Capitalism vs Socialism - Your View?

[David]

I dont think its thats simple dude

Neither does he.

 

He's at the wind-up, just as he is when he posts in any thread relating to religion or conspiracy theories.

[King Pitcos]

I dont think its thats simple dude

 

Some people dont get the oppurtunitys others do, im pretty lucky being lower middle class I can manage to go to Uni and follow a career I want to do, other people dont have the resouces or chances that I have

In this country? Everyone has the opportunity to go to university and follow a career they want to do. Well, to an extent -- everyone can go to university, but far too many university courses are a load of bollocks that keeps people off the streets for a few years and gives them a degree in a field where there are probably never going to be enough jobs for all the graduates, which results in loads of call centre workers with student loans to pay off. But in principle, anyone can chase the dream. There's no excuse in this day and age for the leaving school with no qualifications, dead-end job life. These days, you can come from scum without being scum. Some people have an easier route there, no doubt, but blaming one's own lack of success on the public school educations that the Tarquins got is a cop-out.

 

It's all well and good for idiots like David to want to overthrow the system and say that everyone should have equal everything, but society is driven and advanced by ambition. If there was an actual cap on how successful someone's allowed to be, if there are no rewards for hard work, then ambition is dead. Why work your arse off for years in medical school to be a doctor when you can live a similar (but less stressful) lifestyle answering the phones for Heinz beans? It'd be state-mandated lethargy, and it wouldn't stick. There are always going to be successful people leading the way, any system will get bastardised to incorporate that, because it's necessary. It's inevitable.

 

The discrepancy between the rich and poor is absurd, its worse in America and Brazil and sooner or later if the gap becomes bigger with the smallest amount becoming richer and the grand percentage becoming even poorer, a social uprising could happen, im not saying a civil war or anything but more strikes in streets and people just saying enough is enough and bringing the country to a stand still, its happened on a small scale all ready with the strikes against the war (which I wish I had gone on) and the postal strike 2 or 3 years ago, if people get pushed to far they will protest

Unless the economy worsens considerably, it'll never happen. "Enough is enough"? Enough what? There's no government oppression. Even people who live below the technical poverty line are pretty damn comfortable here compared to other countries (or those in poverty in this country's history). Apathy is rife. I'm the one actually owning up to being apathetic, but the majority of wannabe freedom fighters don't do anything about it other than discuss how shit the system is on messageboards anyway. We the country might tut about bad things that gwan, but then we watch EastEnders and crack on with our lives. It'd take a hell of a lot to really shake that up.

[jimufctna24]

I dont think its thats simple dude

 

Some people dont get the oppurtunitys others do, im pretty lucky being lower middle class I can manage to go to Uni and follow a career I want to do, other people dont have the resouces or chances that I have

In this country? Everyone has the opportunity to go to university and follow a career they want to do. Well, to an extent -- everyone can go to university, but far too many university courses are a load of bollocks that keeps people off the streets for a few years and gives them a degree in a field where there are probably never going to be enough jobs for all the graduates, which results in loads of call centre workers with student loans to pay off. But in principle, anyone can chase the dream. There's no excuse in this day and age for the leaving school with no qualifications, dead-end job life. These days, you can come from scum without being scum. Some people have an easier route there, no doubt, but blaming one's own lack of success on the public school educations that the Tarquins got is a cop-out.

 

It's all well and good for idiots like David to want to overthrow the system and say that everyone should have equal everything, but society is driven and advanced by ambition. If there was an actual cap on how successful someone's allowed to be, if there are no rewards for hard work, then ambition is dead. Why work your arse off for years in medical school to be a doctor when you can live a similar (but less stressful) lifestyle answering the phones for Heinz beans? It'd be state-mandated lethargy, and it wouldn't stick. There are always going to be successful people leading the way, any system will get bastardised to incorporate that, because it's necessary. It's inevitable.

 

The discrepancy between the rich and poor is absurd, its worse in America and Brazil and sooner or later if the gap becomes bigger with the smallest amount becoming richer and the grand percentage becoming even poorer, a social uprising could happen, im not saying a civil war or anything but more strikes in streets and people just saying enough is enough and bringing the country to a stand still, its happened on a small scale all ready with the strikes against the war (which I wish I had gone on) and the postal strike 2 or 3 years ago, if people get pushed to far they will protest

Unless the economy worsens considerably, it'll never happen. "Enough is enough"? Enough what? There's no government oppression. Even people who live below the technical poverty line are pretty damn comfortable here compared to other countries (or those in poverty in this country's history). Apathy is rife. I'm the one actually owning up to being apathetic, but the majority of wannabe freedom fighters don't do anything about it other than discuss how shit the system is on messageboards anyway. We the country might tut about bad things that gwan, but then we watch EastEnders and crack on with our lives. It'd take a hell of a lot to really shake that up.

We will have to disagree on how far people will go, yes I agree it does take a hell of a lot, remember the war and how the streets were full of protesters? That was mainly in protest of somthing that didnt effect them directly, also yes the large amout of the poorest in the country at the moment are not below the povety line far from it, but the poorer they get the more discontant they will get no matter how apathetic they are

 

As far as why work as a doctor when you can get the same amount working for heinz beans, well for me id rather do somthing of higher importance and somthing I enjoy more that is my reward for the hard work I intend to put in, money to me doesnt come into to a certain extent as long as I can live comfey

 

As for leaving schools, well I bet some talented and smart individuals get put in a crap school and a crap atmosphere and there talents go to waste still, Public schools dont do enough in my view to give the youths a direction in where they want to go which leaves some talented youths stuck in those dull and montomous dead end jobs, where there talent goes to waste, I was a pretty average student in high school, its only went back to college I got my direction and my ambition that school sucks out of you

[Carbomb]

In this country? Everyone has the opportunity to go to university and follow a career they want to do. Well, to an extent -- everyone can go to university, but far too many university courses are a load of bollocks that keeps people off the streets for a few years and gives them a degree in a field where there are probably never going to be enough jobs for all the graduates, which results in loads of call centre workers with student loans to pay off. But in principle, anyone can chase the dream. There's no excuse in this day and age for the leaving school with no qualifications, dead-end job life. These days, you can come from scum without being scum. Some people have an easier route there, no doubt, but blaming one's own lack of success on the public school educations that the Tarquins got is a cop-out.

 

I'd say it's a cop-out to call it a cop-out. There are still economic and cultural divides in place from the time this country had an empire, and those divides need to be re-habilitated. It IS possible to work yourself out of poverty, this much is true, but culture plays a hugely important role, and anyone who ignores it is making the same mistakes over. For a long time, previous generations were effectively indoctrinated to believe that they couldn't advance themselves, not just by the establishment, but by the lifestyles they were being born into. Children obviously don't think the same way as adults - they don't have the experience of life to endow them with the insight to see past a poor or troubled upbringing, and so very often they'll see their economic and social deprivation as being something they're born to and will never leave. Only a very small percentage of kids have that insight by nature.

 

It's not so much that it's impossible to advance in society as it is acquiring the knowledge that it isn't. Knowing is half the battle, and that's where education comes in. Unfortunately, a huge problem with state education in this country is that it's under-funded and badly run for the most part. The main advocates of socialist systems argue that proper education, enabling a human being to advance him/herself is a right which should be guaranteed by the state.

 

It's all well and good for idiots like David to want to overthrow the system and say that everyone should have equal everything, but society is driven and advanced by ambition. If there was an actual cap on how successful someone's allowed to be, if there are no rewards for hard work, then ambition is dead. Why work your arse off for years in medical school to be a doctor when you can live a similar (but less stressful) lifestyle answering the phones for Heinz beans? It'd be state-mandated lethargy, and it wouldn't stick. There are always going to be successful people leading the way, any system will get bastardised to incorporate that, because it's necessary. It's inevitable.

 

This is a frequent, facile and reductionist misrepresentation made by opponents of socialism; there is nothing that says that everybody earns the same. You're talking about the more extreme form, communism, where, because all necessities and amenities are owned and provided by the state, all need to earn more money than anyone else is theoretically eliminated.

 

What socialism advocates is equal rights and opportunities for all, and equal access to provisions for basic needs such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, security, education and opportunity for advancement. The state's responsibility is to provide at the very base everything which is necessary to live, but it doesn't at any time preclude anyone with ambition working their way up to earn more and have a more comfortable life; however, by the same token, a socialist system is also in theory meant to prevent such wealth accumulation from entitling such people to any more social or legal power than their fellow citizens - the benefits should never be more than material.

 

Unless the economy worsens considerably, it'll never happen. "Enough is enough"? Enough what? There's no government oppression. Even people who live below the technical poverty line are pretty damn comfortable here compared to other countries (or those in poverty in this country's history). Apathy is rife. I'm the one actually owning up to being apathetic, but the majority of wannabe freedom fighters don't do anything about it other than discuss how shit the system is on messageboards anyway. We the country might tut about bad things that gwan, but then we watch EastEnders and crack on with our lives. It'd take a hell of a lot to really shake that up.

 

Agree with most of this, but I'd say it's a bit presumptuous to pass comment "wannabe freedom fighters" - by your own admission you're apathetic, which indicates it's very likely you don't know how many activists and militants there are, or how active they are.

 

Militants and activists are generally defined by that description - they DON'T sit on their arses, they get out there and attempt to effect awareness and action. I used to be the same, but I've pretty much come to the realisation you have: people are too comfortable in this country, even during recession, and apathy is near-immovable. I applaud activists for having the energy and drive to try and do something, but I don't think any real change can be effected until this country is really in the shitter, when people's lives are being affected in significantly drastic ways. I've resigned myself to impotent ranting.

 

Also, don't underplay the power of the Internet in modern day activism - it's led to some pretty effective and dynamic actions at grassroots level, such as cultural jamming. Before, everything was dominated by cultural "gateways" like the media, the government and corporations - they were the ones with the production capabilities, so theirs were the only voices which could be really heard. But the great thing about the Internet is that it has enabled the cultural consumer/activist/ordinary person on the street to react with equal voice - blogs aren't governed by financial capability.

[King Pitcos]

I'd say it's a cop-out to call it a cop-out. There are still economic and cultural divides in place from the time this country had an empire, and those divides need to be re-habilitated. It IS possible to work yourself out of poverty, this much is true, but culture plays a hugely important role, and anyone who ignores it is making the same mistakes over. For a long time, previous generations were effectively indoctrinated to believe that they couldn't advance themselves, not just by the establishment, but by the lifestyles they were being born into. Children obviously don't think the same way as adults - they don't have the experience of life to endow them with the insight to see past a poor or troubled upbringing, and so very often they'll see their economic and social deprivation as being something they're born to and will never leave. Only a very small percentage of kids have that insight by nature.

 

It's not so much that it's impossible to advance in society as it is acquiring the knowledge that it isn't. Knowing is half the battle, and that's where education comes in. Unfortunately, a huge problem with state education in this country is that it's under-funded and badly run for the most part. The main advocates of socialist systems argue that proper education, enabling a human being to advance him/herself is a right which should be guaranteed by the state.

I'm in agreement with you, to an extent. I just don't have much sympathy for the kids who don't have that insight. I do think it's terribly sad that there are people who just grow up and follow in their parents' shitty footsteps because they think that's all there is, but I don't think there's any excuse for them not knowing in this day and age. I don't think it should take some huge government initiative either, by the age of thirteen or fourteen you should be able to see it regardless, but I do support measures that would allow more kids to see a better future for themselves.

 

This is a frequent, facile and reductionist misrepresentation made by opponents of socialism; there is nothing that says that everybody earns the same. You're talking about the more extreme form, communism, where, because all necessities and amenities are owned and provided by the state, all need to earn more money than anyone else is theoretically eliminated.

 

What socialism advocates is equal rights and opportunities for all, and equal access to provisions for basic needs such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, security, education and opportunity for advancement. The state's responsibility is to provide at the very base everything which is necessary to live, but it doesn't at any time preclude anyone with ambition working their way up to earn more and have a more comfortable life; however, by the same token, a socialist system is also in theory meant to prevent such wealth accumulation from entitling such people to any more social or legal power than their fellow citizens - the benefits should never be more than material.

I wasn't attacking socialism, I was attacking the concept of equal wealth distribution. I'm all for the system you describe there, but it's utterly unrealistic. With great wealth comes great influence. It'd just be more black-ops than it is under a capitalist system. People are greedy creatures, and they'll always want their wheels greased. Unless the bureaucracy is both run and staffed by androids, there's no getting around it. Even then, rich folks would pay mercenaries to reprogram the bots.

 

Agree with most of this, but I'd say it's a bit presumptuous to pass comment "wannabe freedom fighters" - by your own admission you're apathetic, which indicates it's very likely you don't know how many activists and militants there are, or how active they are.

 

Militants and activists are generally defined by that description - they DON'T sit on their arses, they get out there and attempt to effect awareness and action. I used to be the same, but I've pretty much come to the realisation you have: people are too comfortable in this country, even during recession, and apathy is near-immovable. I applaud activists for having the energy and drive to try and do something, but I don't think any real change can be effected until this country is really in the shitter, when people's lives are being affected in significantly drastic ways. I've resigned myself to impotent ranting.

Well the thing is, considering that both you and I see the comfort and apathy of the general populace, it seems clear to me that either there aren't a great deal of real activists about, or they're shit. That's why I said wannabe freedom fighters, as there is a lot more impotent ranting than action. Although I think the main reason for the inactivity and apathy is that things just aren't that bad. Bad enough to moan about, but not bad enough to blow up the Houses of Parliament for. Whatever the reason, not many rabbles are being roused.

 

Also, don't underplay the power of the Internet in modern day activism - it's led to some pretty effective and dynamic actions at grassroots level, such as cultural jamming. Before, everything was dominated by cultural "gateways" like the media, the government and corporations - they were the ones with the production capabilities, so theirs were the only voices which could be really heard. But the great thing about the Internet is that it has enabled the cultural consumer/activist/ordinary person on the street to react with equal voice - blogs aren't governed by financial capability.

I'm not underplaying the power of the Internet, just the level of intent and conviction in political discussion on it. I love the freedom of information that the Internet allows, but I tie that back to the initial point about the kids -- with everything that's at our fingertips now, I just don't think there's any justification to blindly following down daddy's dead-end path and never looking out at the sides.

[Carbomb]

I'd say it's a cop-out to call it a cop-out. There are still economic and cultural divides in place from the time this country had an empire, and those divides need to be re-habilitated. It IS possible to work yourself out of poverty, this much is true, but culture plays a hugely important role, and anyone who ignores it is making the same mistakes over. For a long time, previous generations were effectively indoctrinated to believe that they couldn't advance themselves, not just by the establishment, but by the lifestyles they were being born into. Children obviously don't think the same way as adults - they don't have the experience of life to endow them with the insight to see past a poor or troubled upbringing, and so very often they'll see their economic and social deprivation as being something they're born to and will never leave. Only a very small percentage of kids have that insight by nature.

 

It's not so much that it's impossible to advance in society as it is acquiring the knowledge that it isn't. Knowing is half the battle, and that's where education comes in. Unfortunately, a huge problem with state education in this country is that it's under-funded and badly run for the most part. The main advocates of socialist systems argue that proper education, enabling a human being to advance him/herself is a right which should be guaranteed by the state.

I'm in agreement with you, to an extent. I just don't have much sympathy for the kids who don't have that insight. I do think it's terribly sad that there are people who just grow up and follow in their parents' shitty footsteps because they think that's all there is, but I don't think there's any excuse for them not knowing in this day and age. I don't think it should take some huge government initiative either, by the age of thirteen or fourteen you should be able to see it regardless, but I do support measures that would allow more kids to see a better future for themselves.

 

I don't know, I really don't think kids have that kind of insight by nature; at least, the majority don't. I won't profess to know your upbringing, but in mine, my dad was a typical Mauritian, who'd not only been educated under the old British imperial system (which was excellent, and upon which the Mauritian education is still prevalently structured), but had also inherited the Asian social tradition of emphasising social advancement through academic excellence. My mum was from a working-class family in West Yorkshire, from a society based largely around the textiles industry - her family were mostly not educated, but had a strong ethic of hard work, so she did work hard to get into university and eventually become head of the legal department of a major trade union.

 

You can imagine, therefore, I had all that pretty much drilled into me from birth. I'm very certain that, had I not had such parents, I wouldn't have had the insight to pursue such a path by myself. I'm a bit of a thick cunt in that respect - no hard-wired survival instincts.

 

This is a frequent, facile and reductionist misrepresentation made by opponents of socialism; there is nothing that says that everybody earns the same. You're talking about the more extreme form, communism, where, because all necessities and amenities are owned and provided by the state, all need to earn more money than anyone else is theoretically eliminated.

 

What socialism advocates is equal rights and opportunities for all, and equal access to provisions for basic needs such as food, water, shelter, healthcare, security, education and opportunity for advancement. The state's responsibility is to provide at the very base everything which is necessary to live, but it doesn't at any time preclude anyone with ambition working their way up to earn more and have a more comfortable life; however, by the same token, a socialist system is also in theory meant to prevent such wealth accumulation from entitling such people to any more social or legal power than their fellow citizens - the benefits should never be more than material.

I wasn't attacking socialism, I was attacking the concept of equal wealth distribution. I'm all for the system you describe there, but it's utterly unrealistic. With great wealth comes great influence. It'd just be more black-ops than it is under a capitalist system. People are greedy creatures, and they'll always want their wheels greased. Unless the bureaucracy is both run and staffed by androids, there's no getting around it. Even then, rich folks would pay mercenaries to reprogram the bots.

 

I wouldn't care, if there were bots. I'd just make sure there was a sex-bot.

 

As to it being unrealistic, I wouldn't write it off just like that. I'd concede it's incredibly difficult, but there have been examples all over the world demonstrating how a system of checks and balances can prevent corruption to varying degrees. Obviously, no-one's found a perfect system, but I strongly believe we're on a teleological path of trial-and-error which will see us eventually figure it out. Don't ask me why I'm so optimistic, though.

 

Agree with most of this, but I'd say it's a bit presumptuous to pass comment "wannabe freedom fighters" - by your own admission you're apathetic, which indicates it's very likely you don't know how many activists and militants there are, or how active they are.

 

Militants and activists are generally defined by that description - they DON'T sit on their arses, they get out there and attempt to effect awareness and action. I used to be the same, but I've pretty much come to the realisation you have: people are too comfortable in this country, even during recession, and apathy is near-immovable. I applaud activists for having the energy and drive to try and do something, but I don't think any real change can be effected until this country is really in the shitter, when people's lives are being affected in significantly drastic ways. I've resigned myself to impotent ranting.

Well the thing is, considering that both you and I see the comfort and apathy of the general populace, it seems clear to me that either there aren't a great deal of real activists about, or they're shit. That's why I said wannabe freedom fighters, as there is a lot more impotent ranting than action. Although I think the main reason for the inactivity and apathy is that things just aren't that bad. Bad enough to moan about, but not bad enough to blow up the Houses of Parliament for. Whatever the reason, not many rabbles are being roused.

 

There are actually quite a number of activists about, but the main problems are that they're disorganised or focused in too many different directions, and that their audiences just aren't responsive, because, as you say, things just aren't that bad, or at least, the people/proles/plebs don't believe they are. As long as the current system is providing "panem et circenses" ("bread and circuses"), they'll never feel the need to do a damn thing. Commentators throughout history have often noted just how vicious and implacable people can become when they're deprived of their basic necessities.

 

Also, don't underplay the power of the Internet in modern day activism - it's led to some pretty effective and dynamic actions at grassroots level, such as cultural jamming. Before, everything was dominated by cultural "gateways" like the media, the government and corporations - they were the ones with the production capabilities, so theirs were the only voices which could be really heard. But the great thing about the Internet is that it has enabled the cultural consumer/activist/ordinary person on the street to react with equal voice - blogs aren't governed by financial capability.

I'm not underplaying the power of the Internet, just the level of intent and conviction in political discussion on it. I love the freedom of information that the Internet allows, but I tie that back to the initial point about the kids -- with everything that's at our fingertips now, I just don't think there's any justification to blindly following down daddy's dead-end path and never looking out at the sides.

You'd be surprised. The thing is, it's easy to confuse the ease of access with laziness, but generally speaking even the Internet requires a lot of hard work to make it effective. Look at 4chan - sure, it's a fuck-about, but it's become relatively powerful because of the sheer number of members and the effort they put in. Imagine if they suddenly decided to turn that to political activism? Scary.

[FireBrand]

Socialism should be used solely to remedy the main flaw with capitalism, which is that people are cunts.

 

Exactly how I feel, elements of Socialism within the frame work of a Capitalist system is the way I think it should be.

[Steveo2007]

Socialism should be used solely to remedy the main flaw with capitalism, which is that people are cunts.

 

Exactly how I feel, elements of Socialism within the frame work of a Capitalist system is the way I think it should be.

We already have that really though. When you have the NHS, public housing, welfare system, public school system etc. etc.

[FireBrand]

Socialism should be used solely to remedy the main flaw with capitalism, which is that people are cunts.

 

Exactly how I feel, elements of Socialism within the frame work of a Capitalist system is the way I think it should be.

We already have that really though. When you have the NHS, public housing, welfare system, public school system etc. etc.

 

The problem we suffer from in the U.K is horrible middle management, the NHS isn't the best functioning system in the world but it is a far better model of health care than a privitised one.

Some things cannot be left to private companies to run as it would too dangerous to leave it in the hands of companies just looking to profit.

 

The Armed Forces

The Emergency Services

Road networks.

 

Don't forget how much of a failure Consignia was and the Railways have yet to maintain a decent standard of service across the nation.

[Carbomb]

To be honest, though, much as I hate to admit it, there are some sectors in which private companies run things better than the state. Prime example: British Telecom. When it was state-owned, it was a fucking abortion. You had to wait six months from the moment of request for your line to be installed, for no reason whatsoever. The service was shit too.

 

Come privatisation, and BT now have to compete with other providers; all of a sudden, the six-month wait is completely eliminated. Mobile companies now vie with each other to woo customers by providing better deals, which means it's now easier for the customer to beat them down.

 

That said, there are some businesses that should never be privatised, either because they provide a service necessary to human life, or because the nature of the business just isn't conducive to ensuring a private company will run it properly. Example of the former is the water services - Thames Water have been running a cowboy operation for ages, and every so often news always emerges of their latest plan to screw consumers out of money. The number of burst pipes and piss-poor response time to dealing with them, not to mention the piss-taking amount of time they take to fix them, shows that perhaps such things are best left in the hands of the government. Example of the latter is the rail services - there's no way to provide competition for them, so they've effectively got a monopoly - and it shows.

[Steveo2007]

Socialism should be used solely to remedy the main flaw with capitalism, which is that people are cunts.

 

Exactly how I feel, elements of Socialism within the frame work of a Capitalist system is the way I think it should be.

We already have that really though. When you have the NHS, public housing, welfare system, public school system etc. etc.

 

The problem we suffer from in the U.K is horrible middle management, the NHS isn't the best functioning system in the world but it is a far better model of health care than a privitised one.

Some things cannot be left to private companies to run as it would too dangerous to leave it in the hands of companies just looking to profit.

 

The Armed Forces

The Emergency Services

Road networks.

 

Don't forget how much of a failure Consignia was and the Railways have yet to maintain a decent standard of service across the nation.

Yeah, no doubt that some nationalisation is beneficial to the populace, but I think that sometimes it can be taken to an extreme. Going from one of Carbomb's points about culture playing a role in success; although this may be true what role government could or should play in that I think can create quite a debate in itself as you could question that at what point would you stop trying to teach kids that there's a better life to be gained? Sure, I'm 100% in favour of more investment into public schooling, but I'm sure many would argue that it should go further than that, something which I'm against.

 

I think, going past providing excellent public schooling up to about the age of 16, is enough to really make kids realise that there's more out there and more to be achieved (even if they don't realise it right away). I come from a totally different background in a lot of ways compared to Carbomb as both parents had a fairly crap state funded education and both come from very working class backgrounds and aren't very well educated. I went to a terrible state school and didn't really do that well when it came to results. Upon coming out of school I had the type of apathy typical of pretty much the entire population who had the same type of background as me, but through doing the same old crappy job I came to realise that I had to do more with my life, and only really came to that realisation at around the age of 20.

 

While my sister is at that age now and is still as apathetic but happy with her life as she has been since she left school. She hasn't worked a day in her life and doesn't seem willing to chase a job or a career any time soon. My point being that my view is that, after kids finish their initial secondary education, the state should step back and let people make their own choices without further state interference as, even if you don't realise it at that age, you will come around eventually and if the state puts in place the opportunities, people who realise there's something better will obviously make moves to chase that dream.

 

The states' job is to dangle the treat of opportunity in front of the faces of the people and not be the prodding stick pushing people along a path they don't want to go down or may not be ready for.

[patiirc]

I will just say one thing re the Armed Forces and privatisation. We are already there in part.

 

UK (Secret) Weapons Development farmed out to joint venture and rebranded as QinetiQ by the Labour government c.2001

[Steveo2007]

I will just say one thing re the Armed Forces and privatisation. We are already there in part.

 

UK (Secret) Weapons Development farmed out to joint venture and rebranded as QinetiQ by the Labour government c.2001

When it comes to development of weapons and military technology, I think that contracting stuff like that out to private companies can draw better and more efficient results.

[patiirc]

I will just say one thing re the Armed Forces and privatisation. We are already there in part.

 

UK (Secret) Weapons Development farmed out to joint venture and rebranded as QinetiQ by the Labour government c.2001

When it comes to development of weapons and military technology, I think that contracting stuff like that out to private companies can draw better and more efficient results.

 

Possibly, but ala the Gold Bullion sale We wuz robbed, again

[David]

For anyone interested, the perjury trial of Solidarity Scotland leader Tommy Sheridan is due to start in a few weeks.

 

Top 'Tory Andy Coulson has been called to appear at the trial;

 

The Prime Minister's top spin doctor has been called on to appear at the Tommy Sheridan perjury trial, The Scotsman can reveal.

 

Andy Coulson, the Downing Street director of communications, has been directly linked to hacking into the phone messages of public figures while he was editor of the News of the World.

 

Now the under-fire adviser has received a letter from Mr Sheridan's legal team asking him to appear at the trial of the former Scottish Socialist Party leader this autumn.

 

The letter from Mr Sheridan's solicitor Aamer Anwar, sent by recorded delivery and received at Downing Street yesterday, centres around Mr Coulson's time as editor of the News of the World, against whom the former MSP won a successful defamation action in 2006.

 

A Downing Street special adviser confirmed to The Scotsman that the letter "had been received", but said Mr Coulson would not be responding to the request at this stage.

 

However, if Mr Coulson refuses to appear at the trial of Mr Sheridan and his wife Gail, the spin doctor could be forced to attend under Scottish law.

 

Mr Sheridan won