patrickbrian
Member
These things seem small and undistinguishable, like far off mountains turned into clouds
Posts: 316
|
Post by patrickbrian on May 26, 2024 12:31:22 GMT
Alec
"mandatory" + "volunteering" = oxymoron
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 26, 2024 12:38:33 GMT
18-year-old would not be jailed for refusing 'mandatory' national service, says minister Home secretary James Cleverly said 18-year-olds would not be jailed if they refuse to carry out “mandatory” national service under Tory plans. Asked on Sky News’s Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips programme whether the consequences of resisting the compulsory scheme could involve a prison term, he said: “No, there’s going to be no criminal sanction. There’s no one going to jail over this.” He said in other countries with similar schemes there is a “very, very wide scope, take-up, acceptance and enthusiasm for this”. Wtf So it's compulsory but not compulsory! I suppose no one asked not So Cleverly if he'd care to name the countries where conscription is met with enthusiasm. He only said no one would go to jail. Other sanctions are available. For example, perhaps if you refuse to do mandatory volunteering, you could be sentenced to do compulsory community service! Actually it says "no criminal sanction". |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 26, 2024 12:39:27 GMT
I'm probably swimming against the tide here, but aside from the useless way it has been released, without thought, shorn of practical design and generally botched in delivery, I'm going to say that Sunak's national service plan has some merit and could, in the right hands, be something of a vote winner. Many liberal countries in Europe are either pondering some form of youth service, a few already do or are looking at a military element to this. Enforced army service is clearly not on the agenda, but options for a short period of military service is something a few young people might consider as beneficial. The volunteering element also has some merits. I think it's difficult moving from where we are to a mandatory system of social volunteering, but let's be honest - many people like volunteering, if their lives are'nt so pressured they can afford the time, and for young people is could offer the chance to gain confidence, gather skills, and find out a little more about who they are, where they want to go in life, and how institutions work and how they interact with citizens. Such a plan would need to be handled very carefully, and would require proper resourcing, so it actually becomes a benefit for participants, not a mandatory chore. Tories currently exile at failure on both policy handling and resourcing, so under them it would like be a disaster, but this is not an alien concept and many decent countries operate some kind of youth service system. Leftists are often very fast to dismiss any notions of 'nation service', but if it is constructed to encourage deeper links with and within wider society, it could actually be argued to be a very socialist initiative.
Edit: Think of it like this: middle class student raising money for a gap year to build schools in Kenya = worthy learning experience, life affirming enterprise, character building venture. 'National service' = silly idea, right wing duffers, imposition on teenagers etc etc
I can agree with much of that but am not persuaded that this should be directed at a particular age group. Many people choose to volunteer in later life post retirement and see such activity as giving a contribution in return for what they have gained from society over the years.I really do not see that such a mindset can be foisted on young people - many of whom now face burdens unknown to parents and grandparents as exemplified by ongoing debts and job insecurity. Many will feel they have less to be grateful for and that sense is likely to be confiemed by Sunak's proposal. |
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on May 26, 2024 12:39:59 GMT
I'm probably swimming against the tide here ... Think of it like this: middle class student raising money for a gap year to build schools in Kenya = worthy learning experience, life affirming enterprise, character building venture. 'National service' = silly idea, right wing duffers, imposition on teenagers etc etc If you can't see the difference you really are going doolalley |
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on May 26, 2024 12:44:02 GMT
I have to say that I find the conduct of election campaigns to be very uninspiring nowadays indeed - it comes across as thoroughly contrived and banal and probably fails to engage most of the electorate.I accept that this has been the case for thirty years or so now. It would be so much better to return to the era of mass public meetings addressed by the party leaders and senior figures. Or even to John Major on his soapbox in 1992. I suspect that the cause is that now all those who began their political career with PPE at Oxford, then moved on to being a researcher for an MP, then were selected for a safe seat, have had long enough in parliament to forget that there was once a different way of doing politics. Politicians like Angela Rayner are notable by their rarity. |
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on May 26, 2024 12:45:43 GMT
I'm probably swimming against the tide here ... Think of it like this: middle class student raising money for a gap year to build schools in Kenya = worthy learning experience, life affirming enterprise, character building venture. 'National service' = silly idea, right wing duffers, imposition on teenagers etc etc If you can't see the difference you really are going doolalley The next step will be to force all these mandatory volunteers to take a loan to pay for it which they have to pay back for the rest of their working lives. |
|
|
|
Post by graham on May 26, 2024 12:57:44 GMT
I have to say that I find the conduct of election campaigns to be very uninspiring nowadays indeed - it comes across as thoroughly contrived and banal and probably fails to engage most of the electorate.I accept that this has been the case for thirty years or so now. It would be so much better to return to the era of mass public meetings addressed by the party leaders and senior figures. Or even to John Major on his soapbox in 1992. I suspect that the cause is that now all those who began their political career with PPE at Oxford, then moved on to being a researcher for an MP, then were selected for a safe seat, have had long enough in parliament to forget that there was once a different way of doing politics. Politicians like Angela Rayner are notable by their rarity. Harold Wilson and Ted Heath both did PPE at Oxford in the late 1930s. As for John Major's soapbox in 1992, that was really a gimmick in that he only used it once - in the open air whilst campaigning in Luton. Even by 1992 the mass campaign meetings formerly held in the big cities across the country had faded away - and when they happened at all were all-ticket affairs to prevent hecklers etc.It's a great shame because some politicians really did benefit from exchanges with hecklers - though in 1966 Wilson was hit by a stinkbomb thrown by a schoolboy. |
|
|
|
Post by bardin1 on May 26, 2024 12:58:31 GMT
I miss Trevor too
He could be incredibly obtuse and irritating but there was often some interesting stuff in amongst the white noise
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 26, 2024 13:01:09 GMT
Sunakered says Sweden has a scheme of national service similar to his nonsense proposals. The UK has approximately 775000 people aged 18. All would be required to serve most wouldn't be paid. Sweden has approximately 100,000 18 year olds only 13,000 of whom were selected as eligible for service and only 4000 were found suitable to serve. Those found suitable are paid around £450 a week plus free room and board. Almost a carbon copy ,said nobody ever. Do you mean the ones doing military service? I'm told everyone has to do it, but perhaps only the minority in te military. However HALF are sent abroad on some sort of charitable endeavers. Are we really saying we want to pay UK teenagers to go work for church of england missions stations in Africa? Like...reverse immigration? |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 13:02:06 GMT
pjw1961"There's no opposition to rolling back the catastrophe other than those the Labour leadership impose on themselves." "I wasn't aware that the Labour leadership controlled the EU negotiating team, Commission and Parliament; nor the UK voters in a referendum on terms as yet unknown. " You can do better than that there's plenty the UK government can do to start rolling back the damage and unnecessary restrictions without rejoining and without renegotiating the whole lousy deal. There's no requirement for a referendum at all until there's something to put to public, if then. Or don't you think the government will have control of its own policies! It's tiresome that Labour supporters lack any ambition for what their government might be capable of.
|
|
|
|
Post by RAF on May 26, 2024 13:05:16 GMT
Crossbat "Trevor never provided anything like that level of intellectual insight and neither did Colin very often." There are more than a few LOC contributors on this site that you could say that about too! (Not that I would...) But I was so intrigued by Trevor's style... Did he make himself incomprehensible deliberately? I may be the only one, but I miss him Was he incomprehensible or just given to speaking in an abbreviated form with a plethora of footnotes? |
|
|
|
Post by thexterminatingdalek on May 26, 2024 13:08:19 GMT
Admit I lost heart coming here for the last year or so, but glad to pop back and see the style of conversation and debate I used to enjoy on the old board. There's nothing like an election to focus the minds of people interested in elections.
Just a couple of observations. While it's reasonably obvious the national service nonsense is a dead cat, it's brave to assume it doesn't have the potential to get young people worried enough to register and actually vote. And having voted once, discovered it's relatively painless, carry on voting against Tories because that's what young people tend to do. My seventeen year old is even crosser today than he was on Wednesday that he'll miss out on voting this lot out by two weeks.
I've asked this question before, but it seemed to get lost in the noise. At what point do voters in con/libdem marginals decide the polls are so one sided that Lab will leapfrog the LDs and just vote Labour regardless?
My existential loathing of the Tories is such that if I lived in such a consistency I'd hold my nose and vote LD to get the bstrds out, despite telling Ed Davey to his face I'd never again do so, but if I was a disengaged voter looking at current polling might make me question the need to vote tactically.
People like to be on the winning side and as long as Labour remain so far ahead (and LDs so far behind) my hunch is the LDs will struggle unless they can get some momentum, not helped by Davey having flogging off royal mail and the post office scandal as twin piles of water pollution swirling closer to his ankles than anyone else in office. Which will not go unremarked by the likes of Angela Rayner, who I hope to see more of in the next few weeks.
|
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 26, 2024 13:08:45 GMT
oldnat has been on about a Sovereign Wealth fund for many a moon: “ Precise details of Labour’s policy plans are hard to come by, but one thing is clear: “The National Wealth Fund will be a crucial tool in our armoury towards bringing about growth,” according to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Reeves has vowed to set up a British sovereign wealth fund if Labour wins power, using it to “create good jobs and spread productivity in every part of the country”.” Telegraph
The sensible way to create one is by using revenue from a one-off, windfall - e.g. oil, as in Norway and Alberta, or a corporation tax windfall, as Ireland has done - while every UKGov has chosen to spaff any extra cash down the drain.
I won't bother asking you which magic money tree that Labour intend to use - as no one (including themselves) appears to know. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 26, 2024 13:13:30 GMT
I think you may have found a some agreement with oldnat! (There is an interesting knock-on effect that a Sovereign wealth fund might make Indy more attractive as Scotland may be entitled to a share) I'm old enough the remember the SNP's campaign slogan back in the 1970s "Its Scotland's oil!" so oldnat might object to sharing  |
|
|
|
Post by nickpoole on May 26, 2024 13:13:44 GMT
It's tiresome that Labour supporters lack any ambition for what their government might be capable of. Maybe they could offer a real socialist alternative if the Liberals/Lib Dems/SDP hadn't split the progressive anti-tory vote since the 70s. |
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on May 26, 2024 13:14:45 GMT
I miss Trevor too He could be incredibly obtuse and irritating but there was often some interesting stuff in amongst the white noise I obviously never made it through the crescendo of white noise to the interesting stuff and, to be honest, I never really tried. The gratuitously personally offensive style, infantile mockery and constant Google/twitter regurgitations deterred me from venturing much further. I didn't really ever read his posts much in his latter days. The Tory implosion appeared to send him into manic overkill. But, as is often said in liberal circles, whatever floats your boat and while he blocked many posters who deigned to disagree with him, I never reciprocated nor did I ever advocate his banning. If people enjoyed reading his posts that was always fine and dandy by me. In the end, he took himself away. Nobody else did. |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 13:15:58 GMT
oldnat has been on about a Sovereign Wealth fund for many a moon: “ Precise details of Labour’s policy plans are hard to come by, but one thing is clear: “The National Wealth Fund will be a crucial tool in our armoury towards bringing about growth,” according to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Reeves has vowed to set up a British sovereign wealth fund if Labour wins power, using it to “create good jobs and spread productivity in every part of the country”.” Telegraph
The sensible way to create one is by using revenue from a one-off, windfall - e.g. oil, as in Norway and Alberta, or a corporation tax windfall, as Ireland has done - while every UKGov has chosen to spaff any extra cash down the drain.
I won't bother asking you which magic money tree that Labour intend to use - as no one (including themselves) appears to know.(A bit more info. - and speculation - regarding the funding, from the Telegraph) ““It is not really a wealth fund – for that you need a source of wealth,” says one investment bank executive.
Reeves is seeking to get around this by making the bulk of the wealth in the national wealth fund private rather than national.
Her hope is that the Government can stump up £7.3bn and that the fund will then be able to raise another £22bn from the private sector.
It is a cunning way to boost spending at a time when the public purse is empty, without breaking promises to stick to tight limits on borrowing.
Charles Hall at Peel Hunt has suggested government shares in NatWest, worth around £7.4bn, can be used to kickstart her new fund.
As for the £22bn from the private sector? Reeves has enlisted a host of City grandees to advise on the project.
…
Once raised, the fund could be used to invest in Labour’s priorities, particularly low-carbon manufacturing in poorer areas of Britain as a new variant of levelling up.
However, the investment banker says: “This is more like an investment fund, but it is not clear why, if these are good investments, the private sector would not be backing them already.”
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a Left-leaning think tank, has suggested a system of joint ventures in which the Government invests with businesses to build new factories that would not have existed without the support.
…
“The joint ventures with private players would ensure the long-term economic viability of the investment projects,” said the IPPR’s report.” |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 26, 2024 13:21:16 GMT
I'm probably swimming against the tide here, but aside from the useless way it has been released, without thought, shorn of practical design and generally botched in delivery, I'm going to say that Sunak's national service plan has some merit and could, in the right hands, be something of a vote winner. The bottom line is if you require everyone to do a years national service, then you have cut the national labour forc by approximately 3%. Which either means a drop in GDP of presumably 3%, or you get in more immigrants to cover the loss. The UK military hated national service because you just wasted your time training soldiers who then left. Used more resources than it provided, and that basically true whatever you do with such people. There is a similar case to be made why we should send fewer people to university. |
|
oldnat
Member
Extremist - Undermining the UK state and its institutions
Posts: 6,131
|
Post by oldnat on May 26, 2024 13:26:46 GMT
The trouble about creating a "Sovereign Wealth Fund" is that you need to fund it from some source or other. Obviously, you can tax or borrow more to raise that cash, though that seems somewhat pointless.
The sensible way to create one is by using revenue from a one-off, windfall - e.g. oil, as in Norway and Alberta, or a corporation tax windfall, as Ireland has done - while every UKGov has chosen to spaff any extra cash down the drain.
I won't bother asking you which magic money tree that Labour intend to use - as no one (including themselves) appears to know. (A bit more info. - and speculation - regarding the funding) ““It is not really a wealth fund – for that you need a source of wealth,” says one investment bank executive.
Reeves is seeking to get around this by making the bulk of the wealth in the national wealth fund private rather than national.
Her hope is that the Government can stump up £7.3bn and that the fund will then be able to raise another £22bn from the private sector.
It is a cunning way to boost spending at a time when the public purse is empty, without breaking promises to stick to tight limits on borrowing.
Charles Hall at Peel Hunt has suggested government shares in NatWest, worth around £7.4bn, can be used to kickstart her new fund.
As for the £22bn from the private sector? Reeves has enlisted a host of City grandees to advise on the project.
…
Once raised, the fund could be used to invest in Labour’s priorities, particularly low-carbon manufacturing in poorer areas of Britain as a new variant of levelling up.
However, the investment banker says: “This is more like an investment fund, but it is not clear why, if these are good investments, the private sector would not be backing them already.”
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a Left-leaning think tank, has suggested a system of joint ventures in which the Government invests with businesses to build new factories that would not have existed without the support.
…
“The joint ventures with private players would ensure the long-term economic viability of the investment projects,” said the IPPR’s report.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Investment_Bank |
|
|
|
Post by xanadan on May 26, 2024 13:33:02 GMT
A different suggestion, a year of national service at the end of work before you claim your pension - its tongue in cheek obviously. x.com/ChrisGiles_/status/1794656195371765983Maybe a better suggestion - a year of national service for MPs before they can take up their seat, various volunteering stints, a period on benefits etc etc |
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 13:33:06 GMT
(A bit more info. - and speculation - regarding the funding) ““It is not really a wealth fund – for that you need a source of wealth,” says one investment bank executive.
Reeves is seeking to get around this by making the bulk of the wealth in the national wealth fund private rather than national.
Her hope is that the Government can stump up £7.3bn and that the fund will then be able to raise another £22bn from the private sector.
It is a cunning way to boost spending at a time when the public purse is empty, without breaking promises to stick to tight limits on borrowing.
Charles Hall at Peel Hunt has suggested government shares in NatWest, worth around £7.4bn, can be used to kickstart her new fund.
As for the £22bn from the private sector? Reeves has enlisted a host of City grandees to advise on the project.
…
Once raised, the fund could be used to invest in Labour’s priorities, particularly low-carbon manufacturing in poorer areas of Britain as a new variant of levelling up.
However, the investment banker says: “This is more like an investment fund, but it is not clear why, if these are good investments, the private sector would not be backing them already.”
The Institute for Public Policy Research, a Left-leaning think tank, has suggested a system of joint ventures in which the Government invests with businesses to build new factories that would not have existed without the support.
…
“The joint ventures with private players would ensure the long-term economic viability of the investment projects,” said the IPPR’s report.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_National_Investment_BankPossibly, though of course radical lefty and board favourite Jeremy Corbyn wanted to offer up a state bank in his manifesto, but was hard to know if it would get past EU rules. The Scots bank was inaugurated as we left the EU… |
|
|
|
Post by Old Southendian on May 26, 2024 13:34:09 GMT
pjw1961 Tory voters are doing themselves a disservice to pin all the blame on Sunak. The last 5 years have been disastrous, a period that includes two other PMs. They've also failed to grasp why they are losing so much support. What the average Conservative voter currently wants (Reform) is not what the msjority of the UK wants. It's not just a matter of a lack of competence or coherence, or even a total absence of the common touch; its a simple disconnection between the policy desires of the average UK voter and that of the average Conservative voter. I very much hope you're right, and I think you may well be. There's probably still an assumption in Conservative thinking that they speak for the 'silent majority'. The Brexit vote seemed to give them confirmation of this, despite the narrowness of the margin. But the age demographic is swinging quickly against them, and they're as far from a majority (silent or not) as they've ever been. I can't think of anyone I know below 40 (or even 50) who has anything but contempt for the Tories, though of course I live in a bubble. But no worse a bubble than where the members of the Conservative party reside. I do believe the UK public is still volatile, voting wise, and will swing back with the right leader and policies, but trending towards Reform is not going to help them. If Labour get in, I'm sure they'll lose any popularity they've gained quickly, but the Tories are going to have to fight hard for those votes with other options available.
And finally. Yippee, election time.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 13:34:14 GMT
Nick
If a "real socialist alternative" were so popular it wouldn't matter if non socialist progressive parties didn't offer it !
While the Lib dems are a social democrat party they're not a socialist movement, I'm about as leftwing as lib dems get and to describe me as socialist would be pushing it somewhat.The Labour cooperative movement is more my thing.
It would be unreasonable to expect the lib dems to stand down so the Labour party could become more left wing.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 13:38:32 GMT
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 13:40:01 GMT
It would be unreasonable to expect the lib dems to stand down so the Labour party could become more left wing. Maybe but you could move rightwards a bit to split the Tory vote some more 👍… although Starmer seems to be doing that himself now. Snooze you lose etc. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,633
|
Post by steve on May 26, 2024 13:46:55 GMT
My totally scientific test of 8 month old political awareness.
Sunakered on screen a loud demand for a channel change to sponge bob square pants
Keir Starmer, it's snooze time.
Ed Davey Smiley face and giggles
So there you go.
If we could rely on the under 12 month cohort we'd be home and dry.
|
|
|
|
Post by Old Southendian on May 26, 2024 13:47:39 GMT
And while I'm here, for those that like counterfactuals, what do people think the polls would look like if Johnson hadn't been ousted? I think Labour would be still ahead, but maybe more like a lead of 10% which would be more vulnerable to narrowing with Johnson's surprising (to me) ability to bamboozle the public. Despite the fact that Sunak is almost certainly more competetant than the last two PMs, I don't see him being an electoral asset.
|
|
c-a-r-f-r-e-w
Member
A step on the way toward the demise of the liberal elite? Or just a blip…
Posts: 6,700
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on May 26, 2024 13:58:03 GMT
Or don't you think the government will have control of its own policies! It's tiresome that Labour supporters lack any ambition for what their government might be capable of. there seems to be a bit of a divide among activistas, which has surprised me a bit, but in hindsight, maybe isn’t so surprising - you could see it at Oxford, looking back on it. Some activists are very much into policy, and the details of it, but a surprising number tend to eschew policy: the important thing is to see their (perceived) class representative into power, and hope it works out policy-wise. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 26, 2024 14:03:49 GMT
I've asked this question before, but it seemed to get lost in the noise. At what point do voters in con/libdem marginals decide the polls are so one sided that Lab will leapfrog the LDs and just vote Labour regardless? Im not sure it works that way. The evidence seems to be many voters are very fluid, such that whoever came 1st and 2nd last time are the real choice this time. Yes, trying to advance is a lot to do with trying to move from third to second, but the first approximation when a voter hates the incumbent is to look for whoever was second and vote for them. A different way to advance is to have a cause. Frankly labour's offer still seems to be 'we will be a bit better than them'. I think its more than that, labour has fundamentally different goals, but they also seem to be doing their level best to downplay differences. 'We hate Corbyn' has not helped differentiate them from con. Not much there to help them leapfrog libs. As you say, libs also dont have much making them stand out from lab. Although I think that whereas their coalition record harmed them since 2010, it could be an advantage this time in staunch conservative seats where they may look like the caring face of conservatism to all those conservative moderates disgusted by the current incumbents. Although on current polling they havnt made any headway, the only ones who have are reform. But it yet may, the national polls are very poor at differentiating local trends in the minority lib-con marginals. There is maybe an informative tale looking at 'Bexhill and Battle', which used to be con miles ahead libs trailing badly in second. It has now become con miles ahead, lab trailing badly. I think this is explained by demographics, as it has changed from being a retirement capital, to having more young disadvantaged people. Plus Bexhill, following on from hastings, has started to become a dumping ground for immigrants and benefit claimants displaced from expensive London. Not least supported as policy by its retiring MP Merriman. Current modelling suggests its still just about a con safe seat, but that might be less true if Merriman pissed off enough people trying to foist an immigrant internment camp on them.
Nowithstanding this, I thing there does come a time if voters are convinced the national outcome is going to deliver what they want as priority, ie con out, that they will then stop and consider which party they might actually have liked to win. So maybe green, or lib or lab if that happened to be third. So, I think con are proceeding on the premise this isnt a labour landslide, because thats the only outcome which could give them a win, and its the only way to stop their supporters just giving up and not voting because its lost already. While lab are also pushing the idea its a close race, because they dont want voters switching to parties they would actually prefer.
Oh, good to hear from you again. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Danny on May 26, 2024 14:06:40 GMT
oldnat has been on about a Sovereign Wealth fund for many a moon: “ Precise details of Labour’s policy plans are hard to come by, but one thing is clear: “The National Wealth Fund will be a crucial tool in our armoury towards bringing about growth,” according to shadow chancellor Rachel Reeves.
Reeves has vowed to set up a British sovereign wealth fund if Labour wins power, using it to “create good jobs and spread productivity in every part of the country”.” Telegraph
The sensible way to create one is by using revenue from a one-off, windfall - e.g. oil, as in Norway and Alberta, or a corporation tax windfall, as Ireland has done - while every UKGov has chosen to spaff any extra cash down the drain.
I won't bother asking you which magic money tree that Labour intend to use - as no one (including themselves) appears to know. It really only makes sense if you are swimming in cash. If you have a big national debt like the UK it doesnt make sense in effect to borrow money to create an investment fund. Norway is drowning in cash. Similar oil revenues to the UK, a fraction of the population. Similarly arab states have massive sums to manage. |
|
