||[Oct. 21st, 2010|10:03 am]
I don't know what the papers say because I'm not reading the papers, but I can't see how you can revive an economy by putting something like a million people out of work- or how you can save on benefits when so many more will be claiming them.|
Of course the cuts will hit the poor worst of all. They always do. The rich are insulated by their wealth. The rich will barely notice.
I think it's funny that we'll be buying a couple of aircraft carriers (because we can't wriggle out of the contracts) but not the planes to go with them.
Britain's post-imperial fever dream about being a first-rate power is finally over. We've woken up. It is amusing/ironic that this should happen under a Tory government. There will be no more Iraqs because we can't afford them.
Nick Clegg seemed to have spilled gravy on his bright yellow tie. Ailz says it was the way the light was falling. Either way he looked miserable. As well he might.
Given the time and manpower required to construct an aircraft carrier, I suspect the impact on shipyard labor would have been tremendous, had they axed those ships. I cannot imagine the yards absorbing that sort of loss without layoffs, so the calculous involved may have been far more realistic than appears at first glance.
Still it is an amazing -- and farcical -- outcome.
That's entirely true., but I think the government was thinking less about jobs than about how it would cost them more to break the contract that it would to let it carry on.
2010-10-21 10:28 am (UTC)
I quite agree with you except on the point of the dream. Unfortunately I don't think the British superiority complex (or rather the English superiority complex) will ever allow this to happen (worse luck).
Well, obviously we're still top nation, but perhaps in future our sense of superiority won't be dependent on us invading lesser ones.
Perhaps one of the aircraft carriers could be fitted out with a Portakabin village instead of a runway. It could then be used for housing prisoners or asylum seekers.
2010-10-21 04:08 pm (UTC)
Someone close to me shouted at the radio 'why do we always have to punch above our weight - what is this obsession?' And I heard on the radio someone saying 'why should we punch at all?' I agree.
I liked your post today (as always)....
Glad you had such a scenic and interesting break in Belgium - pictures are fab!
love jenny x
I think it would be nice if we settled down now into being a nice, quiet, unbelligerent, middle-ranking European power.
2010-10-23 02:08 am (UTC)
There will be no more Iraqs because we can't afford them.
The country that started that tragic revenge-fantasy conflict couldn't afford it either, but we went ahead and did it anyway, sending ourselves and especially our children and grandchildren into ever-spiralling debt-slavery.
Alas, I don't think expense has ever been a deterrent to war. Politicians just tell the people that the enemy is the Devil and their freedom is at stake, and the people will sign any IOU to pay for more bullets. Ironically, they'll also give up many of their freedoms, having been told it's necessary to protect their way of life from people who supposedly hate those very freedoms.
Few will go to war themselves anymore, or send their own children, but they'll loudly sing the praises of those who do go.
There's times my country makes me very sad....
Britain's post-imperial fever dream about being a first-rate power is finally over. We've woken up.
The U.S.A. just keeps hitting the snooze button and goes on dreaming. I fear it's gonna be a very RUDE awakening when it does come.
Warfare has changed. Having the biggest army and the shiniest weapons no longer guarantees victory. That's a lesson that should have been learned in Vietnam.