UK General Election 2015
Discussion
Guam said:
And in a classic no s
t sherlock moment we find this in the Express 
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/566211/Blai...
The Stig doesn't, but some say that politicians know what they're doing and know who to listen to at other times t sherlock moment we find this in the Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/566211/Blai...
Guam said:
And in a classic no st sherlock moment we find this in the Express
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/566211/Blai...
but in that piece, they still manage to get that ULC report finding in about migrants contributing more than they cost bullst sherlock moment we find this in the Express http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/566211/Blai...
t.Scuffers said:
look, I may not be a defence expert, but it;s pretty clear I have a better understanding of this subject than you!
the Yanks want us to have carriers, especially ones that can cross-deck with them and other NATO members, hence why they were almost despondent when we change plans again not to fit the new ones with CAT/Trap's (and thus place all our eggs in the F35B basket), hell they even offered a (cheap) fixed price deal on the new EMALS (developed for the Ford class carriers).
Their plan is to replace their current Nimitz carriers over the next 20 years with the new ones, but if we were serious about it, they would be happy to accelerate their programme to be able to sell out one of the later Nimitz class (last one was commissioned in 2009 and they have an expected life of ~50 years).
the ones we are building are nothing more than a political jobs creation scheme now, started with good intentions, but as usual, screwed every step along the way.
the budget was £4m for two ships back when they started (2007/8), it's now quoted at £6.2M but likely to exceed that by some way, and that's without any viable aircraft on it.
currently, F35B programme is still way behind, and it's unit cost of some $142M is likely to increase before it's fit for service, in comparison, the F18 super Hornet is available now, at a cost of ~$60m a unit (and the yanks have 100's of used ones available).
so, that's less than half the price for something avaliable now, with a good track record, made in vast numbers vs. who knows when and at what cost?
Sorry I just dint agree that the programme was started with good intentions. It was abundantly clear, even at the time, that this was a Winky gerrymandering scheme to find yet another way of transferring UK taxpayers money to Scotland to shire up the Labour vote. Not surprising it failed at its distant secondary purpose as a defence procurement, but especially irritating that it failed in its primary purpose. the Yanks want us to have carriers, especially ones that can cross-deck with them and other NATO members, hence why they were almost despondent when we change plans again not to fit the new ones with CAT/Trap's (and thus place all our eggs in the F35B basket), hell they even offered a (cheap) fixed price deal on the new EMALS (developed for the Ford class carriers).
Their plan is to replace their current Nimitz carriers over the next 20 years with the new ones, but if we were serious about it, they would be happy to accelerate their programme to be able to sell out one of the later Nimitz class (last one was commissioned in 2009 and they have an expected life of ~50 years).
the ones we are building are nothing more than a political jobs creation scheme now, started with good intentions, but as usual, screwed every step along the way.
the budget was £4m for two ships back when they started (2007/8), it's now quoted at £6.2M but likely to exceed that by some way, and that's without any viable aircraft on it.
currently, F35B programme is still way behind, and it's unit cost of some $142M is likely to increase before it's fit for service, in comparison, the F18 super Hornet is available now, at a cost of ~$60m a unit (and the yanks have 100's of used ones available).
so, that's less than half the price for something avaliable now, with a good track record, made in vast numbers vs. who knows when and at what cost?
Salgar said:
Apologies if this has come up before, I haven't read the whole thread.
Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
MumsnetIs there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
Salgar said:
Apologies if this has come up before, I haven't read the whole thread.
Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
It's politics, you won't find an unbiased account, anywhere. You just have to read accounts slanted towards differing viewpoints and make your own mind up.Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
Salgar said:
Apologies if this has come up before, I haven't read the whole thread.
Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
Can't really beat the BBC for this sort of thingIs there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29642613
Cue lots of deranged Ukippers complaining about bias
Guam said:
Bill Cash has plenty of form on this Salgar said:
Apologies if this has come up before, I haven't read the whole thread.
Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
They haven't bee published yet. UKIP's is apparently going to arrive later than the rest.Is there anywhere that has an unbiased account of all of the major parties policies/manifestos and possibly some arguments for and against them?
I'd like to read something well laid out and not full of ranting.
AJS- said:
You might as well not vote at all on that basis. Which makes for a short discussion about the election!
I think it does matter who gets in and what they do. I don't think they're going to make me rich or solve all our problems in 12 months or even 5 years. That isn't really what we elect governments for.
It isn't what YOU elect a gov for. However a lot of people were already calling the economic policy of the coalition a disaster a year after they took power. The general population expects full results that fast. The general population as it turns out, are not particularly smart when it comes to this sort of thing. Thus why you, and they think they are being lied too all the time. You both have totally different expectations about what politicians can do or should do. The politicians are stuck in the middle.I think it does matter who gets in and what they do. I don't think they're going to make me rich or solve all our problems in 12 months or even 5 years. That isn't really what we elect governments for.
You might say "But UKIP are not in the middle". Yes but they have yet to get into power, find they can't do all of what they promised, then been threatened with being kicked out, been kicked out, and now trying to get back in.
They are the equivalent of a teenager. You know. "Employ the teenagers quickly because they know all about everything. Do it before they forget."
arp1 said:
I do find Alex's recent statements rather arrogant and presumptuous as you should never count your chickens until they are hatched... However when the conservatives say that he is working against 'the democratic will of the British people', and certain regions (as in countries) don't vote a certain way, does that correlate to the 'democratic will of the English people'?
Typical idiot scottish nat trying to enforce the divisionI hope we get a coalition. I'd like a coalition of lots of small parties, but unfortunately our political landscape is still dominated by the 2 biggies. A coalition much better represents voting across the country than a single party having an absolute majority.
These people are meant to be good at negotiation and compromise to reach a solution agreeable to all (well, most.. ok, some!) - a coalition shouldn't be a scary prospect to the electorate.
These people are meant to be good at negotiation and compromise to reach a solution agreeable to all (well, most.. ok, some!) - a coalition shouldn't be a scary prospect to the electorate.
Mermaid said:
Miliband not answering the question on national insurance did him no favours, whilst Cameron answered the question on VAT (although remains to be seen if he tweaks it to 21%)
Yes, whilst posing the VAT question to the PM sidestepping the NI increase return question.We saw what they did there ...
.... doubt we are alone .. 
Yuz cud'nee mek eet oop.
Mind you .. we're still fff..... or, words to that effect.
Plus we need the benefits of more immigrants. Been on TV and everything.
ewenm said:
I hope we get a coalition. I'd like a coalition of lots of small parties, but unfortunately our political landscape is still dominated by the 2 biggies. A coalition much better represents voting across the country than a single party having an absolute majority.
These people are meant to be good at negotiation and compromise to reach a solution agreeable to all (well, most.. ok, some!) - a coalition shouldn't be a scary prospect to the electorate.
Whatever next? Proportional representation... These people are meant to be good at negotiation and compromise to reach a solution agreeable to all (well, most.. ok, some!) - a coalition shouldn't be a scary prospect to the electorate.
On reflection, all things considered, the coalition of the past five years has not been anywhere near as bad as either a singularly dominant and misguided Labour or Tory administration would be and has been.
Both major parties have previous form for that.
For those basic reasons you have outlined, I agree.
JustAnotherLogin said:
As far as I can see, the RN carriers will cost £6.2bn for two
Whereas the first 2 USN carriers at a similar build state (Gerald Ford and JFK) will cost $25.6bn
Or £17.25bn at todays rates.
So roughly 3x the cost, even before you include the F18s that Scuffers thinks the USN will throw in
And they cost 3x as much to operate due to crew size
And many times more to decommission due to the nuclear plant
So this is Kipper maths
£17.25bn < £6.2bn
I don't get it myself, but I don't have the advanced education of Kippers
the mistake you make is assuming these floating lumps of metal will carry operational aircraft. it is very likely they never will. the f35 configured for carrier use will be no better than an overweight trainer. it will certainly never carry any armaments of significance ,in the unlikely event it ever comes into service.Whereas the first 2 USN carriers at a similar build state (Gerald Ford and JFK) will cost $25.6bn
Or £17.25bn at todays rates.
So roughly 3x the cost, even before you include the F18s that Scuffers thinks the USN will throw in
And they cost 3x as much to operate due to crew size
And many times more to decommission due to the nuclear plant
So this is Kipper maths
£17.25bn < £6.2bn
I don't get it myself, but I don't have the advanced education of Kippers
in light of this i would say that the £6.2 b was a complete waste of money.
Mermaid said:
Miliband not answering the question on national insurance did him no favours, whilst Cameron answered the question on VAT (although remains to be seen if he tweaks it to 21%)
I was sure they were planning a VAT hike post-election. As the IFS has pointed out, the budget is missing important detail about necessary tax rises/cuts, else it doesn't make sense.It's all in the weasel words with these scammers, he's probably left it wide open to increase the range of things VAT applies to, and IPT can go up to 20% across the board from where it is 6%. And of course you can bring in entirely new taxes called something different that are effectively VAT.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff