Britain in decline? (2)

Nick, you say:

David Cameron pointed to our well known assets - language, time zone, membership of the EU and UN Security Council, the City of London and our military.

Does this mean Cameron will give us a firm assurance that he would not support the UK giving up its seat on the UN Security Council in favour of an EU representative?

So really our foreign policy may well be a closer match to that of France - not based so much on any overall principles, but on the guiding 'what's best for us must be best for us and never mind anything else'. Well it links - I suppose - with the lease-lend aircraft carriers........

I notice the above blog makes a rather less compelling case than the earlier blog arguing for the view that Britain is in decline. I was expecting a BBC style balanced argument.

Is that not called Policy on the hoof.....

No vision? Ah well, never mind. Just so long as he enjoys himself ... being Prime Minister ... that's the main thing.

The British Council is indeed 'more commercial' .... but it is also rotten to the core! And British Council profits
through their 'Education UK' subsidiary which could not survive without the state subsidy indirectly supported
the parliamentary office expenses of Tory Cabinet Minister and Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt before the last
election! That might not be such a problem were 'Education UK' any good - but a recent test of their website
showed that overseas students applying for agricultural courses in Wales being directed to Wolverhampton?!

So why does this useless, bloated, unaccountable Quango survive under The Tories? I think we should be told!

The UK has not been a world power for many years, which may at last be the reality. Possession of an independent (of whom, pray?) is in itself meaningless as the size of the UK landmass is such that a single missile strike would wipe us out. We need defensive forces to protect our maritime interests and in particular, our Western Approaches and coastal waters. Rather than these white elephant carriers we need a compact,modern, and agile Navy with enough smaller ships to do the work, a protective home-based airforce and relevent anti-aircraft missiles, and a reactive and compact army at immediate readiness based in the UK, not strung around the world in post-Imperial bases. All of this could be managed well within the current defence spend...but will it happen, I think not.

https://dblackie.blogs.com/the_language_business/2010/09/the-abolition-of-the-british-council-would-be-welcomed-by-many.html

https://dblackie.blogs.com/the_language_business/2010/09/british-council-panics-again.html

He would say that wouldn`t he because he sees his economic policy as pragmatic without any explicit guiding principle.

The problem with pragmatists is they represent the decayed ideas of previous generations.As Keynes himself remarked.

"The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong, are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist.”

For Mr.Cameron and Mr.Osborne,their main idea is to re-energize the market and shrink the state.Because of institutional change connected with the dominance of major corporations after 1900, and intellectual change following the failure of the market to recover from the great depression without government help,this policy appears simplistic and misguided.

The market economy is a tool which works within restricted circumstances.What it cannot regulate is economic stability or full employment.The intellectual question to be answered is the correct balance between government and market in economic development,and here Mr.Cameron has nothing new to say.

I watched the remmemberance show on BBC on Saturday night, and I thought it had turned into the David Cammeron and Nick Clegg show. I got so tired of seeing these shots and close ups that I turned off my set. The world stage may be good for his immage, however Mr Cammeron should stay at home and work on sorting this country out nad not go globe trotting, to take advise on how to run itby his superiors.

Nick wrote:

"He heralded a foreign policy based on "hard-headed internationalism". I wonder if he realises that this is precisely the phrase used by Gordon Brown at his first Guildhall speech three years ago?"

Yes, but he's just another free-market anarchist (liberal democratic) Trotskyist, just like his predecessor Brown!

He is just the next PR 'face' of the usury pushing elite (just as Gordon was).

Think - bank bail-outs, transfer of state assets to private sector etc., etc.

I note that the prime minister's poshness is slipping into incorrect English with "You know as well as me...."

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

World's 4th largest military power - oh, that sounds good. But why do we have to keep trying to work our way up this particular league table?

Cameron talks about continuing to maintain Britain's 'influence' and 'punching above our weight' - but what good has it done us? We spend at least twice as much on our military as we need to (compared with all other European countries except France), with the result that we have had far less to spend on public infrastructure.

'Influence' might be great for diplomats and politicians to feel important at international conferences, but useless and expensive for the rest of us. Britain's 'decline' in this respect could be the best thing that ever happened to the country.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

The only country that benefits from our large military is the USA. They whistle and we come running. I can think of no significant action our forces could carry out without the agreement and probable active support of the USA. I suspect that even the Falklands would be vulnerable in 10 years when the economic power of South America is seen to be more important to the US in its economic battle with China than our obedience to American military ambitions.

Our national interest can be achieved in many ways. International Development shows a compassionate side to this country. Having large numbers of overseas students studying and believing in the British way of doing things is powerful. Finance and other services are important too. Tolerance and appreciation of those from abroad whom we let in furthers our interests. Those are the things which will give us a good standing in the world and generate the economic activity we need. This does not mean giving in to every appeal for money, allowing bogus students, uncontrolled Banks or tolerating those immigrants who do not want to contribute to and complement our way of life.

Getting that right is the 'hard headed' part. Kidding ourselves that we are or even still need to be one of the big boys can only get in the way. The main problem with Cameron's lack of a clear objectives is that we could be branded as opportunists and that does not improve our standing. In many ways Brown's interest in Africa and deprived nations is a good approach. Microsoft was seen and probably still is a greedy company seeking world domination. However Bill Gates' well known philanthropy has improved its standing - money well spent?

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick, you seem to be really struggling here - you state

"What he did not deliver was a vision. There was no equivalent to the resolution of the cold warrior Margaret Thatcher, the ethical foreign policy of the early Blair years, the interventionism of the later Blair years or the Brown declaration that "global problems require global solutions".
======================

I'm afraid that "global problems require global solutions" does not qualify as a vision, just a platitude.

You also say:

"However, I'm told that he found writing this speech much harder than Gordon Brown did."

Could this be perhaps because Cameron recognises the difficulties that we face and actually wants to do something about it. When perhaps the previous prime minister (god bless his rotten soul) didn't have a clue and didn't really care either?

Whether you like it or not we are in times of trouble and strife - we need a government that is concerned, not one that pretends all is ok.

How amusing that snooty should use the words of failed ex-PM Gordon Brown - and perhaps not even be astute enough to realise it.

Tends to reinforce the view that what we have here is a worst case scenario combination of gordon brown + cuts.

Another good article

#20 and blair/brown where ? they kept 9,000,000 on benifits and let imigrants do the work at slave rates that UK nationals could not do as they had to work for the minimum wage. often living 12 or more to a house hot bedding etc , T+C that you would not allow on a UK national

Current govt is putting more misery to economy by doing unnecessary cuts than doing any good. moreover to add fuel to fire the govt spending will go up in coming years, means the cuts will have no effect on govt spending.
I have come from a third world country and I have seen the poverty and lived in poverty and have first hand experience. I feel that resources are not properly managed in UK. The wealth is spent without any proper guidance or management.
This economic condition is leading us to compromise on our foreign policy. We have a phrase in third world that enemy of USA can survive in long term but the friend of USA will definitley be doomed. We should have a independendent foreign policy. We should not induldge militarily in conflicts not directly affecting us.
Britain has a very high place in the eyes of people living in Asia and Africa and underdeveloped worldthe only way we can keep our moral dominance is to keep up the traditions, the honesty, integrity and sincerety to cause.

So what happened to the broken Britain David Cameron was banging on about before the general election. Is it all ok now?

#15
Re World's 4th largest military power
In the words of Bill Hicks: After the first three there's a REAL big drop off!

Nick - here are the revealing slices from your commentary:

... promise to be more "hard-headed" and more focused on Britain's national interest...
... foreign policy under David Cameron will be much more defined by what happens - by events, in other words - and much less by any guiding vision...

Just which predecessors ever had this 'guiding vision' you cite?

Bush, Blair & Co took their respective nations into Iraq in the wake of 9/11. That was a Wild West B movie: everyone now knows they didn't even go after the guys wot done it. Today as a result, we have Christians fleeing Iraq to save themselves from the excesses of Islamic militants and declaring that things were better under Saddam!

We don't need - rather, cannot afford - any more of these narrow-minded 'national interest' so-called leaders. The world is simply too small. Intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan has been counter productive politically, and devastating on the level of human rights, not to mention the thousands of innocent bystanders that have died as a result.

You also comment
... he insisted that it is by resolving our economic problems at home that we will restore our status abroad. He argued that our military will remain the fourth largest in the world, even after the cuts...
These are the words of groundhog politics:
1 - the idea that money solves any problem (hasn't it just CAUSED global trade meltdown)
2 - the idea that a peaceful world is the result of a strong military force! (petrol and fire come to mind)

One could despair at the near-complete absence of any 'guiding vision' anywhere within the entire political universe.

Why do people pay attention to these hypocritical self-seeking blinkered idiots that present themselves as competent national leaders?
Who is the more foolish? Them or their followers?

It is very strange that so many are now calling for the past to be forgotten yet they still harp on about the Thatcher years. On this week end I heard two senior New Old Labour officials first call for the public to stop "dragging up" the last administration record and concentrate on the coalitions performance. Then almost in the next sentence raise the legacy of the Thatcher years and try and raise similarities between them and our current goverment. The Whips must be out in force with the theme police being told to ensure that all stay on topic. This can't be a coincidence as the same happened last time they thought they had something which they could exploit.

It is a pity that they do not want to talk about how we got in such a mess. A mess that has led us to the brink.

It must be sad to be a lefty for it was your policies that brought us to this point. Yes there was a finacail crisis but it was your control over the banks that allowed it to happen, also your stewardship of the economy. Having eliminated boom and bust you forgot to inform us that you had replaced the "bust" with a nuclear holocaust and committed the "boom" to the annals of history. Yes we have new schools and new hospitals it is just that we can't afford to staff them.

To quote Gordon himself "I accept that mistakes have been made." It's a pity the rest of his party don't. That is why New old Labour or NoL as I like to think of them as (Net Operating Loss) do not want to raise the economy as an issue.

Yes it must be sad to be a lefty......

Its about time we stopped worrying about what the world thinks of us and start concentrating on getting things right at home.

Lets start to be more selfish and jettison Europe to begin with

So, yesterday, we had a quite lengthy case for the prosecution (not Nick's views, you understand). Today, we get the case for the defence, which is noticeably shorter and is criticised by the author, who, this time, makes no attempt to disguise the fact that these are his views.

We are, indeed, fortunate to have people of the calibre of Nick Robinson working for the BBC. I just wish he was a little more even-handed.

I also recognise that this is a Feature article, rather than a News article, although he is reporting on Cameron's speech last night.
But, for my money (and for everyone else's money i.e. the Licence Fee) I would like to see totally impartial, unbiased reporting, rather than individual BBC Employees' views e.g. Robinson, Peston, Simpson who, I fear, may consider themselves rather above simply reporting the news.

There are plenty of Feature Programmes where people's views are clearly represented, so, on News media (TV, Radio, Website), I believe the BBC ought to stick to what the BBC used to be really good at - reporting the news.

29. At 09:06am on 16 Nov 2010, Chris London wrote:
Having eliminated boom and bust you forgot to inform us that you had replaced the "bust" with a nuclear holocaust...
_________________________________________________

Have you got a meal on the table?
Do you have a roof over your head?
Clothes to keep you warm?
Just one or two luxuries beyond these things?

Get a sense of proportion... a financial 'crisis' is hardly a 'nuclear holocaust'.

One day you might discover the difference... to your very substantial detriment. If you are very lucky, death will be quick. If not, you might have years of pain as a precursor.

Economics is ultimately a small issue.
Politicians just make a big deal of it because they are even more incompetent at managing the real issues.

Is GB in decline - ask in two years time when the effects CSR have taken hold on the economy.

Chris @ 29
Sad to be a lefty? Not really, when you consider it was the New Labour policies which aped the Conservatives that caused most problems. Cosying up to the city, failing to regulate the banks, shying away from progressive tax rates, riding the rising tide of house-prices for its feel-good factor …

If they'd been a bit leftier, our economy would have been better placed to cope with the unforeseen and catastrophic global meltdown.

"....language, time zone, membership of the EU and UN Security Council, the City of London and our military...."
These are all really rather arbitrary. English is only the dominant language because of US (past) supremacy - more people speak Chinese; How can EU membership indicate British strength? The UN is ineffective; City of London is corrupt - 2008 financial crisis? We may or may not have the 4th largest military but could we fight a war on our own?

31. At 09:15am on 16 Nov 2010, smartIgnoramus wrote:

I would like to see totally impartial, unbiased reporting...

_______________________________________________________________

Yes. Every media outlet has an inevitable and undesirable bias within its offering. Firstly it has to acknowledge the laws that control media content. Then it has to take care not to offend its funders - be they a government or private business. And then there is the avalanche of marketing content that pays for so much of the media that is 'free' at the point of delivery. (Free in that we do not pay, but not free in that content is heavily filtered and subsequently 'poisoned' with consumerist adverts).

I'm sure guys like Nick get attacked from all angles and attempt nonetheless to report evenly, but that can only be done as best as possible within the constraints that I have just mentioned. So, although the reporters might try to depict the world without colouration, the media is only supplied with coloured pencils!

One good thing, among many bad, that we have in the rise of mass cheap communication - especially the web - is the ability for Jo Bloggs to make his voice heard... even if no one listens!

How unfortunate then that Cameron and the likes (left, right and centre, to use that stupid one-dimensional view of the political spectrum) haven't even got the vision to exploit the web in the interests of expanding that great god to which they all pray... democracy.

Oh no! Put a cross on a piece of paper once every four years... that's all that Jo Bloggs is allowed!

Is GB in decline? Just wait until next year. That's when all the fun will start. Watch for a new round of bank bail outs.

Ruddyfarmer @ 35 wrote:
English is only the dominant language because of US (past) supremacy - more people speak Chinese

>>

Is that correct? I'd say English has at least as many speakers, although most will have learned it as a second or foreign language. If I were to set out on a Grand Tour of the World armed with only a single language, I'd certainly choose English rather than Mandarin. Far more universal. This is only in part due to US supremacy; it also has a lot to do with our imperial past (which of course is why Americans speak it in the first place).

'He insisted that it is by resolving our economic problems at home that we will restore our status abroad.'

...............................

In other words, Mr Robinson, he said what needed saying ... he's starting in the right place ... he has a strategy ... he's not a potential liar after all ... 'he took the wind right out of you sails'!

On a point of interest, just what exactly are you trying to achieve here Nick by presenting a ‘prosecution’ based on “the combined views of those who say that Britain is in decline” and a ‘defence’ based on one speech made by David Cameron? You could hardly call this substantive analysis. The fact that I probably agree with the assertion that Britain is in relative ‘decline’ is irrelevant, but if you want to present a debate you may wish in future to at least set it in a balanced context. In other words, widening the context to ‘the combined views of those who say that Britain ISN’T in decline’ as a ‘defence’ would be classed as journalism, this is effectively a case without a defence – or assertion if you will.

Aside from that, a few names wouldn’t go amiss as to who exactly are ‘those that say that Britain is in decline’. It’s hard to answer a criticism when you do not know the source, and that again is not journalism (outside of the Fox News definition of conjecture).

Well I must admit I am disappointed. Cameron's argument was a lot weaker than it should have been.

I really wish our politicians would tell the truth. If that had been me I'd have told all those City types that they were about as much use to the real economy as the proverbial mammaries on a bull and that the UK's overall decline was almost entirely their fault.

"It is hard to escape the conclusion that foreign policy under David Cameron will be much more defined by what happens - by events, in other words - and much less by any guiding vision."

Well, you get what you pay for. Given the choice between "events" and the rather hollow "ethical foreign policy" of its predecessors, I'm inclined to give this the benefit of the doubt.

I cannot excuse Cam for his lack of vision ELSEWHERE in Government, but so far as this aspect is concerned... we've more important fish to fry.

34 PD65

Not really, when you consider it was the New Labour policies which aped the Conservatives that caused most problems.

PD I appreciate your irony but it really is the ultimate cop out - if I recall it was only the first five years that they followed Tory policies - after that the responsibility is all theirs.

pdavies65 34

If you're statement were correct then I think you've just confirmed how sad it must be to be a lefty. There appears to be no major political party representing your views.

40#

Good points. All they are trying to do is drive a wedge between the coalition members. They're absolutely itching for it. Nothing would give them greater pleasure.

It'll happen itself, soon enough in good time, but we as a nation could really do without the fourth estate doing a rain dance every morning to try and hurry it along.

"If they'd been a bit leftier, our economy would have been better placed to cope with the unforeseen and catastrophic global meltdown."

But Gordon already told us it was best placed! You mean - gasp - no, surely not - that despite saving the world and its banks, he might not have been telling us the whole truth??

35# Ruddy Farmer said
English is only the dominant language because of US (past) supremacy.

Totally disagree.
The former British Empire is why English became the globes universal language.
The internet has reinforced and speeded the whole process up too.
Britain is also a global hub for world travel.

jobs @ 45

You're right. Genuine lefties do not have a major party representing their views. Neither do right-wingers, of course - unless you count the BNP, whose support has apparently dwindled significantly since the election.

So on the balance of your 2 reports, it’s clear that we are in fact in decline as a nation.
No surprises there than.
And to think we haven’t even started the fun yet; the best (or rather the worst) is yet to come.

Meanwhile, Mervyn King has been voicing his concerns over people’s ability to repay their private debts & the effects of rising inflation, but the chances of the much hyped “double dip” recession seem to be easing – at least for now – so maybe all is not lost.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8123547/Inflation-will-squeeze-household-budgets-Mervyn-King-warns.html

There is a certain element of game theory on the international stage.

Do you risk taking time out of acting internationally only to lose out to those countries who invest outwards?

Everyone knows you should get your own house in order first. But we're all envious of those chancers who don't bother and somehow talk themselves up and let others deal with the difficult stuff.

One of the best quotes from Gordon had to be;
"Each year India and China produce four million graduates compared with just over 250,000 in Britain."

When it was pointed out that the population of the UK is just over 61,000,000. Where that of India is 1,175,000,000 and that of China being 1,360,000,000 hence they are each around twenty times the size of the UK so they should be producing well over 10,000,000 graduates per year just to be equal to the UK. His answer was not recorded, unless you know different?

Mind you what counts is "quality rather than quantity" to quote Seneca.

MWC @ 44

You can't deny that New Labour stole the Conservatives' clothes, or at least their leadership did. That's why they were always so unpopular with the rank and file (the 'lefties').

The situation is mirrored by the current Tory leadership, who have decided to soften their image by borrowing Labour's social policies.

Fubar @ 47

Does the Pope poop in the woods?

I find it a little sad that our importance, according to Cameron, included having the 4th largest military in the world.
Firstly I am surprised it is such but even if it i so it is still, in size, a toytown operation compared to the big boys.
I also wonder if this includes the position once we are sharing with France and we have no carrier operational planes?

Mods. Is there a published document of how you work ? I ask because several times lately only those at home during the day have been able to contribute. I am not that often at home then. It has become common for a Mod/Mods to set about the blog about 4.30 pm, remove a raft of threads that have developed naturally and been part of the discussion, removed as off topic, and then close the comment facility.Quite why there is a need to remove them if the blog is closing is puzzling.
It is most frustrating to get home at teatime and see comments in response to your own early morning comments and be unable to respond because the blog is closed for comment.
Thanks.

Is language really an advantage? Foreigners, even from native English speaking countries, find our regional accents baffling. This is even when they appear to be no more than a mild, even attractive, "lilt" to a British ear. Recently in Austria I was conversing with a lady and commented that she spoke German like a German. She explained that while the Austrians spoke differently among themselves and were barely comprehensible to Germans, they all learned "hoch Deutsch" in school. I would add that she also spoke perfect English. Until we can get over our chippiness about class and regional identity and teach children English to an "international" standard, our native language will be more hindrance than help.

25. At 08:44am on 16 Nov 2010, Mature Angel wrote:
=========================================================================
Unfortunately you are showing a little naivety, for, if you have not noticed, there is a little imbalance in our books. Yes when running a country you can't get bogged down with macro or micro economics but that does not mean that you don't have to bother with economics at all. Unless you want to just put out your begging bowl and rely on charity....

32. At 09:25am on 16 Nov 2010, MeOnVenus wrote:
Economics is ultimately a small issue.
=========================================================================
Well said the man who does have a meal on the table and a roof over his head. Unfortunately this may well become a luxury that many don't have access to. Not all down to the last goverment but they must shoulder a significant share of the blame.

49#

The BNP, which you rightly observe has all but imploded, is closer to Labour, MUCH closer to Labour than it was to the far right pd. The "Labour With Added Racism" epithet was hard won and justifiably earned.

I mean, I know the left tries to attribute anything even remotely fascist with the right wing, but that doesnt necessarily make it true. Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's communism were to all intents and purposes two sides of the same coin.

Remember mate, "its only fascism when someone else is doing it."

left10 has a look at the eqauiltytrust web and spoke to a member of the team.

ALL they are interested in is income redistribution and Not the casues of poverty, like family breakdown or family leadership/mentors to their own children etc.

ALL they want to do is stop people earning more

53 PD65

Indeed, cross dressing seems to be the norm these days.

#53 do you mean by that Frank "think the unthinkable and get sacked for your thought casue they aint Tony/Gordons thoughts" Field then is in tune with IDS etc

#53 pd65 wrote:
"You can't deny that New Labour stole the Conservatives' clothes, or at least their leadership did."

You could equally well have said that the Conservatives have stolen Labour's clothes at various times, e.g. the acceptance of many of the policies of the 1945 Labour Government, and the subsequent Butskellism of the 1950s.

In answer to people who say that New Labour was "right-wing" I say that we have had "left wing" governments from 1945-1979, and from 1997 to the present. Of course I find neither proposition particularly insightful, but then I am replying to you.

"There is no list of the problems facing the world - Iran, the Middle East peace process, Burma and so on - with Cameron's proposed solutions."
"It is hard to escape the conclusion that foreign policy under David Cameron will be much more defined by what happens - by events, in other words - and much less by any guiding vision."

How many past international leaders, US Presidents especially, have had visions of how to deal with the Middle East problem, for instance, only for their visions to become unraveled by real events on the ground? The solutions are out there, but it requires the main protagonists to have the desire, willingness and courage to enact upon them. And that includes the US itself.
It doesn't require Cameron to reinvent the wheel or state the obvious.

I wonder about you, Robinson.

34. At 09:37am on 16 Nov 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
If they'd been a bit leftier, our economy would have been better placed to cope with the unforeseen and catastrophic global meltdown.
=========================================================================
At the end they could not have been more lefty if they tried. They could not spend enough, quickly enough on good causes. However they did not think things through or plan or budget Etc. Etc. Etc. Throwing money at a problem never solves the problem, unless no money is the problem. This is something that successive Labour governments have never understood and that is why, after a Labour government's term in office we are always left with an economic disaster.

As for following the Tories policies, there is one thing to follow them there is another to actually deliver them. Something that Tony and Gordon never quite got to grips with. Lets face it there were good intentions but as they say "the road to hell is paved with good intentions" and we were on our way to hell. Quote attributed to Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

29. Chris London

Now remind me:
Who decided to snuggle up to the employers groups & the city & even got some of them into unelected positions in the Government?

Who decided to go one step further than the Tories in their Banking (de) regulations causing yet another housing boom & bust & over one Trillion Pounds private debt?

Who decided that it would be really cool to carry on privatising the few Public concerns that we had left?

Who decided that it would be a good idea to get their funding from big businessmen instead of the Trade Unions – cue Bernie Ecclestone affair et al.

Who decided to take the idea of the PFI to new dizzy heights of abuse?

Who stood by as the rich got richer & the rest of us just dug ourselves into more debt?

Thatcher – no; step forward Tony Blair & NuLabour.

And finally; who let them get away with it by voting with them on so many occasions that it seemed we had no credible opposition?
Step forward David Cameron, the self proclaimed “Heir to Blair”.
The worm turns my friend.
Now read on:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article574814.ece

59
OK, Fubar. I didn't think referring to the BNP as right-wing was controversial, but apparently it is (with you, at least).

41. At 09:59am on 16 Nov 2010, Cassandra wrote:
Well I must admit I am disappointed
=========================================================================
Well, I am disappointed that you are disappointed, however not surprised....

Folks,

Firstly, as I mentioned yesterday, some good news! It turns out that money is no longer a measure of happiness, so our failing economy no longer matters. Hurrah! Bring on the happiness :-) [Clever old Dave; he used to be a marketing man, you know?]

Secondly, in response to some of the comments here:

(3) "I notice the above blog makes a rather less compelling case than the earlier blog arguing for the view that Britain is in decline. I was expecting a BBC style balanced argument."

^ Well, maybe the country really is in decline; or maybe the BBC really is a communist conspiracy. I'll let you decide which is the more realistic answer.

(21) "Could [alleged difficulty in speechwriting] perhaps be because Cameron recognises the difficulties that we face and actually wants to do something about it. When perhaps the previous prime minister (god bless his rotten soul) didn't have a clue and didn't really care either?"

^ Again, or could it be that Dear Dave was simply struggling to find good things to say, rather than being choked with concern. Though he does have a caring face, doesn't he?

(29) "That is why New old Labour or NoL as I like to think of them as (Net Operating Loss) do not want to raise the economy as an issue."

^ Christmas parties in the accounts department must be a real blast!

Political sniping aside, who really cares whether Dave has a 'vision' or not? The future of his party and their ideology will be judged quite simply on whether or not it generates 'success' in time for the next general election. It won't be measured on what he says over dinner with "ambassadors, dukes and bishops and heralded by trumpets". It will be measured on the number of employed, the number of police (and possibly homeless) on our streets, the rise or fall of our GDP, the quality of our health and education, and so on...

Ultimately, somewhere on the horizon is the moment when this government will have to stand accountable for its own actions, rather than blaming those before them. And when that moment comes I'm certain that the rhetoric will cease as reality bites.

The proof will be in the pudding: spotted dick or otherwise.

JohnHarris66 wrote: "Of course I find neither proposition particularly insightful, but then I am replying to you."

>>

I sense an almost unbearable ennui in your reply. Is the cold weather getting you down?

The comment you responded to (my 53) was pretty even-handed. Perhaps not "particularly insightful" but, you know, one does what one can.

Of course this country is in slow long term decline. Economic power is shifting eastwards. Look at our balance of payments / balance of trade. We have been living beyond our means for years, the fact partly hidden by the benefits of North Sea oil and gas. The real time bomb facing us is the rise in the population to around 70 million in the next 15/20 years. We need this like a hole in the head. Where are the jobs, schools, hospitals , power, water etc coming from to support this increase. Utter madness. With people living longer and having to work longer job turnover will slow and its a racing certainty that unemployment will increase sharply leading to social unrest. Multiculturalism is already discredited and seen as a failure. To keep the population down we need to stop non EU immigration completely. Just dont bet on it happening !!

67. At 11:03am on 16 Nov 2010, pdavies65 wrote:

59
OK, Fubar. I didn't think referring to the BNP as right-wing was controversial, but apparently it is
---------------------------------------------------------------

No.... you wouldn't think it controversial, would you mate?

The "Britain in decline" debate is hardly new.

Before the First World War there was much discussion of Britain's ability to stand alone in the face of potentially hostile European powers, especially Bismarck's Germany.

Then, after the Second World War we had "Europe in decline."

Now, with the rise of China and India, we have "The West in decline" (though even this had been discussed a century earlier).

66. At 11:00am on 16 Nov 2010, forgottenukcitizen wrote:
=========================================================================
And you point is that Nu Labour tried to follow Tory policies and failed to deliver and now the Tories are going to put things rite and follow their own policies. Good point well made there by the Sad Lefty...

71. At 11:17am on 16 Nov 2010, inkerman1943 wrote:
=========================================================================
There is a fact that the rise of an economic power is now much swifter than was the case however their time at the top is also much shorter. Instead of decades we are now talking tens of years. It is expected that China will be the next dominant economic force but this will only last for around twenty to thirty years at best as India who's population is growing a lot faster will take over from them. Now the reason for the reduction in the cycle timeline is that the population want more and want it quicker so driving down their own Independence as others benefit from the growth in their own internal economy.

The question is who will be the next gig thing after these two, will it be a South American country, Far East no one knows as it will be surely be driven by other factors other than just economics, but economics will be there somewhere....

#3 @clynch26

I agree with your observation. However, it could well be that the case for the defence is indeed rather weak.

I don't think it's a question of the BBC being biased in this particular case. The government inherited a very difficult economic situation, and not surprisingly, their early days are wobbly. They're struggling to find any piece of good news they can lay lay claim to, such as announcing a new 'Silicon Valley' in East London, when there's already one crumbling in the M4 corridor.

That Mr Cameron spoke to the Chinese in private about human rights, is testimony of Britain's position in the NEW hierarchy.

Britain is in decline; the allies know it, the government won't admit, and its people are unsure, left only with the English language to show for past glory and hold onto, perhaps as a surety if not a remembrance.

Protectionism will not help us. This is a time when we need to forge stronger strategic alliances, economically and militarily. Abandoning the US in maintaining 'world order' may eventually hurt economic and military cooperation with that most important of allies. As Nick highlighted yesterday in his conclusion, there are many in Washington who are beginning to doubt Britain's commitment to the friendship. The US cannot afford to cede it's position to any other country on the planet. But they need friends, who in turn would benefit from having a stronger 'big brother'.

But it's not just about helping America maintain their otherwise weakening position. This is about British interests too.

Right here are my 2 cents:

I come from a developing country. UK is a country that I respect and admire therefore I'm here; I like the way things are done in Britain but I think a few things are hurting its image more than helping it:

1) The "special" relationship with US is one-sided. America takes advantage of it sending UK troops to the deadliest parts of Afghanistan for example..what do we obtain from this relationship? US is no longer the dominant power..We should separate an integrate more into Europe.

2) Europe can be a dominant power; with economies like Germany; CZ, PL and UK pulling together it could compete with the Asian countries.

3) The army should have one only purpose which is to defend British soil from external treats; and not go around the world supporting it's bullying partner the US. Expenditure should be dramatically cut.

4) Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan were a huge mistake is time to realise that and bring the troops home.

Note I say "we" as I feel as British as Jhon Smith!

I have just received a reply from the EU regarding their accounts and why they have not been signed off by the auditors. As you can imaging I was not surprised when they just refered me back to their web page but of of the links did surprise and amused me;

https://ec.europa.eu/budget/sound_fin_mgt/myths_en.htm

It may well cheer you up if nothing else as the sender was quite proud of this link...

You're in decline because you're not getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, then coming home for some grub and baby making. Instead, you're all just queing up for government slush.

"The real time bomb facing us is the rise in the population to around 70 million in the next 15/20 years. We need this like a hole in the head."

Funny that, the former Home Secretary and now Shadow Chancellor Of The Exchequer said he had lost absolutely no sleep whatsoever on the subject.

And, given the sheeples propensity to want everything and want it now, he's got a fairly even chance of being the person in No 11 Downing St in five years time... or maybe less...

AS MY PREVIOUS POST WAS REJECTED AS IT TOLD A TRUTH PERHAPS OTHER PEOPLE WILL MAKE THEIR OWN MINDS UP ABOUT WHAT MR ROBINSON THINKS ABOUT OUR TROOPS, IE.

"The British army was humiliated in southern Iraq, some claim. They had to rely on the Americans coming to their aid in the "Charge of the Knights".

Despite showing extraordinary bravery British forces in Helmand have been no more successful than they were in Basra and have, once again, needed the Americans to come to the rescue"

Its under your blog Mr Robinson so you must agree with what has been implied, we were useless and a load of pansies and needed big green boys to save the day.

4. At 11:38am on 16 Nov 2010, Chris London wrote:
66. At 11:00am on 16 Nov 2010, forgottenukcitizen wrote:
=========================================================================
And you point is that Nu Labour tried to follow Tory policies and failed to deliver and now the Tories are going to put things rite and follow their own policies. Good point well made there by the Sad Lefty...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, the point being that both Parties followed the same policies & failed, so why carry on playing the same old broken record?
Still, we have D.C now, so things are going to be so much better this time around.
Yes I agree with you & anybody who disagrees has to be a sad Labour voting lefty & not a concerned Tory voter.

johnharris66 73

The point you are missing John, when you say, Britain in decline has been an issue for many years. Is that in the past there was always the prospect of Britain growing its way out of its economic problems. This is much less possible now with the economic power in the hands of places like India and China. The Britain of the past, at times of economic decline, did not have a benefits culture, high immigration levels, a lack of good education, a badly skilled work force, heavy personal debt amongst the public, poor Government, state control to the degree it has now, reliance on the state and many more issues which contribute to the outlook being completely different. Furthermore Britain actually made things that other Countries wanted to buy. This is no longer true, and of course, Countries such as China were not the competition they are now. We also did not have a Global economy to contend with, the balance of power was held by very few Countries.

The Britain of today is almost certainly in decline, and will never again be any kind of force within the World. This is the culmination of years of failing to modernize, arrogance by living in the belief that Britain, would by right, always have its place in the World, too much socialism, by spending far too much money on the wrong policies instead of growing the economy and too much interference in other Countries.

No political party, at the moment, has the will or the ability to get Britain out of this decline. The public too, is not understanding the problem and is hostile to any policy which may rob them of their own personal gains.

To even halt the decline it will take a very strong Government and harsh unpopular measures, and no one on the scene at the moment, in politics, puts Britain above their own self promotion, therefore the decline will continue.

Ireland is actually going in the right direction with policy but has the restraints of both the Euro and the foolish statements made in the EU, which is causing the Markets to lose faith.

Britain in decline? What a rubbish debate this is.

Cameron on one side arguing "Broken Britain" and eh, Cameron on the other side arguing "Ok, a little above average, round about 4th, Britain".

Maybe after the election Cameron just wanted to feel like he'd won something.

Good to see our bunch of lefties, righties and moral high ground neitheries havin a good blether though.

80. At 12:11pm on 16 Nov 2010, Fubar_Saunders wrote:
=========================================================================
Perhaps he is thinking further ahead and surly there will be a round for him with that size of population. After all those Giros don't deliver themselves.

I would agree with you that our culture needs to change from one of wanting it all and wanting it now for that is exactly the reason why we are where we are today.

I know the Big Society is a big ask and a little gimmicky but we do need the change to happen.

"You're in decline because you're not getting out of bed in the morning and going to work, then coming home for some grub and baby making. Instead, you're all just queing up for government slush."

^ Brilliant. Well that explains it then.

The root of all evil is clearly those people who receive benefits. Don't worry, they have a ton of misery and hardship coming their way, so they'll get what they deserve and you can start feeling better about the world.

Perhaps kicking a few stray dogs will tide you over the meantime...?

Do I care if our military is the 4th largest or the 14th largest? No.

Do I care if the trains run on time? Yes.

Do I care if our hospitals are clean? Yes.

Do I care if our schools turn out well educated kids who can read and write? Yes.

Do I care what British policy is as it relates to the environment in Sudan? Not really.

From this voter's perspective I think the priorities are clear. Let's fix our own nation before we try and fix anyone else's.

66 forgottenukcitizen

So Cameron thinks he is "heir to Blair". God help us then.

One wonders about his mind when he thinks this is a clever thing to say at a Press do.

It is a good job that they can only govern with the Lib-Dems making the numbers up. As the bye elections bring the numbers down even more and possibly Lib-Dem revolts, the save the rich and cut the poor more may be tempered somewhat.

Incidentally did nobody tell Sky News the tradition of not supplying info to the Police until ordered to ? To make a story boasting of doing this will not I am sure be appreciated by the rest of the media who will now be treated as police spies at demos.

The PM is in danger of beleiving his own publicity. As an ex PR man, presumably because he could not get a proper job, he risks beleiving his own story. This less than a year in almost confirms him as a "one term PM" it took Margaret Thatcher 3 goes before she fell into this trap.

Better to realise UK is in decline due to poor management, hopeless government policies on trade, and uneducated under employed workforce. These are the real problems of Britain and it is time someone faced up to it rather than kid ourselves that trying to put the "Gret3 into Britain is something worth doing. It isn't and we would all do well to wise up.

I think it is a mis-reading the David Cameron does not have a guiding vision because he does not tub thump an extreme position. I believe he does have a vision, however he is also media savvy enough to understand that the full vision will frighten the voters and media such that they will prevent that vision from ever being realised. Witness the frenzy over housing benefit changes and child benefit being so overblown for what are in the scale of the challenge rather small.

He told us about the big society and how the NHS was safe, which is his take on the soft social enablers to conventional small government theory, if society learns to do more for itself of the soft social/community things voluntarily then they will benefit from having smaller government as they take on some of those things currently paid for centrally(sold as freedom and wealth).

Look closer though, have not the fundamental funding decisons been given to the only group within the NHS who are not actually NHS employees (some are actually employees of US corporations) for the most part. If they are not public employees then what must they be? What if they fund private hospitals to carryout treatments if they are cheaper than the public equivalent - competition driving innovation in health to the benefit of better outcomes and lower costs, is that such a bad thing?

Look closer - central control of individual school budgets so that local authorities cannot impede the trusts, foundation and free schools ability to compete for pupils and succeed. Does it then really matter whether the funds go to a state owned school or a privately owned and run one, they get the same and so as long as the results are good, does it matter that one is for profit and one not?

Look closer - where are the biggest cuts coming, local authorities, rolling back the state provision of the nice to haves piece by piece. Opening up competition from co-operatives or private companies.

Even using foreign policy to drive commercial goals feeds to this vision and the pragmatism he has shown.
You cannot destroy industries or communities first and then hope private industry will fill the void. This was the mistake of the 80s as much as trying to conserve ones in need of a radical shake-up by nationalising them was in the 70s.

Export earnings are critical and key - so less high minded (and ultimately undeliverable) idealist posing leaving you looking like hypocrites and a bit more pragmatism in using our resources to cut deals like our competitors would serve the nation well.

Unlike some of his predecessors he seems to have learned that making a big government into a small government does not neccesarily repeat the success of making a small state successful by not creating big government in the first place.
The social consequences of radical change are often violent and undesireable more so than those of quiet measured change (something I am sure his recent hosts will have discussed at length). After all most of the shouting and hand wringing about change happen before it has even happened - afterwards most people do what people have always done, adjust to the new situation and get on with it in the way that suits them best.

Ref No 83 - Sue.

Unfortunatley you speak the truth - but we are all too tied up in blaming each other - as this string of blogs demonstrates only too well.

The decline of Britain imo can be put firmly at the door of our political class.

Slowly over time , the balance in parliament and across our political system that was gained from labour supposedly speaking for the working class and the tories for the bosses managers toffs whatever you may wish to call them, has been so eroded that i cannot tell them apart.

Our vote becomes meaningless when the only people we can pick from are hand picked at the major parties HQ's , the more they bring to the political table in the way of backing the safer the seat they are given to fight.

How can we change this ??? there is no way that the system will ever be changed by the incumbent politicians they have too nice a job and conditions to ever want reform and as has been seen they have grown in volume dramatically with the devolved parliaments, and they also wanted more regional assemblies,more elected mayors all leeching from the economy, with the myth that it would give us greater say, whereas the reality is we are just funding property portfolios and pension schemes with no tangible benefit to our lives.

The only way we can change is it to en mass reject all the major political parties and back local people who care about the area and the well being of the people who they represent. Will it happen ??? probably not in my lifetime but it needs to be done and the sooner the better.

This is the real decline in Britain when our politicians only represent one facet of the people and the short term gain that is in it for them.

”…… I also recognise that this is a Feature article, rather than a News article, although he is reporting on Cameron's speech last night.
But, for my money I would like to see totally impartial, unbiased reporting, rather than individual BBC Employees' views e.g. Robinson, Peston, Simpson who, I fear, may consider themselves rather above simply reporting the news.
There are plenty of Feature Programmes where people's views are clearly represented, so, on News media (TV, Radio, Website), I believe the BBC ought to stick to what the BBC used to be really good at - reporting the news.” (smartIgnoramus, 31)
………………………………………………………………………
I disagree with your thesis that Robinson has to be a ‘reporter’ of news. He is a ‘Journalist’ and an Editor; and this is a BLOG – where opinions are the real stuff of postings. He has opinions, he posts them, and he gives you the privilege of posting your opinion on his site.
Robinson is perfectly capable of being a reporter but he is employed to do much more than that, and this blog-topic is ‘split perspectives’ where both demand the ranging of opinions as well as ‘facts’.
Try less-churlish/more-generous – Mr Robinson is trying a new technique to engage discourse and to get people to see ‘both sides’.

88., xTunbridge:
Yes, the ConDems made plenty of noise about Labour’s “surveillance society” in opposition, but I’m expecting this to be kicked into the long grass sooner rather than later; could come in handy if the kids kick off again.

Talking of long grass – looks like the Tories Manifesto pledge of anonymity for those accused of rape until prosecution has been kicked there as well.

It’s getting very difficult to tell the various political parties apart these days when they can’t even stick to concepts like “innocent until proven guilty” & carry through simple Manifesto promises without being derailed by lobby groups at the slightest push.

Still, Labour didn’t understand this either, so I guess two wrongs really do make a right – or not depending on your point of view.

Indeed, Nick Robinson, David Cameron would do well not to mention Margaret Thatcher.

Why? David Cameron wants a 'Big Society' - yet Margaret Thatcher said there is no such thing as society.

So, Nick Robinson, how do those who have your ear, explain that paradox?

Susan@83
"Furthermore Britain actually made things that other Countries wanted to buy

We still excel in high end engineering products but even these tend to be out sourced with just final assembly done here.

Our strengths are in niche, specialist technologies - these unfortunately do not generate mass employment.

93. GeoffWard:
"Try less-churlish/more-generous – Mr Robinson is trying a new technique to engage discourse and to get people to see ‘both sides’."

Yes, it's called appealing to the lowest common denominator.

(Works for me ;))

JH66@73

It depends whether that is absolute decline relative to where we are now or relative to our position against the other nations.

I do not believe we are in absolute decline, technological advances over time always improve our living standards.

Relative decline possibly - our inflated opinion of our place in the world could do with a more realistic appraisal.

#95 corum-populo-2010

I think Thatcher was making the abstract point that there is no such thing as society (that is at fault) over and above the individual men and women that comprise it.

She wrote: "There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate." ('Women's Own', 1987)

Possibly this is an incorrect formulation, but the quotation is not a fair reflection of the whole article (which is worth reading). It is a misunderstanding to see it all glorifying individualism at the cost of social responsibility.

So, in answer to your question, there is no paradox.

#83 (Susan Croft) and #98 (meninwhitecoats)

Agree.

I was merely trying to place the current debate in its historical context; and to suggest that perhaps we are entering a period that can be called 'The Decline of the West' rather than the decline of the UK in particular (though Spengler's work of that name was published after the end of the 1st World War)