That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him).
Well done, you.
I have myself changed several people's view on foreign aid. Most people who object to it imagine that it's disbursed in the form of largesse handed unauditedly to various kleptocracies whose corrupt officials instantly either squander or nick it.
I point out that a lot of it is in effect a voucher to be spent by the receiving country on services purchased in the UK, with that as a specific condition. So UK foreign aid to Malawi may consist of paying for McKinsey UK to consult on setting up their power generation industry, or on UK engineers designing hardware.
Such foreign aid money is thus not nicked at all. It is largely spent in the UK, the skills and the credentials to do more such work accrue to UK workers in UK firms, and while it may or may not generate that much good will, it';s not going to generate ill will.
Quite a lot of foreign aid work done by UK private companies is thus funded by public money.
When you explain that it's like giving the unemployed food stamps rather than cash, even diehard UKIPpers alter their view a bit.
If that's true on a large scale I think it would change my view. The government should give the aid money back to the taxpayers (maybe with some tax incentives to encourage them to donate it) so that they can give it to projects optimized for actually making a difference on the ground without worrying about distributing pork to politically-connected British companies.
Probably to pay for the upcoming EU Aid package to the Ukraine.
The European Commission has promised Ukraine €11 billion in aid up to 2017 on the condition it agrees to sign an association and free trade agreement with the EU and meets all conditions of the IMF, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in Brussels, as he presented an urgently drafted European aid package for Ukraine on Wednesday.
The package will include funds from the EU budget and loans from Europe-based international financial institutions, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Barroso noted.
He added that the EU will also support Ukraine’s energy sector.
Suporting Ukraine's energy sector? What does that mean? Almost certainly paying off the Ukraine's $1.5 billion debts to Gazprom and paying Russia a global price for future supplies rather than the current discounted price.
And what control will the EU have over Ukrainian territory and governance? None. The corruption will escalate and the West will end up funding it.
The only solution to the problems in the Ukraine is co-operation between the EU, the US, the multi-national funding agencies, Moscow and a representative government in Kiev.
"... had Cameron been more radical, consistent and bold, got in the papers, TV, radio explaining his vision for Britain, regularly arguing his principles, arguing his case for change - showing some real leadership - where he'd be now...."
Exactly, Mr. Royale, but he didn't. I wonder why. Could it be that Cameron has no principles, no values, no vision for Britain? Could it be that the reason is hasn't shown "real leadership" is that he couldn't lead a squad of ducklings across a fire bucket?
Some years ago Cameron declared himself the, "Heir to Blair". I am prepared to take him at his word.
Quite. A fair few Cameroons read up on the new labour 'project' of the 1990s and thought, "aah... that's how ya do it."
They didn't have the intelligence to realise Labour had a different problem, at a different time in our political history, and you couldn't just follow it like an election winning manual.
But they were pompous, wanted to think they were uniquely perceptive and shrewd, and others to believe that they were, so they grabbed for an off-the-shelf solution.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
On gay marriage my feeling is he doesn't really care about it at all, but thought he would win centre left votes by promoting it, thinking social conservatives had nowhere else to go. You could say that he tried to be all things to all people in allowing churches to refuse to carry them out
Sam you are mistaken (it is a common misconception). The quadruple lock allows for churches to hold gay marriages when and only when canon law is changed to allow them. That is, when the established church allows gay marriages they will be allowed (following an amendment in statute law).
The fourth of the quadruple locks stipulates that churches can't hold gay marriages today because were it not to be so then the resulting conflict between canon and statute law could lead the church to become disestablished.
I like politicians to have very few ideas. It's the ones with ideas who cause the real damage.
Having no ideas just means doing nothing - coasting along in government, being idle - and going with whatever bureaucratic mainstream fashion, or orthodoxy, is in vogue at the time. No matter how damaging or silly it is.
I like politicians who recognise they don't have all the answers and stop interfering in others lives. But that, in and of itself, is an idea. And it needs a leader to present it and, possibly, to legislate for it as well.
That's why I didn't say "no ideas". "Very few ideas", however, is desirable.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him).
Well done, you.
I have myself changed several people's view on foreign aid. Most people who object to it imagine that it's disbursed in the form of largesse handed unauditedly to various kleptocracies whose corrupt officials instantly either squander or nick it.
I point out that a lot of it is in effect a voucher to be spent by the receiving country on services purchased in the UK, with that as a specific condition. So UK foreign aid to Malawi may consist of paying for McKinsey UK to consult on setting up their power generation industry, or on UK engineers designing hardware.
Such foreign aid money is thus not nicked at all. It is largely spent in the UK, the skills and the credentials to do more such work accrue to UK workers in UK firms, and while it may or may not generate that much good will, it';s not going to generate ill will.
Quite a lot of foreign aid work done by UK private companies is thus funded by public money.
When you explain that it's like giving the unemployed food stamps rather than cash, even diehard UKIPpers alter their view a bit.
That's very kind of you. I've often said that I only recall two occasions in 45 years of persuasion where anyone actually said to me "I used to disagree with you but you have now persuaded me to change my mind". I shall now make that three.
The others were a bloke in a pub who wanted to withdraw from Europe and a constituent who wanted to expel all immigrants ("what, even NHS staff?" worked for him).
Well done, you.
I have myself changed several people's view on foreign aid. Most people who object to it imagine that it's disbursed in the form of largesse handed unauditedly to various kleptocracies whose corrupt officials instantly either squander or nick it.
I point out that a lot of it is in effect a voucher to be spent by the receiving country on services purchased in the UK, with that as a specific condition. So UK foreign aid to Malawi may consist of paying for McKinsey UK to consult on setting up their power generation industry, or on UK engineers designing hardware.
Such foreign aid money is thus not nicked at all. It is largely spent in the UK, the skills and the credentials to do more such work accrue to UK workers in UK firms, and while it may or may not generate that much good will, it';s not going to generate ill will.
Quite a lot of foreign aid work done by UK private companies is thus funded by public money.
When you explain that it's like giving the unemployed food stamps rather than cash, even diehard UKIPpers alter their view a bit.
If that's true on a large scale I think it would change my view. The government should give the aid money back to the taxpayers (maybe with some tax incentives to encourage them to donate it) so that they can give it to projects optimized for actually making a difference on the ground without worrying about distributing pork to politically-connected British companies.
Assuming a sum of £300 million in aid to India annually, and an Indian population of 1 billion, that works out at an eye-watering 30p - yes, 30 PENCE - per Indian per year...
Will you be planning to move up to Scotland as a further show of support for the SNP and their endeavours if the Yes vote wins the Indy Referendum?
LOL, I love Scotland but I'm not so keen on the weather!
However, should Mr Salmond feel he needs some advice on implementing the Thatcherite reforms needed to restore Scotland to its rightful place as a country of entrepreneurs and prudent financial management, I'll of course be available on a consultancy basis.
Indeed, Mr. Pioneers, but one might wish that Ed would put forward some honest, workable solutions. He ain't yet. If he ever does he will win a landslide.
Indeed. We need a blank sheet of paper approach to the various large problems we have as a country. I start off with the things that people absolutely need and the economy needs which we apparently can't afford - housing, power, transport. What we need to do is stop waiting for the free market to provide and do it ourselves. Power and infrastructure projects pay out twice - when being built throgh wages paid to the workforce, and then through long term economic benefit. So we put these things out to tender and pay for the things we need and then reap the economic rewards from having the asset.
Isn't that the point though? He tries to be all things to all people with no conviction behind any of it, and leaves many on both sides feeling let down
No, not at all. On gay marriage, did he try to be all things to all people? He could have just let it lie. Maybe he should have done, in pure electoral calculation terms, but he did quite the opposite. Similarly on international aid - he could have fudged it.
On gay marriage my feeling is he doesn't really care about it at all, but thought he would win centre left votes by promoting it, thinking social conservatives had nowhere else to go. You could say that he tried to be all things to all people in allowing churches to refuse to carry them out
Sam you are mistaken (it is a common misconception). The quadruple lock allows for churches to hold gay marriages when and only when canon law is changed to allow them. That is, when the established church allows gay marriages they will be allowed (following an amendment in statute law).
The fourth of the quadruple locks stipulates that churches can't hold gay marriages today because were it not to be so then the resulting conflict between canon and statute law could lead the church to become disestablished.
In my many years on pb (how many? 5? 6? 7? Yikes!)
Your posts around the time of the London bombings were legendary so pushing on at least 9 years by now.
PS - that said, if you can remember my famously stiff-upper-lipped real-time 7/7 pb commentary, then you must also have been here a decade. Ouch.
I started reading pb.com assiduously in 2005 and posting in 2006. I have been a poor poster, and very inconsistent since - chiefly due to personal reasons, but also because I am easily distracted from my work and pb.com is just too interesting to ignore during the day - but I have grown up a lot over the last 10 years.
I have certainly become less partisan, more nuanced and balanced in how I reason my views since then - and almost entirely willing (now) to listen to clear evidence - and that's down to pb.com.
I constantly rave about it to everyone I know. Sadly, very few seem to get it. I pity them.
How about a flat rate, no allowances at all, tax on the income every company that does business here.
The problem though surely is what do you do where company A risks £100 million to make £5 million profit whereas company B ties up £5 million to make £5 million profit? There is nothing inherently fair about applying the same tax to both given that one is risking more capital for a mere utility rate of return whereas the latter is somehow making 100% ROCE. It feels like a lot of capital misallocation would result.
I like politicians to have very few ideas. It's the ones with ideas who cause the real damage.
Having no ideas just means doing nothing - coasting along in government, being idle - and going with whatever bureaucratic mainstream fashion, or orthodoxy, is in vogue at the time. No matter how damaging or silly it is.
I like politicians who recognise they don't have all the answers and stop interfering in others lives. But that, in and of itself, is an idea. And it needs a leader to present it and, possibly, to legislate for it as well.
That's why I didn't say "no ideas". "Very few ideas", however, is desirable.
Very few ideas - clearly held, articulated, reasoned and fought for - then I'd agree with you.
I like politicians to have very few ideas. It's the ones with ideas who cause the real damage.
Well, Oliver Cromwell did... I take it you're a cavalier, Antifrank?
That's a very personal question!
The Civil War had too many people on both sides with Ideas. It was a wretched time to live on these isles for that reason.
I would have been a Roundhead.
As much as I love her Majesty, I'm not entirely keen on all that Divine Rights of Kings malarkey.
You, you, would have sided with the Roundheads?!!!! A man who of his own free will wears red shoes to say nothing of the values, beliefs and attitudes underlying your past "social" life! Come on, Mr Eagles, you would no more fit in with the Roundheads than Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, would with the CPGB.
We cant know what's going on inside someone else's head but it's certainly difficult to believe that someone who previously strongly supported Section 28 caring that much about gay rights now. He may have genuinely held both positions at different times or either of them may have been base political posturing (or even both!).
What has changed the attitude of many on the centre-right is seeing how civil partnerships worked out in practice. We - that's the Conservatives, Cameron, myself, and many others - got it wrong in our positions of a few years ago, and Blair, the Labour Party, and those campaigning for better recognition of gay relationships were right.
Tories with mixed messages. One minute permanent austerity and then recent talk of tax cuts for some. Austerity means cuts to state spending on local services, some of which are used by working class and pensioner Tories who cannot afford any private sector alternative. This will push some of these people towards Labour. In regard to tax cuts, unless this is another substantial uplift of the lower tax threshold to remove more people from tax, it is unlikely to help. The change to a £10k lower tax threshold does not so far look like a vote winner for Tories or Lib Dems.
People may not believe any economic recovery is sustainable, because the UK will struggle to compete in the globalised world we are in. With a long running economic downturn, people are looking for more interventionist government. If people believe that Labour will deliver positive new policies that will help their families, they may take the chance.
In the UK, austerity has mostly been increased taxation.
I like politicians to have very few ideas. It's the ones with ideas who cause the real damage.
Well, Oliver Cromwell did... I take it you're a cavalier, Antifrank?
That's a very personal question!
The Civil War had too many people on both sides with Ideas. It was a wretched time to live on these isles for that reason.
I would have been a Roundhead.
As much as I love her Majesty, I'm not entirely keen on all that Divine Rights of Kings malarkey.
You, you, would have sided with the Roundheads?!!!! A man who of his own free will wears red shoes to say nothing of the values, beliefs and attitudes underlying your past "social" life! Come on, Mr Eagles, you would no more fit in with the Roundheads than Mr. Charles, gent of this parish, would with the CPGB.
I know, I'm a contradiction, but Charles I was a very hard man to like.
Indeed, Mr. Pioneers, but one might wish that Ed would put forward some honest, workable solutions. He ain't yet. If he ever does he will win a landslide.
Indeed. We need a blank sheet of paper approach to the various large problems we have as a country. I start off with the things that people absolutely need and the economy needs which we apparently can't afford - housing, power, transport. What we need to do is stop waiting for the free market to provide and do it ourselves. Power and infrastructure projects pay out twice - when being built throgh wages paid to the workforce, and then through long term economic benefit. So we put these things out to tender and pay for the things we need and then reap the economic rewards from having the asset.
Its called "investment".
Do you seriously expect Milliband to vastly improve those areas? He won't, he'll just blame the previous government, moaning and whining about how he wants to do it, but the Tories ruined the economy. Just like the Tories did about that idiot Brown. I
Evidence is mounting about the beneficial impact of immigration.
This just weeks after the government's Balance of Competencies review reaffirmed the beneficial impact of our EU membership.
There is now no argument based on evidence to support many of the reactionary positions of the Tory Right and of UKIP.
They are the gut-feel parties. And the gut is not the brain.
It depends on one's value judgements. If you think EU membership and mass immigration are good things, then you'll find evidence to support your point of view. If you think they're bad things, you'll find evidence to support your point of view. Ditto Scottish independence.
None of these points of view is provable in a scientific sense. And marginal shifts in GDP don't alter the picture. If I was a Scot who favoured independence, it would cut no ice with me to learn that GDP per head would be marginally lower (or higher) after independence.
Why can I see "buying a Jet Ski for a friend" becoming a euphemism.
Cardinal O'Brien really is the gift that keeps on giving
"Lenny", an ex-priest who rebuffed O'Brien's advances at a seminary, says that the diocese is a charity and he would have contacted the charity regulator if Cushley had refused the audit. "Keith O'Brien was essentially the CEO of a £9m charity. We want to assure ourselves that this institution is not totally corrupt."
The group know that the cardinal bought a priest friend a jet ski for his birthday. "Jet skis cost thousands of pounds. How can a man who was an archbishop have the money to pay for a jet ski for his pal? Catholics should not give a penny more until they know the church is spending it on something they intend to pay for."
We cant know what's going on inside someone else's head but it's certainly difficult to believe that someone who previously strongly supported Section 28 caring that much about gay rights now. He may have genuinely held both positions at different times or either of them may have been base political posturing (or even both!).
What has changed the attitude of many on the centre-right is seeing how civil partnerships worked out in practice. We - that's the Conservatives, Cameron, myself, and many others - got it wrong in our positions of a few years ago, and Blair, the Labour Party, and those campaigning for better recognition of gay relationships were right.
That's certainly one possibility, Richard. I just dont discount the others. But changing positions for base political motives is not uncommon - just look at all those opponents of gay marriage who suddenly thought civil partnerships were wonderful despite fighting their introduction tooth and nail at the time.
"You've persuaded me on medical testing on animals."
Then very well done by NP, and I assume it was against (I must have missed the argument). Although after twenty years of doing exactly that sort of work (in the past), I expect I'd be argument-proof.
Briefly, let me put the section 24 argument to you. In order to do experiments on animals and not be prosecuted under the Act prohibiting causing suffering to animals, it is as you know necessary to have a Home Office licence. It is currently a criminal offence (introduced by Tony Blair and voted for by me, just to get that out of the way) to disclose details of licences unless volunteered by the researcher.
The (I believe unintended) effect of this is that the Home Office is unable to disclose what experiments they are approving, since they would be committing an offence if the did. All they can publish is a project summary written by the researcher, which is unlikely to discuss in any details what is done: a judge has accurately described it as "spin".
My organisation proposes that they should be published by the Home Office (electronically) with ALL references to people and places removed, as well as anything relating to commercial confidentiality (the same general exemptions that the FOI has). So we would learn that somewhere in Britain, someone is, say, giving electric shocks to primates in order to test whether a tranquilliser makes them react less strongly. We could then have a rational debate on whether this should be permitted, whether there should be a limit on how often it's done to one animal, and so on. We might win or lose this debate or, more realistically, we might advance it to the point that certain types of experiment were agreed to be undesirable while others were allowed. But a sensible debate would result, rather than having animal rights people guessing what's happening and researchers presenting a sanitised introduction to the mildest experiments.
The research industry disagrees. They say the project licences are too complicated, and there is a risk that critics of animal research will seize on the most extreme cases and portray them as typical. They would like to extend the current secrecy so that universities no longer need to respond to FOIA requests on the subject.
Indeed, Mr. Pioneers, but one might wish that Ed would put forward some honest, workable solutions. He ain't yet. If he ever does he will win a landslide.
Indeed. We need a blank sheet of paper approach to the various large problems we have as a country. I start off with the things that people absolutely need and the economy needs which we apparently can't afford - housing, power, transport. What we need to do is stop waiting for the free market to provide and do it ourselves. Power and infrastructure projects pay out twice - when being built throgh wages paid to the workforce, and then through long term economic benefit. So we put these things out to tender and pay for the things we need and then reap the economic rewards from having the asset.
Its called "investment".
It is indeed called "investment", RP.
But when a country is not generating surpluses on its current budget it can also be called "borrowing". And the costs involved in servicing such borrowing can be called "current expenditure".
Existing spending and investment plans will see annual debt servicing costs rise to £75 billion per annum by 2017 just to fund our existing debt. That is around 70% of the amount the UK spends on Health per year and nearly twice what we spend on defence.
Additional infrastructure funding over and above what is already planned will require unsustainable increases in debt which will not only increase our debt servicing costs pro rata but will also increase the amount we pay on all debt, due the markets increasing premia on interest rates in line with the increased risk posed by higher levels of borrowing.
So until the UK starts generating surpluses on its current account, there is little option for it to radically increase infrastructure investment. This is why the current government is seeking external finance from foreign currency suplus holding countries for major projects in the UK: the deal with China on nuclear power being a key example. Even once surpluses are generated they will have to be split between debt reduction and increased investment to keep borrowing costs within manageable limits.
Of course, none of this is understood by the children of Brown, who were brought up to believe that current spending and investment were equivalent.
I think the idea is you make several compete to do the work so the same pot of cash goes further. The recipient can spend it on whatever is useful to them, as long as they spend it here. This is not an onerous restriction because whether it's IT, infrastructure or whatever, we have some pretty good service exporters here still.
I used to work for a consultancy that did shedloads of this type of work, and you always knew when it was aid-funded because the RFP would stipulate that the project team must all be British nationals.
So UK aid pays the consulting fees that pay UK salaries of which ~50% is PAYE and NI which goes back to the UK Exchequer.
Like the subs handed to BL, Bsteel etc in the 1980s the effect is to conceal quite a lot of unemployment, except it's white collar unemployment and on a much smaller scale.
To edmund's question - I don't know how true this is of the overall budget, but the opposite presumption that I mocked is a long way from the truth, and frankly I'd be amazed if it ever happens. We may laugh at the Whitehall mandarin mentality but they do not, as the commenters below the line at the DT imagine, simply pour our cash into outstretched brown hands without considering how it's being used.
I am. There are a lot of things we could do better. I've only worked with NDEs so I'd never defend cosmetic testing. As profit is the motive, as for any industry, there tends to be too many me-too drugs and a concentration on common illnesses.
But the industry is always ultra-sensitive about details for commercial reasons and very worried about access. Having spent the eighties being advised to check the underside of my car for explosives, you can understand why. It may be an offence to disclose details but that's no help if your grannie has been dug up.
Yes, it can be improved and oversight is needed. The EU and its directives helped to expand the number of animals used.
The problem with using animals for basic research is that you can never be sure that basic research will lead to a breakthrough. It could do, it may not do. We can point to many cases where it did and many where it did no good at all.
The old-fashioned trust the doctor, he knows best has gone for ever. But it's where we draw the line that is the problem.
Seeing some of the ‘you would have been a Roundhead!’ comments has made me wonder where my loyalties would have lied in the Civil War.
I kind of like the idea of monarchy and find it a far superior option than a republic / presidency. The head of state becomes a truly impartial unifier and symbol of statehood and shared identity. But obviously I’m talking about constitutional monarchy with power in parliament’s hands not the monarch’s. An absolute dictator on the throne is not even as halfway sensible way to run a country. So there’s no way I would have been on the King’s side.
I like the idea of democracy and the supremacy of parliament. Unfortunately, in the 1640s parliament was the political arm of the Puritans – a joyless, loathsome hardcore Christian version of the Taleban. And under Oliver Cromwell, probably this country’s least admirable leader ever. No way I could side with them either.
So I would have bravely decided ‘plague on both your houses, if you want to die defending dictatorship or fundamentalists then eat your heart out’- and got on with making some money instead
Comments
The European Commission has promised Ukraine €11 billion in aid up to 2017 on the condition it agrees to sign an association and free trade agreement with the EU and meets all conditions of the IMF, European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso said in Brussels, as he presented an urgently drafted European aid package for Ukraine on Wednesday.
The package will include funds from the EU budget and loans from Europe-based international financial institutions, including the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, Barroso noted.
He added that the EU will also support Ukraine’s energy sector.
Suporting Ukraine's energy sector? What does that mean? Almost certainly paying off the Ukraine's $1.5 billion debts to Gazprom and paying Russia a global price for future supplies rather than the current discounted price.
And what control will the EU have over Ukrainian territory and governance? None. The corruption will escalate and the West will end up funding it.
The only solution to the problems in the Ukraine is co-operation between the EU, the US, the multi-national funding agencies, Moscow and a representative government in Kiev.
Nonsense naivete from both Cameron and Miliband.
This just weeks after the government's Balance of Competencies review reaffirmed the beneficial impact of our EU membership.
There is now no argument based on evidence to support many of the reactionary positions of the Tory Right and of UKIP.
They are the gut-feel parties. And the gut is not the brain.
They didn't have the intelligence to realise Labour had a different problem, at a different time in our political history, and you couldn't just follow it like an election winning manual.
But they were pompous, wanted to think they were uniquely perceptive and shrewd, and others to believe that they were, so they grabbed for an off-the-shelf solution.
The fourth of the quadruple locks stipulates that churches can't hold gay marriages today because were it not to be so then the resulting conflict between canon and statute law could lead the church to become disestablished.
However, should Mr Salmond feel he needs some advice on implementing the Thatcherite reforms needed to restore Scotland to its rightful place as a country of entrepreneurs and prudent financial management, I'll of course be available on a consultancy basis.
YouGov @YouGov 41s
Stephan Shakespeare: Londoners (not homeowners) are the ones feeling the effects of the economic recovery http://y-g.co/1kZupI1
Its called "investment".
Bit lost, I'll take your word for it
but I have grown up a lot over the last 10 years.
I have certainly become less partisan, more nuanced and balanced in how I reason my views since then - and almost entirely willing (now) to listen to clear evidence - and that's down to pb.com.
I constantly rave about it to everyone I know. Sadly, very few seem to get it. I pity them.
I would have supported Oliver Cromwell in the way the UK allied itself with the Soviet Union in World War II to defeat Hitler.
None of these points of view is provable in a scientific sense. And marginal shifts in GDP don't alter the picture. If I was a Scot who favoured independence, it would cut no ice with me to learn that GDP per head would be marginally lower (or higher) after independence.
Cardinal O'Brien really is the gift that keeps on giving
"Lenny", an ex-priest who rebuffed O'Brien's advances at a seminary, says that the diocese is a charity and he would have contacted the charity regulator if Cushley had refused the audit. "Keith O'Brien was essentially the CEO of a £9m charity. We want to assure ourselves that this institution is not totally corrupt."
The group know that the cardinal bought a priest friend a jet ski for his birthday. "Jet skis cost thousands of pounds. How can a man who was an archbishop have the money to pay for a jet ski for his pal? Catholics should not give a penny more until they know the church is spending it on something they intend to pay for."
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/01/cardinal-keith-o-brien-accusers-justice-pope-francis
The (I believe unintended) effect of this is that the Home Office is unable to disclose what experiments they are approving, since they would be committing an offence if the did. All they can publish is a project summary written by the researcher, which is unlikely to discuss in any details what is done: a judge has accurately described it as "spin".
My organisation proposes that they should be published by the Home Office (electronically) with ALL references to people and places removed, as well as anything relating to commercial confidentiality (the same general exemptions that the FOI has). So we would learn that somewhere in Britain, someone is, say, giving electric shocks to primates in order to test whether a tranquilliser makes them react less strongly. We could then have a rational debate on whether this should be permitted, whether there should be a limit on how often it's done to one animal, and so on. We might win or lose this debate or, more realistically, we might advance it to the point that certain types of experiment were agreed to be undesirable while others were allowed. But a sensible debate would result, rather than having animal rights people guessing what's happening and researchers presenting a sanitised introduction to the mildest experiments.
The research industry disagrees. They say the project licences are too complicated, and there is a risk that critics of animal research will seize on the most extreme cases and portray them as typical. They would like to extend the current secrecy so that universities no longer need to respond to FOIA requests on the subject.
Are you open to persuasion on this point?
But when a country is not generating surpluses on its current budget it can also be called "borrowing". And the costs involved in servicing such borrowing can be called "current expenditure".
Existing spending and investment plans will see annual debt servicing costs rise to £75 billion per annum by 2017 just to fund our existing debt. That is around 70% of the amount the UK spends on Health per year and nearly twice what we spend on defence.
Additional infrastructure funding over and above what is already planned will require unsustainable increases in debt which will not only increase our debt servicing costs pro rata but will also increase the amount we pay on all debt, due the markets increasing premia on interest rates in line with the increased risk posed by higher levels of borrowing.
So until the UK starts generating surpluses on its current account, there is little option for it to radically increase infrastructure investment. This is why the current government is seeking external finance from foreign currency suplus holding countries for major projects in the UK: the deal with China on nuclear power being a key example. Even once surpluses are generated they will have to be split between debt reduction and increased investment to keep borrowing costs within manageable limits.
Of course, none of this is understood by the children of Brown, who were brought up to believe that current spending and investment were equivalent.
I used to work for a consultancy that did shedloads of this type of work, and you always knew when it was aid-funded because the RFP would stipulate that the project team must all be British nationals.
So UK aid pays the consulting fees that pay UK salaries of which ~50% is PAYE and NI which goes back to the UK Exchequer.
Like the subs handed to BL, Bsteel etc in the 1980s the effect is to conceal quite a lot of unemployment, except it's white collar unemployment and on a much smaller scale.
To edmund's question - I don't know how true this is of the overall budget, but the opposite presumption that I mocked is a long way from the truth, and frankly I'd be amazed if it ever happens. We may laugh at the Whitehall mandarin mentality but they do not, as the commenters below the line at the DT imagine, simply pour our cash into outstretched brown hands without considering how it's being used.
"Are you open to persuasion on this point?"
I am. There are a lot of things we could do better. I've only worked with NDEs so I'd never defend cosmetic testing. As profit is the motive, as for any industry, there tends to be too many me-too drugs and a concentration on common illnesses.
But the industry is always ultra-sensitive about details for commercial reasons and very worried about access. Having spent the eighties being advised to check the underside of my car for explosives, you can understand why. It may be an offence to disclose details but that's no help if your grannie has been dug up.
Yes, it can be improved and oversight is needed. The EU and its directives helped to expand the number of animals used.
The problem with using animals for basic research is that you can never be sure that basic research will lead to a breakthrough. It could do, it may not do. We can point to many cases where it did and many where it did no good at all.
The old-fashioned trust the doctor, he knows best has gone for ever. But it's where we draw the line that is the problem.
I kind of like the idea of monarchy and find it a far superior option than a republic / presidency. The head of state becomes a truly impartial unifier and symbol of statehood and shared identity. But obviously I’m talking about constitutional monarchy with power in parliament’s hands not the monarch’s. An absolute dictator on the throne is not even as halfway sensible way to run a country. So there’s no way I would have been on the King’s side.
I like the idea of democracy and the supremacy of parliament. Unfortunately, in the 1640s parliament was the political arm of the Puritans – a joyless, loathsome hardcore Christian version of the Taleban. And under Oliver Cromwell, probably this country’s least admirable leader ever. No way I could side with them either.
So I would have bravely decided ‘plague on both your houses, if you want to die defending dictatorship or fundamentalists then eat your heart out’- and got on with making some money instead