I have made my mind up!!

To be totally honest I don’t suppose I ever have been because those that I have voted for have never followed through with their pledges, as far as PM’s goes none, I never said the Economy was in rude health,Unemployment was low or it was ever easy to get a Mortgage and everybody had spare dosh. :confused:

So, you’ve never been happy with any government you’ve voted for…

…you’ve never said the economy was good, unemployment was low, it was easy to get a mortgage and everybody had spare dosh…

…so what is so wrong with the state of Britain now then? Sounds like it is just as it ever was?

I know I’m being a bit flippant but I think you have to stop taking so much negativity to heart; and remember that there are many that want you to feel negative about everything (and blame the government for it)! Instead of just believing that everything is bad and getting worse try to develop some technique for actually making a comparison…

…other than with a Britain that never existed or only would have existed if you’d voted for somebody else!

Take for example your idea about ‘massaging’ figures; yes, it probably goes on, to a degree, with all governments here and abroad but why then are our ‘massaged’ figures better than the massaged figures for France? And much better than the massaged figures for Spain and Greece?

Is there some inter-government agreement for how each country massages its figures? Or is our economy (and therefore our government) doing a better job of governing that those of France, Spain and Greece?

I’m going to say our government is doing a better job. What do you think?

…the F-35 is a farce the money…..would have been better spent developing the Harrier as there where plenty of scope to further that aircraft…

No, no it wouldn’t; the Harrier was absolutely at the limit of its development potential and would have needed replacing with a completely new generation aircraft within a few years. I was as big a fan of the Harrier as anybody, was mortified to see it go but it needed replacing.

Could Britain afford to fund a British replacement? No. (Well, not willing to anyway.) Would any British replacement have been as good as the F-35. No! When would the British replacement programme have needed to be started? About twenty years ago! If Britain had started ten years ago how young would the youngest Harrier be when the first replacement aircraft flew (assuming no delays)? Forty years old!

The media loves to shock the ignorant British population with how expensive (and how useless) all the military’s kit is; well, try to understand these facts…

…Italy is ordering about one hundred F-35, Turkey is ordering about one hundred F-35, Norway (Norway!) is ordering over fifty F-35 and so far Britain is planning less than fifty F-35…

…and you don’t even want those…..just some ‘development’ of the Harrier!

Do you know something else about the F-35? The tail section of all of them, all three thousand that are on order, even all the United States ones, are going to be built in Britain.

Still think we’ve wasted our money investing in the F-35?

Geoff,

Many of your arguments are sound, but they are crippled by the obvious errors.

“Most” are not on zero hours contract or at minimum wage.

Food prices are decreasing not increasing.

I fear you have been listening too intently to labour party propoganda.

Moggy

[ATTACH=CONFIG]236187[/ATTACH]

Hi All,

Bruce,

I f they did they obviously got it wrong the F-35 is a farce the money that has been pumped into that would have been better spent developing the Harrier as there where plenty of scope to further that aircraft, the F-35 is an all singing all dancing with the bells and whistles that could be put on it when all you need is kit that works, just another aircraft that is to advanced for the job let alone any mission creep if any IMPO. You have an aircraft flying around particularly the VSTOL version with it’s extra weight from a second lift engine that has overrun by millions, has had it’s threat neutralised allegedly by newly developed radar that can apparently see it and if I am not mistaken it was beaten by un-stealthy aircraft in an exercise a couple of years ago (Please correct if wrong.)
Another example is the two aircraft carriers that the RN has now the aircraft that can be accommodated by these two carriers is 45 on each and how many are we equipping them with allegedly 12 max if the Dispatches programme is to be believed so where is the cost effectiveness with all that ?
It has been a complete white elephant from start to finish, it has been faced along with the continual cost over-run with technical difficulty’s, threatened with cancelation once or more, so faith in what was promised is waning as many of the country are having to be sweet talked into continuing, Canada as an example voted on whether to continue and they are a major NATO member so what does the future look like if this saga contuse ?

As for the Nimrod it was cancelled after having started the upgrades for service so well on the way and yes while it is an old platform what was being done to replace it nothing ? The Nimrod should have been untouched as we have had no Maritime surveillance aircraft that was so essential to the country as we be an island. We are instead left to be the poor relation in NATO with having to rely on requesting other NATO members to police our borders when we perceive a threat, In the papers today is a trawler fisherman that claims his nets had tangled with a submarine after being dragged along, guess what no NATO sub US or RN sub in that vicinity I’ll give you two guesses to who it was, the Russians parked their largest carrier in full view of the Scottish coast no so long ago this all because we have no maritime aircraft we can call on, the stupidity of cancelling the Nimrod upgrade is mind boggling especially when we do not have a replacement available or was even planned.

All parties that are elected into office will massage the figures to appear the better government and always will but to tell those who put them there that the country is doing well when it is obviously not and is dishonest to say the least, I repeat that it will be if you have enough dosh floating around or you own a company that is dong well but most are I would think are just about keeping their heads above water.

Like I have already said massaged figures they do not include those who I mentioned in my original post if you add them in then the figures increase, as an example you can include those on training courses in both sets of figures while you in training you are neither employed or unemployed so you take them out of one lot of figures add them to another thus the employed figure go up and the unemployed figures go down and to be honest which figure would you choose to put them in ?

While there may be some truth in allowing room for growth how can it when most are on Zero Hr contract/Minimum wages it’s because those who would undoubtedly like to buy cannot and that is why Mortgages are over longer terms not just so people can afford them, not only that those who lend obviously end up with more money because the money paid back is mostly off the interest and not from the cost of the house. How can the individual not be relevant surely what you earn has a direct effect of what you can afford and as I mentioned low pay means you cannot afford much anyway despite the allegation the banks are trying to help, they are all in a win,win situation as if the Mortgage lender defaults then they just kick those lenders out and still obtain the property while the lender has no recourse about what has occurred, this despite the government spouting on about making the lenders accountable for pulling out all the stops to help the Mortgage payer and ease the problem.When dealing with Mortgage defaults I have not heard of many that will be favourable to the lender, most lenders want the loan repaid quickly.

The Saudis have been over producing since the sanctions on Russia was imposed this as I said is in the part of those sanctions forcing the price down thus crippling Russia’s output price nothing more so I do not agree with no country would do that. Inflation is not low again I say if you have spare income after all your bills and a lot of it then yes I agree you may have a point for most that is not the reality, most are finding it hard to afford to live the liveable wage is a lot higher than what the minimum wage is, I agree hat the interest rate to some degree affects inflation but unless you are at that level you will not notice to much. As for food banks are you seriously suggesting that they are used just because they are there ?
while you may not want to be flippant you are misguided by that thought, the food banks are there because the price of food has risen simple as that. You are aware that even working people use food banks ? You just cannot stroll up to one and be handed a food parcel you have to apply through the DWP only when you have gone through that vetting process do you eventually receive a token to obtain the food parcels, even then I think I am correct in saying you can use them three times (Please correct if wrong.) These food banks are there and growing in number because of the state this country is in people who just want o live a normal life are using them as a direct link to inflation on food, they are having there rights slowly eroded away over the years despite those rights being fought for by others so many years ago.

All the above and post are just my opinions and like everybody else we all have them and I will just have to disagree with some and agree with others. :eagerness:

Geoff.

You miss my point completely; I’m not worried about other countries or how they see Britain…

…I’m trying to get a balanced view of how our economy / government is actually doing.

You’re obviously not happy so let me ask you a serious question; when were you happy with the government in Britain? What Prime Minister did you respect and trust? When was this golden age when the economy was in rude health, unemployment was low, it was easy to get a mortgage and everybody had ‘spare dosh’?

I’m serious…..when was this time?

Hi All,
CD,
To be totally honest I don’t suppose I ever have been because those that I have voted for have never followed through with their pledges, as far as
PM’s goes none, I never said the Economy was in rude health,Unemployment was low or it was ever easy to get a Mortgage and everybody had spare dosh. :confused:

Geoff.

investment in the capital as the main driver of the economy is arguably the best option.

Moggy

I would argue differently, hence my original point. It becomes a self fulfilling prophecy if all investment goes to London because that’s where everything happens. Hence the premise for HS2. Not that that is necessarily the best way to encourage investment in the regions.

I hate visiting London, avoid the place if at all possible:rolleyes:

What you have to remember, is that England is divided into two distinct Areas, always was, always will be. Anything North of the Watford Gap, is considered unworthy of mention, However, anything Sarf, of the Gap, where most of the effluent live, gets, and I give just ONE example, better house prices, better wages, OOps, that’s two, and perchance a better education, dammit, thats 3………….
Lincoln .7.

I don’t know if that’s still the case nowadays ?
Although I can (just) remember a holiday we had in Scotland, in 1986, staying at a number of farmhouses.
In one of them, there were three other couples staying there, all from the North of England. When we said we
were from the South East, the atmosphere became very frosty.

What I do find scandalous personally is the amount of money being spent on rail and transport infrastructure in London is approximately 20 times per head compared to that being spent in the regions. ( IIRC roughly £5500 in London compared to £220 in the North East)

Well it’s all infrastructure, not just transport, and the statistics are very skewed by £23Bn being invested in crossrail and tube modernisation, so I don’t personally rate it as ‘scandalous’. With necessarily limited resources available post Gordon Brown, investment in the capital as the main driver of the economy is arguably the best option.

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2014/aug/07/london-gets-24-times-as-much-infrastructure-north-east-england

Moggy

What you have to remember, is that England is divided into two distinct Areas, always was, always will be. Anything North of the Watford Gap, is considered unworthy of mention, However, anything Sarf, of the Gap, where most of the effluent live, gets, and I give just ONE example, better house prices, better wages, OOps, that’s two, and perchance a better education, dammit, thats 3.
Standing by for incomng !! 😀
Jim.
Lincoln .7.

Large infrastructure projects like building a large number of nuclear power stations to enable energy self sufficiency and remove the reliance on russian gas.

True self sufficiency requires energy from sources produced in the UK. Most Uranium for reactors comes from the open market, most commonly from Canada, Australia and Russia. Whilst two of those countries are likely to continue to supply the European market in the longer term it does mean we are as reliant on external sources for nuclear as we are for gas and to a certain extent oil. The new nuclear power stations that are to be built at Hinkley point are 90% owned by a consortium roughly equally split between EDF (which is 80% owned by the French Government), and a company wholly owned by the Chinese Government.

So, whilst building such infrastructure projects may well boost the economy in the short term, long term they are not necessarily adding to the country’s assets or self-sufficiency

For more detail ( much, much more!)

http://www.world-nuclear.org/info/Country-Profiles/Countries-T-Z/United-Kingdom/

What I do find scandalous personally is the amount of money being spent on rail and transport infrastructure in London is approximately 20 times per head compared to that being spent in the regions. ( IIRC roughly £5500 in London compared to £220 in the North East)

If it’s large infrastructure projects we are discussing there are certainly a few which would take preference over a 200 mile railway line for which demand seems slight, advantages less and economic benefits nil, other than the importance of just building something!!

Snafu – don’t get me started on UK energy policy…..!! Milliband should be hung drawn and quartered – not for being what he is now but for being the ex- Secretary of State for Energy and the rest of it…..and lumbering us with what we have now.

(Across Europe I mean not just the UK, yes Germany I’m looking at you and your stupid decision to remove nuclear power production from your territory.)

I’ve encountered Germans who take a perverse pride in this fact, regardless of the proximity of reactors just over the French border. Sadly their grassroots renewables movement grew from strong anti-nuclear leanings so I doubt they will change their views any time soon.

Large infrastructure projects like building a large number of nuclear power stations to enable energy self sufficiency and remove the reliance on russian gas.
(Across Europe I mean not just the UK, yes Germany I’m looking at you and your stupid decision to remove nuclear power production from your territory.)

It will also save the embarrassment of comparison with the simply splendid high-speed rail services to be found on the continent.

Moggy

On the continent, you have bigger distances to cover, over mostly open countryside.
I still don’t see the need for HS2, unless it is to widen the London commuter belt ?

Trains I can take or leave, but large infrastructure projects have always been a good way of reinvigorating a slumped economy, or one coming out of recession, so yes, overall I’d say that HS2 was a significantly good idea.

It will also save the embarrassment of comparison with the simply splendid high-speed rail services to be found on the continent.

Moggy

Yes a poll. I understand some other poll on another subject has just garnered a million signatures…..it must have been of real importance!!

Moggy – I am not competent to comment on your first point and wholly agree with the sentiments of the second, but does your silence on HS2 suggest sympathy with the project?

I personally think the time has come to forget about replacing Trident (An M.A.D. system) and replacing it with a cheaper, air-delivered punitive system.

The savings can then be spent on bolstering conventional forces.

Moggy

I do Charlie. Perhaps time to start a poll; We the undersigned require the government to scrap HS2 and spend the saving on Defence.

I made one of my very occasional visits to MM expecting a thread on UK defence but found nothing recent. I have been thinking how much more necessary and how much more relevant to the UK an absolute minimum of 2% of GDP is to maintain and support the defence of the nation and how unnecessary and irrelevant the HS2 white elephant is. I understand the government will have to find an additional £8 billion over the next 5 years to maintain that percentage. HS2 comes in at about £40 billion, conservatively. It would seem no contest to me. Anyone share those thoughts?

Was aware of that Alan. It is the underlying message and consequences that are of more concern.
First they came for etc….

The mock election is interesting.