Support NeoGAF

[zomgbbqftw]

Goveryto get out of the way of what? Can you elaborate? I hope he doesn't mean regulations. Because I fee the recession was large in part due to a LACK of regulation.

Not regulation. More like inertia. He is saying the government moves too slowly on investment and that holds back the economy, he is right, but also guilty. Which is why it's bullshit. Successive governments have failed to invest in the economy, the last one to do so was Thatcher in the early 80's before everything was privatised, but even that was just to make the nationalised companies decent enough to attract investors.

Dave is all talk no trousers. Worse still is that any incoming Labour government would likely just bury their head in the sand like the previous one did for 13 years. We need airports/runways, trains, power plants (real ones, none of that low capacity "green" shit) and ports, all of that needs to be online within 10 years or Britain faces the same slow death that France is now looking at but for the opposite reasons (lack of infrastructure to support growth).

 

[Jackpot]

He went on and on about how he wanted government to get out of the way and he wanted to clear planning obstacles. Then he completely neglected to mention that the single most economically damaging policy decision is his idiot pledge to rule out a third runway or any other kind of airport capacity in London. He talks about delays and being on a war footing in relation to the economy, well if that was really the case, why the hell has the government delayed the airport capacity report until after the election so Labour can fumble it for at least 5 years until a GE in which they will likely be kicked out. That will take us to 2020 with no serious airport capacity expansion and will make Britain a second tier trading nation.

There is huge public opposition to a third runway and rightly so.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

There is huge public opposition to a third runway and rightly so.

Sure, then get moving with a whole new hub in the uninhabited East. I have no favouritism over what should be done, only that something be done and quickly. If the government wants to choose the cop out option and build a third runway, that's fine, but do it now and have it ready for 2015/16, if not say it now and start a one year consultation with BAA and GIP over a new hub airport either in the Thames Estuary or some other empty part of London and get moving with the project.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Sure, then get moving with a whole new hub in the uninhabited East. I have no favouritism over what should be done, only that something be done and quickly. If the government wants to choose the cop out option and build a third runway, that's fine, but do it now and have it ready for 2015/16, if not say it now and start a one year consultation with BAA and GIP over a new hub airport either in the Thames Estuary or some other empty part of London and get moving with the project.

I agree - it, along with nuclear power and tax simplication - are the triumviate of complex issues that absolutely need actioning but are all unpopular (the former two because of the electorate, the latter because it'll remove a lot of the treasuries favourite toys).

Also, I really don't think it was a lack of regulation that caused the last recession, it was a complicated mix. In some sectors there was too much (US sub-prime market), in some too little (UK leveraged credit markets - rehypothecation etc, which was rife in the City but almost non-existent in Wall Street - not that it made much difference, as it were mostly US banks using their London arms to do it here), and in almost all regards there was *bad* regulation all over the shop. I think saying simply that there is too much or too little is over-simplying it; One needs to consider the quality of the regulation, and the sad truth is that the government has a morbid history of being constantly outfoxed by business.

 

[Jezbollah]

I grew up in Bishop's Stortford (a couple of miles away from Stansted Airport) and live in Southend. I can say from both areas that there is little in the way of scope of being able to provide the adequate transport infrastructure that a large hub airport deserves.

A major airport with multiple runways should be located in the midlands - away from the south east and easily accessible for the rest of the country. The roads and railways are barely able to cope with the existing six airports located around London as it is.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I grew up in Bishop's Stortford (a couple of miles away from Stansted Airport) and live in Southend. I can say from both areas that there is little in the way of scope of being able to provide the adequate transport infrastructure that a large hub airport deserves.

A major airport with multiple runways should be located in the midlands - away from the south east and easily accessible for the rest of the country. The roads and railways are barely able to cope with the existing six airports located around London as it is.

If Britain's economy is losing out because people cannot cheaply or easily fly in to London, that problem won't be solved by building an airport near Leeds. Infrastructure had to be a response to economic demands if it is to become anything but a white elephant, not the desire for economic puppetry.

 

[Jezbollah]

If Britain's economy is losing out because people cannot cheaply or easily fly in to London, that problem won't be solved by building an airport near Leeds. Infrastructure had to be a response to economic demands if it is to become anything but a white elephant, not the desire for economic puppetry.

I suggested the midlands, not as far north as Leeds. If the infrastructure is there, then distance isnt an issue. Example: It takes 50 minutes to get from Southend Airport to London. It only takes an extra 30 minutes to go from London Euston to Birmingham New Street.

If more people fly out of a large airport in the midlands, it takes stress of the numerous airports in the south east. It's all about capacity isnt it?

 

[CyclopsRock]

I suggested the midlands, not as far north as Leeds. If the infrastructure is there, then distance isnt an issue. Example: It takes 50 minutes to get from Southend Airport to London. It only takes an extra 30 minutes to go from London Euston to Birmingham New Street.

If more people fly out of a large airport in the midlands, it takes stress of the numerous airports in the south east. It's all about capacity isnt it?

It certainly is, but just because you build a road, doesn't mean people will want to travel on it. You say 'an extra half an hour' as if it's hardly relevant, when that's more or less the whole point. Our antiquated airports can't cope with the demands of modern business - both personel and freight - and expecting them to be happy with a service that's half an hour longer than shitty Southend airport is sort of the problem.

 

[Jezbollah]

Actually Southend Airport is doing pretty well for itself now it has extended it's runway and has Easyjet flying out of it. They opened a excellent terminal at the beginning of the year and have already started doubling capacity with an extension. It is one of the south east's success stories when other airports capacity has remained stagnant.

My point remains. There is certainly no room in the east of England for the kind of airport that commerce is demanding. If they could have expanded Stansted (and there were plans for as many as three additional runways there) they would have.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Actually Southend Airport is doing pretty well for itself now it has extended it's runway and has Easyjet flying out of it. They opened a excellent terminal at the beginning of the year and have already started doubling capacity with an extension. It is one of the south east's success stories when other airports capacity has remained stagnant.

My point remains. There is certainly no room in the east of England for the kind of airport that commerce is demanding. If they could have expanded Stansted (and there were plans for as many as three additional runways there) they would have.

I think it's hard to deny that there's room. The question is simply whether it makes economic sense, when one considers environmental concerns. I don't think there is an easy, obvious answer.

 

[phisheep]

If Britain's economy is losing out because people cannot cheaply or easily fly in to London, that problem won't be solved by building an airport near Leeds. Infrastructure had to be a response to economic demands if it is to become anything but a white elephant, not the desire for economic puppetry.

Actually it might do. Maybe not from Leeds, but perhaps around Birmingham somewhere.

Every time I've flown from Heathrow I've had to travel for ages to get there (variously from Wales, Yorkshire, West Country) and it has been a pain in the neck. If another, closer, or at least less inconvenient airport had the flights I'd go from there and that would release capacity at Heathrow.

I guess on my own I wouldn't release all that much capacity, but there must be plenty of people in the same position (i.e. everybody not in London).

 

[norinrad]

OMG Britain to get out of the EU

 

[zomgbbqftw]

OMG Britain to get out of the EU

Really? That's news to me!

 

[Dambrosi]

Fucking stupid media, it's nothing of the sort. Just Channel 4 News making a Martian mountain range out of a pebble in order to make a point, chat panels and all. Oh Jon.

Believe you me, if the UK ever did leave the EU, we'd all know about it beforehand. There'd be no surprise whatsoever, unless Cameron really does want to destroy the British economy instantly and for decades afterwards.

Spoiler

Considering current form, I would not put this past him.

 

[Tea and Toast]

Though I'm a complete philistine on the subject and don't really have an opinion either way;

A little part of me wants the U.K to leave the EU, just to see what happens.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Dave did well today. Articulate, reasonable, made friends and allies in the right places. Our sources in Germany say that his main argument was undeniable (how can we justify cuts at home while increasing EU contributions, it's a massive vote loser) which is why he has been backed by Merkel.

Dave's "coalition of contributors" as we see it is Britain, Germany, Finland, Sweden, Denmark, Austria and the Netherlands. That's pretty good going, and the rubbish coming from Hollande and Monti just made it seem like they know they have lost the battle. Within that grouping there are enough votes to vote down any budget with spending rises and Britain, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands are committed to cutting anywhere between €5-100bn from the 7 year budget.

Without any cuts Britain's net contribution would rise from around £5bn to around £9-10bn wiping out a lot of austerity gains in Britain. If the French got their way and got rid of our rebate our net contribution would go up to around £12bn while theirs would drop to nil despite France having a larger economy in nominal terms.

Again, Dave has done well today, now he needs to follow it up by solidifying the relationships he has made with the contributor nations.

 

[Walshicus]

That's not the consensus view of Cameron's performance.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

The Guardian:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/23/eu-summit-breaks-up-budget?intcmp=239

"The manner of the collapse of the summit is a highly significant moment for Cameron and will strengthen his position in the EU. He had arrived in Brussels on Thursday as an isolated figure after criticising the handling of the eurozone crisis by the bloc's leaders.

But the prime minister has improved his relations with Merkel after he was seen to take a constructive stance in the negotiations. The German chancellor did not agree with his call for €50bn in cuts to the budget. But she was impressed with the way he engaged in the negotiations."

The Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...se-as-David-Cameron-says-non-to-Brussels.html

"Talks on a new European Union budget have collapsed after David Cameron won German support in a row with France about his demands for more cuts in spending."

"But fatally for the French position, Germany’s Angela Merkel refused to back President Francois Hollande, instead siding with Mr Cameron over the need to make cuts in EU bureaucracy."

The Independent:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...sels-as-eu-fails-to-agree-budget-8342986.html

"Crucially, there was no agreement between France, anxious to preserve farm subsidies, and Germany, which backed Britain’s call for deeper EU spending cuts along with the Netherlands and Sweden."

That's both major left papers calling it for Cameron and a right paper as well.

Consensus meet Fragula...

 

[kitch9]

Fucking stupid media, it's nothing of the sort. Just Channel 4 News making a Martian mountain range out of a pebble in order to make a point, chat panels and all. Oh Jon.

Believe you me, if the UK ever did leave the EU, we'd all know about it beforehand. There'd be no surprise whatsoever, unless Cameron really does want to destroy the British economy instantly and for decades afterwards.

Spoiler

Considering current form, I would not put this past him.

How would leaving the EU destroy our economy? We have a trade deficit with the EU, it's fair to say that they still would want our business....

 

[Visualante2]

is this EU bureaucracy thing overblown or just austerity tit for tat? I haven't been following the story closely, but I can't say I'd be surprised by that. I'd rather see EU money distributed to the people than to middle managers.

 

[kitch9]

is this EU bureaucracy thing overblown? I haven't been following the story closely, but I can't say I'd be surprised by that. I'd rather see EU money distributed to the people than to middle managers.

The EU is bureaucratic, and could do with trimming quite a bit it appears.

 

[War Peaceman]

The EU is bureaucratic, and could do with trimming quite a bit it appears.

While I would not be surprised if that were the case, do you have evidence that supports this?

 

[CyclopsRock]

is this EU bureaucracy thing overblown or just austerity tit for tat? I haven't been following the story closely, but I can't say I'd be surprised by that. I'd rather see EU money distributed to the people than to middle managers.

The EU has no money, though - just money taken from various governments as they do not raise their own revenues. As such, if you'd rather 'the people' got it, the EU could just not take it in the first place.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

Oh man.

This turned into a massive story overnight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

"UKIP couple have foster children removed from care"

"A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party."


Absolutely chilling decision here, to bar people from being foster parents because of their political leanings.Labour have called for an investigation into the decision made by a Labour run council and a bunch Labour MPs have condemned the decision by the council overnight.

 

[JonnyBrad]

I can't believe they let the women who made the decision do interviews. Making the decision look even more bigotted and wrong with every word she says.

The grauniad seem to be trying to ignore the story as well.

 

[defel]

She is so concerned about multiculturalism, but she is the one who prevented presumably white parents from fostering children from a different ethnic background. Its a disgraceful decision.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Would be amazed if there is no climb down by the end of the day. Moronic. Joyce Thacker trying to defend the indefensible.

 

[Clay Davis]

She is so concerned about multiculturalism, but she is the one who prevented presumably white parents from fostering children from a different ethnic background. Its a disgraceful decision.

I don't support the decision, but if they were from different ethnic backgrounds, it might be for the best if the couple weren't able to separate their private life from their political one.

the potential for psychological damage to the children is probably what influenced the decision.

 

[dalin80]

They had been foster parents for years and with not a single claim against them or single allegation of 'psychological damage'.

UKIP may be at a further end of the spectrum but they are far from any of the groups you have to worry about, wanting to control immigration is a massive step from the BNP or EDL.

 

[Clay Davis]

They had been foster parents for years and with not a single claim against them or single allegation of 'psychological damage'.

UKIP may be at a further end of the spectrum but they are far from any of the groups you have to worry about, wanting to control immigration is a massive step from the BNP or EDL.

with stories like this there are often bits of vital information that come out much later, I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't believe it's solely down to them being ukip members.

if they have been foster parents for years, there must be more to the decision.

 

[JonnyBrad]

Its been mentioned elsewhere that in some parts of the labour party even bringing up immigration is seen as racist and bigotted. You could see Gordon Brown's views on it when he made the comment about the "bigotted women" at the last election when he thought the mic was off.

 

[zomgbbqftw]

with stories like this there are often bits of vital information that come out much later, I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't believe it's solely down to them being ukip members.

if they have been foster parents for years, there must be more to the decision.

No more to the decision. That idiot woman went on TV and said it was solely to the couple being members of UKIP.

 

[Clay Davis]

No more to the decision. That idiot woman went on TV and said it was solely to the couple being members of UKIP.

In this case there doesn't seem to be. The women who made the decision has confirmed it was the sole reason in more than one interview this morning.

really? well, that's that then. she obviously needs to be removed from her position and her decision reversed. might also be in the benefit of public interest to investigate her past decisions as well.

 

[JonnyBrad]

with stories like this there are often bits of vital information that come out much later, I don't agree with the decision, but I also don't believe it's solely down to them being ukip members.

if they have been foster parents for years, there must be more to the decision.

In this case there doesn't seem to be. The women who made the decision has confirmed it was the sole reason in more than one interview this morning.

 

[JonnyBrad]

This is turning into more of a backfire. Husband is a royal navy reservist Of 30 years who works with disabled people. Wife is a nursery nurse.

 

[War Peaceman]

Oh man.

This turned into a massive story overnight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

"UKIP couple have foster children removed from care"

"A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party."


Absolutely chilling decision here, to bar people from being foster parents because of their political leanings.Labour have called for an investigation into the decision made by a Labour run council and a bunch Labour MPs have condemned the decision by the council overnight.

Awful decision. Though I'm not sure what your point is - it is a good thing that the Labour people are willing to look inwards and deal with internal problems, rather than bllindly defending them.

The grauniad seem to be trying to ignore the story as well.

By ignoring, do you mean putting it at the top of the page on their website?

 

[Visualante2]

So if they were BNP members?

 

[JonnyBrad]

Awful decision. Though I'm not sure what your point is - it is a good thing that the Labour people are willing to look inwards and deal with internal problems, rather than bllindly defending them.



By ignoring, do you mean putting it at the top of the page on their website?

It was put up after i posted that having had an absolute barrage of tweets asking why they had ignored it.

 

[War Peaceman]

It was put up after i posted that having had an absolute barrage of tweets asking why they had ignored it.

Ah ok, fair enough

 

[Guerrillas in the Mist]

I can't see how the parents being UKIP members justifies this. I don't agree with most of UKIP's policies, but they're not the National Front!

 

[Delusibeta]

So if they were BNP members?

Probably a similar reaction will occur, adoption decisions really shouldn't be based on political ideology. (That said, the odds of BNP members adopting "not indigenous white British" children is somewhere around zero)

 

[fizzelopeguss]

Oh man.

This turned into a massive story overnight:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20474120

"UKIP couple have foster children removed from care"

"A couple have had three foster children removed from their care because they belong to the UK Independence Party."


Absolutely chilling decision here, to bar people from being foster parents because of their political leanings.Labour have called for an investigation into the decision made by a Labour run council and a bunch Labour MPs have condemned the decision by the council overnight.

The utter degeneracy of these politico bastards never ceases to piss me off. UKIP? Red alert klaxon. Paedo rings? hush hush. Country is existing in fucking bizarro land.

Some daft bint on telly actually had the gall to ask farage if the family will still be voting UKIP.

Silly fucking bitch, a little decorum please.

 

[Dambrosi]

Well, this was a right bloody mess and no mistake. Ridiculously bigoted decision, regardless of who made it. I hope the foster parents get their kids back soon.

Nigel Farage was just on Channel 4 News, blaming the whole thing on the Tory and Labour leaderships dismissing UKIP as "closet racists" and "extremists" for years, and that attitude leaking down to their subordinates in the civil services. A good point, all said. Of course, when Krishnan Guru-Murphy brought up how fortuitous the timing of all this was, what with a local by-election next Thursday, and UKIP now being in a prime position to profit politically from the sympathy vote, he was all denials and moral superiority. Because, of course, his party would never politicize a family matter for their own gain, no, not like the other parties would.

*sigh* Some people are so easily led.

 

[Walshicus]

On the one hand they're UKIP so fuck them. On the other hand their policies are only stupid, not particularly racist... so...

EDIT: Actually, that's a bit glib. It's a shame this private issue has turned to the national spotlight. But at the same time, it's positive to see the bodies involved in decision making here taking a detailed approach to matching children up to the right families. Shame the politics of this decision don't really work.


It's nowhere near as interesting as the Catalonia vote or the pædophile scandal though.

 

[Lear]

While at first glance the fostering story does seem to be a complete and utter cock-up, I would imagine there's more to it. From what I've gleaned from various people on twitter, it seems that the foster kids were EU immigrants, and the LA had been criticised for not meeting the cultural and ethnic needs of the children (by a judge, it seems), so you can sort of see the logic of the decision, especially when UKIP policy expressly calls for the end of multiculturalism. It seems that the social workers never actually asked the couple about their political beliefs, so quite how it came to their attention remains to be seen. It was only ever intended to be a short-term placement anyway. I'm sure more facts will come out before too long, so i'm holding back on the outrage until we know everything.

People are far too quick to rush into full righteous outrage mode before all of the facts come out, and of course Nigel Farage is going to milk it for every drop of political gain he can.

 

[dalin80]

especially when UKIP policy expressly calls for the end of multiculturalism. .

From their policy section of the website-

''End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies''

Calling for the end of tax payer funded policies to promote multiculturalism, which in fairness do have a questionable record of working is quite a bit different from 'UKIP policy expressly calls for the end of multiculturalism'.

 

[Lear]

From their policy section of the website-

''End the active promotion of the doctrine of multiculturalism by local and national government and all publicly funded bodies''

Calling for the end of tax payer funded policies to promote multiculturalism, which in fairness do have a questionable record of working is quite a bit different from 'UKIP policy expressly calls for the end of multiculturalism'.

Fair point, that wasn't very well put on my part. My point is simply that you can see why they might have thought this was the best course of action, especially given that they were under pressure to meet the ethnic and cultural needs of these kids. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just that you can see the thought process (though the link apparently made between UKIP membership and inability to meet the cultural needs of the kids is obviously wrong, if there were no other factors being considered), even if in retrospect it seems like an absurd decision to make.

 

[Walshicus]

Fair point, that wasn't very well put on my part. My point is simply that you can see why they might have thought this was the best course of action, especially given that they were under pressure to meet the ethnic and cultural needs of these kids. I'm not saying it was the right thing to do, just that you can see the thought process (though the link apparently made between UKIP membership and inability to meet the cultural needs of the kids is obviously wrong, if there were no other factors being considered), even if in retrospect it seems like an absurd decision to make.

I think in our rush to oppose what at first looks like a rash decision, we risk forgetting just how much overlap on the Venn Diagram there is between BNP and UKIP activists.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

UKIP is basically diet BNP without the racist and fascist overtones.

 

[Dambrosi]

And we're not so sure about the fascism.