Support NeoGAF

[avaya]

I am unaware that anyone has ever suggested public services do not benefit from better funding, the question is whether you're getting value for money from the spending increases. NHS spending has i think doubled in real terms since 1997, but has the quality of the NHS doubled? Note that i'm not saying it hasn't, I don't really have enough information to declare such a thing, and the article does not make any such judgments, but nor does it conclusively show good value for money.

Without meaning to be rude, the "value for money" chestnut is complete fabrication when it comes to the NHS. At least in the general sense it is used.

Expecting a delta 1 change i.e. 1% improvement for 1% increase in spending within a system that has rising costs due to ageing population, rising population and increased supply costs is not a position that you can hold. Of course you will not get 1:1. You are well into the negative convexity of the curve.

Doubling will have a beneficial impact, increases just higher than the marginal inflation rate will not since you are fighting a battle against overwhelming demand with a scarce resource whose costs rise faster than the CPI. It will never be good enough. You don't need numbers to work that out. Far better than any free market situation which would always result in multiple cascading market failures, but still with room for improvement.

Money into the NHS for the next decade will try to be a plug. It will be a battle to keep it at the current standard. Cuts will result in immediate falls in the access, provision and quality of healthcare provided since moving to the right of a curve exhibiting negative convexity leads to disproportionate falls.

So if you don't get 1:1 under the VFM criterion it is often framed as a failure and waste of investment and we should stop spending and start cutting.

Start cutting what?

The IT projects are attacked for over-running budgeted costs. Does this mean they are wasteful? A service which seeks to cover 60m+ people needs a system capable of handling the medical histories of these people. Why is this a waste in spending? Should they be using paper files and non-networked machines? Some of the criticism is wholly unjustified and plain mental.

If you cut the spending what are you going to do with the money you've "saved"? I say saved because you will not have saved anything, you've actually cut into the bone.

Arguing about "value for money" in order to justify cuts in a service which is unable to meet demand is nonsensical. The only defensible position is to argue for the money to be spent in different ways within the NHS. Not that the money shouldn't be spent.

 

[curls]

God I fucking hate UKIP and everything they stand for.

For you.

 

[kobashi100]

http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/press-c...d-what-freedom-and-democracy-really-mean.html

London UK, 13th April 2010 – David Cameron has called for a ban on Hizb ut-Tahrir in the Conservative party’s manifesto launched today which once again twists the truth and states that “a Conservative government will ban any organisations which advocate hate or the violent overthrow of our society, such as hizb-ut-tahrir”.

In response to this call , Taji Mustafa, media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir in Britain said, "We say to Cameron and his like: ban Hizb ut-Tahrir if you dare to show the world the cowards you really are.”

“Instead of accepting our challenge to debate ideas, he will try to ban an Islamic political party with over 50 years of non-violent political activism.”

“There can be no better way to show people what hypocrites they really are - that their lofty talk of ‘freedom, democracy and pluralism’ are mere hollow words.”

“More people will come to realise what “neocons” Cameron’s Tories are - that the ‘liberal’ image the Tory front bench desperately tries to portray is no more than a façade for neoconservatism in Britain: to continue the war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to offer uncritical loyalty to Israel and suppress Muslim political voices in Britain.”

“Their desire to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir shows they really fear that our ideas have taken a hold amongst Muslims around the world, because of our uncompromising criticism of Western foreign policy in Muslim countries, and relentless call to replace tyranny and dictatorship in the Muslim world with an Islamic Caliphate that will bring security, stability, authority to the people, and accountability and justice - all enshrined in the Shariah.”

“We say to Mr Cameron, do your worst but you can never ban our ideas from growing.”

“His actions would simply be adding to the exposure of weakness of his own ideology, by adding a ban on a non-violent group to the West's record of Abu Ghraib, Guantanamo, rendition, torture and the abandonment of habeas corpus.“

“They justify invading Muslim countries on the basis of securing ‘freedom and democracy’ but then try to shut down political discourse through a ban.“

“In their world freedom only counts as long as you are subservient to the values dictated by these hypocritical and corrupt politicians. This is the hypocrisy of their freedom and we have no fear from that. Hizb ut-Tahrir will continue its work across the world.”

“We repeat our challenge to Cameron to face us in an open debate though we suspect the Tory party will not have the guts to take up this challenge. But if they try to ban Hizb ut-Tahrir, then the world will see who they really are and how weak their freedom and democracy really is.”

 

[Salazar]

I'd ban 'em. Thumbs up, Dave.

 

[blazinglord]

I dunno, I'm personally against anything that exposes children to religion.

As long as Faith schools adhere to the core basics in the science curriculum then I don't think they do much harm to kids if they want to have extra RE lessons and prayers in the school assembly.

 

[avaya]

Faith schools only create division in society.

They should all be banned from receiving any public spending or chartiable status.

I went to a CofE school, actually supported by the richest estate in the country. It needed no charitable status, yet it received it. We had a priest come in on Monday's to talk his usual drivel. Some kids were scarily scarily devout. The rest were all toffs. The toffs were good fun.

Bottom line is that faith schools are an arcane concept that have no place in secular society. A secular government supporting faith based schooling in anyway is abhorrent on every level.

Not surprised the Tories support it, just something else they can palm off so they don't have to pay the bills.

 

[FabCam]

Faith schools only create division in society.

They should all be banned from receiving any public spending or chartiable status.

I went to a CofE school, actually supported by the richest estate in the country. It needed no charitable status, yet it received it. We had a priest come in on Monday's to talk his usual drivel. Some kids were scarily scarily devout. The rest were all toffs. The toffs were good fun.

Bottom line is that faith schools are an arcane concept that have no place in secular society. A secular government supporting faith based schooling in anyway is abhorrent on every level.

Not surprised the Tories support it, just something else they can palm off so they don't have to pay the bills.

Every private/independent school has charitable status and quite right too.

 

[Parl]

Incidentally, has anyone else seen the leaked copy of the proposed UKIP referendum?

I bet it'd be something like.

Should we leave the European Union?

A) Yes, absolutely
B) No
C) Nah
D) No way
E) Certainly not
F) Absolutely not

Highest vote wins.

 

[sohois]

Without meaning to be rude, the "value for money" chestnut is complete fabrication when it comes to the NHS. At least in the general sense it is used.

Expecting a delta 1 change i.e. 1% improvement for 1% increase in spending within a system that has rising costs due to ageing population, rising population and increased supply costs is not a position that you can hold. Of course you will not get 1:1. You are well into the negative convexity of the curve.

Doubling will have a beneficial impact, increases just higher than the marginal inflation rate will not since you are fighting a battle against overwhelming demand with a scarce resource whose costs rise faster than the CPI. It will never be good enough. You don't need numbers to work that out. Far better than any free market situation which would always result in multiple cascading market failures, but still with room for improvement.

Money into the NHS for the next decade will try to be a plug. It will be a battle to keep it at the current standard. Cuts will result in immediate falls in the access, provision and quality of healthcare provided since moving to the right of a curve exhibiting negative convexity leads to disproportionate falls.

So if you don't get 1:1 under the VFM criterion it is often framed as a failure and waste of investment and we should stop spending and start cutting.

Start cutting what?

The IT projects are attacked for over-running budgeted costs. Does this mean they are wasteful? A service which seeks to cover 60m+ people needs a system capable of handling the medical histories of these people. Why is this a waste in spending? Should they be using paper files and non-networked machines? Some of the criticism is wholly unjustified and plain mental.

If you cut the spending what are you going to do with the money you've "saved"? I say saved because you will not have saved anything, you've actually cut into the bone.

Arguing about "value for money" in order to justify cuts in a service which is unable to meet demand is nonsensical. The only defensible position is to argue for the money to be spent in different ways within the NHS. Not that the money shouldn't be spent.

It's been a while since i've done economics so i won't be able to answer in such technical terms, so i'll just say that while i agree it's unreasonable to expect 1:1 returns, that doesn't mean we should just accept that labour has done a good job with NHS spending increases. Of course there's no real way to tell whether the conservatives will do better(assuming they protect NHS funding), but until you give them a chance you'll never be able to tell. I assume you would counter with the argument that the Conservatives won't protect NHS funding and will try to cut it, but they have pledged to protect it, and i personally think it's unreasonable to go into a debatye assuming that one side is lying when there really isn't evidence for their untrustworthiness given the time period between the last Conservative government and the major changes in personnel.

Also in regards to your first comment, i do not feel you were at all rude, and i appreciate the time and effort you put into your response.

 

[Empty]

Okay I concede your point that Faith schools are selective. Nevertheless, I think that abolishing Faith schools altogether would be using a sledgehammer to crack a nut. The government could reform the selection process by making it illegal to ask the religious affiliation of the parents and prospective students but still allow the school to act as a Faith school. I recall not that long ago about a Jewish student who was rejected from a Jewish school on grounds that only one of his parents was Jewish and the other was merely a convert. I thought that school's selection process was vastly unfair and believe the supreme court was right to declare it as illegal discrimination.

I don't disagree that faith schools, if properly regulated, don't pose a huge threat and that given their stronghold over our education system eliminating them completely would be hard. The sort of regulation needed to ensure that state faith schools work effectively, which for me means a clamp down on discriminatory selection processes like the one you detail, requiring them to be genuinely comprehensive (grammar school debates aside) so they work in the interest of all society, making sure they implement policies to fight homophobic bullying which is higher and less likely to be reported in faith schools than standard ones, make sure there is no influence of religion in the teaching of science, force them to teach sex education normally, treat all other religions with respect in the classroom and not beat their students over the head with scary propaganda to respect the child's autonomy to a reasonable degree, might prove problematic though (maybe you disagree with that list?).

I mean once you do that, what is the point? they get a few prayers, an emphasis on RE, we save a little money (nothing compared to the wider waste, as i'm sure you can demonstrate), that all adds very little to education and on the flip-side we get a portion of the population pissed that their tax money is being used by the state to help aggressively promote religions they might disagree with to children, we segregate communities along religious lines instead of promoting integration which damages social cohesion in the long term, we hurt the choice for secular parents and i doubt we'd see that many faiths wanting a role in helping part fund education with my list of needed regulations.

 

[Chinner]

lib dem manifesto launch has just finished, summaries should be coming up soon.

 

[SmokyDave]

Do you mean this one?

Y'know, I actually really like this poster. It's a shame it's for UKIP.

 

[FabCam]

I don't get this whole "fairer Britain" thing the Lib Dems hark on about. Tax breaks for poorer people, encouraging migrant workers and increased tax on richer people doesn't seem very fair to me.

 

[Chinner]

Lib Dem Manifesto at a glance:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/14/liberal-democrat-manifesto-at-a-glance
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/8619630.stm

The Liberal Democrats have pledged an extra £2.5bn to cut class sizes to 20 in primary schools, increase one-to-one tuition and provide catch-up classes for 160 pupils in each secondary school

Cut the department of health in half. Scrap strategic health authorities and limit managers' pay

• Replace prison sentences of six months or less with community penalties and cancel the £800m prison-building programme.

• A freedom bill to regulate CCTV, end the collection of innocent DNA, scrap ID cards, the children's contact database and anti-terrorist control orders. Halt the creation of new criminal offences.

The Lib Dems say it is in Britain's long-term interests to join the euro, but only after a referendum

• There should be a "strong and positive" commitment to Europe

• 100% clean energy for the UK by 2050, including no nuclear and coal only if it meets the highest standards

haha loooool

Tax-free earning threshold to rise to £10,000, paid for by a "mansion tax" of 1% on properties worth over £2m applicable to value of property over that figure

Banking levy to pay for the state support they have received. Break up banks into retail and investment sections

Phase out university tuition fees within six years. Scrap fees for final-year students immediately. Scrap target of 50% of people going to university

looks like its back.

Introduce single transferrable vote system, cut number of MPs by 150 and introduce fixed-term parliaments

Replace House of Lords with smaller, fully-elected upper house. Introduce written constitution

obviously the big thing is whether or not their figures are believable and doable, thats gonna be the angle from opposing parties and journalists.

 

[iapetus]

obviously the big thing is whether or not their figures are believable and doable, thats gonna be the angle from opposing parties and journalists.

Hey, at least they provided figures, unlike certain parties we could mention...

 

[curls]

• 100% clean energy for the UK by 2050, including no nuclear and coal only if it meets the highest standards

Bah

 

[Chinner]

yeah really don't like the no nuclear policy they have

 

[SmokyDave]

Hey, at least they provided figures, unlike certain parties we could mention...

BNP figures have been delayed after the head of finance was discovered to be a traitor. He was trying to get the figures 'into the Black'.

• 100% clean energy for the UK by 2050, including no nuclear and coal only if it meets the highest standards

• Replace prison sentences of six months or less with community penalties and cancel the £800m prison-building programme.

First one seems unfeasible, second one seems undesirable.

 

[Wes]

The 100% clean energy by 2050 may sound unfeasible but it's a worthy goal so why not shoot for it.

 

[Dabookerman]

There won't be any nuclear power plants by 2050 because we will have Fusion power plants. get with the times!

 

[Chinner]

Added the three manifestos to the OP. SmokeyDave and I are now eagerly waiting for the BNPs manifesto.

 

[iapetus]

There won't be any nuclear power plants by 2050 because we will have Fusion power plants. get with the times!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

 

[SmokyDave]

Added the three manifestos to the OP. SmokeyDave and I are now eagerly waiting for the BNPs manifesto.

Hang on, hang on. I'm writing as fast as I can. The crayon is down to a nub and my tongue has gone dry from hanging out of the corner of my mouth.

 

[curls]

There won't be any nuclear power plants by 2050 because we will have Fusion power plants. get with the times!

Fusion is a form of nuclear power.

Fission for the short term, Fusion for the long term.

edit: beaten

 

[Dabookerman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_fusion

Wait wah. I didn't bother reading the text and the only picture I saw was complex equations and a big explosion.

Now I'm scared

 

[Walshicus]

BNP figures have been delayed after the head of finance was discovered to be a traitor. He was trying to get the figures 'into the Black'.

Ho ho!


Yeah, love everything about that Lib Dem manifesto except the no-nuclear policy. Getting community service for minor offenders does seem to be efficient, but this would only go down well if it meant a subsequent *increase* in the terms the worst offenders undertake.

 

[Enosh]

Added the three manifestos to the OP. SmokeyDave and I are now eagerly waiting for the BNPs manifesto.

throw out every immigrant

there done

 

[Parl]

there done

Whoa whoa whoa, they're not just about immigration. There's other policies too that have nothing to do with immigration and foreigners, like health, education, the environment...

Unlike the fake “Greens” who are merely a front for the far left of the Labour regime, the BNP is the only party to recognise that overpopulation – whose primary driver is immigration, as revealed by the government’s own figures – is the cause of the destruction of our environment.

 

[iapetus]

BNP figures have been delayed after the head of finance was discovered to be a traitor. He was trying to get the figures 'into the Black'.

Nice.

 

[Chinner]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392758
these threads are always hilarious when the americans invade and right wingers declare we should stop benefits.

 

[fizzelopeguss]

"The national citizen service got a 77% approval rate in a YouGov poll last week."

there's actually support for camerons Janissary corps? fuck sake. We'll be giving thanks to portraits of the dear leader next whilst the Commissariat gives us our labour quota for the day.

 

[SmokyDave]

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=392758
these threads are always hilarious when the americans invade and right wingers declare we should stop benefits.

That's me. The benefit system is fucked and without reform will collapse, simple as.

 

[travisbickle]

Whoa whoa whoa, they're not just about immigration. There's other policies too that have nothing to do with immigration and foreigners, like health, education, the environment...

Ban all foreigners from using nhs.

Ban all foreigners from schools.

Ban all foreigners from driving cars, plus extra levy on foreigners' bin collection.

 

[Chinner]

That's me. The benefit system is fucked and without reform will collapse, simple as.

increase minimum wage.

 

[SmokyDave]

increase minimum wage.

Agreed. Tax breaks for workers, welfare in vouchers & not cash. There are many ways to fix the problem. So let's fix it.

Edit: Better sex education, enforcing statutory rape laws, state provided internet access (no home broadband to benefits households), mandatory vocational training courses. There are many better ways of doing things than throwing money at poor, feckless people and encouraging them to breed.

 

[Mr. Sam]

Right, downloading the manifestos now. Let's have a browse.

And that 'no nuclear' policy is really putting me off.

 

[Dark Machine]

BNP figures have been delayed after the head of finance was discovered to be a traitor. He was trying to get the figures 'into the Black'.


First one seems unfeasible, second one seems undesirable.

First one I agree seems unfeasible. Though advancements in tech and efficiency, plus subsidies toward green power generation and natural gas (which is clean) might make it possible. 40 years is a long time after all.


Second one is about the argument from prison officers, police and councillors that putting people into prison for 6 months will make them worse not re-habilitated. We bang up more people per head than anywhere else in Europe after all.

Agreed. Tax breaks for workers, welfare in vouchers & not cash. There are many ways to fix the problem. So let's fix it.

Edit: Better sex education, enforcing statutory rape laws, state provided internet access (no home broadband to benefits households), mandatory vocational training courses. There are many better ways of doing things than throwing money at poor, feckless people and encouraging them to breed.

Second.

 

[Mr. Sam]

How would one going about ordering hard copies of the manifestos?

 

[Souldriver]

What on earth is wrong with having the ambition to go for 100% clean, non-nuclear energy within the next 40 years? Sure, you might say it's not feasible, but it's a manifesto, it should be ambitious. Saying you're not aiming for non-nuclear energy in a manifesto is far worse imho, because it means you're not even going to try reaching things for the better.

 

[NekoFever]

What are people's thoughts on a written constitution and/or a bill of rights, which I see being pledged in several manifestos? I think it's an admirable idea in theory, but I'm not sure that I'd trust modern politicians to write one...

As for the benefits thing, I've always wondered if it would work if the absolute cap for those who are capable of working was whatever a 40-hour week at the minimum wage is, which currently comes out to £232 per week. That way it's impossible to be better off on benefits than it is working a full-time job.

What on earth is wrong with having the ambition to go for 100% clean, non-nuclear energy within the next 40 years? Sure, you might say it's not feasible, but it's a manifesto, it should be ambitious. Saying you're not aiming for non-nuclear energy in a manifesto is far worse imho, because it means you're not even going to try reaching things for the better.

I think it's the ruling out of nuclear power as even an option that people have a problem with. It's clean and can actually meet our energy requirements right now. Clean, non-nuclear energy should be the ultimate aim, but we should work with what we have in the meantime.

 

[radioheadrule83]

I was reading about the constituencies that may become key seats in the upcoming election (here - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seats-to-watch) and I couldn't help but wonder...

I got registered to vote in my current address with ultra quick speed...

is it fraud or against the law to move into one of those areas just so I can cast a vote in a seat that will really matter?

and whats to stop someone from finding a friend in one of those areas and having them pretend that you live with them, so you can cast a vote in such a way? And could your vote be struck off as voter fraud if so?

 

[Mr. Sam]

Because nuclear energy is easily the most viable "alternative" energy source - incredibly efficient, safe and not particularly environmentally unfriendly. If they want to be so green, they should bank on nuclear energy, not other sources which might be up to scratch forty years down the line. It's foolish.

 

[SmokyDave]

First one I agree seems unfeasible. Though advancements in tech and efficiency, plus subsidies toward green power generation and natural gas (which is clean) might make it possible. 40 years is a long time after all.


Second one is about the argument from prison officers, police and councillors that putting people into prison for 6 months will make them worse not re-habilitated. We bang up more people per head than anywhere else in Europe after all.

Second.

Yeah, I think the clean energy target is a good idea in practice, I just don't like the '100%' bit. It instantly makes me doubt their claim before I've even bothered to read how they plan to achieve this. On reflection, it was a minor grumble. No nuclear is crazy though and the prime reason I doubt their claim.

I'm actually cool with keeping minor criminals out of prison, I'm just not cool with cancelling plans to build more prisons. I think we're going to need them, regardless.

 

[Dabookerman]

What on earth is wrong with having the ambition to go for 100% clean, non-nuclear energy within the next 40 years? Sure, you might say it's not feasible, but it's a manifesto, it should be ambitious. Saying you're not aiming for non-nuclear energy in a manifesto is far worse imho, because it means you're not even going to try reaching things for the better.

I was thinking this. Everyone is all hyped to vote lib dem, and then they see the no-nuclear policy and now everyone is having second thoughts o_o..

 

[curls]

I was reading about the constituencies that may become key seats in the upcoming election (here - http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/guide/seats-to-watch) and I couldn't help but wonder...

I got registered to vote in my current address with ultra quick speed...

is it fraud or against the law to move into one of those areas just so I can cast a vote in a seat that will really matter?

and whats to stop someone from finding a friend in one of those areas and having them pretend that you live with them, so you can cast a vote in such a way? And could your vote be struck off as voter fraud if so?

At least you're bothering to vote.

 

[Walshicus]

What are people's thoughts on a written constitution and/or a bill of rights, which I see being pledged in several manifestos? I think it's an admirable idea in theory, but I'm not sure that I'd trust modern politicians to write one...

Not too sure here - I just see it as either:

1) A pointless rebranding exercise to replace the "eeeevil" European Human Rights Act with something British[/spit].
2) A shifty attempt to take away rights and liberties under the guise of a pointless rebranding exercise to replace the "eeeevil" European Human Rights Act with something British[/spit].

 

[Wes]

"David Cameron was the most searched of the leaders, with searches up 163% on the week, followed by Gordon Brown (up 92%), and Nick Clegg (up 426%). But while searches for the three potential chancellors were down, Vince Cable was still the most searched, followed by George Osborne and Alistair Darling. There was also a 233% rise in searches for "hung parliament"."

 

[radioheadrule83]

It'd be the most scrutinised document ever written, so I have no worries about a British Bill of Rights...

I think the real reason they're doing it is because British courts have been interfered with by the European court from time to time - and thats bad press for all concerned - so yeah its about replacing it with a British bill... but also I think they're looking back now at things we brought in "in the heat of the moment" following 9/11 -- I believe it was posted in another UK PoliGAF thread that an independent body is now looking into all the legislation passed since 9/11 with regard to civil liberties...

I think that thankfully, we're all coming back to our senses now, we're going to repeal and draw back some of the measures that infringe on peoples' privacy and civil rights, and a British Bill of Rights will prevent them from being infringed upon again in future. Even in the "the heat of the moment" and the event of a crazy terror attack or something.

And if thats what its about, I wholeheartedly support it.

 

[Wes]

GORDON BROWN HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE INVENTOR OF THE INTERNET

BROWN2.0

 

[Souldriver]

Because nuclear energy is easily the most viable "alternative" energy source - incredibly efficient, safe and not particularly environmentally unfriendly. If they want to be so green, they should bank on nuclear energy, not other sources which might be up to scratch forty years down the line. It's foolish.

I disagree heavily. If you're just going with that attitude, saying "well, let's not waste money on solar, wind, ... energy and research anymore, because it's not going to work anyway", is a self fulfilling prophecy. No research, no advance in technology, no reaching of goals, validation of decision.

With the way technology advances so quickly this century, I don't know how you can even be *certain* nuclear power is the only way to go. We're talking about 2050, not 2015. We've got 40 years ahead of us to reach the best goal possible. And that's not trying to make the polluting energy sources pollute as little as possible, but trying to make the clean energy sources as big as possible. Even if you don't end up with 100% clean energy, which is realistic, the UK could be the one the closest to reach it, with the best technology available. Every country wants clean energy, so the UK could be the exporter of such technology, making it a decent aspect of the British economy.


It's the whole "we'll put a man on the moon by the end of the decade - wtf you're crazy - 1969 man on moon" story.


I think that is not a nonsense idealistic and unrealistic dream vision. On a purely economic level it's always better to bank on innovation than the assume it's a waste of money. It's the reason why our Western economies got so beyond those of the rest of the world, and we're running the risk of losing that position because we hardly innovate anymore than China or India. In Belgium, in the '50 the Flanders was the poor part of the country, and the Walloons the rich part, with the thriving heavy industries like steal (and to a lesser extent coal). Around the middle of the previous century Flanders basically said "fuck this shit", and aimed completely for innovation, even in sectors and angles that didn't at first seem to have useful applications or created jobs. Half a century later, the Flanders is one of the richest regions in the EU, and the Walloons one of the poorest. It makes you think how right now the Belgian government is struggling and wasting money trying to keep the auto industry to stay in the country, while in Germany there are more people employed only in the wind power business than in the Belgian auto industry as a whole. Ironically, a few years ago the government said they had to keep open the nuclear plants because wind power was not an alternative for it. It should be noted however that they had neglected to invest in alternative energy as a whole, causing the current situation. If they had followed to suggested roadmap of investments, they could've gona ahead and close some plants. They could've invested in alternative energy, making it a viable industry with lots of jobs, which would make it less urging that the car industry stays in and that the Belgian government basically has to subsidize Gaz de France and Suez to leave the nuclear plants open, even though these corporations already make excessive amounts of money on it because the plants have been completely depreciated in the books because they were supposed to be closed right now. Money well spend/invested!!!!!

I might seem all over the place in this last paragraph, and it might come off as simplistic, but I think more people should realize that if you bank on what's safe and established, you might save some money in the short run, but lose money and fall behind in the long run.