Time is up for once-great Britain

[tyovan]

Even in the decades after it lost its empire, Britain strode the world like a pocket superpower. Its economic strength and cultural heft, its nuclear-backed military might, its extraordinary relationship with America — all these things helped this small island nation to punch well above its weight class. Now all that is changing as the bills become due on Britain’s role in last year’s financial meltdown, the rescue of the banks and the ensuing recession. Suddenly the country is having to rethink its role in the world — perhaps as Little Britain, certainly as a lesser Britain.

This is a watershed moment for the UK. The country’s public debt is soaring, possibly doubling to a record 100 per cent of GDP over the next five years, according to the International Monetary Fund. The National Institute of Economic and Social Research forecasts that it will take six years for per capita income to reach early 2008 levels again.

The effects will cascade across government. Budgets will be slashed at the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, affecting Britain’s ability to project power, hard and soft. And there’s little that can be done to reverse the trend, either by Gordon Brown or by David Cameron. As William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said in a recent speech: “It will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to.”

History has been closing in on Britain for some time. The rise of China and India always meant that Britain would have a smaller seat at the increasingly crowded top table of nations. It also meant that the US would recalibrate the so-called special relationship as it sought new partners and alliances, inevitably shrinking the disproportionate role Britain has long played in world affairs.

Tony Blair made a final stab at greatness with what amounted to a 51st-state strategy: by locking Britain into America’s wars — on terror, in Afghanistan, and in Iraq — London achieved an importance it hadn’t had since Churchill. But whatever advantage Britain gained in the short term was wiped out by the political damage Mr Blair’s strategy caused at home. Ordinary Britons and even members of the Establishment grew critical of what they saw as London’s subservient relationship with Washington. Mr Blair’s authority was diminished, his political agenda at home suffered and it became clear that Britain’s geopolitical default setting would no longer be to follow America’s lead automatically. Mr Blair may merely have postponed the inevitable: a lesser Britain is a consequence of world events.

The global recession has hit virtually every country, but Britain more than most. The great engine room of British prosperity, the financial sector, now feels like an anchor. The IMF believes that Britain’s slump will be deeper and longer than that of any other advanced economy. The number of Britons claiming unemployment benefits has jumped from 1.3 million (4.6 per cent of the workforce) in 1999 to more than two million and is on track to top three million.

The OECD says Britain’s recovery may begin this year, but will lag behind those of other rich countries. At the moment, Britain is arguably saddled with the worst public finances of any leading nation, thanks to voracious spending in recent years and to borrowing that is growing faster than in other developed nations. Britain is so heavily indebted that one political commentator dubbed it Iceland-on-Thames, suggesting that Britain could follow that nation into bankruptcy.

What makes the British case stand out even more is that it is the only country of its size in recent history that has sought such a disproportionately large role on the world stage. During the Cold War, Margaret Thatcher saw herself as second only to Ronald Reagan as a leader who helped to bring down the Soviet Union. During Mr Blair’s decade in office, Britain fought three wars — in Kosovo, Afghanistan and Iraq — in which its military participation was right behind that of the US. Now that’s changing.

The UK still maintains one of the largest defence budgets in the world, but probably not for much longer. As the number of British deaths in Afghanistan has risen dramatically, both Labour and the Conservatives have felt obliged to say they would not reduce defence spending, so as not to put troops at greater risk. But in the longer term experts say big cuts are inevitable.

A Royal United Services Institute paper estimates that the MoD budget will be cut by 11 per cent in real terms over the next six years. Other estimates are much higher. Paddy Ashdown, a former Royal Marine, has said the annual £35 billion MoD budget might have to be cut by almost a quarter, which would put Britain more in line with traditionally lower-spending continental powers. Britain’s role in the world will shrink with its budget.

The future of Britain’s nuclear force, the ultimate symbol of a great power, is also uncertain. Britain’s submarine-based Trident missile system is due to be replaced over the next decade at a cost of some £20 billion. But according to a recent poll 54 per cent of the British people say that Britain should give up its nuclear deterrent altogether. That’s unlikely, but it may force the next government to find a cheap way to extend Trident’s lifespan. Traditionally, being a nuclear power was one way of securing permanent membership of the UN Security Council, and any downgrading of Britain’s deterrent could strengthen the demands of big emerging powers that they should have more seats on the council, possibly at the UK’s expense.

The glory days of the City of London are now grinding to a halt, too. London stole the march on Wall Street by seizing the highest growth areas, such as hedge funds, exotic derivatives and the like. Unluckily for London, these areas were also the hardest hit by the financial crisis. But now London, like New York, awaits a slew of new national, regional and global regulation that appears likely to diminish its role in the world for years to come. The EU has already endorsed the creation of a systemic risk board with oversight powers that will include the City. Britain has sidestepped such intervention in the past, but this time is different. Germany and France appear intent on restraining the excesses of Anglo-Saxon capitalism and may seek to engineer reforms that steer a greater share of global capital flows into more cautious continental hands.

London, as the glitzier icon of laissez faire, will pay a steeper price than Wall Street in the financial new world order. Ever since the Big Bang of the 1980s, London has regulated the banking industry with a light touch. If European regulations are harmonised to include London and if London’s light touch gets a little heavier, the City could suddenly become “more antagonistic to the institutions that are being regulated”, as Andrew Hilton, of the Centre for the Study of Financial Innovation, puts it. In that event, financial centres such as Singapore and Hong Kong could draw business away from the City.

Britain’s bout of reflection on its last gasps of empire comes at a natural point in its history. The Great Recession came as a surprise and has accelerated the trend, but the rise of China, India and Brazil, and the changing ties to a declining America, have been visible for many years. As America turns to building new ties with the advancing powers of Asia and Latin America, Britain can only feel less special. The nation is in the totally predictable grip of the ennui and grumpiness that accompany the end of a political era.

Eleven years ago, the year after Mr Blair swept to victory, he spoke in Dublin of a Britain that was “emerging from its post-empire malaise”. Phrases such as “new Labour” and “new dawn” and “new Britain” were not yet curdling on the tongue. Today, Mr Blair is two years out of office and Mr Brown suffers from a grey, been-there-too-long aura. Long gone is the cultural ferment of Cool Britannia that made London the capital of cool in the early Blair years.

Pity the prime minister who takes over from Mr Brown. A Conservative victory at the next election would have little of the game-changing feeling that accompanied Mr Blair’s triumph 12 years ago. Then, Britain bought into Mr Blair’s mantra because it was real enough: the economy had already begun a period of unprecedented growth, immigration was enriching the country, an entrepreneurial fervour crackled across even the old industrial heartland. Today that has evaporated. The great test of the next prime minister will be not only to redefine Britain’s place among great nations but also to renew the kind of spirit that has ruled Britannia in the past.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article6737848.ece

[Stevey1]

This article strikes the same tone as sentiments in Britain before 1979. Britain was seen as the 'sick man' of Europe with a standard of living way behind its continental neigbours, high unemployment and Trade Union unrest. The UK was unsure of its post-Empire role.

The current UK government is pretty inept, but it will likely be swept out of power in a few months. I wouldn't buy into the whole 'Once-great Britain' line at all. Even with a weak government the UK has still been the only Western country (with a few honourable exceptions like Denmark, Holland, Canada and Australia) to properly support the US in the wars of recent years- and has paid a heavy price in casualties.

[Arfah]

The term 'Great Britain' derives from the latin meaning 'Britannia Majora' whilst 'Britannia Minora' is now known as Brittany in North West France.

It is not a term relating to 'Greatness'

That just happened coincidentally :-)

[Elbs]

As long as Britain still has Louise Glover, it will remain Great.

[Flagg]

...and treasure.

A BIG difference between 1979 and 2009 is that 2009 no longer has the North Sea oilfields coming online to save the UK's ass.

There's going to be a LOT of rationalizing going on in the UK in the next decade.

If the Torries make it in over the next year I only hope they slash immediately, deep, and often.

Anything less will fail to halt the rot.

With an economy largely built on FIRE, the UK is quite possibly going to be the single largest VISIBLE victim of this ongoing crisis.

I believe this is where we begin to see a significant divergence between the UK and it's former colonies....with Aus, Canada, and India likely to slowly swap in economic, military, and political power.

I reckon it would be in the UK's best interest to be trying to hub a Commonwealth economic block in order to have a seat at three tables....US/UK; EU; Commonwealth with teeth.

[Panchito12]

When the health care budget is 3 times the size of the military, you're no longer a power. It is impossible for any nation to provide free quality health and be a major military power. It can't be done.

p.s. Hint for you B. Obama.

[PALADIN]

When the health care budget is 3 times the size of the military, you're no longer a power. It is impossible for any nation to provide free quality health and be a major military power. It can't be done.

p.s. Hint for you B. Obama.

X2

Welcome Back Panchito.

[Violet Fashion by Mindy]

I believe this is where we begin to see a significant divergence between the UK and it's former colonies....with Aus, Canada, and India likely to slowly swap in economic, military, and political power.

I reckon it would be in the UK's best interest to be trying to hub a Commonwealth economic block in order to have a seat at three tables....US/UK; EU; Commonwealth with teeth.

You know I actually agree with you here.

What many fail to realise is that the United Kingdom is an Empire. As such it was able to build up unrivaled military and economic strength.

But if you look at it now. Things are still going good for the Commonwealth of Nations which replaced the Empire. Canada, Australia and India have in a combined sense continued on with this dominance.

If you look at the Commonwealth of Nations in the same way as a person looked at the British Empire, you would still see one of the largest economies, resource rich, unrivaled population and above all one force projection that is unmatched by anyone. Well maybe the yanks but you get the deal.

[USMCRTop]

dunno- cycles of history are all dependant on your time line-believe we are too close to current events to really see it all in perspective--e.g. was G. Bush a good President or not ?? Need at least 100 years perspective--Harry Truman in his time was not appreciated- but now 60 years later, we see he did a lot of things right-- same will be true for Britain need that historical look back

[Rictor]

The effects will cascade across government. Budgets will be slashed at the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign Office, affecting Britain’s ability to project power, hard and soft. And there’s little that can be done to reverse the trend, either by Gordon Brown or by David Cameron. As William Hague, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, said in a recent speech: “It will become more difficult over time for Britain to exert on world affairs the influence which we are used to.”

I dream of the the day when all nations are so humbled. When all nations are no longer able to "project power" beyond their rightful, sovereign borders. When they are forced, by finances or mismanagement or whatever else, to look inward and attend to their own affairs instead of meddling in those of others. Sadly, I don't think the trend will continue.

"Global power", "international influence" and other such Newspeak terms are merely euphemisms for a strong, arrogant, wealthy kid who likes to lord it over his weaker, poorer rivals. In layman's terms, a bully.

[Elbs]

When all nations are no longer able to "project power" beyond their rightful, sovereign borders.

Keep dreaming.

[Aeroflot]

I dream of the the day when all nations are so humbled. When all nations are no longer able to "project power" beyond their rightful, sovereign borders. When they are forced, by finances or mismanagement or whatever else, to look inward and attend to their own affairs instead of meddling in those of others. Sadly, I don't think the trend will continue.

"Global power", "international influence" and other such Newspeak terms are merely euphemisms for a strong, arrogant, wealthy kid who likes to lord it over his weaker, poorer rivals. In layman's terms, a bully.

I agree. Perhaps in the future when we use more resources that are renewable then we'll be more stable.

[DaveDash]

I dream of the the day when all nations are so humbled. When all nations are no longer able to "project power" beyond their rightful, sovereign borders. When they are forced, by finances or mismanagement or whatever else, to look inward and attend to their own affairs instead of meddling in those of others. Sadly, I don't think the trend will continue.

"Global power", "international influence" and other such Newspeak terms are merely euphemisms for a strong, arrogant, wealthy kid who likes to lord it over his weaker, poorer rivals. In layman's terms, a bully.

Not gonna happen, so you might as well jump off the losing horse now. Times have not been so bad recently however, and they may get a lot worse in the future. You may be praying for the times we have had over the last 50 years yet.

I have a lot of British friends here in Australia, and basically they are all being told by their families to "not come back". Not only is Britain sinking financially, it's sinking socially as well. There are some serious demographic challenges that it is going to have to deal with in the next 10-20 years.

Britain is sinking under the weight of its own immigration and social welfare policies.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Were Doooomed f*ck it its a great little place to live with fantastic people and I am still turning a £ over. Anyone that believes a Tory Govt will do anything more than stumble around for 4 years and tear each other to pieces needs their head looked at.

[Canucklehead2]

Well if things get too bad in the UK there is always room at the inn in Canada for you guys. Trust me lots and lots and lots and lots of it!

[oldsoak]

Were Doooomed f*ck it its a great little place to live with fantastic people and I am still turning a £ over. Anyone that believes a Tory Govt will do anything more than stumble around for 4 years and tear each other to pieces needs their head looked at.

Too right.
Tories will do the sums, cut off a bit for themselves and skin the rest of us.

[Lazy Lob]

The Tories lack of success at the polls was Cameron’s cue to emulate Nu-Labour and Blair. This was the main reason for his rise to power within Tory ranks. He knows little else and if he continues as is then we’re really are buggered.

[void]

When the health care budget is 3 times the size of the military, you're no longer a power. It is impossible for any nation to provide free quality health and be a major military power. It can't be done.

p.s. Hint for you B. Obama.

That is pretty bad logic youve got there. The UK has a large health care budget, but all of the health care costs come out of the government budget (or at least the lions share). In the USA on the other hand, all of the health care costs come out directly out of pocket of the employers and citizens. In the end, the health care costs as a percentage of the GDP are much higher in the US, even though their "givernment health budget" is lower.

I'd prefer to pay 10$ to the government who then pay for health care and have a massive "health care budget", rather than pay $50 to insurance for health care and have a small "health care budget".

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

The Tories lack of success at the polls was Cameron’s cue to emulate Nu-Labour and Blair. This was the main reason for his rise to power within Tory ranks. He knows little else and if he continues as is then we’re really are buggered.And whats worse his right hand man George is a student of the Blair - Brown partnership not a good sign at all.:|

[Flamming_Python]

When the health care budget is 3 times the size of the military, you're no longer a power. It is impossible for any nation to provide free quality health and be a major military power. It can't be done.

p.s. Hint for you B. Obama.

USSR?

Modern Russia also has free health care, although I wouldn't describe it as quality compared to European countries.

[Stevey1]

I have a lot of British friends here in Australia, and basically they are all being told by their families to "not come back". Not only is Britain sinking financially, it's sinking socially as well. There are some serious demographic challenges that it is going to have to deal with in the next 10-20 years.

Britain is sinking under the weight of its own immigration and social welfare policies


The British media really do over-hype immigration, often giving a false impression. Bearing in mind, two of the best-selling tabloid papers (the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, both of whom would portray Genghis Khan as a lefty) basically make immigration their headline story every day. This does seriously distort public opinion. I recently read a travel book by a Kiwi travelling in Britain and he said he lost count of the number of 99% white towns he visited where people were whingeing about being overrun with immigrants in this regard. Britain is 92% white-I'd hardly call that an identity crisis. Compared to the US our levels of immigration are miniscule and the vast majority of immigrants are decent and hard-working. I would say that ghettos are are problem though. Areas in London and Birmingham, for example, are full of immigrants where 50 minutes away in the car you'd struggle to find a non-white face.

Living the UK without going overseas, I too though that Britain was unique in the Western world for its recent immigration wave. Having travelling to Australia and New Zealand recently I now know that that is not the case at all. Perhaps that explains your experience of Brits in Oz being told not to go home by their parents. The press in Oz and New Zealand just don't seemed as obsessed with the issue as the UK media. Immigration into Oz seemed to be of an equal scale to that going into the UK. I was actually shocked at the number of Asian people I met there (all great people) in this regard. If the UK press moved to Oz it would be heralding doom and gloom on immigration there as well.

[Estopped]

To be honest i'd rather have a functioning well oiled health care system than a huge military.

Secondly, the UK in only assuming its natural role in the world. We do not have a huge population and don't have an empire anymore. It's only a matter of time before the larger countries overtake us economically and militarily. That's why Europe is more important than ever. The UK's future lies in its relationship with Europe and the collective power of those nations.

Hopefully the tories will have some sense knocked into them when they get and realise that their anti-europe agenda is a fools errand that actually harms us.

[DaveDash]

The British media really do over-hype immigration, often giving a false impression. Bearing in mind, two of the best-selling tabloid papers (the Daily Mail and the Daily Express, both of whom would portray Genghis Khan as a lefty) basically make immigration their headline story every day. This does seriously distort public opinion. I recently read a travel book by a Kiwi travelling in Britain and he said he lost count of the number of 99% white towns he visited where people were whingeing about being overrun with immigrants in this regard. Britain is 92% white-I'd hardly call that an identity crisis. Compared to the US our levels of immigration are miniscule and the vast majority of immigrants are decent and hard-working. I would say that ghettos are are problem though. Areas in London and Birmingham, for example, are full of immigrants where 50 minutes away in the car you'd struggle to find a non-white face.

Living the UK without going overseas, I too though that Britain was unique in the Western world for its recent immigration wave. Having travelling to Australia and New Zealand recently I now know that that is not the case at all. Perhaps that explains your experience of Brits in Oz being told not to go home by their parents. The press in Oz and New Zealand just don't seemed as obsessed with the issue as the UK media. Immigration into Oz seemed to be of an equal scale to that going into the UK. I was actually shocked at the number of Asian people I met there (all great people) in this regard. If the UK press moved to Oz it would be heralding doom and gloom on immigration there as well.

Perhaps it's just London then, because 99% of the Brits I have met over the years who have immigrated to Australia and NZ have all said similar things regarding back home, and a considerable amount of them were probably from London I believe, or perhaps they just baselessly blame immigration for the woes suffered by the UK at the moment.

Melbourne seems pretty multi-cultural to me, and people don't seem to mind because overall things are going well.

[Derbedeu]

To be honest i'd rather have a functioning well oiled health care system than a huge military.

Secondly, the UK in only assuming its natural role in the world. We do not have a huge population and don't have an empire anymore. It's only a matter of time before the larger countries overtake us economically and militarily. That's why Europe is more important than ever. The UK's future lies in its relationship with Europe and the collective power of those nations.

Hopefully the tories will have some sense knocked into them when they get and realise that their anti-europe agenda is a fools errand that actually harms us.

Well said. Britain needs to stop being so equivocal when it comes to the EU.

[HellToupee]

The press in Oz and New Zealand just don't seemed as obsessed with the issue as the UK media. Immigration into Oz seemed to be of an equal scale to that going into the UK. I was actually shocked at the number of Asian people I met there (all great people) in this regard. If the UK press moved to Oz it would be heralding doom and gloom on immigration there as well.

Well it would be just a wee bit hypocritical of us to harp on about immigration when we know ourselfs to be immigrants from Britian not too long ago :)

As for NZ immigration is currently propping up our economy.

[cbreedon]

well remember the answer for the 1979 malaise.....

Bring Back Maggie.:)woot

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

well remember the answer for the 1979 malaise.....

Bring Back Maggie.:)wootShe was a useless c*nt that did f*ck all but rend this country apart.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

This does seriously distort public opinion. I recently read a travel book by a Kiwi travelling in Britain and he said he lost count of the number of 99% white towns he visited where people were whingeing about being overrun with immigrants in this regard.I used to live in a town of 3447 that had one chap of probable Pakistani origin an Anglo Indian pensioner and 2 Jewish families and a local BNP loving shopkeeper said he could not wait wait to move to Spain because of all the immigrants that were over running the place. The best of it is that every one of these so called immigrants had lived in the town as long as he had if not longer, the b*stard appeared on that leaked list of BNP members which was no surprise to me.

[Panchito12]

I used to live in a town of 3447 that had one chap of probable Pakistani origin an Anglo Indian pensioner and 2 Jewish families and a local BNP loving shopkeeper said he could not wait wait to move to Spain because of all the immigrants that were over running the place. The best of it is that every one of these so called immigrants had lived in the town as long than he had if not longer, the b*stard appeared on that leaked list of BNP members which was no surprise to me.

Oh yea, the Spaniards just love Brits. Is he going to be in for a surprise!!!

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Oh yea, the Spaniards just love Brits. Is he going to be in for a surprise!!!And he has spent a wad on a new shiny villa, may his time there be unpleasant. p-)

[Panchito12]

That is pretty bad logic youve got there. The UK has a large health care budget, but all of the health care costs come out of the government budget (or at least the lions share). In the USA on the other hand, all of the health care costs come out directly out of pocket of the employers and citizens. In the end, the health care costs as a percentage of the GDP are much higher in the US, even though their "givernment health budget" is lower.

I'd prefer to pay 10$ to the government who then pay for health care and have a massive "health care budget", rather than pay $50 to insurance for health care and have a small "health care budget".


Let's see. Every year the UK health budget grows, the Defense budget diminishes. You want us to emmulate that?? No thanks, I have probably the finest medical insurance (Blue Cross/Shield PPO) on the Earth and I'm not going to give it up for a copy of the mediocre NHS.

[cbreedon]

She was a useless c*nt that did f*ck all but rend this country apart.

??? She was the best thing that could have happened to Britain. Without her leadership we would have been a bankrupt nation 30 years ago. I don't understand the hatred there. My grandmother used to go on about how much she wanted to kill her. When I asked why she could never give me specifics... She broke the unions that where going to destroy the country and that **** Skargill.

[void]

Let's see. Every year the UK health budget grows, the Defense budget diminishes. You want us to emmulate that?? No thanks, I have probably the finest medical insurance (Blue Cross/Shield PPO) on the Earth and I'm not going to give it up for a copy of the mediocre NHS.

Are you even aware of the issues that people have with private health insurance and the lack of a good NHS? The logic of "well, it works for me, therefore it must work for everyone" is poor logic. Funny thing about Blue Shield actually:
http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html
Didnt work for her did it? Doesnt work for the 50 million americans with no health insurance, etc etc

Things like that happen far more often than I think youre aware. You can be denied coverage for the smallest reason, you can be denied compensation for the smallest technicality, and to top it all off, it costs a LOT. How about:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5813a5.htm
For all that money spent, the USA does NOT have the best health care, in fact it is ranked 35th in the world by the WHO in terms of health care. The countries ranked above it almost universally have NHS.

[Derbedeu]

Are you even aware of the issues that people have with private health insurance and the lack of a good NHS? The logic of "well, it works for me, therefore it must work for everyone" is poor logic. Funny thing about Blue Shield actually:
http://cbs5.com/local/cancer.treatment.denied.2.1007394.html
Didnt work for her did it? Doesnt work for the 50 million americans with no health insurance, etc etc

Things like that happen far more often than I think youre aware. You can be denied coverage for the smallest reason, you can be denied compensation for the smallest technicality, and to top it all off, it costs a LOT. How about:
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5813a5.htm
For all that money spent, the USA does NOT have the best health care, in fact it is ranked 35th in the world by the WHO in terms of health care. The countries ranked above it almost universally have NHS.

The first article pretty much exemplifies why I'm opposed to medical insurance companies. At the end of the day, all they care about is profits, not the patient. If they can weasel out of paying for a procedure, even though its the one that's needed, they will find some loophole. It's a business, and like all businesses, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. National healthcare has its faults as well, particularly some long waits for non life-threatening sicknesses, but at the end of the day you do get treated, and you never have to go through the psychological turmoil of battling with your insurers or facing the horrible prospect of not being covered for a particular procedure.

[void]

The first article pretty much exemplifies why I'm opposed to medical insurance companies. At the end of the day, all they care about is profits, not the patient. If they can weasel out of paying for a procedure, even though its the one that's needed, they will find some loophole. It's a business, and like all businesses, the only thing that matters is the bottom line. National healthcare has its faults as well, particularly some long waits for non life-threatening sicknesses, but at the end of the day you do get treated, and you never have to go through the psychological turmoil of battling with your insurers or facing the horrible prospect of not being covered for a particular procedure.

Long wait for non life threatening sickness? In an NHS system, if you have the flu, there is nothing stopping you from going to a GP straight away and getting seen, it isnt like you have to make an appointment with a month long queue.

For things like elective surgery, yes, NHS has longer wait times. But for that there is always the hybrid approach, such as the one used in say Australia. In Australia, there is an NHS, but also the option of private cover which is great and still much cheaper than in the US. Additionally, if you have private cover in Australia, you actually get a tax rebate, because youre taking some strain off the public system.

The good thing in Australia is that the private insurers cannot form the kind of cartel that they do in the US and charge ridiculous money for a crappy service, because in Aus they have to compete with the public system, so if their policies are expensive and crap, people will just use the public option instead.

[wilhelm]

??? She was the best thing that could have happened to Britain. Without her leadership we would have been a bankrupt nation 30 years ago. I don't understand the hatred there. My grandmother used to go on about how much she wanted to kill her. When I asked why she could never give me specifics... She broke the unions that where going to destroy the country and that **** Skargill.

Absolutely agree

Thatcher came into power in a Britain teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. She also broke the back of Arthur Scargill, a committed lifelong communist. (Does make you wonder where Britain would be now under communismp-))

She managed to halt the inevitable decline.

Perhaps the UK needs more leaders like her.

Back on topic, perhaps Britain should be a lot harder on who they let in ... and even harder on those British that use the welfare system unfairly. Lose the nanny state mentality and bizarre amounts of red tape, and it would probably go some way to getting Britain back to her glory days IMHO, when her citizens were hardworking, industrious, and exceptionally inventive.

[welshmann]

...and treasure.

A BIG difference between 1979 and 2009 is that 2009 no longer has the North Sea oilfields coming online to save the UK's ass.

There's going to be a LOT of rationalizing going on in the UK in the next decade.

If the Torries make it in over the next year I only hope they slash immediately, deep, and often.

Anything less will fail to halt the rot.

With an economy largely built on FIRE, the UK is quite possibly going to be the single largest VISIBLE victim of this ongoing crisis.

I believe this is where we begin to see a significant divergence between the UK and it's former colonies....with Aus, Canada, and India likely to slowly swap in economic, military, and political power.

I reckon it would be in the UK's best interest to be trying to hub a Commonwealth economic block in order to have a seat at three tables....US/UK; EU; Commonwealth with teeth.

Good post .....the only way to make our country great again is to get the royal family running it....ok off back to empire total war for me!

[welshmann]

Absolutely agree

Thatcher came into power in a Britain teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. She also broke the back of Arthur Scargill, a committed lifelong communist. (Does make you wonder where Britain would be now under communismp-))

She managed to halt the inevitable decline.

Perhaps the UK needs more leaders like her.

Back on topic, perhaps Britain should be a lot harder on who they let in ... and even harder on those British that use the welfare system unfairly. Lose the nanny state mentality and bizarre amounts of red tape, and it would probably go some way to getting Britain back to her glory days IMHO, when her citizens were hardworking, industrious, and exceptionally inventive.

Who they let in???,mate we got plenty of people who are british born making a clown of the system who were born in this country...but i do agree

i lost my job about 3 months ago(boo hoo) ok,every two weeks i go to sign on,£120 every two weeks i get...now,when i go to sign on theres all sorts there,people who drive up in people carriers etc dripping in gold to claim there money,you have got a point,and thats the scary thing,its making me racist,thats the truth,they get extra money why?

they got to spend more in food as they not used to eating our food

dependents(children) they got like 5-6 kids...£16 per week for per child

english classes: my kid had probs with speech at a young age,therefore we spent a lot of time helping him ourself as all the english speech dudes were busy with people coming over here.

i cant understand this country,it does not matter who u vote for they are all wankers,the sooner i get out of here the better.

[King of the Grey]

hmmm...i don't agree with this article.

Look at the language we're using, and 90% of the world is using as an international language. Its called English for a reason, right?

Just that fact leaves the English pretty up high the list of being influential.

[Mr Gently Benevolent]

Thatcher’s economic policies created the longest dole queues in the UK since the Depression and interest rates of 14% She fractured the UK into North and South and her well intentioned policies of de-regulation and entrepreneurship created little employment North of Watford. The destruction of trade unions due more to mass unemployment rather than Thatcher’s confrontation with the NUM, and retaking the Falkland would have been the obligation of any sitting government no matter how woolly.
You really had to live through the Thatcher years outside the M25 (not including the colonies) to realise how sh*tty they really were.

[timetraveller]

Britain will always be Great , It's just the brainless wonders that are in charge that drag this Country into the Gutter ...

[Blackcatnursery]

Thatcher’s economic policies created the longest dole queues in the UK since the Depression and interest rates of 14% She fractured the UK into North and South and her well intentioned policies of de-regulation and entrepreneurship created little employment North of Watford. The destruction of trade unions due more to mass unemployment rather than Thatcher’s confrontation with the NUM, and retaking the Falkland would have been the obligation of any sitting government no matter how woolly.
You really had to live through the Thatcher years outside the M25 (not including the colonies) to realise how sh*tty they really were.
Although I am not conservative I do think that Maggie did do a lot of good, particularly with the pole tax. Some people who had never paid for anything in their life had to cough up, they use services they should pay. And yes I live out of the M25 ring in a mining area which was particularly hard hit.
The bunch that are in now have squandered what was quite a good economic position.
As for the original question yes we are now a third rate nation who think we still have an empire to bail us out, Gordon has emptied the cupboard.
All I know is that I am going to get shafted for more tax whichever bunch of muppets take over next year. I am sick to death of paying tax to keep people on the dole, people in prison, immigrants and other peoples children. Until we get a government who support small businesses and innovation then we are truly in trouble.

[Blackcatnursery]

Britain will always be Great , It's just the brainless wonders that are in charge that drag this Country into the Gutter ...
But someone voted for them, I wonder where their core support comes from???
Probably not the people paying all the tax.

[welshmann]

But someone voted for them, I wonder where their core support comes from???
Probably not the people paying all the tax.

core vote,is not in towns,areas & city's that people made great and put it on the map as such? i mean like south wales,sheffield etc & many others,dare i say the types who worked hard to make this country,but i got a feeling they will lose these core votes.

[Blackcatnursery]

core vote,is not in towns,areas & city's that people made great and put it on the map as such? i mean like south wales,sheffield etc & many others,dare i say the types who worked hard to make this country,but i got a feeling they will lose these core votes.
Because they have replaced real jobs for hard working people with a benefits culture.
I live near Sheffield and all that happened was the real jobs in heavy industry became soft jobs in shopping centres such as Meadowhell.

[Stevey1]

i cant understand this country,it does not matter who u vote for they are all wankers,the sooner i get out of here the better.

I've heard the same complaints of lots of Western countries mate. It just seems to be the price of being a liberal democracy that some people will try and take advantage of the system re: benefits etc

[Stevey1]

Well it would be just a wee bit hypocritical of us to harp on about immigration when we know ourselfs to be immigrants from Britian not too long ago :-)



:-) I always laugh when the comments section on some newspaper websites in the UK have qoutes like: 'Immigration is ruining Britain', written by a 'Dave in Madrid' etc!



or perhaps they just baselessly blame immigration for the woes suffered by the UK at the moment.



I think a big part of it may be the comparative size of Oz and the UK. Even small increases in immigration in the UK make a big difference to population density.



I used to live in a town of 3447 that had one chap of probable Pakistani origin an Anglo Indian pensioner and 2 Jewish families and a local BNP loving shopkeeper said he could not wait wait to move to Spain because of all the immigrants that were over running the place.


I love the hypocrisy to these sorts of people. Not only are they becoming immigrants themselves but as supposedly ultra-patriotic people they're legging it overseas because a few immigrants have moved into their area!

[wilhelm]

All I know is that I am going to get shafted for more tax whichever bunch of muppets take over next year. I am sick to death of paying tax to keep people on the dole, people in prison, immigrants and other peoples children. Until we get a government who support small businesses and innovation then we are truly in trouble.

You've hit it on the head.

[Mackie]

Britain is sinking under the weight of its own immigration and social welfare policies.
Social welfare is a 100% domestic issue. Burning bombs and oil in Iraq are not really stimulus. The social systems are natural stimulus in hard times providing stability.
Without it, Britians situation would be much harder.
Immigration problem. Perhaps.

IF (I highly doubt that) Britain is sinking then because the rich sold their traditional industries to foreign investors to get 5% more return through financial products.
And as well it works in good times so hard you can fall these days.
The result is simply technology transfer. Buy British HighTech and send it home.
I hope Britain becomes real CONSERVATIVE again, kick out the neocon idiots and produce good products by good educated people. As long as Cambridge and Oxford don't burn down I am not worried about Britain. Especially as long as Astutes cruising through waters. :)

My 2 cents.

[Lov3ll]

The rumours of Britain's death have been greatly exaggerated
Doom-mongers have long said that we are in decline - only to be proved wrong every time, says Gerald Warner.
by Gerald Warner
Published: 8:09PM BST 05 Aug 2009

'Forget the Great in Britain" is the dismissive title of an article in the current issue of Newsweek by Stryker McGuire, the American journalist who first gave currency to the concept of "Cool Britannia". Now he has run his eye over Britain in a more critical mood, and what he sees is decline. Post-imperial debility has finally caught up with this sceptr'd isle: our public debt is soaring towards a record high; we are about to be eclipsed by "giant emerging economies like China and India"; our defence budget is unsustainable; we cannot afford to renew Trident; and the engine of our "soft power" – the financial sector – will not recover its former pre-eminence.

Before calling the Samaritans, it might be advisable to subject this thesis to closer scrutiny. It has to be conceded that, superficially at least, McGuire's analysis embodies some valid points, particularly as regards the financial crisis. We are in serious trouble, and the problem has been compounded, not alleviated, by government policy.

In the second quarter of this year, the economy shrank 0.8 per cent compared with the first quarter; this was the fifth consecutive quarterly contraction, representing an overall shrinkage of 5.7 per cent. The past 48 hours have brought grim news for taxpayers about the mounting costs of the bail-out of the banks, and today the Bank of England may commit a further tranche of £25 billion to its quantitative easing programme.

Yet Britain has survived previous recessions and will survive this one. True, public debt is soaring: McGuire quotes the International Monetary Fund's chilling forecast that it could double to a record high in terms of GDP over the next five years. This is due not to our national infirmity, however, but to the spendthrift ways of Gordon Brown. It began with his 2002 budget, when he sprayed tax-and-spend projections totalling £510 billion around the Commons chamber, and continued – even accelerated – through recession and financial collapse.

Then there is the issue of Britain's "hard power". Here, McGuire quotes Dean Acheson: "Great Britain has lost an empire and has not yet found a role." But that was in 1962, for heaven's sake. The post-imperial theme runs like a leitmotif through this pessimistic analysis, as it invariably does in any writing consigning Britain to the dustbin of history.

Today, though, it is an irrelevance. What proportion of the economically active population has any adult memory of the British Empire? The notion that we are all sitting around on this small island yearning nostalgically for an era of plumed-hatted proconsuls ready to shoulder the white man's burden is grotesque – as McGuire himself acknowledged 13 years ago, when he proclaimed the advent of Cool Britannia.

That episode, indeed, gives us some idea of his credentials as a prophet. He saw Tony Blair as an exciting, innovative moderniser; some of us, in contrast, saw a wideboy with no moral or philosophical compass and an eye for the main chance. And his latest assessment of Britain is as wrong-headed in its pessimism as was the false optimism of 1996. "The UK still maintains one of the largest defence budgets in the world," runs the indictment, "but probably not for much longer."

Call me old-fashioned, but £35 billion does not seem an excessive allocation to national security – out of total government spending of £671 billion – when we are doling out £186 billion on social security.

As a report this week from the Centre for Policy Studies highlights, our notoriously wasteful benefits spending represents a quarter of all government expenditure, and more than the total receipts from income tax and corporation tax combined. Social security has an imperative claim to reform: the point at which the purely cosmetic character of the Blair "project" became evident was when Frank Field was sacked as a minister for genuinely aspiring to improve the system.

An incidental consequence of reform would be our renewed ability to support a proper defence budget. Although even David Cameron is wobbling on the renewal of Trident, on the grounds that it would cost £20 billion over more than a decade, the Government blew £17 billion on funding the shotgun marriage between Lloyds TSB and the toxic HBOS.

Renewal of Trident is crucial to our global status, even to retention of our seat on the United Nations Security Council. Yet recall such minor extravagances as the £70 million budget allocated to the superfluous and divisive Equality and Human Rights Commission, and you can see how much fat there is to come off the public sector's bones.

As for the fatalism that insists on our approaching economic eclipse at the hands of rising powers such as China and India, that is a fragile forecast. Even if both countries keep growing, everyone will benefit from a larger global economy. But China's economic progress is in any case predicated on a Faustian bargain between its population and the Communist Party: operate capitalism more efficiently than the capitalists, and we will tolerate your continued monopoly of power.

The Great Leap Forward this year, while other economies are shrinking, has been due to its "stir-fry" strategy of dumping cash into the economy. Beijing's $600 billion stimulus package is funded by the state-owned banks, which have generated some $1 trillion of lending in the first six months of this year.

This is not sustainable in the long term. Manufacturing over-capacity is a serious problem. Last year 30 million migrant workers became unemployed: in Maoist terms, these are the potential "revolutionary masses". Add to them three million unemployed graduates ("workers by brain") and you have the ingredients for serious unrest if the situation is prolonged.

Furthermore, some 400 million rural Chinese have virtually no disposable income and China has debauched its demographics through compulsory birth control, resulting in an elderly population stuffing its savings inside the mattress. Uighur unrest in Xinjiang could be the first augury of future fragmentation, yet McGuire seems now to be hailing Cool Cathay as optimistically as Cool Britannia a decade ago.

The problem, in the end, is that McGuire has mistaken Britain's cyclical problems – in particular, the policies and composition of this Government – for structural flaws. Yes, we have problems, but many of them are eminently fixable.

After all, this is hardly the first time our valedictory as a great nation has been delivered, only to be discredited by national resurgence. "Britain is a tragedy," claimed Henry Kissinger in the 1970s. "It has sunk to borrowing, begging, stealing until North Sea oil comes in." The Wall Street Journal concurred: "Goodbye, Great Britain: it was nice knowing you."

Over-eager obituarists on the far side of the Atlantic should not be surprised if this country once again disproves their terminal diagnosis.

Benedict Brogan is away

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/5979462/The-rumours-of-Britains-death-have-been-greatly-exaggerated.html

[Military-G]

Well im still enjoying how many dollars my GBP get me woot

[Atlantic Friend]

Traditionally, being a nuclear power was one way of securing permanent membership of the UN Security Council

Traditonally, India, Pakistan and Israel would disagree with that assessment, particularly when taking into consideration the fact France, Russia and Britain were not nuclear powers when they got their permanent UNSC seats.