That is an interesting website, look what else comes out with a few clicks of the mouse .... UK National Debt As Pct GDP for United Kingdom 1945-2010 - Central Government Local Authorities WTF happened in 1972 ?
Not all of it.... Education spending as % of GDP 1991..........4.43% 2010..........6.06% Health spending yadayadayada...... 1991...........5.48% 2010...........8.11% Defence? oh go on then,might as well.... 1991............4.08% 2010............2.96% In my defence,(lol!),military spending has gone up a bit from 2010 till now,and I don't know if the defence budget includes wars...
Not 1972,mate,1971: Joined the EEC Decimalisation,(the biggest con in my lifetime....everything went up in price almost overnight) Oh yeah.and inflation was an eye-watering 8.6%...... I better go and have a cup of STFU now,I feel like I'm back at school...........
No, most extra military expenditure on account of operations comes from the Treasury out of the contingency fund, not directly from the Defence Vote. Replacing sunk ships and crashed planes is Defence Vote, though. Obviously soldiers get their pay and get fed regardless whether they're on operations or sitting in barracks, so that's not extra expenditure.
Was that strike year? Harold Wilson in charge? Was thinking oil due to Yom Kippur war but that was 73. ps. On the subject of Europe causing problems, a more serious issue: MEPs to vote on EU 'ban on all forms of pornography' - Telegraph
So the European Parliament is much like the House of Commons and other legislatures - members are free to put forward proposals on virtually any subject under the sun. That's democracy for you. The dafter motions don't get many votes, and go no further. Even if a motion is passed, that is a very long way from passing legislation which would actually have any effects. I am fascinated to see you describing that typically democratic process as "Europe causing problems".
At this stage I am just kidding around - I think this thread has run out of steam. Democracy literally means (Oxford English): a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives Most European MEPs aren't our population, our state, our citizens and they aren't our countrymen. Hence them not having the same vested interest we do towards the financial sector (as none of them have one anywhere near the size of ours). Anyway that's it I think! If anyone wants to ask anything about anything i'd be glad to respond to a PM.
Nice try, to slip in a Europhobic point then terminate the debate. You have tried to confine democracy to the level of member states by definition, so that no institution at a higher level than a member state could possibly be democratic by definition! I don't think so. Back in the day when the nation state was the highest level of political institution, that definition might have made some sense. Today the EU institutions (parliament, commission, council, court, etc) are highly democratic, a great deal more democratic than our own dear UK institutions have ever been, and the whole population does indeed get to elect our representatives. Actually we in the UK have even stronger reasons than others for wanting the financial sector to be restored to a state of equity, honesty and sustainability, and for its more outrageous abuses to be curtailed. It seems implicit in your posts, Tedward, that you are keen for the abuses to continue and you disapprove of even the slightest attempt at reform or regulation. You might confirm or deny that. Or, do feel free to respond with an abusive rant, if it eases your feelings and you can't think of anything else to say. I won't mind a bit.
I just quoted the dictionary - if there's a dispute about the meaning of something I think that's a good place to look. You like Europe having a say, I don't. Representative democracy is all about people having a say that represent the will and interest of the population they govern. As you would surely admit, Europe ex UK doesn't have a vested interest in banking to the extent that we do - therefore by anyone's logic who shouldn't be licking windows at the back of the bus, European lawmaking (when covering UK) isn't as representative of the UK as the government of the UK would be. So this is a good example of Europe enacting a law that will in the short/medium term at least, hurt our economy more than say France, or Italy. If we could, without repercussions, create a system as you describe above, then I would agree with you. If you actually read my posts rather than make assumptions you would see I want tighter regulation of banking practices, and greater protection of the consumer. Capital ratios need to be looked at in more detail than Basel allows for at the moment, and need to include any sort of derivative/hidden ways of increasing gearing. Equity honesty and sustainability all sound great to me, but I fail to see the link between that and prohibiting banks from paying people what they want. Pay isn't the issue, it's practice around securitisation and lending that caused the crisis. I see many of your points, but without meaning to be rude, it's clear you don't understand how the financial system feeds into our lives as consumers, not just via our bank accounts and borrowings, but through business, secondary taxation measures, and how they are the lynchpin of making us a major hub for the global marketplace. I suspect I have a bit more of an understanding of this stuff than average (only a bit!) because i've worked in it. One of the (small) advantages of the banking crisis are the amount of books written for the general public that explain the banking system in greater detail, from fractional reserve etc to securitisation and risk management (last term a bit of an oxymoron). I'm reading a great book called Bank of Dave which is an easy read and would recommend to anyone on this forum. Whilst I don't agree with your social politics, I see what you are getting at, but you are ignoring what banks bring to the table - perhaps because you don't understand that part of my argument effectively. I want an accountable and stable financial system as much as anyone, I moved jobs a lot when I was in the city, and I did not like it when someone higher up the food chain blew up our fund (as happened more than once), and I was off to headhunters again. We should control tightly how banks can behave, and police these rules in a draconian and zero tolerance manner. We should protect the public, and above all we need to educate people from a very very early age on how to manage their finances better (I know it would be seriously dull, but basic accounting etc is much more valuable than further maths). And lastly, once/if we can get proper controls in place, we MUST let businesses operate freely as long as they are within the law. I don't know everything (or much!) but as I said, i'd love an opportunity to chat about this in person rather than gobbing off on an anonymous internet forum. Please, i'm not trying to have the last word, but can we stop talking about this now as I can't resist replying but I do have other stuff to do (like test ride an 848 in 20 minutes!).
Sure the dictionary is a place to start but, as I have already explained, the dictionary definition you quoted was written long ago in the era when the nation state was the largest political unit there was; hence the dictionary definition of democracy being in terms of the nation state. But time has moved on, and for decades now the largest political unit has been at the level of the EU. The word "Democracy" has to include democracy at the EU level. My point was that for you to rely on a pre-EU era definition to "prove" that the EU is by definition not democratic is patently not a valid argument. Non constat. I get the feeling you understand that very well - but let me know if you really don't. I like our European institutions (including UK representation) having a say in European affairs (including UK affairs). I like the fact that the whole 500 million population of the EU gets to elect our parliament directly. I like that our Commission are appointed by the 27 member states, each of which elects its government. I like that our Council consists of the ministers of the 27 elected governments. I like that all the treaties creating the EU have been consented to by each and every one of the member states. Especially I like that our institutions are more democratic and more open now than we have ever seen in history. What's not to like? As for "vested interests" you might as well say that decisions taken at Westminster are not exclusively dedicated to the interests of Cornwall, or decisions taken by the Cornwall Council are not exclusively dedicated to the interests of Falmouth. No they aren't but so what? Politics is a collaborative exercise, and democracy is a collective process. That's the whole point. Sectional interests are taken into account, but do not have the final word. You mention a "law ... that will hurt our economy ..." . Why on earth should a law designed to limit corruption and greed - very slightly - "hurt" the UK or anywhere else at all? Any measure which helped to restore public confidence in and the reputation of banks and the banking system would be beneficial to all. Except perhaps to the small number of corrupt and greedy individuals who would be adversely affected, and a few Tory politicians who are still willing to support them openly.
Lots of fluff on this thread. I do beleive there is a complete lack of understanding amongst the general populace as to what a mess the western world economies are in. We cannot rely on credit to get us out of this one, the problems are far far to deep. We can no longer have low taxation for all and still have the same level of welfare state that we currently have, its now proven that the figures don't and never will balance up. Also any society that allows people who can work to be better off on benefits than they are in work, is doomed to failure and to eventually run out of money ( as we already have). And finally the basic system of elections in this country does the UK no favours. We have tow main parties who always get elected and spend the first 5 years on office dismantling what the previous party did when they were in power. Politicians have not a clue as to how how ordinary people run and manage their lives and again this needs to change if we are to have any chance of getting out of this mess before China and India become the dominant and most powerful nations in the world.
True. But I was talking about the dictionary definition of the word "democracy", not about what voters choose to do.
The EU as it now will cease to exist in 10 years time. Its debts are too huge to sort without too much pain and suffering on ordinary working people in many countries and eventually a country will elect someone who votes to leave the euro.
What a bizarre thing to say! In fact, the EU has no debts whatever, and never has had. The EU has no capability to borrow any money or incur any debts, so it can only pay out what is paid in each year. It is member states which have debts, not the EU.
Anti Euro sentiment is rising in Germany, much to Angela's surprise. I think Lord Tebbit will be proved right regarding the lifespan of the Euro.
