usta in Portland
Daily Driver
is Cameron a hero for standing firm against Merkozy (or is it Sarkel?)?
Hey, Pottsy...
- Thread starter usta in Portland
- Start date
9151
Pottsy
Postcards from Brit.co.uk a small bunch of islands off the coast of Europe
The mindset of the 'Little Englander'. They are the staunch centerists of the Conservative Party. Avowedly anti-European (unless it suits them to be otherwise) and reactionary on any matters that impact on the UK.
Under a Conservative government, the IRA would never have been assimilated into British politics if the New Labour club hadn't been so overarchingly generous and put the past in a box labelled 'Bad Place'.
Similarly, Camoron (sic) has modelled himself on the Blessed Margaret, (Thatcher), and so, besides pushing the rank-and-file brits into poverty, he looks like he wants to do the same to Europe.
I share the common belief that, with the sinking of the Titanic proving that bigger ain't necessarily better/stronger, the Euro WILL founder because even the architect of its inception Jacques Delors, has derided its swing from the original intent. However, shooting the lifeguard rarely saves a swimmer.
Sarkozy showed his disgust with Cameron's grandstanding in a typically Gallic way (see link).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zy-snubs-David-Cameron-swife-body-swerve.html This despite Hague the Vague* saying on the BBC yesterday that Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel had a 'very professional political respect for each other'. (see above).
You couldn't make it up.
* British Foreign Secretary (God help us). Once famous for his claimed ability to sink 16 pints of Best Bitter in a dinnertime session - his slight frame and penchant for baseball caps did not gel with his claims and did not endear him to the public, who demand certain qualities in their politicians (he was up for PM at the time), other than to be able to stand upright after a heavy boozing session - hence the number of MPs seen sleeping in the benches in the televised Commons debates perhaps! - Others, probably True Lovers of the Hop, on hearing from a former workmate of his who witnessed his true level of imbibance as 'Two wafts of the barmaid's apron', labelled him as 'Bill the Bulls****er' henceforth.
Look. We no longer have an Empire. We are not part of the real World body politic (no real forces' strength to back up our claims apart from being a Remora on the belly of the US Killer Whale - close to its colonic vent), and now it looks like we are to be shunned by Europe too. We used to have a working Commonwealth until Ted Heath (another Conservative) signed the Treaty of Rome and ditched our trading partners in Autralia, New Zealand, Canada etc., leaving them high and dry.
'Oh, what a thing it is to be an Englishman straight and true'.
Indeed. :rolleyes2:
The mindset of the 'Little Englander'. They are the staunch centerists of the Conservative Party. Avowedly anti-European (unless it suits them to be otherwise) and reactionary on any matters that impact on the UK.
Under a Conservative government, the IRA would never have been assimilated into British politics if the New Labour club hadn't been so overarchingly generous and put the past in a box labelled 'Bad Place'.
Similarly, Camoron (sic) has modelled himself on the Blessed Margaret, (Thatcher), and so, besides pushing the rank-and-file brits into poverty, he looks like he wants to do the same to Europe.
I share the common belief that, with the sinking of the Titanic proving that bigger ain't necessarily better/stronger, the Euro WILL founder because even the architect of its inception Jacques Delors, has derided its swing from the original intent. However, shooting the lifeguard rarely saves a swimmer.
Sarkozy showed his disgust with Cameron's grandstanding in a typically Gallic way (see link).
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...zy-snubs-David-Cameron-swife-body-swerve.html This despite Hague the Vague* saying on the BBC yesterday that Cameron, Sarkozy and Merkel had a 'very professional political respect for each other'. (see above).
You couldn't make it up.
* British Foreign Secretary (God help us). Once famous for his claimed ability to sink 16 pints of Best Bitter in a dinnertime session - his slight frame and penchant for baseball caps did not gel with his claims and did not endear him to the public, who demand certain qualities in their politicians (he was up for PM at the time), other than to be able to stand upright after a heavy boozing session - hence the number of MPs seen sleeping in the benches in the televised Commons debates perhaps! - Others, probably True Lovers of the Hop, on hearing from a former workmate of his who witnessed his true level of imbibance as 'Two wafts of the barmaid's apron', labelled him as 'Bill the Bulls****er' henceforth.
Look. We no longer have an Empire. We are not part of the real World body politic (no real forces' strength to back up our claims apart from being a Remora on the belly of the US Killer Whale - close to its colonic vent), and now it looks like we are to be shunned by Europe too. We used to have a working Commonwealth until Ted Heath (another Conservative) signed the Treaty of Rome and ditched our trading partners in Autralia, New Zealand, Canada etc., leaving them high and dry.
'Oh, what a thing it is to be an Englishman straight and true'.
Indeed. :rolleyes2:
Last edited:
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
I see Osborne's austerity...
is really supercharging the economy; freeing and unleashing all that pent up capital that used to go to winter fuel subsidies for grannies in Tyne and Wear. Big Society stepping in to replace all the lost services, is it? George having any second thoughts on the strength of squeeze yet?
is really supercharging the economy; freeing and unleashing all that pent up capital that used to go to winter fuel subsidies for grannies in Tyne and Wear. Big Society stepping in to replace all the lost services, is it? George having any second thoughts on the strength of squeeze yet?
Matthew
True Classic
Ya know, this every bit as absurd as claiming that stimulus in the US didn't work because the economy is still bad. Neither stimulus or austerity can be judged by what happens 18 months after they are implemented. The countries with unsustainable debt will take years, probably decades, to deleverage and rebuild savings and production to a point where the fundamentals of the economy are sound again. I'd be willing to bet that societies that reduce debt and government interference will return to a sound economy before those that try to spend their way out. In fact I would go as far as to say that basic economics and historical precedent virtually proves it. There are cultural, demographic and even geographical issues that blur the issue somewhat but generally speaking.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
It can be judged by what happens...
if your austerity pushes the economy into a self undermining recession where less economic activity reduces revenues thus making the deficit worse and increasing pressure for more austerity. The problem with the 'austerity' mentality is that it won't face up to(or won't find a politics to support) just how much short term damage is going to be done. Take a position far enough away in both space and time and any propositon can seem perfectly plausible, but the reality of imposing sweeping spending cuts in a democracy is that you may not last long enough to see the long term. Osborne and Britain should be watched closely on these grounds-they are just a few steps ahead of where we are headed (although we will temporise as far as we can, I'm sure). The Tories have the added problem of being perceived as the 'mean party' and Cameron has staked his politics on reversing that image, but that is going to be hard to maintain in the face of spending cuts that fall particularly hard on the non-Tories.
That being said, I don't see a practical alternative to some sort of fiscal consolidation (all of Europe is going to be doing this). But Greece will almost certainly go into some sort of economic death spiral if it is stuck with both the austerity and the Euro.
But to address your first point more specifically-I don't see what is absurd in judging the politicians according to their own lights. It is they that make these vague and absurd and entirely unqualified and unconditioned claims. They don't say that after decades of reducing spending and getting our fiscal house in order that we will be on a sound and sustainable footing. They don't talk about time frame or magnitude or even simple arithmetic, instead they appeal to a kind of magical thinking/speaking. Reduce spending, reduce taxes, reduce the deficit and debt and we all just do great. But when, and by how much and when will the payoff come? For me the payoff will be after I am dead, but they won't tell 80M Boomers that uncomfortable truth. So, I respectfully disagree that what I implied was absurd-incomplete and snarky, but not absurd.
:laugh:
if your austerity pushes the economy into a self undermining recession where less economic activity reduces revenues thus making the deficit worse and increasing pressure for more austerity. The problem with the 'austerity' mentality is that it won't face up to(or won't find a politics to support) just how much short term damage is going to be done. Take a position far enough away in both space and time and any propositon can seem perfectly plausible, but the reality of imposing sweeping spending cuts in a democracy is that you may not last long enough to see the long term. Osborne and Britain should be watched closely on these grounds-they are just a few steps ahead of where we are headed (although we will temporise as far as we can, I'm sure). The Tories have the added problem of being perceived as the 'mean party' and Cameron has staked his politics on reversing that image, but that is going to be hard to maintain in the face of spending cuts that fall particularly hard on the non-Tories.
That being said, I don't see a practical alternative to some sort of fiscal consolidation (all of Europe is going to be doing this). But Greece will almost certainly go into some sort of economic death spiral if it is stuck with both the austerity and the Euro.
But to address your first point more specifically-I don't see what is absurd in judging the politicians according to their own lights. It is they that make these vague and absurd and entirely unqualified and unconditioned claims. They don't say that after decades of reducing spending and getting our fiscal house in order that we will be on a sound and sustainable footing. They don't talk about time frame or magnitude or even simple arithmetic, instead they appeal to a kind of magical thinking/speaking. Reduce spending, reduce taxes, reduce the deficit and debt and we all just do great. But when, and by how much and when will the payoff come? For me the payoff will be after I am dead, but they won't tell 80M Boomers that uncomfortable truth. So, I respectfully disagree that what I implied was absurd-incomplete and snarky, but not absurd.
:laugh:Isn't the British Commonwealth the pink bits on the map Potsy?
And don't knock the politician boozers mate. Our former PM Bob Hawke was a notorious boozer and womanizer but he was loved because he was (apparently) a good bloke. His lack of policies was not perceived as a drawback.
And don't knock the politician boozers mate. Our former PM Bob Hawke was a notorious boozer and womanizer but he was loved because he was (apparently) a good bloke. His lack of policies was not perceived as a drawback.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
I thought he was the...
great deregulator and dollar floater, no?
While you're here, can you tell me about the 'superannuation' system in Australia? How does it work? Meaning it's workings and whether it is a good pension scheme.:hmm:
great deregulator and dollar floater, no?
While you're here, can you tell me about the 'superannuation' system in Australia? How does it work? Meaning it's workings and whether it is a good pension scheme.
:hmm:
ianlawson
ian - NZ
Neva mind, bruvva......!
......owzat ol' poem go???? "Oh to be in England, now that CAMERON'S there!" (wiv apologies to Robert Brownbread).
.....soon be summer, mate!!! :help:
cheers, Ian - NZ
......owzat ol' poem go???? "Oh to be in England, now that CAMERON'S there!" (wiv apologies to Robert Brownbread).
.....soon be summer, mate!!! :help:
cheers, Ian - NZ
9151
Pottsy
Middle England replies .....
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-done-bad-deal-on-Europe-Nick-Clegg-says.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-done-bad-deal-on-Europe-Nick-Clegg-says.html
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Ah, the fata morgana...
of coalition felicity has evaporated, has it? Stronger marriages than this have collapsed over money.:no::no: "I'm not angry, David, just terribly disappointed"
of coalition felicity has evaporated, has it? Stronger marriages than this have collapsed over money.:no::no: "I'm not angry, David, just terribly disappointed"
great deregulator and dollar floater, no?
While you're here, can you tell me about the 'superannuation' system in Australia? How does it work? Meaning it's workings and whether it is a good pension scheme.
Employers pay a compulsory 9% of employees wages into an independent (not employer controlled) Superanuation Fund. The aim is to reduce the reliance on Government Pensions in people's retirement years. It has been a limited success because (a) 9% is insufficient and (b) the scheme hasn't been operating for long enough to make a significant difference.
Recently, the Government announced an increase from 9% up to 12% to be implemented over a number of years. This will "fix" the problem of 9% not being enough. Only time will fix the other part of the problem.
Two other issues are pertinent.
The 9% being funnelled into Superanuation has created a huge industry for companies controlling these funds - typically Insurance companies and Banks. And typically, they get lazy because of the guaranteed income they receive. Their management fees are an area of criticism. Since GFC, my Super Fund Balance has backwards. Meaning the 9% is not enough to cover the combined stock market decline and the management fees charged.
The scheme has also seen Trade Unions setting up Superannuation Funds and this (IMO) is a bad thing mainly because I question their expertise to make investment decisions.
On balance, it's a great scheme needing some tinkering. And I'm a Conservative so take this into account!
BTW, Hawke was PM when we de-regulated everything, but I think the credit should go to Paul Keating, his Treasurer, who once famously said "we're a banana republic" to get his point across about the need for reform.
USTA, as an afterthought and to put the Oz scheme into an American context.........
If the USA has 100,000,000 workers earning an average $30,000 per year then there would be $3,000,000,000,000 p.a. needing to find an investment "home". Not sure how many squillions that is but it's a lot! It's also how much is "taken" out of Employers Funds.
Also, it means management fees of typically 3% of funds invested which is $90,000,000,000 per year - and this is compounded year on year.
It's big dough and you should see how lazy it makes Investment Managers.
If the USA has 100,000,000 workers earning an average $30,000 per year then there would be $3,000,000,000,000 p.a. needing to find an investment "home". Not sure how many squillions that is but it's a lot! It's also how much is "taken" out of Employers Funds.
Also, it means management fees of typically 3% of funds invested which is $90,000,000,000 per year - and this is compounded year on year.
It's big dough and you should see how lazy it makes Investment Managers.
usta in Portland
Daily Driver
Thanks for all the info....
If you are willing to share a bit more:
1) When the Aus $ was floated what was it disengaged from in order to float? The GBP? The US $ ? This happened well after the gold standard was dropped,correct?
2) Is there a fixed government pension scheme in addition to the Superannuation?
The US has a voluntary system not totally unlike the Superannuation. It is actually a tax code provision which allows contributions to approved investment accounts in pre-tax dollars. Currently about 50M workers have some kind of position in these accounts and the total of all accounts is about $3T which doesn't bode very well for the scheme as anything but supplemental to our Social Security. The realtive flood of money that accompanied the widespread partcipation in these schemes had some effect on our stock and fixed income investment markets but it is hard to say how much.
If you are willing to share a bit more:
1) When the Aus $ was floated what was it disengaged from in order to float? The GBP? The US $ ? This happened well after the gold standard was dropped,correct?
2) Is there a fixed government pension scheme in addition to the Superannuation?
The US has a voluntary system not totally unlike the Superannuation. It is actually a tax code provision which allows contributions to approved investment accounts in pre-tax dollars. Currently about 50M workers have some kind of position in these accounts and the total of all accounts is about $3T which doesn't bode very well for the scheme as anything but supplemental to our Social Security. The realtive flood of money that accompanied the widespread partcipation in these schemes had some effect on our stock and fixed income investment markets but it is hard to say how much.
If I recall correctly, the A$ was fixed to the US$. Typically the farming community would lobby for a reduction in the exchange rate to help their exports. At that time the rural export lobby, combined with our manufacturing lobby supported the conservative side of politics and made it very difficult for successive Conservative Governments to float the $. Even Labor Government's were afraid.
So the Hawke/Keating decision to float was a very brave (and necessary) move. It triggered the reform our economy desperately needed. An earlier Labor Government (in the 70's) substantially reduced Tariffs, and this unpopular move also contributed to the postive reform of our economy.
Nowadays, we have free trade agreements with major trading partners such as China - so no tariffs apply.
On Superannuation - there is a Superannuation Scheme for all Government employees which is very similar to the private sector. The Government contributes the 9% p.a. Of course there is an extra special scheme for politician's with benefits way in excess of everyone else's. :censored::censored:
So the Hawke/Keating decision to float was a very brave (and necessary) move. It triggered the reform our economy desperately needed. An earlier Labor Government (in the 70's) substantially reduced Tariffs, and this unpopular move also contributed to the postive reform of our economy.
Nowadays, we have free trade agreements with major trading partners such as China - so no tariffs apply.
On Superannuation - there is a Superannuation Scheme for all Government employees which is very similar to the private sector. The Government contributes the 9% p.a. Of course there is an extra special scheme for politician's with benefits way in excess of everyone else's. :censored::censored: