The Conservative party is wildly delighted in the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the leadership of the Labour party. This far left MP has never previously held any position of responsibility and holds views that distress many moderate Labour MPs, and whose leadership signals the end of any chances of a Labour government.

How did this disaster for Labor occur? The answer is simple, it opened the election of the labour party to the rank and file members, and elected a leader that was representative of these members, but far from the center of UK politics or even the traditional labour base. The problem for Labour, was that the membership of the party had been falling, and was now largely made up by ideological activists. The test will be the results of a by election in a formally safe labour seat.

It will be interesting to see whether if Shorten is knifed, whether the new 50% rank and file membership vote for party leader will have similar disastrous consequences for Labor here.

With their next election nnot until 2020, it's far too early to declare this a disaster for Labour. Though Corbyn's their leader, he doesn't dictate party policy.

The British FPTP voting system, combined with voluntary voting, means that candidates there can win with the support of a lot less than half the population. Australia's compulsory preferential voting means that at least half of those on the electoral roll regard the winner as preferable to the candidate that comes second. And thst tends to have a centering effect.

I really don't see how the "new 50% rank and file membership vote for party leader" could have similar disastrous consequences for Labor here. There's nobody in federal Labor anywhere near as unelectable as Abbott was!

"The British FPTP voting system, combined with voluntary voting, means that candidates there can win with the support of a lot less than half the population. Australia's compulsory preferential voting means that at least half of those on the electoral roll regard the winner as preferable to the candidate that comes second. And thst tends to have a centering effect."

Absolutely....in the recent UK election, 61.1% of voters voted for someone other that a Tory candidate, but got stuck with them for another five years anyway.

http://theconversation.com/voting-system-gives-tories-a-result-most-uk-voters-didnt-want-41595

"It will be interesting to see whether if Shorten is knifed, whether the new 50% rank and file membership vote for party leader will have similar disastrous consequences for Labor here."

Didn't the rank and file already choose Albanese under that system - but the parliamentary section overrode that preference in favour of Shorten? (not sure exactly how that works)

Corbyn's prominence is a reaction to the Conservative Govt's years of undermining Britain's social democracy. They're years ahead of Australia's Liberal party in that regard, having (as one example) white-anted the NHS by privatising it bit by bit, selling it off to their rich mates.

Nearly 100,000 children are functionally homeless in England, for instance - things like that guarantee a left-wing backlash.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-34346908

In the last few years, 1,000 new Foodbanks have sprung up around the country as the Tory machine slowly munches up the foundations of a successful egalitarian society and plows it into the ground.

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/may/01/food-banks-most-people-at-the-school-gates-have-used-them

"... In 2010, the food bank was an unfamiliar concept, but five years later, more than 1,000 are operating around the country...."

Does that sound like a cutting edge recipe for a vital workforce and economy?

Of course, it was dipstick Abbott's intention to get stuck straight into the UK Tory agenda for Australia when he was elected, hence the notorious, and ultimately failed, 2014 budget. However, the British Tories have had far longer to work on the plundering of the UK system, which is no doubt continuing as we speak.

Sorry to belabour the point, but Britain's standard of living seems to
have been following their decline of oil production from the Nth Sea.
Britain changed from being a major exporter to an importer around 2000.
Their energy costs have been climbing ever since.
Statistics seem to be hard to find on this angle.

In cold countries an increase in energy costs has an immediate affect
on disposable income because heating is not an option.

Oh Poirot, wouldn't it be wonderful if we could get back to such a system.

It would cut out those who have no interest in voting, a great improvement just in itself.

However, even better, it would stop the Greens & other ratbags, sticking us with these hopeless Labor governments.

It is democratic for the rank and file of a party to select its leaders. The general population should select leaders of both party and government. The Westminster system does not allow that.

If we had a voting system of "noncompulsory voting" and FPTP, we would not have governments elected by the swinging voters being bought by the biggest offer in the auction/election and the parties would not have to pander to them.
It would mean that the brain dead and disinterested not having to vote would ignore elections and leave them to people who actually thought about policies.
As for being "stuck with the Greens and other ratbags sticking us with hopeless labour governments" well imagine if we only ever had liberals ?
By now we would have the top 1% and the corporations paying no tax, the small earner paying heaps of tax, no health system for the poor, no safety net for the unemployed and needy and of course the homeless would be still forgotten.
Any party that thought up a leader such as Abbott and tries to foist him on the country , has to be flawed.
Corbyn will be the saviour of UK and we should envy them.
Of course he will romp in at the next election .
I hope that we can find our own "Corbyn" and save us from the inevitable slide to oblivion that will come otherwise.
Now the mining boom is crumbling and with the new TPP and CTT we are lost .
Unemployment is rising and will rocket up as will the housing bubble burst.
Our manufacturing has been exported overseas so that the Corps can make bigger profits.
Now we have an El Nino that will devastate agriculture.
The "New" Prime minister is going to reduce tax even more, raise the GST.
Who will feel that most? Not the very rich. An extra 5% will not make any difference to them but to someone who is struggling to survive it will make all the difference.
Abbott was so proud that he scrapped the carbon tax and made everything cheaper for us. How much dearer will everything be with 15% GST?
My advice is to grow your own food, get a bike, pay off your debt and hope.

Aidan,

The point of the leader of the party is to define the policy direction, and while 2020 is a while away, nearly every political commentator is certain that it will be a wipe out for Labour, as the majority of votes are in the centre not the fringe.

David f,

I don't disagree that the election of Corbyn reflected the wishes of the majority of the members of the Labour party, but it certainly does not reflect the values of anywhere near the central voters, nor the senior party members who know what is needed to be elected.

Poirot,

The next election for Labor leader will probably not include Shorten as he is doing so badly. The last election saw BS just ahead with the caucus vote edging out the rank and file vote. The question is whether this new system will permanently skew the labor leadership to the far left and the political wilderness.

I will also briefly entertain your attempt to divert the thread, The British FPTP tends to favour the major parties, or those with a focus on specific areas. ie. The SNP focused in Scotland did well, but UKIP with low but broad based support fared badly.

Secondly, if the preference system had been used, UKIP and other more conservative candidates would have preferenced the Conservative party, which probably would have led to them getting even more seats than they did. Also notably in 2010 62% of voters did not vote for labor, but they got about 48% of the seats. Thus the premise that voters would have prefered another party in power (ie Labour) is disingenuous.

Finally,

If Labour's reaction to the Tories ditching some of Labour's wasteful projects , that boosted Britain's debt, is to elect a leader that will be rejected by voters, then the Tories should continue.

SM,

"I will also briefly entertain your attempt to divert the thread..."

I was responding to Aidan's valid point.

And if we're talking about Corbyn, why is it diverting the thread to bring up the UK voting system in our responses?

Just pointing out why the likes of Corbyn comes to prominence when the UK is run by a bunch of rabid right-wing toffs who are intent on destroying the social foundations installed after WWII.

Poirot,

"a bunch of rabid right-wing toffs" Really? I can sense the spittle on your monitor. I am afraid that you are so rabidly left wing that the loony Greens would appear centrist.

The reason the toffs are running the country is because the rabid left whinge yobs cocked it up yet again and ran out of other people's money to spend. The result is that the UK is recovering better than just about anyone else in Europe.

As I said before, the elevation of Corbyn to the leadership of Labour is celebrated more by conservatives than by Labour. With JC at the helm Labour will never rule Britain again. And you can put that in the bank.

Shadow,

Britain is financially sovereign. They have unlimited credit.

Gordon Brown was an incompetent chancellor. He wasted a huge amount of money. But he did one thing right: stayed out of the Eurozone. So there was no danger of actually running out of money.

George Osborne was an even more incompetent chancellor. Despite no danger of running out of money, he cut government spending at a time when the economy needed more of it. The British economy still hasn't properly recovered.

If Corbyn leads Labour to a loss at the next election, it won't mean they'll never rule Britain again. They'll be back five years later.

I have read what Corbyn advocates. It appears to me as though he is for a fairer, more compassionate society than the current one in the UK. The Murdoch press and those who go along the views expressed in that press will feel their privileges threatened. It remains to be seen whether the media and Corbyn's opponents will convince the people to vote against their interests.

So the Tory Govt has not been a disaster with bailing out banks with public money when they should have been liquidated or nationalised ?

Corbyn wants QE for the people not socialism for the rich. He also wants Govt banks that can create debt free money for infrastructure.

Our system is on the brink of total collapse and the apologists who feed off this parasitic system want it to continue.

SM,

"I can sense the spittle on your monitor. I am afraid that you are so rabidly left wing that the loony Greens would appear centrist."

Lol!...coming from OLO's RWNJ in Chief - that's amusing.

David f, has a point....

"I have read what Corbyn advocates. It appears to me as though he is for a fairer, more compassionate society than the current one in the UK. The Murdoch press and those who go along the views expressed in that press will feel their privileges threatened. It remains to be seen whether the media and Corbyn's opponents will convince the people to vote against their interests."

Just to recap, Abbott and his goons went to all that trouble to slide themselves into govt on a conveyor belt of lies, when all along they had the UK Tory agenda in mind for Australia. As soon as they were in, they revealed the real agenda - followed it up with the 2014 budget - and Voila!

The sad, sad moral of that story is that budget was never passed, Tony Abbott is out on his pink ear, Hockey is being measured up for his Washington sinecure and although Mal is still sticking to the rest of the govt effluvia, we're nowhere near the kind of societal wreckage (a la UK Tories) that the original Abbott govt had in mind.

Sometimes I love you Poirot;

Robert LePage,

Smile : )

SM, don't worry you have to get privileged access to reprogram a computer.
Poirot will not give you access.

"SM, don't worry you have to get privileged access to reprogram a computer.
Poirot will not give you access."

Lol!...says the guy who is programmed to turn every thread into a discussion about oil.

Touches Poirot, quite true, but then you all go worrying about the
wrong problem so someone has to rty and get you to see how energy
affects ABSOLUTELY EVERYTHING ! In my posts I detail how forced hurrying tactics; narrow minded, irrelevant to real life curriculum subjects, are meant to dumb down a working class (intelligent learning abilities) to truck driver level of skills. Because people are so repressive of complex and doubtful thinking, people don't want to believe they have been intentionally dummied.

Especially politics will have to stare it in the face.

Bazz,

".... In my posts I detail how forced hurrying tactics; narrow minded, irrelevant to real life curriculum subjects, are meant to dumb down a working class (intelligent learning abilities) to truck driver level of skills. Because people are so repressive of complex and doubtful thinking, people don't want to believe they have been intentionally dummied."

I don't disagree with that...it's one of the reasons I educate my son outside of main stream institutions.

But you keep referring to me as a computer programme because I take exception to the increasing right-wing undermining of post war social democracy, with the lion's share of profits going to corps and the 1%.

I'll continue to do so....all the while acknowledging that the "education system" is not designed to equip youngsters with independent thinking skills.

Poirot,

You forget that the conveyor of lies that carried Abbott into office were those of Juliar and her goons who never kept a single promise. That and Labor's staggering incompetence.

The problem with Corbyn's wildly unrealistic promises of largesse are that they come with higher taxes, swathes of smothering ideological regulation and a fat debt for the taxpayers when these idiots leave office. It usually takes a decade to repair the damage and rescue the economy from bankruptcy.

Fortunately the voters have learnt to read between the promises made by these LWNJs, and vote in competent government to clean up their mess.

It is pointless flinging accusations of broken promises at the Rudd/Gillard Governments when Abbott was better at breaking them.
Tony Abbott’s Coalition government has achieved the landmark 50 specific promises dumped.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbotts-broken-promises-reach-50-as-the-abc-joins-the-party,6731
Despite Abbotts ferocious attacks on her Gillard managed to pass a large number of laws.
Julia Gillard had the highest rate of passing legislation with a rate of 0.495, followed by Bob Hawke at 0.491:
http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jun/28/australia-productive-prime-minister

Robert,

Passing lots of bad regulations does not make you a good government.

The Juliar government didn't manage to keep a single promise and had a couple significant blatant lies.

SM,

"You forget that the conveyor of lies that carried Abbott into office were those of Juliar and her goons who never kept a single promise. That and Labor's staggering incompetence."

Hey, hey!..there's really no need even for me to counter that - most of the population (excluding the hard right) is well aware of Abbott's scintillating lie-fest to gain govt. The fact that he kept on going after achieving govt is the stuff of legend!

"Fortunately the voters have learnt to read between the promises made by these LWNJs, and vote in competent government to clean up their mess."

Ho,ho,ho!....explain to me how, after cutting every committee and board and anything else that moved, your heroes managed to bump up debt from $273 billion to $402 billion is the space of two years?

Unemployment up from 5.6% to 6.2%.

Private investment down...etc.

The LNP govt sure has a funny way of "cleaning up" a "mess".

Whoops Poirot, everything from;
-> In my posts I detail how forced hu <-
to the end was in someoneelse's article in another thread.

I have not a clue what happened there.
So your reply was not really to me.

Well my knickname for you was the Labour office computer because your
responses were so predictable, and always rather hard on poor Tony.
You seemed to have dictionary file of putdown names.

All not really meant in a unfriendly way but to try and put some
humour into it all at your expense.

"Whoops Poirot, everything from;
-> In my posts I detail how forced hu <-
to the end was in someoneelse's article in another thread.

I have not a clue what happened there.
So your reply was not really to me."

Lol!...Bazz

Bit of a shame really - I thought we agreed on something : )

Poirot,

Forgetting of course that labor increased unemployment from 4% to 5.8% with projections of it hitting 6.3 to 6.5% in 2014, and before leaving office legislated some of the biggest unfunded spending bills in history and refused to let the coalition roll any back. Plus the 20 000 job strangling regulations that the morons in Labor put in place.

The RBA has just acknowledged that the economy is starting to recover. It takes a while to undo the damage labor did.

There is a reason why well intentioned idiots such as Corbyn are kept in a corner.

SM,

"The RBA has just acknowledged that the economy is starting to recover. It takes a while to undo the damage labor did."

Lol!....any "recovery" will be in response to the fulsome dousing of the economy that began upon the LNP taking control of it.

Still no explanation for the extra $129 billion Eleventy Joe added to debt in just 2 years......

Poirot,

This is coming from a supporter of the party that raped the economy. Fortunately, very few voters believe that Labor is fiscally competent, which is why they got tossed out.

As for why the deficit has increased:
1 Australia's biggest mining boom from 2010 to 2013 has collapsed,
2 Labor before leaving office introduced massive unfunded spending programs in the order of $20bn p.a.
3 Labor's debt was accumulating interest >$12bn p.a.
4 Even when it was clear that Labor's costings were wildly off, Labor and the greens blocked just about every savings measure.

In an advanced western country every citizen should have access to an adequate education, adequate medical care and an adequate diet. To do that taxes have to be raised to a level to provide those benefits. It can be done. The Scandinavian countries have done it.

In Australia neither party is willing to do it. Labor tries to provide those benefits without raising taxes to a level adequate to pay for them. When the Libs get into power they scale back the benefits. Malcolm Turnbull is considering increasing the GST to 15%. This is a regressive tax which hits most heavily on the poor.

To provide the benefits appropriate for an advanced and just society the fairest way would be to eliminate the GST and increase a graduated income tax to a level high enough to pay the cost. Until this is done Labor in power will continue to run up deficits, and the Libs in power will scale back benefits or increase the GST to pay for the deficits.

As far as unemployment is concerned I do not believe either party has
control of it.
For the sake of Poirot's sensitivity I will not go into why.
Except to say that governments also do not have control of the economy.

Dear Bazz,

You are correct. Governments in a capitalist society do not have control of the economy. Unemployment is endemic in a capitalist society since increased efficiency and automation will increase productivity so that fewer people are necessary to produce the same amount of goods.

That is where government should came in. Repair of infrastructure, prevention of environmental degradation and other needs which the private sector does not have the drive to provide since no immediate profit is forthcoming should be a function of government. Return on funds spent in these areas will benefit the entire nation in the future. I am sure there are some in the major parties who realise this, but it is not a sexy thing to sell to the electorate. It would have the immediate benefit of reducing unemployment and the future benefit of producing a better Australia.

SM,

I kind of look forward to righties whipping out the excuses as to why the deficit went up by the "huge" amount that it did go up - in just two years.

Those same righties completely ignore the GFC as if it was barely a blip on the global economic scene - as they merrily belt Labor around the ears for keeping the economy ticking along in the wake of it.

But here we go:

"As for why the deficit has increased:
1 Australia's biggest mining boom from 2010 to 2013 has collapsed,
2 Labor before leaving office introduced massive unfunded spending programs in the order of $20bn p.a.
3 Labor's debt was accumulating interest >$12bn p.a.
4 Even when it was clear that Labor's costings were wildly off, Labor and the greens blocked just about every savings measure."

Lol!....c'mon SM, they would be the "spending programs" that the govt week in and week out takes credit for - especially the infrastructure ones. Every time one is completed or one is started a smiley faced member of govt turns up to take credit.

One day, when I can be bothered. I'll dig up all the hundreds of things they cut that didn't need to be passed through parliament - loads of supposed savings there - although you wouldn't know it from Hockey's legacy.

David,

I have spent a fair amount of time in Scandinavia, and generally life is drab, expensive, and minutely controlled by big brother.

Also the Scandinavian countries have the highest VAT in the world at 25%.

Poirot,

Labor wasted money on stupid ideologically driven pet projects that rendered very little benefit such as the BER, the cash splash etc. It spent way too much money for far too long.

David F, I understand where you are coming from.
It is the same place as does Poirot & SM.

It is the conventional picture from which our political parties
including the greens produce their policies.
Unfortunately that picture is obsolete.
It is not unrelated that growth, world wide is declining on average.
There are bumps up and down, but it is inevitable that growth cannot
increase unless increased cheap energy is available.
It is the end of growth.

What is happening now was predicted in the 1980s & 1990s by many people
and they also predicted the 2008 GFC and the big swings in price.
Naturally they were not believed.
Have a look at this link, it will show you that things have changed.

http://oilprice.com/newsletters/free/opintel30102015

The rules have changed permanently, this is not just a period of
financial difficulties, as you can see by Shell's tactics.
Most major oil companies have very poor returns on their search
and development capital expenditure.
Having a loss of $6.1 billion is why Shell sold Woodside, they needed
the cash to pay dividends. They are changing the whole direction of Shell.

Until the governments of all colours understand what is happening
we will splash around trying all the conventional solutions to no avail.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I have also spent time in Scandinavia. My wife was living in Norway when I met her. Of course life is drab when you don't have as much uncertainty as exists in Australia. Life is even more interesting when you live in Syria or the Congo. The arts and literature flourish in Scandinavia. Peace is drab and unexciting compared to war. I prefer that kind of drabness.

However, you have pointed out a flaw. The VAT is too high there. The income tax there is high but should be higher.

Dear Bazz,

One problem is growth. No organism, no species, no economy can grow without limit. We would be better off if we could strike a balance - stabilise our population, distribute the world's goods more equitably. Much of the national product in many countries goes to provide for the armed services that is necessary to contend with the conflicts produced by growth. Inflation is the result of too much money chasing too few goods. Armed conflict is the result of too many people chasing too few resources. The Greens are not addressing the problem of growth they are as addicted to it as the major parties.

http://www.votesustainable.org.au/ is addressing the problem.

I saw a TV program recently on Saudi Arabia. Great buildings were rising out of the desert. The program mentioned that the aquifers which supply the water for these desert cities will be used up in ten years what happens then? I looked at the reference you mentioned. Energy resources are not unlimited. However, in the short term prices can crash with a momentary surplus.

david f, re population, I saw a report yesterday, but cannot find it,
that the world's population grew to 8.5 billion instead of the expected
9 billion. Hopefully this is a straw in the wind.
Population has tracked oil production very very close since 1900.
It will be interesting to see if population reduces with a generation delay.

The "End of Growth" scenario requires that government accepts that
immigration has to cease, that taxation revenue will not increase,
That new hospitals and schools will not be built that the only public
works or infrastructure will only be done if the result is that less
energy will be used.

With a policy like the above any party would be unelectable.
At some time an event that shakes up the people dramatically will be needed.
A loss of fuel and food for a couple of months might do the job.

By doing that and many other similar exercises we may be able to just
hang onto our standard of living to see most of us out.
In the longer run entropy will reduce our standard of living until
we can stabilise at a level that complies with natural resources.

Oil tax: Norway could teach Australia a thing or two about managing wealth
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/04/oil-tax-norway-could-teach-australia-a-thing-or-two-about-managing-wealth

David,

There are further alternatives to drab and boring than living in a war zone.

As far as tax goes, the Scandinavians and others have learnt that there is a limit to how much you can increase taxes before the returns plateau or decrease. It became clear in the 70s as people became more mobile, that super taxes on the wealthy simply meant they moved, or spent an inordinate amount on tax minimization.

The GST or VAT while being regressive is what is called an efficient tax. This means that it is relatively simple to collect and enforce, and has minimal impact on the economy. The regressive part can be compensated for.

Your version of economics and the causes of war are simplistic and wrong in soooo many ways.

Robert,

That is what Howard was trying to do. Labor could learn from it, but is unlikely to.

SM wrote:

"Your version of economics and the causes of war are simplistic and wrong in soooo many ways."

Translation: SM doesn't agree with it.

David,

What I mean was that anyone familiar with economics or history would disagree with you.

1 Growth can continue without increasing the use of resources, by increasing efficiency and creating jobs that consume less resources.

2 While some wars are fought over resources, for most wars resources is not the primary issue.

SM said:
1 Growth can continue without increasing the use of resources, by
increasing efficiency and creating jobs that consume less resources.

I know that is the conventional view but it is obsolete, everything
has changed the old rules no longer work and economists are trying
to understand why. Very few have woken up.

Jeavons Paradox defined it;
Increasing efficiency results in greater usage.

Unfortunately that is just the way it is.

Dear SM,

That's quite a claim. Anybody familiar with economics or history would disagree with me. Please provide evidence for that claim. That seems like an assertion without proof.

Unfortunately when many people mean growth they want an increased population. Increased efficiency and consuming fewer resources? Our unemployment problem is largely due to increased efficiency. We need fewer people to produce the same amount of goods - therefor increased efficiency means increased unemployment. One way to deal with that is to have employees work fewer hours. There are other ways, but that

War generally are due to either one party wanting what another party has or one party fearing that another party will grab what the first party has. The casus belli may be something else, but the casus belli will not lead to war unless both parties want it.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

Tangible/intangible aims:
Tangible war aims may involve (for example) the acquisition of territory (as in the German goal of Lebensraum in the first half of the 20th century) or the recognition of economic concessions (as in the Anglo-Dutch Wars).

From the above tangible war aims are a struggle for resources.

David,

I have a degree in economics and certainly what I studied bares little resemblance to any accepted concepts. For example Australia has moved from an industrial economy to a mainly service economy which uses a fraction of the resources per unit of output.

Secondly, as mentioned before, resources are often an aim of wars, but are seldom the primary aim. Neither WWI or WWII were started over resources, nor the wars in Korea, Vietnam, or Afghanistan.

The period since WWII has notable for comparatively few conflicts and record growth.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Economics is a disciple notable for the lack of agreement among economists on what constitutes the best course of action or the causes for economic changes.

According to the German historian, Fischer, the instigator of WW1 was Germany. Germany’s overseas empire was small in contrast with the overseas empires of Britain and France along with the vast expanse of Russia. Germany’s desire to expand that empire was a motivating factor. WW2 was motivated by a drive for ‘lebensraum.’ Nazis had a stated aim of eliminating much of the population to the east of Germany and replacing them with Germans.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game describes the conflict between Russia and Britain for the control of central Asia. Control of Afghanistan could lead to an invasion of India by Russia. The conflict has been transformed into a contest between Russia and the US. Neither Russia nor the US cares about the people of Afghanistan, but both want control of the resources.

Afghanistan has abundant natural resources. Whoever controls Afghanistan could exploit those resources.

http://www.afghanistans.com/Information/NResources.htm

Despite a lengthy history of small-scale mining of gems, gold, copper, and coal, systematic exploration of Afghanistan's mineral resources did not begin until the 1960s. In the 1970s Afghanistan was discovered to have a wide variety of mineral resources, but only coal, iron ore, copper ore, and gemstones were targeted for development. Natural gas fields are scattered throughout much of Afghanistan. Recent analysis by the United States Geological Survey has indicated significant unexploited oil reserves in the north as well. After their invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Soviets endeavored to export some of the country's resources to the USSR. Natural gas, for example, was exported by pipeline across the Amu Darya into the USSR in the 1980s.

http://www.timelines.info/history/conflict_and_war/20th_century_conflicts/conflicts_since_world_war_two/ lists the 49 wars since WW2.

The stated aim in a war is not necessarily the real aim. The real aim is generally to get something that somebody else has or keep something that somebody else wants.

Having a degree in economics confers neither wisdom nor knowledge nor insight nor common sense.

"Having a degree in economics confers neither wisdom nor knowledge nor insight nor common sense."

Lol!..too true, david f.

However, one can always rely on Shadow Minister to wax lyrical about his "degrees"...and even if he doesn't have an actual degree in a certain field, we can be guaranteed that he will have studied that field in a related unit associated with the myriad degrees he does have.

It's positively fascinating - SM appears to believe that if he conveys the information that he has a degree in something that it should shut down debate...coz, well he has a degree in it.

Quite hilarious really.

David, Poirot,

What puzzles me is why both of you revel in your ignorance? Perhaps it is because ignorance allows you to pontificate opinions that have no basis in reality with the certainty of the village idiot(as is the way of the left whingers).

If you won't take my word, that what you spout is rubbish, perhaps you could find some economic text that supports your drivel. However, as you can't I am expecting either a lame excuse or a link to an equally ignorant blogger.

David,

if your premise is that wars are triggered by a demand for resources, then as the world economy grows and demand for resources increases, there would be an increase in the number and scale of conflicts? Perhaps you could use your self trained intellect to explain why exactly the opposite has occurred.

Poirot,

For god's sake grow up.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There is no need to call names or act other than politely. Facts are preferable to vituperation.

David,

The entire purpose of study in a topic is to attain knowledge and insight.

If facts are important, then why say quite the opposite?

Operation Barbarossa (invasion of Russia) was for various reasons including territory, eliminating the soviet threat, and to obtain oil for its war machine as Germany's peace time supply had been cut off by the allies. However, Barbarossa occurred nearly 2 years after WW2 began, which was started largely for Nationalistic reasons such as a response to the humiliation and reparations inflicted on Germany after WW1. The Korean war was started to evict democracy/ US influence from Korea, and the Vietnam war for similar reasons.

Dear SM,

You wrote "If facts are important, then why say quite the opposite?"

Where have I said the opposite?

Dear SM,

You wrote "If facts are important, then why say quite the opposite?"

That's accusing me of being a liar. A civil discussion must be conducted with respect on both sides. If it is not conducted in that manner there is no point in continuing the discussion. Do you want to continue the discussion in a civil manner?

In the case of war those who fight it are not in general those who make the decision to go to war. Those who make the decision to go to war must make those who fight feel they have a reason to fight it. Why the soldier fights may be completely different from the actual reason his country went to war.

David,

Of course you said just the opposite. I gather that you have no experience in economics whatsoever, so I gather that your dismissal of my qualifications is a self defense mechanism.

Spending 3 years studying a subject is precisely to gain knowledge, and insight. One does not get a degree without demonstrating knowledge of the subject and ability to apply it analytically.

If you were seriously interested in facts, you would do some real research before floating such implausible opinions.

Dear Shadow Minister,

We are quits. You are apparently not interested in a serious discussion.

I am prepared for a serious discussion.

Facts would be nice.

David f,

Shadow Minister said:

"....A civil discussion must be conducted with respect on both sides. If it is not conducted in that manner there is no point in continuing the discussion...."

Which is why he often opens posts directed to Poirot by addressing me as "Parrot".

Shadow Minister is not renowned around here for the respect he displays. In fact, calling people silly kiddie names is one of his specialties. -

A minor point - but one which serves to highlight his hypocrisy quite nicely.

Dear Poirot,

Shadow Minister did not write:

"....A civil discussion must be conducted with respect on both sides. If it is not conducted in that manner there is no point in continuing the discussion...."

I wrote it.

Lol!...david f.

Well, that explains it...you are a respectful poster.

Sorry for calling you a hypocrite, SM - I should have known that you wouldn't have written such a thing - it's certainly not a priority of yours.

A little rich coming from you Poirot considering your love of using ad hominems, and you at one stage were perfectly happy to use distortions of my name.