Someone tell the two-person team it took to write about the ‘Historic Aircraft’

Britain’s Empire was a trade venture. It needed a Navy to back up some of our claims, but all was about resources, raw materials for trade and manufacture. While it continued we needed military strength. My point is the military strength did not come first – rather it was called into existence to support the very nature of our economy.

The US national psyche has got this all backward, only ever understood half the picture, and seems to think a military makes a country great all by itself.

(If I was feeling mischievous.. it appears I am.. I would venture a link between this and the belief that a personal firearm makes an individual greater).

Unless one indulges in territorial claims as one’s principle means of ‘improvement’, there are other ways to be great – and influential, if that’s what you want.

The debate about the size of the RAF is entirely about adequacy against perceived need, ie what is the threat and can it be deterred/countered – not how great we look on the world stage. That’s someone else’s mug’s game.

Does that surprise you?
Why do you think some people like less government and regulation?

Since WWII, the UK government doesn’t have that good of a track record.
High taxes are needed to support a growing number of bureaucrats and regulations designed to protect people from themselves…and, give more employment to regulation writers and enforcers.
For every success, there is 2-3 semi..if not outright…failures.
Nationalized industries didn’t work, you have little manufacturing base left, not much of a military (size wise).

Not entirely relevant, that little jab. Or accurate, come to that.

The UK does not in fact have a particularly high-tax economy – its roughly average in world terms.

What successes and failures are you referring to? Unless you mean the football?

Our industrial base has eroded to almost nothing, true. A little bit of Government interference to support might have helped, but it was prohibited by neo-right ‘free market’ thinking that we actually apply with more fidelity than the Americans do (ref US Car Industry).

Is the size of a nations military a sign of success, or a sign of how much that nation thinks it needs it?

I think the assertion of those who won’t let it go is more that it was an uncomprehending xenophobic vote that swung it, and that a vote based on rational arguments alone would have gone differently.

Uncomprehending that voting ‘out’ did not mean ‘sending them back where they came from’, and uncomprehending of the effect that doing so would have had on UK business if it had meant that.

It is this unfortunate addition to the out vote that has meant this was not a great advertisement for referendum-based democracy. I don’t think anyone is calling all those who voted ‘out’ racist – I’d hope not anyway, as that’s pretty ignorant too.

I for one don’t know if that assertion is true or not, and without a second referendum (in which it is clear to the electorate what they are and are not voting on) we will never know.

OK, so.. the CAA decide on the rules as they go along for each display? I guess they always could, but it seems it was applied sensibly before.

So now we end up with pilot being told “no aerobatic manoeuvres outside the airfield boundary” at Biggin Hill.. which on a non-airshow day they CAN do? Hang on, am I missing something here.. AWAY from the display, the aircraft cannot perform aerobatic manoeuvres that are allowed next to a crowd of thousands? And if there wasn’t an airshow happening somewhere else the aircraft could perform the same manoeuvres in the same airspace? I can see how this is a knee-jerk to the Shoreham accident, but it ain’t too logical.

Surely changing the rules as they go along for each display is going to lead to all kinds of problems as pilots have to squeeze and further adapt routines continually throughout the season? And then there is the restriction on space meaning MORE physical stress on both airframes and pilots, in ways that are unpredictable where the goalposts keep moving.

There surely has to be a review of this situation.

Sigma, get a grip.

It was intended to illustrate the ridiculousness of a situation where those that benefited most from EU membership voted to end it and now if anything will become even more dependent on the tax-take from the more viable parts of the British economy.

Despite it being about as subtle as a breeze block as an allegorical and hypothetical illustration, it was beyond you. Your use of shouty bold underline and your threat of violence proves all you need to, thank you. As I said, if this is the New Britain..

Half my ‘insurgent mass’ is/are not bankers. I have no idea what you mean by this.

Late thanks to aeronut!