Politics

[JawD 99]

Social housing is a problem, there's no doubt about it. However, how we can discriminate between those who genuinely need it and those who don't is a very difficult question.

 

Indeed a big problem. Nothing wrong with cutting social housing. The problem, once again is that it's abused by the masses. I remember even 20 years ago when I got my first flat. I was told it went on a points system. If I got a letter from a parent saying I was being thrown out and would be homeless I would be boosted to the top of the list. Simple as that. How does the council pick those in genuine need over those on the fiddle?

 

As for the navy cuts. Do we really need one or two new carriers? Really need?

 

As for the whole argument, I don't see why some people assume that if you vote for one party you believe in all of their policies? When I voted I considered a number of parties based on their stance on some key things. I didn't support one party 100% but in the end I voted conservative. Equally I don't vote based on who I voted for last time or what my family vote for historically (which I find astounding) or based on what a government done 20 years ago (equally astounding).

 

I'm interested in today, tomorrow, next year. Not what happened decades ago.

 

In the past Ive voted labour & lib dem. It just happened that this time around conservative most represented my views.

[ewerk 31221]

I don't know if it works the same way in England as over here but where I live you're allowed to reject two houses as unsuitable for any reason before having to take the third. Now if you're that hard up you'll take whatever is offered rather than turning it down because you don't like the decor or that the garden is too small.

[Guest alex]

I remember when my Grandad died and we cleared his house and all the little charvs were eyeing it up and I wondered to myself how did we get to the stage where teenagers who've probably never had a job think they're entitled to their own house?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Social housing is a problem, there's no doubt about it. However, how we can discriminate between those who genuinely need it and those who don't is a very difficult question.

 

Indeed a big problem. Nothing wrong with cutting social housing. The problem, once again is that it's abused by the masses. I remember even 20 years ago when I got my first flat. I was told it went on a points system. If I got a letter from a parent saying I was being thrown out and would be homeless I would be boosted to the top of the list. Simple as that. How does the council pick those in genuine need over those on the fiddle?

 

As for the navy cuts. Do we really need one or two new carriers? Really need?

 

As for the whole argument, I don't see why some people assume that if you vote for one party you believe in all of their policies? When I voted I considered a number of parties based on their stance on some key things. I didn't support one party 100% but in the end I voted conservative. Equally I don't vote based on who I voted for last time or what my family vote for historically (which I find astounding) or based on what a government done 20 years ago (equally astounding).

 

I'm interested in today, tomorrow, next year. Not what happened decades ago.

 

In the past Ive voted labour & lib dem. It just happened that this time around conservative most represented my views.

 

 

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government by making sure it would cost billions to get out of the contract. The cancellation clause is that bad that we are having to pay for it to be made and then trying to flog it off to someone else.

 

With regard to voting for a party etc, couldnt agree more and its interesting to note that a lot of the policy formulation going on at the moment is getting a lot of cross party support rather than just the usual political football. This should lead to some real improvements getting through.

 

Ofcourse there will be lots of hoo ha over the next few days when the cuts are announced tomorrow.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

I don't know if it works the same way in England as over here but where I live you're allowed to reject two houses as unsuitable for any reason before having to take the third. Now if you're that hard up you'll take whatever is offered rather than turning it down because you don't like the decor or that the garden is too small.

 

 

Same here

[ewerk 31221]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

[Christmas Tree 4847]

Excellent spot on article regarding the current political climate. (From the Independant so not sure if they are independant or have a leaning one way or the other).

 

 

The dangers that stalk Johnson

 

How can Labour win an election proposing tax rises against Conservatives arguing for tax cuts? They need an answer, and then credible and popular policies to flesh it out

 

In theory Labour's new leader and shadow Chancellor have cause to raise a glass or two when contemplating their political prospects. Tomorrow a coalition formed of two parties that in neither case won the last general election will announce spending cuts on an unprecedented scale. There is no competition with the Liberal Democrats as to which party can oppose most effectively. Labour has the space to itself.

 

 

And what treacherous space it is. The Conservatives won elections easily in the 1980s, when they took a mean approach to public spending. The ministerial stinginess was not responsible for the defeat of the Conservatives even after four terms of dismal public services. It took the drama of Britain's humiliating withdrawal from the ERM to propel them finally towards opposition.

 

In this Parliament there is unlikely to be a single equivalent explosive crisis that will convey the same sense of doomed incompetence. No doubt there will be some bleak consequences when budgets are cut, but they will not be so vivid. A decline in public services is never easily captured as one single, defining drama. Even if the gradual deterioration of some services is extensively chronicled, almost certainly voters will fail to make connections.

 

When public spending was increasing, polls suggested that a lot of voters did not realise the reason they could see a GP more quickly or get an operation was a consequence of higher government expenditure. If such rapid treatment ceases to be available, they will not necessarily blame the government. They may even blame Labour, as the Coalition has so far successfully projected a narrative in which it reluctantly faces the consequence of the previous government's recklessness.

 

In opposition Labour also faces the problem of proving their policies would have led to better rather than worse outcomes. There is no proof in opposition, only words.

 

Yesterday the new shadow Chancellor, Alan Johnson, used the only weapon available to him by delivering his first speech in that role. He uttered a lot of words but answered no questions at the end, a sign perhaps that at this point the sentences are not battle-proof.

 

Part of Johnson's speech was important and related to the past. Perceptions of the past quite often determine the fate of parties for decades to come. Labour was still being blamed for the Winter of Discontent during the 1992 election campaign, even though that particular gloomy season took place in the first dark weeks of 1979. If voters blame Labour for the current crisis the party will be out of power for a similarly long time.

 

The current fashion across the political spectrum for self-flagellation among party leaders fuels the danger. With good cause Ed Miliband has distanced himself from the paralysing, fearful caution that was the defining characteristic of New Labour. But he needs to be careful that in doing so he does not appear to reinforce the sense that the economic crisis was all Labour's fault. I can hear voters now stating in a BBC vox pop, "Even that new leader says it was Labour that got it wrong".

 

In an astutely structured speech, Johnson argued forcefully that the current crisis did not arise from Labour's policies in the second and third term. This is an argument he needs to repeat and win, merely to secure an audience.

 

If he wins the debate about the past – by no means guaranteed – the audience must like what it decides to hear. This will not be easy either for Labour. Having decided to retain the policy with which the party lost the last election, a pledge to halve the deficit, Johnson seeks distinctiveness and credibility while risking both. The pledge means it moves on to the Coalition's cuts terrain and must come up with some of its own, along with tax rises that are convincing while not being too unpopular.

 

Supporting some cuts should not be especially difficult, but I suspect will prove to be so. The Coalition has got itself and the country in a dangerous bind by setting the target of wiping out the deficit in this Parliament. But one benefit has been a fundamental review, too speedily conducted, of how the state currently works. From the civil service to the BBC and on to the payment of benefits, inefficiencies and abuses have been exposed. Some of the cuts will improve the delivery of services and Labour should support them. The political threat, though, is that voters will respond by noting that Labour is a party that supports cuts too. They might as well vote for the Coalition, or at least the Conservative wing, which is a true believer.

 

 

Labour's attempt to be distinctive comes partly in the form of arguing for more tax rises in order to moderate the need for savagely counter-productive cuts. It has begun a familiar search for popular tax increases. Ed Miliband knows how difficult such a hunt can be; he worked for Gordon Brown when the latter was shadow Chancellor during the 1990s. Fairly quickly in opposition Brown hit upon a popular tax. With a flourish he proposed a one-off tax on the booming privatised utilities. But it took two more years of painstaking and expensive work to make the tax a practical proposition.

 

Casual policy-making will not work. Johnson suggested in one interview at the weekend that a bankers' tax would raise revenue as an alternative to some of the cuts. But in his subsequent interview on Sunday with Andrew Marr, he acknowledged that there would have to be international co-operation for such a tax to work, which was Labour's pre-election position and one that demands patience, perhaps eternal patience. There are no easy, quick tax rises.

 

They will become even harder to advance if the Conservatives and perhaps the Liberal Democrats propose significant tax cuts at the next election. To rearrange one of New Labour's favourite and utterly vacuous metaphors, in order to move forward, Miliband and Johnson need to work backwards. How can Labour win the next election proposing tax rises against the Conservatives arguing for tax cuts? They need an answer, and then credible and popular policies to flesh it out.

 

There are immense political opportunities for an opposition when a risky revolution is being carried out. There are very big dangers too. Labour should keep the celebratory drinks on hold.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

[Renton 22007]

It would be interesting to know how the tories would have fared in the early 1980s without the Falklands and Foot as the opposition leader though.

 

Not just disagreeing for the sake of it CT, I thought that was a pointless article. So many things are different today compared to 30 years ago, absolutely pointless to make comparisons.

[Renton 22007]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

It would be interesting to know how the tories would have fared in the early 1980s without the Falklands and Foot as the opposition leader though.

 

Not just disagreeing for the sake of it CT, I thought that was a pointless article. So many things are different today compared to 30 years ago, absolutely pointless to make comparisons.

 

 

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk.

 

Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts.

 

It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line).

 

I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

[Renton 22007]

It would be interesting to know how the tories would have fared in the early 1980s without the Falklands and Foot as the opposition leader though.

 

Not just disagreeing for the sake of it CT, I thought that was a pointless article. So many things are different today compared to 30 years ago, absolutely pointless to make comparisons.

 

 

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk.

 

Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts.

 

It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line).

 

I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho.

 

The cuts are on an unprecedented scale this time round and are being anounced all at once more or less - tomorrow. Quite different to previous times. Also the impact of these cuts - the time of discontent - will be mostly felt when we're well into this government. Add into this Cameron will presumably lack a popular war and is not facing an unelectable alternative, and that Lib Dems are haemorraging to Labour, and things don't look bad for Labour - in my opinion. A lot may change though.

 

The point about tax cuts versus service cuts is interesting, but I think I am right in saying we are taxed a lot less than in the 1980s so may be less of an issue. Not sure, but I think people would be more willing to stomach a tax rise today if it meant keeping essential services.

 

As it happens, there was an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday about the state of America's infrastructure that is literally in a state of collapse if they don't spend a trillion dollars on it, which they can't afford. Scarey times ahead over the pond.

[Renton 22007]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

[Christmas Tree 4847]

It would be interesting to know how the tories would have fared in the early 1980s without the Falklands and Foot as the opposition leader though.

 

Not just disagreeing for the sake of it CT, I thought that was a pointless article. So many things are different today compared to 30 years ago, absolutely pointless to make comparisons.

 

 

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk.

 

Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts.

 

It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line).

 

I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho.

 

The cuts are on an unprecedented scale this time round and are being anounced all at once more or less - tomorrow. Quite different to previous times. Also the impact of these cuts - the time of discontent - will be mostly felt when we're well into this government. Add into this Cameron will presumably lack a popular war and is not facing an unelectable alternative, and that Lib Dems are haemorraging to Labour, and things don't look bad for Labour - in my opinion. A lot may change though.

 

The point about tax cuts versus service cuts is interesting, but I think I am right in saying we are taxed a lot less than in the 1980s so may be less of an issue. Not sure, but I think people would be more willing to stomach a tax rise today if it meant keeping essential services.

As it happens, there was an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday about the state of America's infrastructure that is literally in a state of collapse if they don't spend a trillion dollars on it, which they can't afford. Scarey times ahead over the pond.

 

This is one of those lovely lines that people say to pollsters or in polite company but very rarely actually mean.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

It would be interesting to know how the tories would have fared in the early 1980s without the Falklands and Foot as the opposition leader though.

 

Not just disagreeing for the sake of it CT, I thought that was a pointless article. So many things are different today compared to 30 years ago, absolutely pointless to make comparisons.

 

 

The point he was making, which you seemed not have picked up on, is that the general public dont particularly connect the changes in public services with increased or decreased government spending. The article was mainly setting out the battlefield for the next 4 years and the dangerous line Labour have to walk.

 

Dont know if you noticed there change in policy yesterday by emphasising less cuts and more tax rises. They changed the ratio quite a bit and as the writer bullets, this could lead to a situation, if they keep the policy as it is, of Labour heading into the next election promising tax rises whilst the Tories promise tax cuts.

 

It is also pretty true that the winter of discontent stigma also stuck with Labour through a lot of election campaigns and that one of Labours biggest challenges is convincing the general public (who just chucked them out) that it was mainly down to the banking crisis and not wasteful overspending and mis management. (The governments line).

 

I thought it was a very interesting piece but hey ho.

 

The cuts are on an unprecedented scale this time round and are being anounced all at once more or less - tomorrow. Quite different to previous times. Also the impact of these cuts - the time of discontent - will be mostly felt when we're well into this government. Add into this Cameron will presumably lack a popular war and is not facing an unelectable alternative, and that Lib Dems are haemorraging to Labour, and things don't look bad for Labour - in my opinion. A lot may change though.

 

The point about tax cuts versus service cuts is interesting, but I think I am right in saying we are taxed a lot less than in the 1980s so may be less of an issue. Not sure, but I think people would be more willing to stomach a tax rise today if it meant keeping essential services.

 

As it happens, there was an interesting article in the Independent on Sunday about the state of America's infrastructure that is literally in a state of collapse if they don't spend a trillion dollars on it, which they can't afford. Scarey times ahead over the pond.

 

I agree, which is partly why I take some comfort from the desire in this country to try and sort out the underlying problems as well as the deficit.

 

If the Americans try the sort of austerity measure being undertaken here or the changes to welfare etc then I think it will well and truly kick off.

 

Personally I think as a country we are better suited in many ways to undertake this and come out of the other side. Helps having a great PM

[spongebob toonpants 4143]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

Doesnt that mean the opposite of what you think it means

[Christmas Tree 4847]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

 

 

My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished.

 

The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from.

 

Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

Doesnt that mean the opposite of what you think it means

 

 

??? Wouldnt be the first time?

 

I think it neans the Tories shafted the incoming Labour government by agreeing to high cancellation charges so that the trident deal stayed with Plymouth.

 

Brown has done the same with the aircraft deal so that the current government cant cancel it either.

 

If im misunderstanding that you will have to be more specific.

[Christmas Tree 4847]

By the way Cameron making his speech to the commons on the defense review at 3.30pm for anyone who likes watching this sort of thing.

 

One thing that does piss me off (even though I know its politics), Im sure this lot said they would get back to announcements being made in the commons and not leaked and briefed in the days leading upto....

[Renton 22007]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

 

 

My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished.

 

The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from.

 

Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

 

I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives.

 

I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things.

- Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here?

- To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion.

Edited October 19, 2010 by Renton

[Christmas Tree 4847]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

 

 

My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished.

 

The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from.

 

Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

 

I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives.

 

I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things.

- Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here?

- To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion.

 

 

What happened to not arguing for the sake of it

 

I used the quote to back up what Brown has done and where he got the idea. Suprised you missed that unless your just after a fight.

[Renton 22007]

No we dont but Brown totally fucked over the incoming government

 

 

Scottish Herald, reporting on Prime Minister Browns visit to his local ship builders in Scotland.....

 

Gordon Brown visited Rosyth Dockyard this week and met with management, Trade Unions and workers who are working on the new carriers. Speaking after the visit he said: "Thirteen years ago on the day the general election was declared in 1997 the then Tory government killed Rosyth’s chance of refitting the Trident submarines and at a stroke destroyed hundreds of Scottish jobs.

 

"On that day, in a cynical move to avoid post election changes in policy, they signed off, with costly termination clauses, contracts that would tie Trident to Plymouth and threaten the closure of Rosyth.

 

Just to avoid doubt.

 

What's that got to do with the aircraft carriers again?

 

 

Because Brown has used the same termination clauses to avoid the incoming government being able to cancel the orders.

 

Have you got a link to the present day termination clauses for the carriers though, rather than quoting termination clauses the tories made 13 years ago? Otherwise I'm not sure of your point. Is it to say Brown is as bad as the tories were or what?

 

 

My point was in agreeing with Jaw D about whether we really need two new aircraft carriers. The point being, as reported all week on the beeb etc, that even though the government would have liked to cancel one or both of them, the decision has being taken out of their hands because the termination clause Brown has agreed in the contract make the cost of getting out of it too high. So high infact that it seems as though we are trying to flog one of them to some other country before they are even finished.

 

The herald article was just using Browns own words to show where he got the idea from.

 

Overall a shitty trick by him and the tories 13 years earlier. Politics though.

 

I reckon you googled that and misread it tbh, thinking it was being critical of Brown, and not the conservatives.

 

I'm sure neither of us has any idea how much money it should cost to reasonably terminate a massive contract like an aircraft carrier (quite different to an ongoing service contract I'd add), but I'd say two things.

- Scrapping one or both carriers was seen as a viable option until very recently - Fox's involvement at play here?

- To suggest that Brown deliberately negotiated poor termination clauses to damage the next government sounds ludicrous to me. I'd quite like to see something to back this up, even if it's just a published opinion.

 

 

What happened to not arguing for the sake of it

 

I used the quote to back up what Brown has done and where he got the idea. Suprised you missed that unless your just after a fight.

 

Wouldn't it be easier just to directly post a link that shows Brown was responsible for unreasonable termination clauses, rather than this convoluted argument based on pure supposition though?

 

Do you stand by your arguement that it is Labour's fault we are getting two aircraft carriers, and if you do, will you back it up? Or alternatively it would be alright to admit you made a mistake.

[Guest alex]

It doesn't back up what Brown did, CT. It's merely you attempting to draw a parallel with what you claim he subsequently did. Bit of a difference.

Edited October 19, 2010 by alex

[ewerk 31221]

I think it's accepted that the contracts are very expensive to get out of. No one has proven that they were badly written or that Brown did it out of spite, that'll be one for the National Audit Office. Or it would've been if Cameron hadn't axed them.