Oh I don't know, dirty last minute tactics, condescension and what powers have they actually handed over so far?
Printable View
Oh I don't know, dirty last minute tactics, condescension and what powers have they actually handed over so far?
Dirty last minute tactics? If you mean betraying unionists by needlessly conceding powers in a desperate panic, then I agree. As for handing over powers, all parties including the SNP agreed to work with the Smith Commission and its schedule. Strangely when the SNP were offered Full Fiscal Autonomy on a plate they didn't seem for more powers any more, just starting backtracking and going on about how it would all take a good number of years to gradually put in place - strange coming from a party who thought full separation could happen smoothly in just 18 months!Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Betraying Unionists, I wonder what the referendum would say now, I'd reckon the election is a good indication. As for Schedules didn't the PM promise draft legislation by January, and wasn't it just reported that the plans fall some way short of the Smith Commission?
Still it'll be interesting to see how much of an NHS and a civil service we have left in 5 years.
Sturgeon has been haggling away with Cameron for more powers so presumably that is why nothing has gone through yet. As for promises what about that whopper the SNP told about the referendum being once in a generation event, only to continually threaten us with another one after they lost it? Privatisation of the NHS has also occured under the SNP by the way, might have been avoided if they didn't forget to spend hundreds of millions on it because they were too busy holding referendums.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
SNP still didn't manage a majority in the General Election and they only took such a disproportionate number of seats because of FPTP. Over 50% of Scots voted for unionist parties. The SNP would lose another referendum if it was held today.
Though ACIN may disparage Scottish separatist efforts, it is interesting to see that the Union has likely not faced a greater existential threat in its entire history.
That in itself is something to take seriously.
What if Texas were to announce a referendum on independence, and actually go through with it? What if that referendum got 45% for independence?
As much as we in the US like to joke about such things, such an event would have dramatic implications - and even then probably not comparable to the unique implications of Scottish separatism for the UK...
Wut? I've been mocking UKIP, not the SNP these past few days...Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Well there was that one time we invited the scottish king to take our throne only to later kill his son... that was fun, though I suppose technically before the union's official start.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
Rigged?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
It won't need to be rigged, enough people (especially the Scots and Welsh) will vote to stay that it won't need to be "rigged" but the rest of the /EU will need to give ground or they risk something they couldn't possibly rig.
Turnout in the Referendum averaged about 85%, turnout in the election was closer to 65%.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
It's obvious, really - people in England voted Tory because they want a tax cut and a new house, people in Scotland voted SNP because they went a rise in the minimum wage and better pensions. Enough Scots realise the SNP is running on English petrol to want the Union to stick together.
I'm sorry.Quote:
Wut? I've been mocking UKIP, not the SNP these past few days...
The EU referendum will be the fall of Cameron.
The English will vote to get out, the French will be able to let the migrants to board the ferries and go to UK (new agreement between France/EU/UK will be fun for UK to negotiate), this will be only the start. Of course, all economic/financial/legal/security treaties will have to be renegotiate, including the ones with the City...
And when UK will be out, well, it will be out...
Perhaps it will be the fall of the actual undemocratic EU and perhaps we will be able to built how it was intended to be: Political and for peace by trade.
And what do you base these totally unsubstantiated statements on?Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Unless Mr. P sends little green men the referendum will come to naught except might-have-beens.Quote:
Originally Posted by Montmorency
The figures for the referendum and the election? Or the belief that the majority of people will ultimately vote for the status quo, viz Europe?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
Well, aside from using my brain I read the BBC webpage and the papers where the figures were reported, and as to the EU - people generally vote for status quo vs economic uncertainty.
I really don't think that is the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
It is not an unreasonable argument to say that we should give more in taxation in order that government can do more good with it. But a party needs to put that in its manifesto, and the electorate needs to agree. Labours problem, as the party that would like to do more good, is that it hasn’t been able to win a mandate to tax us all some more. The message has always been we’ll take a little more from ‘other’ people, but not ‘you’. Continental consensual social democracies rest on the foundation of a greater collective responsibility which implicitly accepts state spending north of 40% of GDP. That does not exist here, and while its fine to hope otherwise, it seems a little strange to brand the rest of society as callous and immoral for not meeting ‘your’ values.
How much magic money can we invent, and do we get to magically un-invent the debt interest too? Debt interest is roughly £47b this year, up from £44b last year, and broadly the same every coming year we have a deficit north of 5%. That is much more than gets spent on defence (£35b), and more than spent on education (£44b), every single year. It is nearly half that amount spent on the great shiny shiny in labours sky; the NHS.
Bear in mind, this is how much we pay with historically low bond rates. What happens when the BoE is forced to raise rates with the return of inflation, and to halt the erosion of our savings culture? Or, when bond rates sky rocket when Greece finally gets squeezed out of the euro and the world panics over another euro meltdown? You thought that had gone away…
There was an excellent working paper from 2010 by the bank of international settlements looking at the debt trajectory of western nations. The Assumptions took into account the preelection debt reduction programme of all the main parties. Britain by 2040 was forecast to have a national debt of 400% of gdp, with debt interest repayment occupying over 25% of all government spending. This is explained by our declining demographic and technological advantages which gave our economy the breadth and depth to churn out ~3.5% growth year on year throughout the 20th century.
Then there is the small matter of Keynesian economics, recommending a surplus at the peak of the economic cycle, in order that the eventual downturn (with its impact on tax revenues), can be absorbed without massive service cuts of enormous deficit spending. But Gordon called the end of boom and bust, so no need to worry about the downturn, it was peak fun from here on in with the deficit sluice amped up to the Max. Oh wait…. We are far from being able to ignore the deficit!
Labour losing the vote of ordinary working people in Scotland and to UKIP is the reason why they lost the election, the polenta munching metropolitan master race with their hipster friends just can’t seem to connect. For that reason, much as I like MilliD, my money is on one Alan Johnson. Not to win 2020, but to stop the rot in the north.
Are Labour looking to sell something that a majority are not interested in, something that is perhaps now a niche interest? I’ll say this again: real parties seek to win on the common ground, they are interested in what is saleable, and they will promise to deliver it.
I appreciate that you may be a little bitter about this.
i don't remember people saying how unjust it was the labour won on 23% of the electorate back in 2005...Quote:
Originally Posted by Ja'chyra
The media has been full of articles bemoaning the tribal nature of the Tories, and how essentially decent people were being duped into supporting their evil agenda. The presumption is that I might be slightly misguided, tempted to vote for the Tories, yet in ignorance of their many failings. That isn’t even close, I am not a Tory. Rather, I am generically right wing and want limited government. What does that mean?
For me, it means spending less than 40% of GDP, and not flooding day to day life with a million regulations ‘guiding’ me down the approved path of life. As a negative-liberty kind of kind of guy (pace Isaiah Berlin), I see a greater threat to liberty from government through its two primary tools (tax and law), than I do from being free to starve in the desert. You may disagree, that is your privilege. Orthogonally to the question left/right question, I also believe in:
1. An activist foreign policy, with the military means and the public backing to conduct the messy jobs in international relations. Not just another aid power like japan, or a soft power like Germany, occasionally someone needs to do the dirty work required of a UNSC member.
2. Parliamentary sovereignty, and the sovereignty of parliament (not the same thing). There is no such thing as fundamental rights, there is no tablet of stone with the writ of humanity inscribed, there are only things that society deems important and that are best enacted and protected in parliament. Likewise, I wish to see Parliament free to enact law as it deems fit as representative of the (British) people, and so reject the transfer of fundamental sovereignty elsewhere.
These are not strictly right-wing or Tory, but they are ideas that are most closely held by the right. I want spending at less than 40% of GDP, with more than 2.0% spent on Defence, less than 1% tithed to the EU, and do whatever good can be most sensibly achieved with the rest. Which of course includes public services and social benefits. Oh, and I want a bonfire of law and regulation, starting with the absurdity expressed by the need to transport Tolley’s Tax Guide in a wheelbarrow, and likewise the restrictions on public conduct.
While we are on the subject of my callous disregard for the lamentations of the afflicted and dispossessed, it’s worth making the point that I see this as a question of compound interest… or compound growth to be precise. There is research to suggest that other factors withstanding (making cross comparison between nations essentially futile), the smaller a government is the faster it will grow. Again, this is economics so nothing is hard and fast (barely deserving the title of ‘science’ in fact), but rough figures suggest that between spending levels of 35% of GDP and 50% of GDP every five percentage point increase in spending reduces annual growth by point five percentage points. Year on year, every year thereafter. Other research suggest that the optimal size of government to maximise growth is around 40% of GDP for a large open economy. An advanced western economy, facing relative technological and demographic decline, should not be spending more than 40% of GDP lest it do serious damage to the long-term growth rate that will preserve the standard of living we enjoy for our children too:
What this boils down to is the assumption that within 20 years my government spending 37.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.75%) will be spending in absolute terms a very similar amount to your government spending 42.5% of GDP (with an average growth of 2.25). The difference is that in your scenario the next twenty years sees more spending, where in mine every single year beyond that point for the rest of time sees higher spending. That means more benefits, more services, more Defence, and more money left in peoples pockets. It isn’t just government revenue that benefits, it is everyone, and economic growth has done a better job of lifting billions out of poverty than every other measure combined. In short; choosing not to elevate the act of moralising over the act of being moral.
I know exactly what I want.
The real question is, why are rich people rich?
You will obviously say things like "Money", "Assets", "Stock Market" and "Tax Avoidance", but this misses the fundamental point, where do this Money and Assets come from?
These assets come from society. When you work and pay for that new tv, that car, that money is collected within that company, along with hundreds and thousands of other customers, pooled together, and just splashed out. This works all the way from retailers, banks, and media.
Average hard working people sees around 37.5 hours a week. This is generally 5 days of 8 hours, with those pitiful 'breaks' where you are stuck in a place far remote, having the luxury of not being paid to be there.
Through this, depending on the level of work, the average is £26,500 (skewed by those earning a lot more). This is what you expect anyone to be earning, there are a few higher, but a lot more earning less.
Some of those earning higher are arguably well deserving of that money, such a a consultant with over a decade of experience, constantly updating their skills, over 15 years in education, including teaching in it. People of a very high essential skill base start to peak out at £100,000, sometimes even £150,000 for those true specialists.
This is a lot compared to the average person, but without those skills, society would suffer greatly, so hopefully the argument that their wages are acceptable are easily shared.
Now, let's look at the wage of the average premier league football player. In 2011 (will be far higher now..), this was £22,353 per week, or £1.16 million per year (10 of those essential specialists!). What great boon does football provide for society? Football is a sport which is done for entertainment, it typically involves getting a crowd of around 70,000 of those earning £26,500~ to sit down to watch for 90 minutes, including those who watch from TV. For this, one of those many people on that pitch is earning £22,353 for that session. Whilst it might seem I am picking on football, this is something which the whole entertainment system suffers from greatly. There are other services like banking, high-flying corporate managers, etc.
Entertainment is stereotypically very overpriced sector, which overcharges the customer in the name of big profits. Whilst it does brings us some happiness, the costs are not proportional to the value it provides society. Leading to extravagant results for those at the top.
What people seem to miss out is that these services are essentially a redistribution of wealth from the poorest to the rich. We are in fact being 'taxed' by the Rich. Whilst it doesn't have the ominous name of 'taxation' applied to it, that is what it essentially boils down to, those at the bottom of society are being taxed. An apple for me, costs the same as an apple for Wayne Rooney, except where an apple actually costs me something of a %, he can afford to keep %%% in high interest savings accounts. So where I need to work those 37.5 hours a week just to afford all my needs, eating almost all my wage packet, Wayne Rooney can pay for all that with a weeks work, then he has 51weeks worth left just to swim in like Scrooge McDuck.
Now, as you might start to realise, I am in favour of progressive taxation. This means the poorest in our society are not taxed at all, and dare say it, in many circumstances they receive money to live instead being corpses laying in our streets, whilst those on the other side are taxed a lot. What is very interesting is when we get to these arguments is how those who are not even receiving the impact of these higher taxes voice outrage on behalf of their richer cousins who can afford in the media to demonise any fair taxation system. Shouldn't those with the broader shoulder carry the most weight for our society, especially those who got those broader shoulders through stealth taxation of our goods and services?
Now, before I get the charge of "more more taxes, always more!" that is not actually true as you saw hinted above. I do believe there should be 'negative taxation' in circumstances, but in general, a removal of a lot of taxation we face today, such as possibly VAT. The biggest issue facing this would be the current debt situation which means the fairer taxation and closing of loopholes would be implemented, correcting the debt problem, then having the taxation of the poorest being lifted (done in stages). I believe that government should earn surpluses, not only to provide for emergencies, but also for future generations, and countries like Norway are awesome examples where the government can provide for its people.
Whilst some people are tutting at things like NHS, Education, and many other services which for example cost us 1/10th compared to our free market American brethren, they seem to forget something very important:
Why is us paying 10% (compared to private sector/USA) for Healthcare bad, whilst paying 1000% of what currently pay for healthcare good?
Why is that these 'profits' the US system has, are fantastic, compared to the 'drain' of people on minimum wage being able to survive cancer?
So who wins with a private healthcare system?
Those with a higher standard of living who can afford to live very healthy lives, typically not needing to use services, or those working their socks out in downtown packed urban district, struggling to make ends meet, which would require greater health investment, and unable to afford it when it truly goes wrong.
Must be great having the money so you don't have the talk when you discover your eleven year old daughter called Lucy has leukemia and you are getting charged £200,000 for a course of chemo whilst earning £23,000 per year.
People who do demonise the public services such as the NHS really do live in a fantasy land where there is a 'Private good, Public bad' mantra contrary to the actual facts of the situation, completing ignoring the massive benefits it has on society, which means you, me, our families and friends.
Society should be judged on its poorest and average people, not those at the very top.
Cameron will never allow a referendum, no matter what he says on record.
He, personally, has no interest in breaking the UK away from the EU. Additionally, a YES vote on the question "should the UK exit Britain" would immediately result in another Scottish referendum to exit the Union and join the EU as a sovereign state, and it would be waaay morel likely to succeed.
While I love the idea of the UK devolving and/or dissolving, I suspect that Tory leadership is much more interested in clinging the last vestiges of an ancient imperial order. Sure, it's under the guise of "we're stronger together", but who cares? I'd take weakness.
Anyway, this election was a huge victory for UKIP. The entire purpose this round was to inflame sentiment against the electoral status quo. When you see 4 million voters - the third largest party in the UK by vote share, far and away - have almost 0 representation in government, it pegs a huge bullseye on FPTP and will encourage devolution of England within the UK. I was very happy with that outcome, because victory was defined apart from representative outcome.
Ah I was wondering how long it would be before the irish Americans would come along to impotently sing the songs of the long dead war.
I agree with both, let's turn Britain into a Dutch party island and move the UK to some corner of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
While we're at it let's split Germany back into the fragments of the HRE and give hannover back to the Windsor family. You know now we've given up pretending to care about nation states sovereigntyBitter? Perhaps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
I don't hate him for his economics or really for his politics, I hate him for Iraq.
I myself opposed labour based upon the trend of minority pandering censorship that ended with the Islamaphobia promise, seeing Blair come out and support miliband and not being shown the door did little to make me reconsider. I can imagine there were a lot of people who felt the same.
That's a straw herring. Noone was talking about splitting up the UK or taking away its sovereignty, it can keep all the sovereignty it has in its own corner of Australia.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
No, just no.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Cameron has committed, unconditionally, to a referendum. He has quite specifically poo-pooed the "no more powers" argument, and it's part of what swung the vote for him. If the Cons don't deliver a referendum they will be wiped out in 2020, and in fact if they DO deliver one and the UK splits from the EU, and Scotland splits for the UK, then they will be in an even better position.
Or, to put it another way, your argument is neither sufficiently idealistic or sufficiently cynical to be correct.
And Germany can keep its sovereignty in whatever tiny state is elected emperor each year.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
A state cannot be emperor, using American values, a corporation might become emperor, but states are not people even there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
The people who moan about london contolling the union would disagree.
The long and short is this; the UK is on its death bed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If they remain a part of the EU, it is merely a puppet state, destined to lose all power to the central authority.
If they leave the EU, the Scots will break away, and after that it will only be a matter of time before the N Irish do the same.
The only way that Cameron can save the UK is to use their position of strength to devolve the EU itself and cripple the EU's hold over other nations. Further, Cameron can devolve-max England within the UK.
I believe that he will put the referendum off until he can extract massive concessions from Brussels, and that then he will use the new position to campaign AGAINST a vote to split. If he can't exact the concessions,y bet is no referendum at all.
Yes, Merkel will lead the EU to new glory, but Britain will only be that island with all the banks and not get 50% of the seats with 10% of the population as they are used to from their own election system.
Yeah, no. The northern irish won't leave (unless they were to go with scotland, they are too weak right now to stand on thier own and they wont rejoin ireland as long as the ex-IRA are still alive), and another Scottish referendum wont happen for at least another twenty years, what with it being "settled for a generation... perhaps for a lifetime" in they eyes of everyone outside the SNP.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
As for falling into irrelevancy, people have been predicting we'd become that for every major event we've been in for the last half a century, we're still here.
But please, keep dreaming for the fall of a nation you have nothing to do with over the the misdeeds of people long dead against other people long dead, neither peoples you have ever met, if it helps you sleep at night.
http://i1.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...55/782/20f.jpg
I can understand OOTers sharing the feeling over the glory of a team that they identify with. However, OOTers sharing in the gloating over the misfortunes of a team they have nothing to do with, is something I won't understand. If ICSD wants to support a second team, he should pick one and show his support for them. Instead of pointing his finger at someone he has no relationship with and gloating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
Like many other worldwide popular entertainments, such sports as football, basketball, ice hockey have grown into huge enterprises for earning money (tickets, broadcasting rights, advertisement placing, journalists, commentators, T-shirts and other attributes of athletes...) and thus providing a substantial segment of people with work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar