OGG, Handley, Liar...Whasup with Europe?

[amicus]

England is cutting a 162 government agencies, France is increasing the retirement age to 62 and there is rioting in Paris, and Germany just announced the age of 'multi-culturalism is over and Muslims must be assimilated into Germany society?

All things I heard on the news, none of which I have searched to confirm and expand.

???

Amicus

 

[ishtat]

You are perhaps a day ahead of even more interesting announcements. The UK Chancellor(Treasury Secretarary) is set to announce public expenditure cuts tomorrow which are reputed to include the axing of 500,000 public service jobs.

The response will be interesting but I suspect the Brits are more prepared to accept cuts than the French in particular.

 

[amicus]

A half million public service jobs? Wow...the SEIU workers here would be out enmasse.

I also heard the Aircraft Carrier, Ark Royal, and the new Brit spyplane, the 'Nimrod', are on the cutting block.

I am probably wrong and too lazy to search but was the Ark Royal in the Argentine dust-up during Thatcher's time?

Thanks....I shall see what the BBC has to offer early morning wise.

regards...

amicus

 

[TE999]

The Grand Socialist Experiment in the UK and Europe is ending, not with a bang, but with a whimper. There is simply not enough money to support the burgeoning ranks of their governments and their dependents, so something has to give.

Burning cars and throwing bricks at police may be cathartic to the perpetually frustrated segments of their populations, but it won't change a thing. These countries incomes are simply less than their outgo's...so things must be cut...drastically.

This upheval is not unlike the collapse of the Soviet Union and it's highly praised 'planned economy' that bore naught but bitter fruit and failed utterly.

 

[Weird Harold]

...the new Brit spyplane, the 'Nimrod',

The Nimrod MRA4 program was long overdue for the ax -- seven years late and nearly $2 billion over-budget for twenty-some refurbished 1960's airframe with new wings, engine and electronics.

Apparently, the RAF is now without any specialized anti-submarine aircraft with none in the pipline to replace them (and they're out a couple of billion pounds for the canceled modifications.) The Nimrod was never a "spyplane" as such. It was a long-endurance patrol bomber for anti-submarine and anti-shipping warfare -- with only three modified and used for signals intelligence operations and those three weren't scheduled for replacement because other, non-specialized, aircraft with newer and better sensors can do the job cheaper.

 

[mokkelke]

it doesn't help if some of the countries aren't able to at least form a government after the elections... and we pay for that.
main reason i shy away from any kind of news, in the end it all goes down the drain and out taxes only go up, up and up. don't need to watch the news here to establish that little fact of life ;-)

 

[amicus]

it doesn't help if some of the countries aren't able to at least form a government after the elections... and we pay for that.
main reason i shy away from any kind of news, in the end it all goes down the drain and out taxes only go up, up and up. don't need to watch the news here to establish that little fact of life ;-)

~~~

Hello, mokkelke from Belgium...traversed your country a long time ago and watched a Military Channel program just last night where the Germans invaded after skirting the Maginot Line and on the way to the route at Dunkirke.

Been a news junky almost all my rather long life, like an addiction, I just can't stop watching.

Welcome to the forum, perhaps you can find a subject you do enjoy discussing.



amicus

 

[harding]

True

Yeah, they are cutting a lot of stuff in England (and the whole UK), but it's pretty mis-represented.

A lot of the agencies they are cutting are dead wood to start with.

The cuts, although being announced this week, will be phased in over the next 5 years and a lot of the reduction is through natural wastage and not replacing people who leave.

The other problem is headline figures are quoted as a reduction (not saving, note) of 28 squillion quids, but whatever it is works out as something like 1% of GDP as a saving.

So, if you had to save 1% of your household income because times were hard, could you do that or not? One less burger a week, one less beer?

What really gets to people, as in France at the moment, is the removal or altering of what have been considered "rights". Such as, in France, the right to retire at 60, now mixed in with if the old ones don't leave then there's no space at the bottom for us!

The world's a changing, but it's changing because we're all living a hell of a lot longer and a lot healthier than we were. However, we may be the golden generation because it's also said out kids are less healthy than we are because they eat so much crap.

Sorry... wandered a bit in this reply.

 

[amicus]

Thank you WH for the information....and you shamed me into researching the Falklands War where I found:

"the task force consisted of several groups, the largest of which was centered on the aircraft carriers HMS Hermes and HMS Invincible..."....thus I was in error concerning the Ark Royal.

~~~

I also read that some NATO countries may go below the two percent of GDP agreed upon for military expenditures and that this may put pressure on the US to contribute more.

From bad to worse...such a deal, eh?

ami

 

[oggbashan]

UK - Government spending had been increasing faster than inflation under the Labour Government. The Coalition Government intends to reduce the INCREASE rate, but to do that has to cut back on all the bigger government introduced and promised by the Labour Government. They will still be spending more in real terms in four years time than they are now.

Stopping or slowing the gravy train for public expenditure isn't easy. All the special interest groups are yelling "murder!". The previous governments had created masses of NGOs (Non-Governmental Organisations) to conceal the growth in big government. Many of them are now threatened with an axe.

What the UK government intends to do should appeal to you, Amicus. They are trying to reduce the size and influence of central government and save money.

Defence - the UK's Labour government never admitted that we couldn't afford our commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan. The UK's traditional role in NATO in Europe has been to provide naval forces, not land troops. We didn't have the manpower of equipment to fulfil what we promised in Afghanistan and our troops on the ground paid the price in blood. Our financial problems have been made worse by the cost of supporting our forces in Afghanistan and we're still not doing it properly.

Nimrod? The airframe was obsolete in the 1970s. We should have bought American years ago. Until a few years ago we were flying Shackletons, WWII anti-submarine aircraft, because Nimrods weren't serviceable. US Aircraft Scrapyards hold better planes than Nimrods.

Aircraft Carriers? We need at least two, preferably three, modern carriers if we are to project force around the world. Whether we should, or could, seriously attempt to project force? That question has been dodged. Scrapping the Ark Royal, which is a platform for Harrier jump-jets, is a logical decision because Harriers are obsolete as front-line fighters. However we will have a 10-year gap when we have no fast carrier aircraft. One carrier (it should be both and preferably three) is to be modified to take US fighter aircraft as well as the Eurofighter so all NATO aircraft could use Royal Navy carriers as well as US ones.

Retirement ages? The UK has already changed the retirement age for younger workers who will not get pensions until 65, 67, or 68 depending on their current age. Women used to be able to retire at 60 and men at 65. Now both sexes will retire at the same age and that age will become later over the next twenty years. We couldn't afford the pension bill that previous governments had dodged.

France and Greece had much earlier retirement ages and much more generous pensions than the UK. The Greek and French governments are changing the retirement ages, but will still be much earlier than the current UK ones and many years earlier than the retirement ages already set for the UK's future. The French people are unhappy. The riots are "the usual suspects" and the general demonstrators are not violent, but President Sarkozy has a real problem with public discontent about the proposals. About 60% or more of the French public disagree with his proposals.

I was in Paris last week. Petrol/Diesel was becoming difficult to get because of strikes at the distribution depots. I managed to find some expensive petrol to get back to the ferry but this week? I might have been stranded. The riots shown on French TV were in the areas where riots are a normal phenomenon and were by hundreds of people, not the million or so demonstrators. Even the High School children's demonstrations - about pensions! - were infiltrated by what the children called casseurs, who are violent anarchists using any excuse for smashing things and looting.

Most European countries are trying to reduce the size of their governments' borrowing and reduce their interest payments. In the UK and Germany there seems to be majority support for the idea that something needs to be done about debt. Whether there will be support for specific cuts? We'll see over the next few weeks.

In the US? The government seems committed to increase its borrowing. Is it right? Are European governments wrong? It will take years to find out.

Og

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Say what you want, but in the 80s the PC came along and increased productivity significantly, then in the 90s the cell phone came along and did the same. I cant name any new technology since the mid-90s.

I recently read a great article written by Apple creator Steve Wozniak. He says that the engineers we're creating in colleges are uninspired, unimaginative, and pretty okay cranking out mediocre stuff. He used to send his wife and kids to Europe for 3 months so he could work out the bugs of new computer designs.

For myself, I'm getting into botany as a new career, and cranking out veggies in less time than they normally take to harvest. Plus learning to defeat bugs without using poison. And cutting costs. THAT IS THE NAME OF THE ECONOMIC GAME.

 

[colddiesel]

Basically Europeans are beginning to realise that all governments are bad in that they are entirely self serving .

The USSR was brought down by its own inertia and government overload, the same is beginning to happen to the EU. My guess is that this mistake will collapse within the next 10 to 12 years.

 

[Liar]

What you see in Europe is pretty much a mirror of what you've seen in the US over the last year.

In very simplified terms:

The US reacted to the financial crisis by moving form the right that they were at, towards the center (don't gimmie the "but Obama is far left!" hogwash, it's factually silly) which resulted in populist anger on the right.

Europe reacted to the same thing by moving from the left that they were at (even though right wing parties had been in charge in many countries for a while, they were petty much hanging on to the status quo and taking baby steps), towards the center. Which resulted in, well, guess.

Populist anger in Frence as well as Greece have always meant riots. Cause that's just how they roll.

 

[oggbashan]

...Populist anger in Frence as well as Greece have always meant riots. Cause that's just how they roll.

And in France rioting has been successful in changing governments - 1789, 1848, 1870 (failed), 1968... Not all French governments have been as direct in confronting rioters as Napoleon Bonaparte's whiff of grapeshot.

Og

 

[amicus]

Yeah, they are cutting a lot of stuff in England (and the whole UK), but it's pretty mis-represented.

A lot of the agencies they are cutting are dead wood to start with.

The cuts, although being announced this week, will be phased in over the next 5 years and a lot of the reduction is through natural wastage and not replacing people who leave.

The other problem is headline figures are quoted as a reduction (not saving, note) of 28 squillion quids, but whatever it is works out as something like 1% of GDP as a saving.

So, if you had to save 1% of your household income because times were hard, could you do that or not? One less burger a week, one less beer?

What really gets to people, as in France at the moment, is the removal or altering of what have been considered "rights". Such as, in France, the right to retire at 60, now mixed in with if the old ones don't leave then there's no space at the bottom for us!

The world's a changing, but it's changing because we're all living a hell of a lot longer and a lot healthier than we were. However, we may be the golden generation because it's also said out kids are less healthy than we are because they eat so much crap.

Sorry... wandered a bit in this reply.[/QUOTE]

~~~

Hello, Harding, thank you and welcome to the forum...'dead wood', and reducing the 'rate' of budget increase is probably an accurate assessment and I have not heard repeated the statement that 162 Government agencies were being abolished...besides that, my understanding of the new government is that it is a 'coalition' government of Tories and Liberals and I fail to understand how such diverse groups could even accomplish what it seems they have?

Many times on this forum we have had enthusiastic debate over just how, 'rights' are defined. I suppose, at least in this country, that the original, "life, liberty and the pursuit" forms the basis for a constitutional understanding of the concept of rights or, to use the new word, 'entitlements', supplied by government.

No need to apolgize for wandering, I do it all the time..., but the paragraph above interests me as a rhetorical issue...in that the industrial revolution and innovative technology, as JBJ implied, is responsible for the increased longevity and higher standard of living enjoyed by most western democracies.

The transitions from agricultural to industrial/manufacturing and now to a post industrial 'service' economy, also brought about a continually lowering birth rate among all but the immigrant sector of most nations.

That reduced birth rate, even below the replacement value of two children per family, eliminates the basis for many social and retirement programs as there are fewer and fewer workers payig into the fund.

There are also other factors of working women and social legislation, but my curiosity stems from the question if modern society, by its' very nature, is self destructive, in terms of loss of population?

Some years back I read the Alvin and Heidi Tofflers series of books, ending with the 'Third Wave', an overview of the progress of society and their overview about what it means.

See...I can ramble and wander also...thank you...

regards...

amicus

 

[Handley_Page]

Ami:

As 'harding' mentioned, the UK is cutting a load of 'agencies' (better known as Quangos, Quasi-Autonomous Governmental Organisation). This should (??) reduce the paperwork, if not the whole Bill, because quite a few staff of these agencies are paid modest expenses for attending, not salary.

It would be wrong to define the MRA4 Nimrod as a "Spy-plane". It's complex beast with lots of Radar and communications (one variant can best be thought of as a flying receiver) as well as probably the best Anti-Surface Vessel radar currently around.
Whether we should or should not have them is a bit of a mystery left for the politicians to argue over requiring, as it does, the definition of what the UK can do and is prepared to offer NATO in the future.

It is a widely held belief that we have too many Generals and equivalent ranks and we could save a great deal by getting shot of some of them. Sorting out the "Procurement" problem would save millions, but making it a "just buy American kit" argument is NOT the answer for many reasons.

There are many in the UK who did not approve of our following "Gee Dubbya" into foreign parts to fight a "war" which is impossible to win in the conventional sense. Apart from anything else, we didn't have the kit nor yet the money to afford it.Several countries might have been able to withstand the idiocy of the Banking Collapse if the national expenditure on military matters wasn't so high.

As for the pensions, the excuse made by several that "we are living longer" is, whilst basically true, nowhere near the full story. Successive governments of either persuasion have treated the National Insurance scheme as a large platter of money so they can play profligate. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that with the "Baby Boomers" coming up any time now there was going to be some severe stress on the system. But did they take steps to ease it ? No; that's not in the nature of Government ("Never do today what you can deal with tomorrow")

[I think I'll stop there].

 

[amicus]

Hello Oggbashan, and thank you for responding with an expansive summary and your own unique anecdotal observations.

What the UK government intends to do should appeal to you, Amicus. They are trying to reduce the size and influence of central government and save money.

Yes, Ogg, it is a hopeful sign from my perspective. Putting aside my ideology for the moment, there seems to be an upper limit to the amount of public sector management of society that can be supported by the private sector.

A question I hinted at went unanswered, and that is the German governments' attempt to move towards assimilation of Muslim immigrants instead of allowing them to segregate into Islamic communities inside the country. I mention this again as it seems a drastic departure from previous methods and I wonder if it is happening in England. I am aware that the French government is trying to ban the wearing of Burka's in public, which also seems to me a departure from previous intentions.

The Ark Royal and the VTO Harrier may not be as obsolete as one might think, the F35 next generation fighter after the F22 Raptor, is also a VTO, and there is a class of American carriers or land assault vehicles with Helicopters and VTO aircraft that should remain functional in the mid 21st century...from what I have read and seen on the Military channel.

The British Health Program is exempted from the budget cuts, as I understand the news, but is still in for reductions, allthough BBC didn't elaborate this morning.

regards....

ami

 

[Handley_Page]

Assimilation, particularly of the Muslim, will take a long time. Actually it started in Liverpool in the early Victorian era (Wm Gwillam) who converted to Islam. He had no trouble (apart from a financial problem), so the model is there to be seen.

I fear that Fr Merkel wants to assimilate (like the Borg?). She'll wait quite a while, I fear.

One thing occurs to me. The reduction of Central Government size & influence will not mean more 'power to the people'; local bodies will pick up the tab.

 

[amicus]

What you see in Europe is pretty much a mirror of what you've seen in the US over the last year.

In very simplified terms:

The US reacted to the financial crisis by moving form the right that they were at, towards the center (don't gimmie the "but Obama is far left!" hogwash, it's factually silly) which resulted in populist anger on the right.

Europe reacted to the same thing by moving from the left that they were at (even though right wing parties had been in charge in many countries for a while, they were petty much hanging on to the status quo and taking baby steps), towards the center. Which resulted in, well, guess.

Populist anger in Frence as well as Greece have always meant riots. Cause that's just how they roll.[/QUOTE]

~~~

From an European view, I suppose Obama is not perceived as being, 'far left', but in America he is seen as a socialist to the left even of FDR. The 'Populist' anger crosses Party lines and involves the entire spectrum of US politics as Nationalizing Auto companies and bailing out huge financial concerns, and forcing Obama Care through Congress without the support of the opposition, is alien to American politics.

The 'babysteps' you misname, include a shrinking of National Health Care in Britain, raising the retirement age in France and downsizing Government in Greece, all because the 'public sector' the Left, socialists and communists, have grown so huge that what is left of the private sector can no longer support them.

There was another snip of news, perhaps in England, the 'paid pregnancy', leave has been extended a few more weeks. I would guess the minimal birth rate outside the immigrants plays a role in that decision.

Amicus

 

[Liar]

The 'babysteps' you misname, include a shrinking of National Health Care in Britain, raising the retirement age in France and downsizing Government in Greece, all because the 'public sector' the Left, socialists and communists, have grown so huge that what is left of the private sector can no longer support them.

Nah, you misunderstood me. The babysteps were what the same right wing (by European standards) governments were doing prior to the -08 crisis. Tinkering here and there but by-and-large embracing the welfare state. The things you name are recent changes, and as you note quite drastic.

Now, we'll just have to agree to disagree on who the vast majority of the angry Americans are and whether Obama is left wing by American standards. I hear Americans who say he's clearly to the right of for instance Clinton.

 

[amicus]

Ami:

As 'harding' mentioned, the UK is cutting a load of 'agencies' (better known as Quangos, Quasi-Autonomous Governmental Organisation). This should (??) reduce the paperwork, if not the whole Bill, because quite a few staff of these agencies are paid modest expenses for attending, not salary.

It would be wrong to define the MRA4 Nimrod as a "Spy-plane". It's complex beast with lots of Radar and communications (one variant can best be thought of as a flying receiver) as well as probably the best Anti-Surface Vessel radar currently around.
Whether we should or should not have them is a bit of a mystery left for the politicians to argue over requiring, as it does, the definition of what the UK can do and is prepared to offer NATO in the future.

It is a widely held belief that we have too many Generals and equivalent ranks and we could save a great deal by getting shot of some of them. Sorting out the "Procurement" problem would save millions, but making it a "just buy American kit" argument is NOT the answer for many reasons.

There are many in the UK who did not approve of our following "Gee Dubbya" into foreign parts to fight a "war" which is impossible to win in the conventional sense. Apart from anything else, we didn't have the kit nor yet the money to afford it.Several countries might have been able to withstand the idiocy of the Banking Collapse if the national expenditure on military matters wasn't so high.

As for the pensions, the excuse made by several that "we are living longer" is, whilst basically true, nowhere near the full story. Successive governments of either persuasion have treated the National Insurance scheme as a large platter of money so they can play profligate. It was obvious to anyone with half a brain that with the "Baby Boomers" coming up any time now there was going to be some severe stress on the system. But did they take steps to ease it ? No; that's not in the nature of Government ("Never do today what you can deal with tomorrow")

[I think I'll stop there].

~~~

Hello again, Handley_Page, a quick response...from the bottom up, Social Security and Medicare in this country both fit that 'large platter of money', example you provided. My conclusion, as someone else posted, is that it is an inherent flaw in all centralized governments; the prime motive is to grow in size and influence.

"Quangos"

. is a term I have never seen before, 'NGO's' as someone else mentioned, I have. I guess you are saying that the headline making 'cuts' are not really cuts at all or of minimal import?

There are many in the UK who did not approve of our following "Gee Dubbya" into foreign parts to fight a "war" which is impossible to win in the conventional sense.

I doubt you will appreciate a different line of thought that gives reason to the Berlin Airlift, the Korean War, the Vietnam War and the two Middle East Wars. I also doubt you will agree with me connecting the rise of Germany, Japan and Russia following ww1, to a lack of intervention by western powers. But scholars far more schooled in foreign policy than I, have made that argument and see the middle east conflicts, not as an 'oil' problem, but one of western intervention against a rising violent Islam all over the world, fueled by petro dollars.

I should follow your lead and stop here, but then I wouldn't be me, then, now would I?

Just as in the United States, I see no workable plan to solve the deep rooted economic problems that face the western world. I can't and won't predict, but I sense the possibility of violence spreading across Europe and I also sense the unthinkable, that Germany will rise again as a central power. Call me silly and misguided...you wouldn't be the first.

regards...

ami

 

[Weird Harold]

It would be wrong to define the MRA4 Nimrod as a "Spy-plane". It's complex beast with lots of Radar and communications (one variant can best be thought of as a flying receiver) as well as probably the best Anti-Surface Vessel radar currently around. ...

... Sorting out the "Procurement" problem would save millions, but making it a "just buy American kit" argument is NOT the answer for many reasons.

If I read the articles correctly, the radar programmed for the MRA4 Nimrod is also scheduled to be used in Boeing's entry into the advanced ASW aircraft market -- a new build modification of the 737-700ER, dubbed the P-8 Poseiden. Since there are only about a dozen or so in service and/or on order, I have to wonder why NATO forces -- like the US and UK -- are retiring their ASW and not buying replacements. Perhaps newer, more modern, sensor technologies simply don't require sono-buoys and Magnetic Anomoly Detector tail-booms?

As of the quick google search I did the other day, the Boeing P-8 Poseiden seems to be the only contender remaining for the Nimrod's primary mission (ASW) and it is intended to work in concert with a fleet of maritime surveillance UAVs -- also built by Boeing. The aircraft itself is apparently being delivered for about half what was originally projected for the MRA4 before cost overruns and structural problems pushed the price way up.

Politicians have a tendency to go for the refurbished airframe option because it looks inherently cheaper -- sometimes it is cheaper than a new aircraft, like the B-52G's upgrades that will keep BUFFs flying for a fourth generation (and maybe fifth) of pilots to fly -- and sometimes it is a horrendlously expensive money pit -- like the MRA4 program.

 

[Handley_Page]

Ami; I'll have to write in more detail later, but I thought you might like to see this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/20/comment/

and you'll see that the cuts and so on do not meet with universal approval.

Harold, I wish that Airbus would convert an airframe for long-range Maritime use. (Our Agencies do not have a good reputation vis-a-vis Boeing). The A400M seems to be a good kite - now they've sorted the engines out!

 

[ishtat]

Ami; I'll have to write in more detail later, but I thought you might like to see this:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/10/20/comment/

and you'll see that the cuts and so on do not meet with universal approval.

Harold, I wish that Airbus would convert an airframe for long-range Maritime use. (Our Agencies do not have a good reputation vis-a-vis Boeing). The A400M seems to be a good kite - now they've sorted the engines out!

The Register article takes until the seventh paragraph to acknowledge the total incompetance between 1996 and 2010. That alone makes its judgements dubious. The article invites us to suggest that blame for the current mess should be sheeted home to those in charge 14 to 25 years ago. It won't wash, nor should it.

Cameron at least sacked both the chief of armed forces and the MOD chief and afforded them no dignity in the process. Good, they got what they deserved, professional humiliation.

Neither party, however, seems to recognise that the fundamental problem with British defence policy is its total disconnect with any credible foreign policy. UK has no independent interests outside the 200 mile zone apart from the Falklands and given Hilary Clinton's recent pronouncements on that issue, future American support there is hardly a certainty.

Britains basic role is to kiss America's backside and provide them with policing type support when told to do so (though UK's 2007 defeat in Basra might make the Americans think twice about UK's usefulness)

Given that, Why do the defence chiefs want so much expensive and unaffordable hardware?

Essentially UK is America's "foreign legion." and anyone (ie the entire British political and military classes) who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves.

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold, I wish that Airbus would convert an airframe for long-range Maritime use. (Our Agencies do not have a good reputation vis-a-vis Boeing). The A400M seems to be a good kite - now they've sorted the engines out!

Except for the sono-buoy cabability for anti sub work, I have my doubts about the need for manned special purpose marine patrol aircraft. UAVs and UCAV (armed UAVs) can fulfill the same functions for less cost/unit and when combined with satelite surveillance and multi-role manned aircraft, specialized maritime patrol aircraft seem an expensive luxury.

Anti-submarine warfare is another kettle of fish, but it seems that also is a mission being filled by some other system.

Neither party, however, seems to recognise that the fundamental problem with British defence policy is its total disconnect with any credible foreign policy.

The UK and most of the rest of NATO needs to reassess the NATO treaty and the military force structures dictated by that treaty obligation. NATO needs to be subsumed into an EU combined military without the US. That would be cheaper for most of the EU members and for the US. If any NATO member needs long range maritime patrol capabilities, it is the UK. The UK really doesn't need a significant standing ground force; it just needs a decent Naval presence to protect its shipping -- as the submarine menace in both world wars demonstrated the UK is dependent on the North Atlantic sealanes.

In order to police a 200 mile exclusion zone, it is necessary to know what is approaching that zone as much in advance as practical -- ie patrolling (or otherwise monitoring) at least 300 and preferably 400 miles offshore. That means a blue-water Navy and long-range or carrier based aircraft.