Dair I seem to remember France fighting wars in Algeria and Vietnam when it withdrew from its colonies
Actually, France gave up on Vietnam. The Algerian conflict continues to embarrass France, yet it still has territory in South America, the Carribean, Africa and the Indies which is happy and permanant as part of the French Republic.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
That depends on how long you have to repay it. A 20 year mortgage is generally considered sustainable at 4-5 times your income, and countries (unlike people) have an indefinite career and no risk of sudden illness or anything else which would suspend all earnings.
More to the point, our GDP/debt ratio is not atypical of developed nations. Do you think most states are failed states, and the world as we know it will collapse in the fairly near future (10-20 years, or whatever timescale you would give)? I appreciate your consistent position if you do, but it's not a position I share.
Actually the English hatred of immigrants is just the sort of exogenous shock that will cause the country to end up in the mess you suggest. In addition the UK has a fundamental which will destory it much sooner than most states, the housing bubble.
When so many pensioners are dependent on selling their property to exist in retirement then at some point the higher value property markets will be flooded and destroyed. We're really close to that.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this you need to learn the difference between a billion and a trillion. You should also research the difference between a current liability and a future liability deferred over an extended period. And you might want to think about who those alleged PFI liabilities are actually payable to and when as well.
But I am too tired for this nonsense. Night all.
Yes quite embarrassing.
So let's review.
UK National Debt - £1.5 trillion UK Pension Obligations - £7 trillion UK PFI obligations - £750bn
That's more money than the UK could even dream of repaying. It is the equivalent of the average citizen owing £150k on credit cards alone. That is not sustainable, or welcome. When a state can;t pay it's bills it is a failed state.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
Good night all.
A state which has debt obligations over 6 times its income is failed. I'm not sure how you can defend the situation in the UK. It has embedded huge future obligations and kept them off the books. They still exist and will destroy the UK.
How does this compare with UK debt obligations in 1945?
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
Good night all.
A state which has debt obligations over 6 times its income is failed. I'm not sure how you can defend the situation in the UK. It has embedded huge future obligations and kept them off the books. They still exist and will destroy the UK.
How does this compare with UK debt obligations in 1945?
You mean the debt obligations which had significant guarantees by the United States? Even then it was about 2.5 times income compared to 6 times today.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
Good night all.
A state which has debt obligations over 6 times its income is failed. I'm not sure how you can defend the situation in the UK. It has embedded huge future obligations and kept them off the books. They still exist and will destroy the UK.
How does this compare with UK debt obligations in 1945?
You mean the debt obligations which had significant guarantees by the United States? Even then it was about 2.5 times income compared to 6 times today.
Back in 1932 the UK effectively did default when Chamberlain as Chancellor reduced the Coupon Rate of interest to be paid on War Loan already issued!
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
You are being quite ridiculous. A state with problems is not the same as a failed state.
Good night all.
A state which has debt obligations over 6 times its income is failed. I'm not sure how you can defend the situation in the UK. It has embedded huge future obligations and kept them off the books. They still exist and will destroy the UK.
How does this compare with UK debt obligations in 1945?
You mean the debt obligations which had significant guarantees by the United States? Even then it was about 2.5 times income compared to 6 times today.
Er, the UK debt situation in 1945 was complicated by the fact that Lend-Lease needed to be unwound and some of the related commitments (not exporting anything related to Lend-Lease imports, enforced sterling-dollar convertibility, removal of trade restrictions on non-Imperial countries, etc) were onerous: so much so in fact that the latter four years of the 1945 Labour Government were spent rowing back from the first two. Despite its present debt burden, the UK now is in enormously better shape than then: its citizens in better health, living longer, enormously more prosperous and happy. People forget what life was like back then.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this you need to learn the difference between a billion and a trillion. You should also research the difference between a current liability and a future liability deferred over an extended period. And you might want to think about who those alleged PFI liabilities are actually payable to and when as well.
But I am too tired for this nonsense. Night all.
Yes quite embarrassing.
So let's review.
UK National Debt - £1.5 trillion UK Pension Obligations - £7 trillion UK PFI obligations - £750bn
That's more money than the UK could even dream of repaying. It is the equivalent of the average citizen owing £150k on credit cards alone. That is not sustainable, or welcome. When a state can;t pay it's bills it is a failed state.
What DavidL was pointing out (before I had a chance to do so) was that in your original post you used the word "billion" when you should have used the word "trillion"
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this you need to learn the difference between a billion and a trillion. You should also research the difference between a current liability and a future liability deferred over an extended period. And you might want to think about who those alleged PFI liabilities are actually payable to and when as well.
But I am too tired for this nonsense. Night all.
Yes quite embarrassing.
So let's review.
UK National Debt - £1.5 trillion UK Pension Obligations - £7 trillion UK PFI obligations - £750bn
That's more money than the UK could even dream of repaying. It is the equivalent of the average citizen owing £150k on credit cards alone. That is not sustainable, or welcome. When a state can;t pay it's bills it is a failed state.
What DavidL was pointing out (before I had a chance to do so) was that in your original post you used the word "billion" when you should have used the word "trillion"
Yes and I realised my error and corrected it. It's a message board it's pretty easy to fuck up.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
The French got West Africa and somewhere good to launch satellites
If memory serves, Ascension Island, being equatorial, would be adequate at a push. Plus, can't you do it from a ship these days? Build a big barge, tow it out to the mid-Atlantic, launch?
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
A right British citizens do not enjoy in reverse.
Scotland could do the same under devomax?
Would that make it a good idea that dependants can come to the UK with full rights of citizenship including benefits while UK citizens are barred from residence in the Isle of Man and the Bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey? Meanwhile they provide tax havens which effectively steal money from the UK exchequer while benefiting from the UK without paying a penny towards it?
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
Hawaii is 4,800 miles from Washington DC...
Man is less than 50 miles from the UK. And provides a tax haven where zero Income Tax is applied and it still depends on United Kingdom defence for which we pay about £2k per annum on average.
Pretty much every UK bank has status in Man for which it can avoid UK tax while the UK pays for the defence of Man.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
They are not under the defense of the United Kingdom: they are under the defense of the British Realm.[1] The United Kingdom is (by far the largest) part of the Realm but is not the whole of it. Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, are not part of the UK and have never been part of the UK. The UK doesn't "let" them do anything, any more than I "let" my sister do anything
It went like this. The Realm originated in England, expanded outwards, covered Scotland, Ireland, bits of America, Africa, India, Australasia, reached its zenith sometime in the early 20th then contracted back rapidly. When it extended overseas we started calling it an Empire, but the top-down structure remained the same. This was because the expansion started when sovereign states as we know them today didn't really exist: instead we had realms and the rule of Big Men, where loyalty was to an individual monarchy, not land. But post-Westphalia we had sovereign states, and that concept was retrofitted to the Empire, and tracts of land were given names, assemblies, governments ("Look what I made, Ma: Canada!" "That's very nice Britain, now go wash your hands, tea's ready"). When the Empire contracted to its present size we were left with sovereign states but the administrative structure remains the same. So when I say the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, it's not elision, segregation nor abandonment: it really isn't and really never has been.
[1] Ever wondered why it's the British Army, not the Army of the United Kingdom?
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
They are not under the defense of the United Kingdom: they are under the defense of the British Realm.[1] The United Kingdom is (by far the largest) part of the Realm but is not the whole of it. Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, are not part of the UK and have never been part of the UK. The UK doesn't "let" them do anything, any more than I "let" my sister do anything
It went like this. The Realm originated in England, expanded outwards, covered Scotland, Ireland, bits of America, Africa, India, Australasia, reached its zenith sometime in the early 20th then contracted back rapidly. When it extended overseas we started calling it an Empire, but the top-down structure remained the same. This was because the expansion started when sovereign states as we know them today didn't really exist: instead we had realms and the rule of Big Men, where loyalty was to an individual monarchy, not land. But post-Westphalia we had sovereign states, and that concept was retrofitted to the Empire, and tracts of land were given names, assemblies, governments ("Look what I made, Ma: Canada!" "That's very nice Britain, now go wash your hands, tea's ready"). When the Empire contracted to its present size we were left with sovereign states but the administrative structure remains the same. So when I say the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, it's not elision, segregation nor abandonment: it really isn't and really never has been.
[1] Ever wondered why it's the British Army, not the Army of the United Kingdom?
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
Hawaii is 4,800 miles from Washington DC...
Man is less than 50 miles from the UK. And provides a tax haven where zero Income Tax is applied and it still depends on United Kingdom defence for which we pay about £2k per annum on average.
Pretty much every UK bank has status in Man for which it can avoid UK tax while the UK pays for the defence of Man.
London is only 3,700 miles from Washington (Honolulu is 4,800 miles from DC)
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
Hawaii is 4,800 miles from Washington DC...
Man is less than 50 miles from the UK. And provides a tax haven where zero Income Tax is applied and it still depends on United Kingdom defence for which we pay about £2k per annum on average.
Pretty much every UK bank has status in Man for which it can avoid UK tax while the UK pays for the defence of Man.
London is only 3,700 miles from Washington (Honolulu is 4,800 miles from DC)
Is that helpful to Man, problematic to Man or irrelevant?
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
This is obviously wrong. If you earn 20k with debts of 175k then how fucked you are depends on a lot of other factors. For example, if you also own a house worth ten million pounds then you're not fucked at all - the worst case is that you have to sell it or rent part of it out.
The weird thing about people trying to make these parallels with personal finances is that they ignore the assets entirely. I think this is a failure in the way we talk about government debt in the media and even in government accounting, and it leads to some really bad decisions, like renting a hospital on an expensive PFI scheme when if you'd been accounting for the thing in a non-bonkers way you'd just have gone ahead and built the bastard thing.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
This is obviously wrong. If you earn 20k with debts of 175k then how fucked you are depends on a lot of other factors. For example, if you also own a house worth ten million pounds then you're not fucked at all - the worst case is that you have to sell it or rent part of it out.
The weird thing about people trying to make these parallels with personal finances is that they ignore the assets entirely. I think this is a failure in the way we talk about government debt in the media and even in government accounting, and it leads to some really bad decisions, like renting a hospital on an expensive PFI scheme when if you'd been accounting for the thing in a non-bonkers way you'd just have gone ahead and built the bastard thing.
The UK has no assets.
The equivalent house price would be 9000 times the average house price. It seems hard to understand why one cannot understand just how fucked the UK is. I guesss it depends on whether you have an opt out, which Scotland does. thank fuck.
I think the best scenario will be if Ed calls in the Prime Minister [ or whatever they call themselves ] in these British tax havens and tell them to be totally transparent.
They will talk about customer confidentiality.
OK, Ed will say. We will settle for 10% of all the balances held by British Nationals per year. Just like we do with Switzerland which has been hailed as a great success by Ozzy.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
If you are going to make ridiculous statements like this you need to learn the difference between a billion and a trillion. You should also research the difference between a current liability and a future liability deferred over an extended period. And you might want to think about who those alleged PFI liabilities are actually payable to and when as well.
But I am too tired for this nonsense. Night all.
Yes quite embarrassing.
So let's review.
UK National Debt - £1.5 trillion UK Pension Obligations - £7 trillion UK PFI obligations - £750bn
That's more money than the UK could even dream of repaying. It is the equivalent of the average citizen owing £150k on credit cards alone. That is not sustainable, or welcome. When a state can;t pay it's bills it is a failed state.
But pension payments are an integral part of government budgets. If you are talking about private pensions, why are you not including pension assets ?
Talking of assets, what are UK government assets worth ? Buildings, Utilities, Equipments etc. etc.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
This is obviously wrong. If you earn 20k with debts of 175k then how fucked you are depends on a lot of other factors. For example, if you also own a house worth ten million pounds then you're not fucked at all - the worst case is that you have to sell it or rent part of it out.
The weird thing about people trying to make these parallels with personal finances is that they ignore the assets entirely. I think this is a failure in the way we talk about government debt in the media and even in government accounting, and it leads to some really bad decisions, like renting a hospital on an expensive PFI scheme when if you'd been accounting for the thing in a non-bonkers way you'd just have gone ahead and built the bastard thing.
The UK has no assets.
The equivalent house price would be 9000 times the average house price. It seems hard to understand why one cannot understand just how fucked the UK is. I guesss it depends on whether you have an opt out, which Scotland does. thank fuck.
By that logic doesn't Scotland have no assets either?
Why are these opinion polls being taken as gospel? When there have been actual elections, the pattern is clear: the Labour vote underperforms the polls and the Conservatives outperform. If I used such fairly unreliable indicators in my work, it would be ignored.
And then we have the Heywood and Middleton result, which massively underestimated UKIP. Go back and look at the daily YouGov polls over the past several months - on average, they have UKIP support in the North at roughly the same level as London. Seriously, step back and think about this - does that make sense? The pollsters have got a serious issue with accounting for UKIP support.
The reason why Labour MPs are so despondent (and Tories vice versa) is because of the feedback they are receiving. Middle class Labour supporters may be sticking with the party but the working class ones are shifting. There is a reason why Farage is focusing his efforts on issues such as Rotherham.
The French got West Africa and somewhere good to launch satellites
If memory serves, Ascension Island, being equatorial, would be adequate at a push. Plus, can't you do it from a ship these days? Build a big barge, tow it out to the mid-Atlantic, launch?
Yes you can do it from a ship " these days".... But not then of course
Oddly I was involved in the intro of the process of ship launch in an indirect way.
So having upset just About everyone this side of the Atlantic Ed MIlliband has now started on the commonwealth with Bermuda.
I mean WTF !!
This is now getting beyond humour now ...... this man is just dangerous. Seriously dangerous.
The difference between how Britain and France dealt with overseas territories is a pretty brutal example of why the UK is a failed state.
I must respectfully disagree. The UK is not a failed state by any definition and its administration of its remaining overseas territories is actually pretty good. Calling the UK a failed state is like calling Manchester United a failed football club.
The United Kingdom has a debt burden of £1.5bn. On top of that, excluded from the figures are approx £7bn in pension obligations. And approx £750bn in PFI obligations. That adds up to £9.25bn.
if you earn £20k a year with debts of £175k, you're pretty much fucked. The irrational belief that some English people still have that the UK is a continuing state and not failed is quite funny.
This is obviously wrong. If you earn 20k with debts of 175k then how fucked you are depends on a lot of other factors. For example, if you also own a house worth ten million pounds then you're not fucked at all - the worst case is that you have to sell it or rent part of it out.
The weird thing about people trying to make these parallels with personal finances is that they ignore the assets entirely. I think this is a failure in the way we talk about government debt in the media and even in government accounting, and it leads to some really bad decisions, like renting a hospital on an expensive PFI scheme when if you'd been accounting for the thing in a non-bonkers way you'd just have gone ahead and built the bastard thing.
The UK has no assets.
The equivalent house price would be 9000 times the average house price. It seems hard to understand why one cannot understand just how fucked the UK is. I guesss it depends on whether you have an opt out, which Scotland does. thank fuck.
By that logic doesn't Scotland have no assets either?
Scottish houses seem very sensibly priced judging by the fact £2 million gets you a huge country pile compared to a tiny flat in London !
I think the best scenario will be if Ed calls in the Prime Minister [ or whatever they call themselves ] in these British tax havens and tell them to be totally transparent.
They will talk about customer confidentiality.
OK, Ed will say. We will settle for 10% of all the balances held by British Nationals per year. Just like we do with Switzerland which has been hailed as a great success by Ozzy.
I wrote a few different responses and could not quite decide which one to post so I settled for one term that came up in each of my efforts
"1978/79 and 2010."
Enough said ....... without wasting pixels or anyone's time.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom.
Fat lot of good that did the Channel Islaands in WWII - they celebrate the 70th a anniversary of their liberation this year.....
I think the best scenario will be if Ed calls in the Prime Minister [ or whatever they call themselves ] in these British tax havens and tell them to be totally transparent.
They will talk about customer confidentiality.
OK, Ed will say. We will settle for 10% of all the balances held by British Nationals per year. Just like we do with Switzerland which has been hailed as a great success by Ozzy.
France, Germany and the U.S. have not agreed to a a register of beneficial interest -- is Ed going to ask the OECD to blacklist them too?
Who was closer to the result of the indyreferendum. Me. Not you.
Who was closer to the result of the GE? Me. Not you.
Who predicted the SNP surge post NO? Me. Not you.
And on and on and on. I've had five bets on pb and lost won, and won four, etc etc.
You'd better hope that you break this peerless record of inferiority to me, when it comes to my other predictions, terroristic or otherwise.
You were most certainly not closer to the 2010 GE result than me or either of the 2008 or 2012 US presidential elections and as I recall you were regularly wetting your knickers at the prospect of a SNP referendum win on the basis of one opinion poll.
PB decided I and not you was TOTY and how right their collective wisdom was.
Go back to frightening old ladies and the children. The rest of us will not be moved.
Er, I was also TOTY or whatever it was, and I was way closer to the GE result than you, and the rest of your remarks are irrelevant because no one knows whereof you speak. But who gives a f*ck, it's just a blog.
I was gonna add a vile but carefully honed insult here, but, y'know, what the hell. You are of senior years and I don't want a stupid argument with someone so venerable and honoured/
Pax. I hope you are feeling better after your break. Sincerely. The site would not be the same without you, old boy.
Good god , two old luvvies trying to make out how great they once were.
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
The countries of which you speak are not administered as an integral part of the UK. This is not segregation and is not foul: it's just a way of administering territory. Imposing direct rule would be seen as an imposition and given the geographic distance, it would be difficult to include them in the UK (how the French do it is beyond me).
They are under the defence of the United Kingdom. While doing so, and benefitting from UK defence they run zero tax and tax avoidance regimes. France would not let Corsica undercut it on tax, but the UK let's the Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey do so, all on our doorstep and with right of employment and residence to their citizens.
They are not under the defense of the United Kingdom: they are under the defense of the British Realm.[1] The United Kingdom is (by far the largest) part of the Realm but is not the whole of it. Isle of Man, Guernsey and Jersey, are not part of the UK and have never been part of the UK. The UK doesn't "let" them do anything, any more than I "let" my sister do anything
It went like this. The Realm originated in England, expanded outwards, covered Scotland, Ireland, bits of America, Africa, India, Australasia, reached its zenith sometime in the early 20th then contracted back rapidly. When it extended overseas we started calling it an Empire, but the top-down structure remained the same. This was because the expansion started when sovereign states as we know them today didn't really exist: instead we had realms and the rule of Big Men, where loyalty was to an individual monarchy, not land. But post-Westphalia we had sovereign states, and that concept was retrofitted to the Empire, and tracts of land were given names, assemblies, governments ("Look what I made, Ma: Canada!" "That's very nice Britain, now go wash your hands, tea's ready"). When the Empire contracted to its present size we were left with sovereign states but the administrative structure remains the same. So when I say the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, it's not elision, segregation nor abandonment: it really isn't and really never has been.
[1] Ever wondered why it's the British Army, not the Army of the United Kingdom?
When you are talking bollocks and know the poster is correct , just write some pedantic bollocks about use of correct words , blah , blah. Typical unionist prat.
Comments
Britain choose to segregate its overseas territories and allow the Elite Westminster Establishment to be paid to allow them to remain as tax havens, exempt from international law under their protection is British Territories. It;s a foul state of affairs and one that is overdue to end.
When so many pensioners are dependent on selling their property to exist in retirement then at some point the higher value property markets will be flooded and destroyed. We're really close to that.
So let's review.
UK National Debt - £1.5 trillion
UK Pension Obligations - £7 trillion
UK PFI obligations - £750bn
That's more money than the UK could even dream of repaying. It is the equivalent of the average citizen owing £150k on credit cards alone. That is not sustainable, or welcome. When a state can;t pay it's bills it is a failed state.
'In 2010 CON 11.4% ahead: Latest Opinium has them 2% behind'
To quote Peter Kellner 'universal swing is worse than useless'
A right British citizens do not enjoy in reverse.
Pretty much every UK bank has status in Man for which it can avoid UK tax while the UK pays for the defence of Man.
It went like this. The Realm originated in England, expanded outwards, covered Scotland, Ireland, bits of America, Africa, India, Australasia, reached its zenith sometime in the early 20th then contracted back rapidly. When it extended overseas we started calling it an Empire, but the top-down structure remained the same. This was because the expansion started when sovereign states as we know them today didn't really exist: instead we had realms and the rule of Big Men, where loyalty was to an individual monarchy, not land. But post-Westphalia we had sovereign states, and that concept was retrofitted to the Empire, and tracts of land were given names, assemblies, governments ("Look what I made, Ma: Canada!" "That's very nice Britain, now go wash your hands, tea's ready"). When the Empire contracted to its present size we were left with sovereign states but the administrative structure remains the same. So when I say the Isle of Man is not part of the UK, it's not elision, segregation nor abandonment: it really isn't and really never has been.
[1] Ever wondered why it's the British Army, not the Army of the United Kingdom?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bzWSJG93P8
Caymans to London = 4800 miles
Just sayin'...
The weird thing about people trying to make these parallels with personal finances is that they ignore the assets entirely. I think this is a failure in the way we talk about government debt in the media and even in government accounting, and it leads to some really bad decisions, like renting a hospital on an expensive PFI scheme when if you'd been accounting for the thing in a non-bonkers way you'd just have gone ahead and built the bastard thing.
The equivalent house price would be 9000 times the average house price. It seems hard to understand why one cannot understand just how fucked the UK is. I guesss it depends on whether you have an opt out, which Scotland does. thank fuck.
They will talk about customer confidentiality.
OK, Ed will say. We will settle for 10% of all the balances held by British Nationals per year. Just like we do with Switzerland which has been hailed as a great success by Ozzy.
Talking of assets, what are UK government assets worth ? Buildings, Utilities, Equipments etc. etc.
And then we have the Heywood and Middleton result, which massively underestimated UKIP. Go back and look at the daily YouGov polls over the past several months - on average, they have UKIP support in the North at roughly the same level as London. Seriously, step back and think about this - does that make sense? The pollsters have got a serious issue with accounting for UKIP support.
The reason why Labour MPs are so despondent (and Tories vice versa) is because of the feedback they are receiving. Middle class Labour supporters may be sticking with the party but the working class ones are shifting. There is a reason why Farage is focusing his efforts on issues such as Rotherham.
What I can see however is them taking enough for what would have been a majority without the disaster is Scotland.
My most profitable outcome is a Labour minority Gov't with Ed as PM (Not guaranteed by any means) and almost obliteration by the SNP in Scotland.
That's realistic.
Yes you can do it from a ship " these days".... But not then of course
Oddly I was involved in the intro of the process of ship launch in an indirect way.
"1978/79 and 2010."
Enough said ....... without wasting pixels or anyone's time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2944158/Our-Mansion-Tax-misery-Miliband-Street-Red-Ed-s-neighbours-revolt-levy-2million-homes.html
"Business attacking them helps Labour"
YouGov net 'helps': -45