Labour spent quite heavily on defense, it just didn't spend it on troops, but infrastructure, notably communications systems and hardware.

Labour continued the conservative practice of restricting access to the welfare state for the unemployed. It was Labour who introduced ATOS and implemented a number of crack downs on Benefit Fraud, actually to the point of spending more on the crack down than benefit fraud cost.

The perception of Labour being generous on benefits, is that they were actually less generous than the previous three conservative governments.

The border abandonment isn't quite so clear cut, as New Labour increased border spending on staff and infrastructure, however the failure of the private sector to deliver the 'Eborders' solution, resulted in a necessity of returning to an antiquated system, for an interim period, whilst a new system was introduced (Nov last year).

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

I think the reverse smacks of 1980's politics, not to mention pre-1945 politics

Don't overlook that according to a 2015 report by the Office of Rail Regulation the government/ taxpayer continues to be a £3.8 billion net funder of train operating companies. After receiving billions of pounds in funding, train operating companies paid out £183m to shareholders in dividends.

There are only two companies which give back more to the coffers than they take out in subsidies. One of those is East Coast, which actually made a net contribution of £23m to the UK government in 2013/14 – suggesting the success of a publicly-owned model for East Coast as opposed to a private model.

Edited by legaleagle (14 Aug 2015 3.02pm)

You're a good candidate to prove me wrong but anything involving Labour and computers was a disaster.

I recall my GP having some redundant ID card slot on his computer some years after the roll-out of the new NHS system.

There are essentials though. Capitalist countries have free enterprise whose economies are largely driven by market forces. Socialist countries have state controlled industries and services not driven by market forces, hence their inefficiencies, waste and general lack of success. Scandinavian countries tend to have a good deal of state regulation of their privately run industries, but they are still essentially Capitalist - as is Germany and France. I do accept that France has a somewhat left wing government, that is now both unsuccessful and unpopular and will no doubt be kicked out at their next election. All of the EU member countries suffer from the heavy hand of that appalling organisation that tries to rig and interfere with free market forces with various socialist style nonsenses like the Common Agricultural Policy that costs a fortune, keeps food prices high, wastes food and keeps, mainly French, farmer in four-wheel-drive vehicles.

mother-in-law is an anagram of woman hitler

Only socialists mourn the loss of our dirty, dangerous industries. All too convenient for them that 'capitalist greed' is the basis of their replacement. Not to mention Maggie's hand in it all.

The only compliment I'll ever pay to Labour is on their devotion to the IT sector which at its peak served as Britain's alternative step away from heavy industry. Perhaps apt now that these are some of the worlds biggest tax evaders.

Imagine watching all those 80s montages of oversized mobiles and briefcases and seeing the scourge of society rather than something which kept Britain a player.

That's what it's like to be a lefty.

Edited by johnfirewall (14 Aug 2015 3.52pm)

Its quite common to roll out PC's that have redundant hardware in them, as its often cheaper in terms of support in the long run. Usually when a gets underway it will specifically buy up a lot of identical machines, with exactly the same spec.

Then disable unnecessary function in the core build. The key to support, with PC's, is to have as few variations in the system as possible, especially in terms of hardware.

Seems minor, but it saves a fortune, as you need less specialist. You really see this in the difference between Console (relatively identical hardware) games and PC's (where you might need to support upwards of 20 graphics cards).

It means having a less costs in terms of testing and development, as well as support (you generally have a stock of replacement hardware, so you can just switch out the hardware and know it will work perfectly).

I have a Defense PC that was new in 2008, and that's a fancy new one. Some of the hardware we've just taken out of service was new in 2004 (we just bought enough PCs to last 11 years).

Edited by jamiemartin721 (14 Aug 2015 3.55pm)

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]