Kim

If you could guarantee that there would be no threat from any other source other than the one we sent the carrier and its three frigates and a RFA supply out to counter, then I agree. But, and I think this is the point, I don’t think you can make such a guarantee.

The Somali coast is a lot closer to Iran for example, than the United Kingdom. Iran has shown itself quite happy to tweek the nose of the little satan. I don’t doubt it would be prepared to consider the PR bounty of an attack on a UK carrier.

You on the other hand might be prepared to trust the safety of the crew and a few billion pounds of equipment not to mention ship to the good graces of a foreign and surely a hostile power.

I would be reluctant to do so without making sure such a prize was very difficult to take.

May need the Carriers again in the Falklands, as we are soon to drill for oil.

Aware we now have a runway on land, but that would be easy to attack as it is a fixed location target with few aircraft to defend it.

Where would aircraft land if runways are destroyed between sorties.

I agree with most of your thoughts…..I am sure there are those that are abusing the disability benefits system. I suspect that there are some that are borderline and it may well be them that may suffer the most…..Imagine this; A person has a condition that varies day to day and the condition makes it uncomfortable to work, say a few days a month that person is too ill to do anything or the work ties him or her out so much that, at the end of the working day, the person just has to go to bed and doesn't get up again until the next day to go to work….Is this fair to that person?

It is similar to say someone running a marathon with a pebble in their shoe; They could run that race but, it would be very uncomfortable for them and cruel to make them. Don't get me wrong, I am as Conservative as Mr Redwood and certainly more of a Conservative than Mr Cameron will ever be, but there are people that it would be too cruel to force to take work.

I agree that those that can do so, should work however, the benefits system punishes those that would like to work…..There needs to be a period when a person can try to work or work a few hours without loosing all their entitlement straight away.
For example, a house bound person could set up a small bookkeeping business from home after a period of study but, that type of business takes time to build up a client base…..So a disabled person sets up such a business but from the time he or she takes on their first client, the benefit rug is pulled out from under them….Few new businesses will be making a living wage from day one and remember, in order to get most benefits you have to have spent all your savings so you have no cash to tide you over until your new business is making some real profit.

Many of us are in a catch 22 situation and it is that disincentive to have a go that needs to be adddressed……I feel a one size fits all policy driven by media soundbites does not help those that need help and thus, does not help our nation that, following thirteen years of Brown et al, needs all the help it can get……

I can see your point of view. But, given we ought to by now be familiar with the law of unintended consaquences, I imagine a scenario developing some time in the future where the argument is made that civil servants are so important to the running of the country, perform such critical jobs that just can't be performed in the private sector that despite them not paying tax, introduced for the good reasons of cost you outline, they really really need parity with the private sector. "I mean, do you know running a large department in whitehall is like running a big investment bank, we deal with a billion pound budget, don't you know!"

No, I would say the alternative is slash and burn the civil service most of the statistics gathered these days is enlisted in the cause of this or that tenticle of socialism.

A civil service of reasonably well paid employees in total say ten thousand employed to administer government would be my ideal.

We see it as our civic duty to help put some ideas in their minds and lead in their pencils as the General Election looms!

Reply: Be my guest

You have highlighted the real problem with all of these Social Benefit Systems.

There is no joined up thinking, because of different Departments with differing rules, run by different people who do not, and are not allowed to communicate with each other.

Very often the Benefits given to claiments cost more to administer than the payment itself.

Single mothers comment agreed, one would of thought no one ever invented contraception.

1) it appears to favour his client base (although it does them more harm than good, the majority of them appear to be oblivious to this fact).

2) Ramping up government spending creates more debt. Debt, in our fiat-currency system, allows the state to expand – which requires more and more government debt. Thus, debt is a self-fuelling, ever-expanding socialist engine.

Don't take my word for it. See if you can identify the famous man who wrote these words.
http://bit.ly/cHQXwG