Bolitics The New Condem Government

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

It may make economic sense to jump into bed with the Europeans, but I'm not convinced the ability to compete with China/USA is worth handing over the right to autonomy for.

[Awol]

It may make economic sense to jump into bed with the Europeans

The state they are in right now it's akin to boarding the Titanic. If Germany is prepared to foot the financial bill in return for political dominance then the southern countries can slowly recover, but I'm less than convinced that German voters will swallow that.

The relevance to this thread is what course the government and the opposition intend to take?

[Jon]

Autonomy meh. Autonomy in the hands of our 'ruling elite' - is that worth much? I'm more in tune with the way the Germans and French run their countries anyway. The UK has gone far too far down the USA route now, for me, in terms of political outlook and personal 'freedoms'.

Give me the European way of life (OK, not Greece or Spain, or Italy, but ...)

[tonyh29]

It may make economic sense to jump into bed with the Europeans,

have you seen the state of the European economies .. they make Gordon Brown look good with money

[Jon]

It may make economic sense to jump into bed with the Europeans,

have you seen the state of the European economies .. they make Gordon Brown look good with money

all of them?

[bickster]

If we were part of some pan-European Superstate, do you think we'd go to war more or less than we currently do?

[chrisp65]

If we were part of some pan-European Superstate, do you think we'd go to war more or less than we currently do?

It's inconceivable that we would go to war as often.

When was the last time you saw a war on the news with a 2 hour lunch break and full health and safety assessments.

[bickster]

If we were part of some pan-European Superstate, do you think we'd go to war more or less than we currently do?

It's inconceivable that we would go to war as often.

When was the last time you saw a war on the news with a 2 hour lunch break and full health and safety assessments.

I've been struggling all day to think of a war a European country (apart from UK) went into without having to have its arm twisted behind it's back first. Obviously I'm not including the balkan civil wars etc. I was thinking in terms of the European Powerhouses like Germany, France, Spain, Belgium. Netherlands, Italy, Scandinavian countries etc.

How much do these wars cost us? Every time we do it, we spend billions upon billion of pounds, yet we seem to do it at the same time we cut the defence budget.

[tonyh29]

I'm not sure that Mr Hitler chap took a lot of arm twisting ?

Bit unfair to include the French in that list , they would surrender a game of snakes and ladders the first roll of the dice yet alone start a war where an enemy may be armed with something more potent than a stick

[mjmooney]

I dislike this mindless stereotyping of the French as cowardly. Everybody knows that that's the Italians.

[Ads]

The Balkans Wars are the biggest blot of shame on Europe since the Second World War. Genocide in our own back and it took the evil Americans to step in.

Shameful.

[chrisp65]

If we were part of some pan-European Superstate, do you think we'd go to war more or less than we currently do?

It's inconceivable that we would go to war as often.

When was the last time you saw a war on the news with a 2 hour lunch break and full health and safety assessments.

I've been struggling all day to think of a war a European country (apart from UK) went into without having to have its arm twisted behind it's back first. Obviously I'm not including the balkan civil wars etc. I was thinking in terms of the European Powerhouses like Germany, France, Spain, Belgium. Netherlands, Italy, Scandinavian countries etc.

How much do these wars cost us? Every time we do it, we spend billions upon billion of pounds, yet we seem to do it at the same time we cut the defence budget.

Yeah, it's not a long and easy to recall list.

I guess the French helped kick off the Vietnamese War, though even that was a consequence of WWII.

There was France again in Algeria, though that was a result of old school colonialisation of previous times.

Again, the French had a minor roll in the Falklands as it later transpired French technicians continued secretly to service exocet missile installations during hostilities.

Other than that, with only an anglo centric education and not bothering with google, I'm struggling.

Short of running two parallel universes, we'll never know if we'd have been better off with a more european attitude to conflict. Could be we wouldn't currently be losing our youth in Afghanistan. Instead we might have spent a few billion getting ahead of the game on alternative fuels and cars that run on water. Could be we'd all be queuing for american bread with greater Russia ending up somewhere around Antwerp.

[Ads]

There are some lessons a Federalist Europe could learn from Yugoslavia. Supranational states need to curb nationalism, which of course they can do, for a time, but the repression of national identity will bubble below the surface.

In Yugoslavia it lead to a more oppressive regime from what had been fairly liberal in compariason to its neighbours in Romania, Bulgaria and of course the Soviet Union.

It was never going to end well and of course its inevitable collapse lead to just as inevitable violence.

Something to keep in mind as history continues to repeat ad infinitum.

[Awol]

Since WW2 European countries other than the UK have fought in or against: China, North Korea, Indonesia, Vietnam, Egypt, Algeria, Libya, Iraq, Cyprus, Congo, Chad, Ivory Coast, Croatia, Bosnia, Serbia, Kosovo and Afghanistan - there are probably many more that I've forgotten.

Most of those involved the French and others were mainly the Dutch and Belgians with the Germans involved in a few too. Neither have the Scandinavians been shy when it comes to having a ruck overseas and likewise the Poles.

Either way the supposition (if there is one) of a warmongering Britain sitting off a conflict averse continent is very wide of the mark.

[bickster]

So if the rest of Europe go to war as readily as ourselves, how come with the exception of France, we spend double per annum compared to any other country? Even France spends considerably less of its GDP than us.

Also the losses per country in Afghanistan seem to follow the amount each country spends on defence, except when it comes to us, we seem to lose 2 soldiers to everyone else's 1 even when the figures are adjusted to take into account defence spending per country.

Do we need a more European approach to these conflicts whereby when America says jump, we say how high? whereas everyone else says, "we're only jumping this much"

[bickster]

And has anyone mentioned Clegg's Apology yet?

*chortle*

[Awol]

So if the rest of Europe go to war as readily as ourselves, how come with the exception of France, we spend double per annum compared to any other country? Even France spends considerably less of its GDP than us.

We maintain greater and more varied capabilities than our European neighbours excluding France, and they spend virtually the same amount we do.

Also the losses per country in Afghanistan seem to follow the amount each country spends on defence, except when it comes to us, we seem to lose 2 soldiers to everyone else's 1 even when the figures are adjusted to take into account defence spending per country.

The metrics being used to try and define a pattern to casualties are nonsensical. The UK is operating in by far the most dangerous area of Afghan (Helmand Province) and has different operational procedures to other countries, i.e. our troops embed with ANA soldiers down to the section and platoon level to conduct mentoring in combat. No other country does this which means our guys are at greater risk, and additionally the task taken on by the UK military has been the largest and most dangerous given the actual numbers committed to achieve the mission.

Do we need a more European approach to these conflicts whereby when America says jump, we say how high? whereas everyone else says, "we're only jumping this much"

That depends. We remain the most militarily effective ally of the US, in return we get access to the US intelligence gathering capability (which is unparalleled) and the latest in military technology. Whatever political bitching and derision is directed at the "special relationship", the reality of it is evident in our national security posture - and the benefits we enjoy due to that relationship.

The idea of chucking that away in order to throw our lot in with a gaggle of totally unreliable EU countries is beyond crazy when view through the national interest of the UK. That changes of course if one thinks maintaining the UK as an independent social and political entity isn't a good thing in and of itself.

[Awol]

And has anyone mentioned Clegg's Apology yet?

*chortle*

Hilarious

[snowychap]

And has anyone mentioned Clegg's Apology yet?

*chortle*

Grauniad article from a Lib Dem:

As a Lib Dem party member who has called for Nick Clegg to apologise for us breaking our pledge on tuition fees, my first reaction last night was to welcome his public mea culpa. But listening carefully to what he had actually said, it became clear he was making the wrong apology. As Julia Hartley-Brewer pointed out on Twitter last night, "Nick Clegg's apology for breaking tuition fees pledge is like a husband saying 'sorry for my affair, next time I won't vow to be faithful'". What students, voters and members were angry about wasn't us making the pledge in the first place, it was us breaking it.

So let's consider for a moment what would have happened had Lib Dems not signed the pledge. How disingenuous would that have looked? The only party consistently opposing fee increases says "yes, I know that's what we say we believe, but we really can't put our money where our mouths are".

Confusingly, both Nick and Vince (on Newsnight last night) appear to be conflating two issues: a promise not to vote for an increase in tuition fees, and a manifesto commitment to scrap fees altogether.

The party's Federal Policy Committee has responsibility for drawing up the manifesto and as a member I well remember the internal rows about sticking to what for many of us was a totemic commitment, ironically one of our most lauded accomplishments in coalition in Scotland. There was never any consideration that we would support fee rises. As a letter in the Guardian from committee members during the 2009 autumn conference demonstrates, the argument at the time was whether scrapping fees could be afforded, not whether we could afford to keep them where they were. So while I fully accept Vince's honest admission that he had never supported our policy to scrap fees if it was never made clear when we drew up the manifesto that this extended to not supporting our policy.

Which brings me to my next objection to what both Nick and Vince have said. Nick's apology, which said: "It was a pledge made with the best of intentions – but we should not have made a promise we were not absolutely sure we could deliver. I shouldn't have committed to a policy that was so expensive when there was no money around", was backed up by Vince claiming we were "unwise" to make such a pledge.

One of my clear memories about the response to our manifesto in the press was the recognition that ours was the most thorough in terms of costings. So why does Vince shoot himself in the foot and undermine what was and in my view still is, his USP – his economic competence? Believe me, having tried to get policies past Vince I know just how robust he is – there is no way an uncosted or unaffordable policy would appear in our policy papers, let alone our manifesto.

But of course, let's not forget that the manifesto took a very different line on tackling the deficit:

"We have already identified over £15bn of savings in government spending per year, vastly in excess of the £5bn per year that we have set aside for additional spending commitments. All our spending commitments will be funded from this pool of identified savings, with all remaining savings used to reduce the deficit. We must ensure the timing is right. If spending is cut too soon, it would undermine the much-needed recovery and cost jobs. We will base the timing of cuts on an objective assessment of economic conditions, not political dogma".

The only explanation I have is that this is yet another example of our leadership finding it more acceptable to claim they were economically incompetent in drawing up the manifesto than to accept political incompetence in signing up to so much Tory policy that flies in the face of everything the party stands for without considering the consequences, or to admit that our original approach was right and that plan A clearly isn't working.

The public is not fully aware of the history of how we went into the election with a commitment to scrap fees, but the story of how social liberals organised to defend the commitment has been told by one of those who was closely involved in the battle to keep the commitment, both on our higher education working group and on the federal policy committee. The key point is this: in 2008 and 2009, the party leadership tried to drop the pledge.

They were partly arguing that the policy should not be a spending priority, but also that students should make some contribution to tuition costs. That this leadership move was defeated (heavily) on the federal policy committee was down to party activists showing how scrapping fees could be afforded, and making a choice to fund that commitment instead of other policies. Precisely the same process took place during the development of our manifesto. However, for those negotiating the coalition deal, it was never a personal political priority, despite the manifesto they had put forward to the country, and so they were hardly going to make it a sticking point.

So will this strategy have the desired effect and persuade people, particularly students and the many Lib Dem activists who have resigned over the issue, to return in their droves? I'm not holding my breath.

My own view is probably one cheer for a step in the right direction, tinged with disappointment that he has given the impression that the affordability of our policy was ever in question, when in fact it had been rigorously costed. Even if the apology had been about the right thing, regaining trust once lost is about more than just saying sorry.

If you have attacked me and left me with a broken nose, I might accept your apology, and even forgive you, but it may take a lot longer for me to trust you again.

[bickster]

So if the rest of Europe go to war as readily as ourselves, how come with the exception of France, we spend double per annum compared to any other country? Even France spends considerably less of its GDP than us.

We maintain greater and more varied capabilities than our European neighbours excluding France, and they spend virtually the same amount we do.

No they don't

UK €43bil 2.56% GDP

France €39bil 2.01% GDP

Germany €33bil 1.34% GDP

Italy €21bil 1.4% GDP

and downwards thereafter