evasive and bollox that goes on. Cameron's performance in terms of what he said and didn't say was woeful (again), maybe he was still in presenting mode from his jolly to Zurich?

[tonyh29]

he did not want to play "punch and judy"

you keep quoting that but you seem to forget that he actually said that as an open invite to Brown who promptly dismissed it

out of interest , and as it seems to fly in the face of the overwhelming opinion why was Cameron woeful in your opinion ?

[tonyh29]

Against the fact hundreds of thousands of people are losing their jobs, public services are being cut all over the place and millions of people will be worse of due to the up coming rise in Vat, the rise in energy/fuel prices etc then in that context it really doesn't matter at all.

depends if you want to acknowledge the reason behind why we are having to go through all of the above or not , because I don't think I've seen many / any labour supporters admit yet that it was the previous government that was responsible .. I would have said partly responsible as there were of course other world factors that played a part in the recession , but seeing as you don't seem to be using them in your example we have to assume in your eyes that the UK's current problems come down solely to Labour or Tory ....