Election Depth, go Clegg!

Porgy

Greg66 wrote:

alfablue wrote:

I am sure I don't want the country run by a branch of Eton College!

I just don't get why people equate a single public school with the very worst of human qualities. Would it make a difference if they had all gone to some minor public school that not many people had heard of?

No - all public schoolboys are tossers. :P

jimmypippa

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Brown is the economist and personally I'm convinced his spending plan is the one that got us into this fcuking mess

FIXED!

(couldn't resist!)

PS: would it alarm you to learn that academically, Brown is a historian who went on to lecture in politics and work as a journalist? From what I can tell from his wiki page, he doesn't have a background in economics.

But the problems were basically "tory" policies, of a lack of regulation of banks etc, not "socialist" policies of overcontrol.

Greg66 wrote:

jamesco wrote:

who cares what the 'markets' think?

Err, you will. A run on Sterling may be great for exporters, but it will affect Britain's credit worthiness and ability to borrow (something that it will need to do). So it will have to pay higher interest rates to borrow (cf Greece), and those will be met by, errr, you, in the shape of more taxes. If the Govt/BoE chooses to support Sterling, it will up interest rates (cf the ERM exit), so if you have any borrowing, your repayments will go up.

And with a weak pound, British companies look cheap to foreign buyers. Buy 'em, break 'em up, ship the bits you want abroad = job losses (cf, eg Cadbury).

I work for a company (NXP) that was bought by venture capatalists in a similar leveraged buyout to the kraft one. It doesn't really matter how strong the pound (or Euro for NXP) is because the owners don't owe anything:

KKR used the company they were buying as security -so far analogous to a buy to let mortgage. However, they then said that the company they own actually owes the money not them, so analogous to having a by to let mortgage and then saying that the house owes the money, and that you can charge it a management fee for owning it. The banks who put the money up got a commision and then sold the debt on, so everyone is happy except for the mugs who ended up buying the bonds later on (and the original company). Philips (the original owner) was laughing.

Eau Rouge

jedster wrote:

There is nothing the T-45's nor the frigate-replacements BAE will come up with can do that proper carriers can't do better,

PAAMS will shoot down missiles. The Saudis actually thought seriously about buying one or two to park in the gulf to provide missile defence to East Coast (oil fields) against Iranian missile strike.

Incidently, seems pretty likely that T45 will get cruise missiles integrated at some point in the future.

If aircraft are the answer then why do US carrier groups need Arleigh Burkes for defence?

And I don't see how you can do without Frigates - unless you are willing to give up the ability to patrol sea lanes around the world - your carrier (given you'll only have one of two guaranteed available at any one time) can't be everywhere.

It seems pretty likely the T45's will get PAAMS integrated at some point in the future you mean No doubt they will iron out the problems but with PAAMS but it's going to be doing well to take sea-level missiles out at just 25 miles distance from what I read. Thats a few minutes away. I'm sure it will work though. Meanwhile the American's have started shooting satellites down with their Aegis system.

US Carriers don't need their Arleigh Burkes for air protection, and do often just use their aircraft for defence. Aegis lets the AB's do that role, but they are nice to have around as a strategic asset outside that too, and American carrier groups are used more strategicly than their British versions would be. They have cruise missiles to hit targets inland and can carry two helicopters to the T45's one. The T45's only really do air defence, and cost twice as much. They can also afford to have them around, we're trying to save the Navy money here.

Frigates aren't great at patrolling sea lanes. Just ask the various groups of Marines arrested by the Iranians while too far from their base frigate for it to help. Navy frigates have a single helicopter, yet the ships main function is to support that helicopter. It's the helicopter that actually carries the sub detecting equipment (and can't be torpedoed by the sub) or when patrolling, the Marines that actually do the stopping of other vessels. Of course, with a single helicopter on board, you can't do both roles with the same frigate.
Take Somalia, if the Navy wasn't so worried about them claiming asylum, or if the Indian's were around to do the actual dirty work, then parking HMS Ocean there, with it's fleet of helicopters and space for more Marines would be the strategic option.
Does any other patrolling need anything more than a River class?
There could also have been the British built AB destroyers, but I suppose the T45's can be used.

Eau Rouge

jimmypippa wrote:

KKR used the company they were buying as security -so far analogous to a buy to let mortgage. However, they then said that the company they own actually owes the money not them, so analogous to having a by to let mortgage and then saying that the house owes the money, and that you can charge it a management fee for owning it. The banks who put the money up got a commision and then sold the debt on, so everyone is happy except for the mugs who ended up buying the bonds later on (and the original company). Philips (the original owner) was laughing.

Thats how the way the Glazers bought Man Utd isn't it?

Agent57

Greg66 wrote:

Ok. Did you consider Princess Di to be "one of us", and the "people's princess"?

No, to both questions.

jimmypippa

Eau Rouge wrote:

jimmypippa wrote:

KKR used the company they were buying as security -so far analogous to a buy to let mortgage. However, they then said that the company they own actually owes the money not them, so analogous to having a by to let mortgage and then saying that the house owes the money, and that you can charge it a management fee for owning it. The banks who put the money up got a commision and then sold the debt on, so everyone is happy except for the mugs who ended up buying the bonds later on (and the original company). Philips (the original owner) was laughing.

Thats how the way the Glazers bought Man Utd isn't it?

Yes

prj45

lost_in_thought wrote:

what's the point in voting for a party that's unlikely to win?

Because other parties see votes going to that party, work out why, and then adjust their policies to win those voters, hence indirectly taking on the polices of the party you voted for.

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

Yes, but I wouldn't want a return to the snobish class structure that the Conservatives are likely to bring... We'll have to drink at different pubs... you, Lit's and the Greg's can have yours and I'll be outside with the dog's and Irish.

Mine's a pint

tailwindhome

jedster wrote:

I had colleagues whose area of expertise was "lean operations". This is the field of management about how to optimise business processes for quality, consistency and efficiency. A lot of the thinking stems from Toyota, etc. but has been applied to lots of other industries - services as well as manufacturing with great benefits. They did some work in the NHS (combination of pro bono and reduced fee) and were able to achieve some really outstanding results.

Don't get me wrong, I think the medical professionalism within the NHS is of high standard. The basic process management is not. Fixing this would bring big benefits.

J

How have Toyota been doing lately?

artaxerxes

parking HMS Ocean there, with it's fleet of helicopters and space for more Marines would be the strategic option.

Thinking about what our future wars/commitments might be, say land based commitments in Central Asia and a possible defence of the Falklands. Wouldn't it have been better to build 3 new Invincible sized small carriers plus another Ocean type helicopter carrier? Not sure if that would have been cheaper than 2 super carriers but with a greater number of smaller ships, you can deploy them in more places. Plus you aren't putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

DonDaddyD

Greg66 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The whole point is that the majority (because lets face it the majority of people in England could be identified as working class) want someone who bests represents them or who can at the very least identify with them.

Ok. Did you consider Princess Di to be "one of us", and the "people's princess"?

And a lot of people hated the greengrocer's daughter, as I recall. And weren't that keen on the son of the music hall performer who never got further at school than his O levels. But seemed to like the barrister quite a lot.

No accounting for taste, obviously.

Seriously, DDD, I think you've been suckered in by Nu Labour's Class War theme.

You do have a point.

But the Conservative party traditionally has always favoured the rich more so than the poor. Or am I wrong in thinking that tax breaks for millionaires will benefit me...

tailwindhome

DonDaddyD wrote:

The whole point is that the majority (because lets face it the majority of people in England could be identified as working class) want someone who bests represents them or who can at the very least identify with them.

I'm not sure that the majority of people in England* do view themselves as working class.

I'm not sure that (and this isn't a cheapshot) a unversity educated man working in a 'policy developement' role fits into the traditional working class category. These traditional class demarcations are long gone, partly due to Thatcher in the 80s and only dragged back by the worst elements of the labour party.

*I'm pretty sure that this is a British election

Eau Rouge

artaxerxes wrote:

parking HMS Ocean there, with it's fleet of helicopters and space for more Marines would be the strategic option.

Thinking about what our future wars/commitments might be, say land based commitments in Central Asia and a possible defence of the Falklands. Wouldn't it have been better to build 3 new Invincible sized small carriers plus another Ocean type helicopter carrier? Not sure if that would have been cheaper than 2 super carriers but with a greater number of smaller ships, you can deploy them in more places. Plus you aren't putting all your eggs in one basket so to speak.

To quote the Strategic Defense Review that recommended the larger (actually "normal sized" rather than the current "small") carriers...
"the emphasis is now on increased offensive air power, and an ability to operate the largest possible range of aircraft in the widest possible range of roles. When the current carrier force reaches the end of its planned life, we plan to replace it with two larger vessels. Work will now begin to refine our requirements but present thinking suggests that they might be of the order of 30,000–40,000 tonnes and capable of deploying up to 50 aircraft, including helicopters."

The sort of conflicts the UK gets into rely heavily on air power, often with huge air superiority. The current carriers just don't have enough aircraft, fixed wing or helicopters, to make them ideal for the job. They wouldn't be much cheaper either, especially not 3 of them.
A cruise missile platform would have been nice too. The US has it's Arleigh Burke's for that, the T-45's don't have cruise missiles.

DonDaddyD

TailWindHome wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

The whole point is that the majority (because lets face it the majority of people in England could be identified as working class) want someone who bests represents them or who can at the very least identify with them.

I'm not sure that the majority of people in England* do view themselves as working class.

I'm not sure that (and this isn't a cheapshot) a unversity educated man working in a 'policy developement' role fits into the traditional working class category. These traditional class demarcations are long gone, partly due to Thatcher in the 80s and only dragged back by the worst elements of the labour party.

*I'm pretty sure that this is a British election

Oh I don't know I think I was wrong in writing what you quoted and the whole class thing.

I just know that when you mention the Conservatives to people that have played a big part in making me me (and I'm not just talking family here) they simply don't like them.

Also though I was too young to really appreciate conservative rule I can remember being and people around me generally not being as happy as they were during the 13yrs of Labour.