Albertini

Having a house in Mallorca i have to agree. The biggest bunch of miserable, little islander, ungrateful inbreds i've ever come across. They don't want the foreigners there but they'll take the big readies from them when selling them their houses. They forget that without the foreigners buying their houses they'd still be sharing a bedroom with their donkey. And in northern Mallorca, where my place is, they still all inter breed like fuck.

Armed with a hangover and boredom today I spent a couple of hours looking at the stuff on the web, particularly the information from the lead detective, who published a book detailing the case called “The Truth of The Lie”. The McCann’s tried to get it banned but it was overturned last month on appeal in Portugal. Here’s hoping the book gets a formal English translation and is released over here. The more I’ve read the angrier I’ve got because there is no evidence whatsoever that there was an abduction of any kind. There is plenty of circumstantial evidence that she died in that apartment and plenty of examples of discrepancies in their stories and odd behaviour. There are some crackpot theories out there but the facts emanating from that book (and police investigation) clearly shows that all the available evidence points to her being murdered in that apartment. Yet they have swanned around the world, amassing over £2.5 million in donations of which only around 13% has gone on finding her. They have spent over £500,000 on legal bills to sue anyone who dares to publish material which contradicts their story.

I absolutely agree with you on this but just becuase this is what some businesses do to make profit doesn't necessarily mean it is how all efficient businesses have to operate. A balance can be struck. The American system is deeply flawed and not one any country should be looking to emulate. Perhaps France's system (which i've read a little about) which mixes both Public and Private is the way to go. It seems to be a good system which works well but they do spend 20% more on theirs than we do. The bolded bit is the crucial thing in your statement for me as to why the NHS is not as good as it could be and a good argument for getting private involvment. It is precisely the party political ideolgy that has dogged the NHS under all governments. It was party politics for example which saw Blair sign up for an NHS system that nobody seemed to want, that was supposed to cost £3 billion but is now upto around £12.7 billion and still not working properly. Would a private company have authorised that kind of spend on something so speculative? Would private companies have had the continuous "reform" and changes that we've seen over recent years? Get the politics and politicians out of something they know nothing about. As you say it's too important. I disagree about all the attributes of privatisation having to be removed. It's about striking a balance between commercial practises in removing costs and waste coupled with responsibility. What we've seen under all governments is an inability to sell assets for the right price and to the right people. If private companies could come in and remove the clear wastage that exists (particularly cost and administrative staff increases), improve efficiency (hard to accurately quantify in the NHS i know) and take their profit out of some of those savings, then i'd have no problems in the privatisation of services. It boils down to whether a private company can provide the same or (ideally) better services for the same or less money by being free of the buearuacracy of the Health department. What isn't acceptable to me is if the same usual scavengers come in that have got involved in pretty much every privatisation and milk the thing dry for as much as they can (whose betting that Branson wont try a "Virgin Health" for example). That's where the plan falls down. I have no confidence in any government to sell services properly to the right people and to sell it in a way which the public both benefits and is protected from the more unacceptable faces of capitalism. You are also right on looking at the amount spent, despite the increased spending under labour, we still have a relatively low spend per capita, (in 2007 we were 16th of developed nations spending approx US$3000) in comparison to other major countries. Absolutely agree regarding Marxism and capitalism with both extremes equally bad. What you're looking for is something in the middle. Something where people can create wealth for themselves but also contribute to a better society for everyone. It is too important to fuck up. But recent history shows us that money was thrown into the NHS without proper thought as to how to make things genuinely better and how to reform the thing properly. I think we're at the point where all options are worth looking at and examining. I think it's foolish to say " we can't use any private companies in the NHS becuase it will destroy it" without exploring all the options and seeing the benefits and disadvantages of other methods. We can't keep having fundamental changes every few years based on the prejudices and ideas of whoever has been returned to Government. It's this short termism and constant change which is holding real and significant NHS improvements back.

That's up there with Arnie's girlie boys statement.

Admittedly from 2009 but it gives you a flavour: 'Public sector waste costs £58.4bn' - Public Service From 2010: 'Public sector Productivity' Here's the interested bit for those not bothered about reading it: From 1998-2007 Average Annual Productivity Growth Public Sector = -0.3% Private sector = 2.3% I don't think anyone really thinks the private sector knows best on everything, clearly it doesn't. Think it's more that the puiblic sector needs root and branch reform so we taxpayers get value for our money and people get the services they need. In relation to the NHS i never quite understand the hysteria about using private companies to deliver services or why that should automatically be labelled as the destruction of the NHS. Health care is not about the NHS as an institution it's about health care as a free at the point of requirement service. How those services are paid for (via NHS or private companies) seems largely irelevant provided the care is free and available for all. If (and it is a big if) private companies running health services results in the quality of the care for patients improving or better value for money being acheived (which can then go to further improve services) i don't see what the problem is to be honest whether it is public or privately run.

No Dennis. You asked me a direct question, you asked me "who wants to invade us" to which i replied it's not about who wants to invade us now but about the threats that may come up during the lifetime of the new Trident sytem (which is 30 years). You have never mentioned 100,000 years before. And you accuse me of revisionism!

Well the number of missiles is moot and you're right, how many is enough. That being said the important thing is having them. Of course we've been involved in overseas conflicts despite having them. That's not the issue. The issue is we've never been attacked in the manner we were in 1914 and 1939 since having them. And having them for the future means no rogue state, madman or tinpot dictactor who gets them can attempt to bomb us with them if we have them in our own arsenal. In terms of the tories "giving" away all our assets whilst i agree they sold off a lot of the country's assets what about Gordon Brown's decision to sell 400 tonnes of our gold reserves at between US$250 and US$296 per ounce when the price today is over us$1490 per ounce? That's a loss to this country (a give away if you like) of over US$15.3 billion. That could have built a few hosptials. According to the London Standard in 2004 Labour sold £60 billion of government assets and property (and in the case of property much of it then leased back and in the case of the HMRC buildings to a company registered offshore (Mapely) to avoid paying UK tax). let me quote from the article: They are all the same mate!

Sorry to pick up on this old point but i wanted to reply to it before i went to bed. We have the 4th largest defence budget in the world (just below France). Given we have had 13 years of a Labour government and given the size of our defence budget whose fault is it that we don't have decent body armour, houses or equipment? This is where i've been coming from since my first post. It's not about whether you're blue, red or yellow it's that politics and the state in the UK are corrupt and have failed to deliver the things we as citizens require and expect from them and pay them to adminster on our behalf. Moving back to the nuke issue where is your evidence that we require the codes from the US to operate Trident? Gordon Brown himself said (according to the BBC) the Uk does not require the permission, the satellites or the codes of any other country (ie the United States). One other point on another issue you raised in relation to North Korea i forgot to mention. If it is the tinpot outpost you describe why are there 28,500 permanent US soldiers stationed in South Korea?

No, The Nazi's were defeated sure but Japan was ready to fight to the last man. The fighting in the Pacific around Japan proved that. The US dropped the bombs to end the war, there are differences as to what their motives really were but i feel fairly certain given the Pacific fighting prior to the nukes being fired that more lives would have been lost and more money spent had the Yanks tried a land invasion of Japan instead of using the Nukes. It certainly wasn’t purely an “experiment”. They had tested the things beforehand in the Trinity tests of July 1945, they knew they worked! Why would they need to experiment on something which worked already? A nuclear deterrent removes the option of a land based conflict and invasion of any country which has a nuclear bomb. After all who is going to try and invade a country that has the nuclear button? It also offers a deterrent to any enemy country that also has nuclear weapons from firing them upon us for whatever reason at any point now or in the future. You can’t simply use the argument of “who’s going to invade us” as a valid justification for not having them when discussing this issue. You have to also look at who might want to fire bombs at us (now or in the next 30 years) and how would be able to avert that threat or respond to it if we didn’t have the threat of nukes ourselves? My point has been that if you remove that nuclear deterrent you open yourself up to the possibility of being attacked with the same kind of "traditional warfare” we saw in the first and second world wars which ultimately cost far more lives and more money than a nuclear deterrent costs at the moment. You have nothing to deter any potential future Hitler (and remember we don’t know what threats will present themselves over the next 30 years) from trying the same thing as Hitler did only 60 years ago. It would be foolish to make a decision about the best ways to defend your country and people based on who is threatening us now and who’s going to invade us in 2011. The fact is we’re looking at a defence system which will last 30 years so do you not feel it is prudent to err on the side of caution and to give your country and its citizens the ultimate tool for defending itself in the future against any known or unknown threat now? Your answer is to rely on the Americans to sort things out for us. A country relying on another to bail us out is surely irresponsible and too big a gamble for any reasonable government to take. Look at it this way. If by having nukes ourselves along with our allies, there is never a world war again like the last two we saw then surely that is money well spent given the cost of the last two. Would you agree on that? If nukes prevent a third world war simply by being there then surely they are relevant to us? Again you are speculating about other countries protecting us on the basis of what you think you know in today’s global politics. What about tomorrow, next year or the next 10 years? How can you be so certain now no future threat will emerge which will threaten this country, whether it be Argentina trying to regain the Falkland’s or France wanting the Channel Islands back! And how can you be certain that other countries with nukes will be there to protect us in any and all potential flashpoints we face in the future? The point is no one knows what the future holds and that means you can’t afford to take any chances. No the Russian economy was ruined by the spectacular failing of their version of communism, not their attempts to keep up with the Yanks on defence. There are always things a country can spend its money on but the ultimate responsibility of any country and its government is to protect its territories and its people. A nuclear deterrent is an effective part of the defence of a country. Nukes are clearly not effective against terrorism but again you’re looking in the present and not the future. Are you suggesting that the Uk shouldn’t have a defence budget or armies in place? Or is it the fact you don’t like nukes that’s the issue? Are you saying you don’t mind us having other bombs or equipment but not nuclear ones? Or is it the cost of the nukes? If that’s the case where do you draw the line on cost of equipment? What’s the maximum you feel comfortable spending? The new aircraft carriers are costing billions, should we scrap them as well? What about the cost of the new fighters planned for 2020? Should they be scrapped because of cost as well? Do you see what I’m getting at? It strikes me you have an inbuilt opposition to nukes simply because they are nukes and it’s nothing really to do with the cost of them.

He will because it gives them 15,000 quality manufacturing jobs. If he doesn't then they will simply move the fleet and the jobs jobs to Devonport or Portsmouth.

So you are saying that Iran doesn't have or isn't working on a nuclear bomb program? On what basis do you draw that conclusion? The point is you said that we were in the pocket of the Yanks and i inferred from you that you thought that that was a bad thing. I'm saying that you can't demonise the Yanks and complain about being too close or too reliant on them and then expect them to sort out Iran on our behalf becuase they would have nukes and we don't. What are you basing this on? Also who said anything about invading us? No one but you talking is about that. It is about bombing us, not invading us. They don't need to invade us to bomb us. Again you demonise the Yanks on the one hand and us for being too reliant on them, then you expect them to protect us becuase we remove our ultimate deterrent. No one knows the nature of the nuclear bombs these countries have now or are working on, and again i repeat we are talking about security over the next 30 year period not just "now". Who knows how these threats will change over that period or which new threats will present themselves. You really don't think the Yanks take N Korea seriously? Really? Look at the region and the potential neighbours affected. China, Japan, South Korea, Russia and the US. I disagree with you profoundly. That being said it still really doesnt excuse the massive increase in debt the last government left the country and future generations with, which is kind of where we started.

Iran has a nuclear program, which it is speculated is either active now or will be active in the next 1-4 years. no one knows for certain. We're talking about defence over the next 30 years. So you don't want to be a poodle to America but you expect to rely on them if Iran or anyone else threatens us? Don't you see the contradiction in that? North Korea is a tinpot country, i didn't say it wasn't, but it is one with nukes.

What i'm saying i have answered in my last post. The stuff about wars is not moot in my opinion. The last world war ended on the basis of a nuclear bomb being used. Had those nuclear bombs been available in 1939 would the second world war have started and had it done so and nukes were used in the first weeks would the cost in lives and money been as great as it was without the nukes? The point is that not having nukes doesn't stop wars and indeed the opposite seems more realistic. Since nukes were developed there hasnt been a major world war. Prior to nukes there were two world wars which killed countless milllions and cost this country far more in monetary terms than the cost of having nukes costs now. Norway isn't a reasonable comparison. we are the 4th or 5th richest country in the world, and we are one of the permanent members of the Security Council. Our influence and involvement around the world has been and always will be more significant than Norway's! I do not diagree about the US's influence on our nuclear deterent and that needs addressing. You can't simply trot out the "nukes or hospital" argument becuase it doesnt hold up. There is far more to a country than simply building hospitals. Health is one part but so is defence of the country and its citizens from all threats that are apparent now and will emerge over the next 30 years. We could remove all our armed forces, our welfare state, law and order, transport, education, foreign aid and everything else simply and build more hospitals, but what would be the point if we had no defence, no law and order and no education? What we could do though is cut our debt interest payments which equate for almost 45% of our health spending, then we could build more hospitals. We could have also not bothered with the NHS IT system and saved £10 billion for new hopstials there. It's about balancing all aspects of our national needs and requirments. Defence is one aspect as important as health.

At the moment Russia and Pakistan don't. Certainly Russia did, whose to say that won't change in the future. I disagree about Iran, they regard us as the "little satan". Add to that North Korea. So what would stop say Iran threatening us with their nukes if they wanted us to change our policy in the Middle East for example? It's a bit facetious to say what they want to conquer us for. Clearly it's not about conquering us. It would be simply punishment for things they didn't agree with, say our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. That would result in us having to set our defence and foreign policy on the basis of us not upsetting any state (rogue or otherwise) that had nukes irrespective of whether it was in our national interest. The uncertainty of that region at the moment and the potential of more instability with North Korea actually seems to me to make a nuclear deterrent more relevant now than at any other point since the cold war ended. It seems logical to me that you can't get rid of your own nuclear detereent when countries who regard us as their enemies have just got or are working on introducing their own. The argument about the cost of nukes is also offset by the fact that the cost is coming out of the defence budget, not on top of it. So there's no money being saved as such, it's that part of the budget is going on that one specific area within the defence budget. If you remove our nukes we'd need to beef up our armed forces to make up for our lack of a nuclear option. It can be argued that one nuke would "save" us having to have an extra, what, 50,000 or 100,000 soldiers to compensate for a loss of a significant aspect of our defence capabilities. What would that cost? You could also argue that costs associated with carriers would be spent anyway. We'd still need carriers of some description. Also bear in mind the 30 year life span which these costs will be spread over (if your headline figure is indeed correct). That works out just over £8.5 billion per year. Thats 19% of total current defence budget. So to use your figure of £260 billion that is against a backdrop of total defence spending in that same 30 year period of £1380 million. Kind of puts it into perspective. Clearly the system is expensive and there appears to be a lot of speculation about the true cost of it. But to use that one area of cost from one ministerial budget, and to use a figure for a 30 year cycle to counter the national debt of the country which has trebled over the last 7 or so years (and is forecast to increase five fold over a 10-12 year period) is clearly not a valid argument. Here's another one for you: Benefits & Pensions spending (over same 30 year period and at current levels) £6,000 billion

So it's not just the cost of the bombs, right? And it is the replacement cost which the Guardian, quoting Greenpeace, has estimated at £130 billion? It's a valid point Dennis but also consider the cost of the non nuclear second world war for Britain. Estimated to be around £300 billion in 1945, which in today's money is around £3 trillion. There is a valid argument about why our nuclear system appears to be so much more expensive than many others. I have no problem in questioning the cost and value of Trident but equally believe there is a direct correlation in the proliferation of nuclear deterrents and the fact there hasnt been a world war since said nuclear weapons proliferated.