@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Nobody can afford them if we do not create enough income to pay for them.
If people paid their taxes there would be plenty of income, it is the fact that the elite are allowed to get away with not paying their dues that is the problem. The poor do not get the option , their cash is removed without the option to reduce or not pay it.
On topic: Hmm, maybe. David certainly asks a good question, but I think there is a good reason to believe that No really are a long way ahead. That reason is that a large number of polls, from a variety of different polling companies, using a variety of different methodologies and weighting algorithms, some on-line and some telephone-based, over an extended period, have almost all shown the Yes side to be far from the magic 50% mark.
They might all be wrong, despite using different techniques. But the overwhelming likelihood is that they are right.
@Financier How were corporation tax receipts this year, compared to the increases in VAT and National insurance receipts?
Sorry, not my field, more like Avery's. I expect the projections are in the Red Book.
However the move to more self-employment will reduce tax receipts from those people in the near future and GO needs to allow for that present and future change in employment habits.
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Worse than that the pompous ass is just sneering at the poor and unfortunate in society. A heartless monster.
This comment goes to the heart of the problem the developed world faces. We can't afford the welfare states we have voted ourselves. So what is the solution? Keep the spending up or cut it back? Cutting back is seen as 'heartless'. And absent huge supply side reform to boost competitiveness and the private sector it can lead to Eurozone type deflationary debt spirals. But if you just keep spending you will at some point no longer be able to borrow. The Greek government was the very opposite of hearltess. They were super generous. How did that work out?
The giant throbbing pulsating 5000 pound gorilla in the corner of all politics in the developed democracies is that we can't afford our welfare states. And something that can't go on won't. The choice we face is how to make it affordable. And to be as fair as we can while we all retrench. We need to say 'this is how much we can spend because this is how much we can take in tax and not shrink the economy - and that's all we can spend. Now how should we spend it?'. Anything else is dishonest jam tomorrowism.
Patrick , the real issue is that the rich want to continue as they are and make the poor take all the hit. As we see daily the rich are getting richer and richer whilst the poor pay for it. If we really were all in it together and the effete elite running the country implemented proper policies to make everyone contribute relative to their position , poor people would not mind. The rich want to keep milking the poor and blame them for all the problems.
@malcolmg The reason corporation tax takes are flat is because multi national companies have the leverage to force governments into giving them the best possible deal, and can play one country off against another. This is one of the reasons that I am in the "No" camp, and against leaving the EU. (There are plus points to "Yes" of course)
These quotes from te above reference are of interest:
Indeed, factor markets have been segmented by policies that drive up the cost of labor relative to capital. Panama's labor market is characterized by a multiplicity of policy regimes, with separate regimes for the private sector, the public sector, the Panama Canal Commission, and the Export Processing Zones. These regimes have created large wage differentials between workers in the Panama Canal Commission, public sector employees, and those employed in the rest of the economy.
Labor-market interventions not only hamper growth, but also have a direct link to poverty. By increasing the relative price of labor — thus, reducing demand for the poor's most abundant asset — these distortions have swelled the ranks of the unemployed and encouraged informality. Moreover, while they benefit those who work in formal sector jobs, the resulting segmentation of the labor market can put a heavy toll on informal sector workers by reducing their wages, making it difficult for the working poor to grow out of poverty through their own labor. Indeed, the LSMS reveals that the poor in Panama do not benefit from such distortions, but may be hurt by them: (i) the majority of the working poor receive wages that are below the official minimum wage; (ii) they do not receive the "mandated" fringe benefits; (iii) the majority are employed in the informal sector, where wages are lower and employment terms less favorable; and (iv) the urban poor are hurt by high rates of open unemployment and the rural working poor appear to be underemployed."
You could just change Panama for UK and you would be near the mark , apart from UK being more unequal.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Worse than that the pompous ass is just sneering at the poor and unfortunate in society. A heartless monster.
What could be more heartless and monstrous than wanting to hog a God given resource like oil for a privileged minority of the nation?
Remains me of the song in the Cheviot, Stag and the Black, Black Oil. How does it go now......
Oh yes! Conaco, Shell, Esso, Texaco, BP
The whole show is on YouTube if any one is interested.
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Nobody can afford them if we do not create enough income to pay for them.
If people paid their taxes there would be plenty of income, it is the fact that the elite are allowed to get away with not paying their dues that is the problem. The poor do not get the option , their cash is removed without the option to reduce or not pay it.
A few millionaires paying more tax would not make the difference you claim. Of course if you are talking about companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Costa etc, then that might help a bit.
However, it is not illegal to base yourself in one country and export sales to other countries. If you base subsidiary operations in those other countries then you come into the realms of double-taxation agreements etc.
Our forecast is virtually unchanged this week (we’re still using the same inputted poll shares as last week).
It looks as though the UK Polling Report poll average hasn't been updated.
That's interesting because it shows what the tories lose on the model in any week that they do not make progress.
The populus results today are another very strong poll for Labour who seem to be drifting up from the mid 30s to the high 30s again. I think when this gets fed into Fisher's model we will see a big change with Labour most seats highly probable and a majority increasingly likely.
I blame Ed. If he was only on the telly more this wouldn't be happening.
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Worse than that the pompous ass is just sneering at the poor and unfortunate in society. A heartless monster.
This comment goes to the heart of the problem the developed world faces. We can't afford the welfare states we have voted ourselves. So what is the solution? Keep the spending up or cut it back? Cutting back is seen as 'heartless'. And absent huge supply side reform to boost competitiveness and the private sector it can lead to Eurozone type deflationary debt spirals. But if you just keep spending you will at some point no longer be able to borrow. The Greek government was the very opposite of hearltess. They were super generous. How did that work out?
The giant throbbing pulsating 5000 pound gorilla in the corner of all politics in the developed democracies is that we can't afford our welfare states. And something that can't go on won't. The choice we face is how to make it affordable. And to be as fair as we can while we all retrench. We need to say 'this is how much we can spend because this is how much we can take in tax and not shrink the economy - and that's all we can spend. Now how should we spend it?'. Anything else is dishonest jam tomorrowism.
Patrick , the real issue is that the rich want to continue as they are and make the poor take all the hit. As we see daily the rich are getting richer and richer whilst the poor pay for it. If we really were all in it together and the effete elite running the country implemented proper policies to make everyone contribute relative to their position , poor people would not mind. The rich want to keep milking the poor and blame them for all the problems.
I agree with that to a significant extent. Governments should wipe out rent seeking at the top in all its forms. Public and private.
@Edin_Rokz Was that Wildcat or 7/84? I can't remember now as it was a while ago. Same theatre company of course, but Maggie didn't like the 7/84 name. I wonder why? And would it have to be renamed anyway as the numbers are out of date?
@Edin_Rokz Was that Wildcat or 7/84? I can't remember now as it was a while ago. Same theatre company of course, but Maggie didn't like the 7/84 name. I wonder why? And would it have to be renamed anyway as the numbers are out of date?
7:84
It was referenced on Newsnight last night
It's amazing that after all these years of "Left wing" administrations in both London and Edinburgh the wealthy elite are still doing so well. Almost as though it's not a party political issue...
These quotes from te above reference are of interest:
Indeed, factor markets have been segmented by policies that drive up the cost of labor relative to capital. Panama's labor market is characterized by a multiplicity of policy regimes, with separate regimes for the private sector, the public sector, the Panama Canal Commission, and the Export Processing Zones. These regimes have created large wage differentials between workers in the Panama Canal Commission, public sector employees, and those employed in the rest of the economy.
Labor-market interventions not only hamper growth, but also have a direct link to poverty. By increasing the relative price of labor — thus, reducing demand for the poor's most abundant asset — these distortions have swelled the ranks of the unemployed and encouraged informality. Moreover, while they benefit those who work in formal sector jobs, the resulting segmentation of the labor market can put a heavy toll on informal sector workers by reducing their wages, making it difficult for the working poor to grow out of poverty through their own labor. Indeed, the LSMS reveals that the poor in Panama do not benefit from such distortions, but may be hurt by them: (i) the majority of the working poor receive wages that are below the official minimum wage; (ii) they do not receive the "mandated" fringe benefits; (iii) the majority are employed in the informal sector, where wages are lower and employment terms less favorable; and (iv) the urban poor are hurt by high rates of open unemployment and the rural working poor appear to be underemployed."
You could just change Panama for UK and you would be near the mark , apart from UK being more unequal.
I presume that you have neither lived or worked in Panama or a state like it. The World Bank article misses out the problem of corruption which is not uncommon and really a way of life in a lot of central America as well as sub-Saharan Africa.
@malcolmg The reason corporation tax takes are flat is because multi national companies have the leverage to force governments into giving them the best possible deal, and can play one country off against another. This is one of the reasons that I am in the "No" camp, and against leaving the EU. (There are plus points to "Yes" of course)
Smarm , strange reasons for NO , given UK cut corporation tax when it suits them , lots of countries have different levels of corporation tax and who knows what the 2016 and beyond Scottish governments would do on corporation tax in any case. I just cannot see why that is a concern for you either if raised or lowered. It is jsut one of many taxes that can be used to determine your fiscal position. Also you are not leaving the EU if voting YES , new membership will be done and dusted long before independence actually happens. Certainly you have a very very good chance of leaving if you vote NO, given England is not keen on EU at all and therefore you will be at the mercy of what they want as you will have no say in the matter, same way we get Tory governments despite never voting for them by huge majorities..
At least with a YES we will be able to decide what we want to do and be sure that it will happen. If you are happy to let other people make the decisions on how your life will go then that is obviously your choice but it seems a very strange one to me. I do not want to be dependent on others.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
At least with a YES we will be able to decide what we want to do and be sure that it will happen.
No
The notion that politicians in Edinburgh will only do things you like while those in Westminster only do thing you don't is yet another Nationalist fantasy that would be sorely dashed on the rocks of reality
These quotes from te above reference are of interest:
Indeed, factor markets have been segmented by policies that drive up the cost of labor relative to capital. Panama's labor market is characterized by a multiplicity of policy regimes, with separate regimes for the private sector, the public sector, the Panama Canal Commission, and the Export Processing Zones. These regimes have created large wage differentials between workers in the Panama Canal Commission, public sector employees, and those employed in the rest of the economy.
Labor-market interventions not only hamper growth, but also have a direct link to poverty. By increasing the relative price of labor — thus, reducing demand for the poor's most abundant asset — these distortions have swelled the ranks of the unemployed and encouraged informality. Moreover, while they benefit those who work in formal sector jobs, the resulting segmentation of the labor market can put a heavy toll on informal sector workers by reducing their wages, making it difficult for the working poor to grow out of poverty through their own labor. Indeed, the LSMS reveals that the poor in Panama do not benefit from such distortions, but may be hurt by them: (i) the majority of the working poor receive wages that are below the official minimum wage; (ii) they do not receive the "mandated" fringe benefits; (iii) the majority are employed in the informal sector, where wages are lower and employment terms less favorable; and (iv) the urban poor are hurt by high rates of open unemployment and the rural working poor appear to be underemployed."
You could just change Panama for UK and you would be near the mark , apart from UK being more unequal.
Yup, theory says that all boats rise with the incoming tide, or in other words that capitalism can abolish poverty. Economic history says it ain't ever done so yet. You pays your money, and you makes your choice.
@Patrick Doesn't Panama also have a small interest in merchant shipping to help their economy along?
Scotland has whisky, oil, and a relatively large mature broad economy (that Panama doesn't). But Scotland has a horrible deficit / spending per head problem that Panama doesn't.
I believe that Panama does not have unemployment benefit (JSA), working tax credits or child benefits.
According to you, neither Scotland nor rUK can afford them either...
Nobody can afford them if we do not create enough income to pay for them.
If people paid their taxes there would be plenty of income, it is the fact that the elite are allowed to get away with not paying their dues that is the problem. The poor do not get the option , their cash is removed without the option to reduce or not pay it.
A few millionaires paying more tax would not make the difference you claim. Of course if you are talking about companies like Amazon, Microsoft, Dell, Costa etc, then that might help a bit.
However, it is not illegal to base yourself in one country and export sales to other countries. If you base subsidiary operations in those other countries then you come into the realms of double-taxation agreements etc.
I am well aware of how corporations and the rich get round paying their fair share in society whilst blaming it on the poor. It is easy for the millionaires running the country to wring their hands and say their chums are really nice but if they make them pay up they will leave us all.
@malcolmg Not really strange. The smaller the country the greater the leverage companies can exert on it. While independence might allow a fairer distribution of wealth, I think the above, would counteract any attempts to do so.
Ignoring caveats about expected random variation etc that is a very good poll for Labour.
By my reckoning that's the first time since January that Labour have hit 39% or higher with populus since Feb, and the first time since the Populus change in methodology in Feburary
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
@malcolmg The reason corporation tax takes are flat is because multi national companies have the leverage to force governments into giving them the best possible deal, and can play one country off against another. This is one of the reasons that I am in the "No" camp, and against leaving the EU. (There are plus points to "Yes" of course)
Smarm , strange reasons for NO , given UK cut corporation tax when it suits them , lots of countries have different levels of corporation tax and who knows what the 2016 and beyond Scottish governments would do on corporation tax in any case. I just cannot see why that is a concern for you either if raised or lowered. It is jsut one of many taxes that can be used to determine your fiscal position. Also you are not leaving the EU if voting YES , new membership will be done and dusted long before independence actually happens. Certainly you have a very very good chance of leaving if you vote NO, given England is not keen on EU at all and therefore you will be at the mercy of what they want as you will have no say in the matter, same way we get Tory governments despite never voting for them by huge majorities..
At least with a YES we will be able to decide what we want to do and be sure that it will happen. If you are happy to let other people make the decisions on how your life will go then that is obviously your choice but it seems a very strange one to me. I do not want to be dependent on others.
I hadn't realized that Brussels was in Scotland until now.
Our forecast is virtually unchanged this week (we’re still using the same inputted poll shares as last week).
It looks as though the UK Polling Report poll average hasn't been updated.
That's interesting because it shows what the tories lose on the model in any week that they do not make progress.
The populus results today are another very strong poll for Labour who seem to be drifting up from the mid 30s to the high 30s again. I think when this gets fed into Fisher's model we will see a big change with Labour most seats highly probable and a majority increasingly likely.
I blame Ed. If he was only on the telly more this wouldn't be happening.
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
At least with a YES we will be able to decide what we want to do and be sure that it will happen.
No
The notion that politicians in Edinburgh will only do things you like while those in Westminster only do thing you don't is yet another Nationalist fantasy that would be sorely dashed on the rocks of reality
Once again you miss the point , we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want. Currently we have to hope the English will get rid of them for us or do not vote them in in the first place. Currently we do not decide anything , the 60 million people in England decide, we just get what they decide they want. Not their fault but we have a chance to get off our bellies this month and to decide to make our own decisions. Hopefully we will have enough brave people who want to decide their own destiny rather than people happy to have it made up for them and for them to then just whinge about how badly they are treated. If the vote is NO this month then Scotland is not a country, it is finished and will be just a small region of England and |NEVER again can anybody in that region complain about their lot as they choose to have other people decide their futures.
@benrileysmith: Interesting snippet from @davieclegg -- source suggests Salmond will announce intention to stand down after vote during next TV debate.
@Financier And there is no corruption in the UK? You will notice that it is the Banks who get fined, while the perpetrators generally walk away with the loot. And we know who ends up refunding the banks don't we? Still, we managed a consumer led recovery without much in the way of "quantitive easing", didn't we? ........or perhaps not? The curious might wonder where the consumers were getting the extra money from?
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Absolutely. And they way the Right have tried to use the global crash as a Trojan Horse for Small-State ideology is cynical and insidious.
That's a global crash caused by their beloved private sector and only ameliorated by their hated State!
@malcolmg Not really strange. The smaller the country the greater the leverage companies can exert on it. While independence might allow a fairer distribution of wealth, I think the above, would counteract any attempts to do so.
So why are most of the wealthiest countries all small and similar size to Scotland. Most of them significantly fairer and equal than the UK as well. I cannot see how any labour socialist voter , other than by brainwashing, could vote NO to continue the current situation of the UK. Labour down south are just Tories with red ties and they will not change. It will be an unmitigated disaster if the vote is NO and Labour will reap the benefits of being the Tories little helpers.
@benrileysmith: Interesting snippet from @davieclegg -- source suggests Salmond will announce intention to stand down after vote during next TV debate.
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Many of the UK's richest residents (or part time residents) are not UK nationals - do you propose we remove them? Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
Have you seen the state of the country, there are plenty of manual tasks that require little training that need done. Technology has not done away with jobs either , outsourcing to cheaper countries has done that. This means the rich can make more profit but as you say at some point when we are all flipping burgers there will be no-one to buy the tat they are selling. However that will not matter to people like you with your billions of ill gotten gains , you will be happily boasting about your mensa children and their great jobs with your chums as you happily push an urchin up your chimney.
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
vive la revolution...
Not really. Democratically elected governments will bring about the change. All it will take is concerted joint action. And that will happen at some stage. In my book, corporates and oligarchs would be best off being part of the process, but if they don't want to be it will be done to them - probably less effectively and more onerously than needs to be the case.
we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.
PS : When I said vote I meant the people of Scotland as a whole , not my personal vote. I am happy with a democratic vote where the majority vote is what counts. Darling's pathetic point was to be expected from a failed Labour lackey and the fact that you did not even understand it shows how thick you are. We are certainly challenged in this country with many people like yourself who are unable to think and understand simple facts but just accept lies from charlatans at face value. Dumbed down so much that a soundbite satisfies them.
Financier "Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it" Not really, all you have to do is create the illusion of wealth, then skim the cream from the punters who are fooled. Ask George when you attend your next "event".
I think the lefties here on PB do have a serious point about actually enforcing rules against abuses by the relatively powerful in our society. What I'd like to see is genuine free market well regulated capitalism. What we have is often crony corporatism. But often the laws and rules are pathetically weak. And the ones who get away with the worst are the politicians themselves. Gordon Brown ruined this country's finances - but he's not in jail. How come there weren't laws or checks and balances to prevent it? How come bankers were allowed to bet the farm and get super rich if the bet works but taxpayers take the hit if it doesn't?
One big problem is that we will only stop abuse if abuse is actually illegal. None of it was. Sir Fred broke no laws. Gordon broke no laws - just the bank.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
@Financier And there is no corruption in the UK? You will notice that it is the Banks who get fined, while the perpetrators generally walk away with the loot. And we know who ends up refunding the banks don't we? Still, we managed a consumer led recovery without much in the way of "quantitive easing", didn't we? ........or perhaps not? The curious might wonder where the consumers were getting the extra money from?
I have not spoken about possible UK corruption as OGH tends to ban that. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not to the same degree as in the countries I mention and of which I have experience.
Fred Goodwin who was enobled by Labour is a classic example for what you describe and AFIK has not lost wealth that he gained.
I think the lefties here on PB do have a serious point about actually enforcing rules against abuses by the relatively powerful in our society. What I'd like to see is genuine free market well regulated capitalism. What we have is often crony corporatism. But often the laws and rules are pathetically weak. And the ones who get away with the worst are the politicians themselves. Gordon Brown ruined this country's finances - but he's not in jail. How come there weren't laws or checks and balances to prevent it? How come bankers were allowed to bet the farm and get super rich if the bet works but taxpayers take the hit if it doesn't?
One big problem is that we will only stop abuse if abuse is actually illegal. None of it was. Sir Fred broke no laws. Gordon broke no laws - just the bank.
@Financier And there is no corruption in the UK? You will notice that it is the Banks who get fined, while the perpetrators generally walk away with the loot. And we know who ends up refunding the banks don't we? Still, we managed a consumer led recovery without much in the way of "quantitive easing", didn't we? ........or perhaps not? The curious might wonder where the consumers were getting the extra money from?
I have not spoken about possible UK corruption as OGH tends to ban that. However, to the best of my knowledge it is not to the same degree as in the countries I mention and of which I have experience.
Fred Goodwin who was enobled by Labour is a classic example for what you describe and AFIK has not lost wealth that he gained.
Sounds about right. Essentially, whether Scotland votes Yes or No, the result will look an awful lot like Devo Max, which, ironically, the government fought to have removed from the ballot paper.
@Financier Ahh, it was Fred, and Fred alone who was the bad apple? He must have been a busy man to bring the world economy to it's knees, even with the help of Gordon? Illusions and delusions are a powerful thing.
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Many of the UK's richest residents (or part time residents) are not UK nationals - do you propose we remove them? Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
I am very comfortable with entrepreneurs who build successful, viable businesses being rewarded and at some stage hope to take advantage of the very generous exit regime currently afforded to them (hopefully by the end of this decade). But creating wealth is not the same as hoarding cash and gaming tax systems. There's no single nation answer to this, of course; that's why when change comes it will be as a result of concerted co-operation between sovereign states. My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
You can split hairs if you want , under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government. Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
You can split hairs if you want , under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government. Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.
If using the proper meaning of words make me a fanny, then a fanny be I and proud.
My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
It is a truism that the state has the power to levy taxes on income and wealth in the United Kingdom. It follows that it is absurd to say that state welfare of the scale currently in existence cannot be afforded. The real question is whether, in a democratic system, people are prepared to elect a Parliament which would maintain state welfare at its current size, given the existing level of taxation and other spending commitments. That is very far from certain.
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Many of the UK's richest residents (or part time residents) are not UK nationals - do you propose we remove them? Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
I am very comfortable with entrepreneurs who build successful, viable businesses being rewarded and at some stage hope to take advantage of the very generous exit regime currently afforded to them (hopefully by the end of this decade). But creating wealth is not the same as hoarding cash and gaming tax systems. There's no single nation answer to this, of course; that's why when change comes it will be as a result of concerted co-operation between sovereign states. My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
How do you frame a law that will force companies not to hold cash? Stopping companies playing the tax system is relatively simple and requires no international co-operation. Abolish corporation tax and introduce (or rather re-introduce) an income tax for companies. No, or very few, allowances and a flat rate of, say, 10% on all monies earned in the UK or money remitted to the UK and draconian penalties for anyone in charge of a company caught trying to cheat. Such a tax would be very easy to collect, very hard to evade and would put a stop to people like Amazon and Starbucks trying to game the system.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood. I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
Financier "Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it" Not really, all you have to do is create the illusion of wealth, then skim the cream from the punters who are fooled. Ask George when you attend your next "event".
we will be able to get shot of them if they do not do what we want.
Unless the demos is reduced to you alone as single dictator, you will ALWAYS be reliant on other people voting the way "you want"
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
Aye right, the difference is the majority voted for the SNP government in Scotland. Remind me again how many voted for a UK Tory government in Scotland.
A majority did not vote for the SNP in 2011.
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
You can split hairs if you want , under the electoral system used the choice of the people ( more people than for others ) was for an SNP government. Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.
Governments, certainly in the UK, are rarely elected with the support of the majority of the electorate. In 2011 the SNP got 44-45% of the votes, depending on whether you look at the Regional or Constituency votes. They got 53% of the seats, but that’s different.
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Many of the UK's richest residents (or part time residents) are not UK nationals - do you propose we remove them? Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
I am very comfortable with entrepreneurs who build successful, viable businesses being rewarded and at some stage hope to take advantage of the very generous exit regime currently afforded to them (hopefully by the end of this decade). But creating wealth is not the same as hoarding cash and gaming tax systems. There's no single nation answer to this, of course; that's why when change comes it will be as a result of concerted co-operation between sovereign states. My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
How do you frame a law that will force companies not to hold cash? Stopping companies playing the tax system is relatively simple and requires no international co-operation. Abolish corporation tax and introduce (or rather re-introduce) an income tax for companies. No, or very few, allowances and a flat rate of, say, 10% on all monies earned in the UK or money remitted to the UK and draconian penalties for anyone in charge of a company caught trying to cheat. Such a tax would be very easy to collect, very hard to evade and would put a stop to people like Amazon and Starbucks trying to game the system.
As I say, it would be better for corporates and the super rich to be a part of the process. If they're not they'll find less than optimal regimes imposed upon them. But there will be change. It's just a matter of when.
@Flightpath You stop creating them, by giving their children the hope of a better future. You can change education systems and exams all you want, but the end result is the same. Horses and water?
The idea there is not enough wealth in the UK or the wider western world to underpin the welfare systems we have is ridiculous. There has never been more wealth. What is lacking is the will to share it: from big companies hoarding cash, gaming tax systems and throwing huge salary packages at their senior executives to multi-billionaires building their bank balances with money they can never hope to spend. It's not sustainable and it will change. It's only a matter of when.
Many of the UK's richest residents (or part time residents) are not UK nationals - do you propose we remove them? Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
I am very comfortable with entrepreneurs who build successful, viable businesses being rewarded and at some stage hope to take advantage of the very generous exit regime currently afforded to them (hopefully by the end of this decade). But creating wealth is not the same as hoarding cash and gaming tax systems. There's no single nation answer to this, of course; that's why when change comes it will be as a result of concerted co-operation between sovereign states. My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
How do you frame a law that will force companies not to hold cash? Stopping companies playing the tax system is relatively simple and requires no international co-operation. Abolish corporation tax and introduce (or rather re-introduce) an income tax for companies. No, or very few, allowances and a flat rate of, say, 10% on all monies earned in the UK or money remitted to the UK and draconian penalties for anyone in charge of a company caught trying to cheat. Such a tax would be very easy to collect, very hard to evade and would put a stop to people like Amazon and Starbucks trying to game the system.
Wouldn't taxing company income (rather than profits) hit high volume, low margin businesses ? Unless I'm missing your point
My initial point, though, was that it is absurd to say we cannot afford the welfare systems we have when there has never been more wealth in the UK or the western world more generally.
It is a truism that the state has the power to levy taxes on income and wealth in the United Kingdom. It follows that it is absurd to say that state welfare of the scale currently in existence cannot be afforded. The real question is whether, in a democratic system, people are prepared to elect a Parliament which would maintain state welfare at its current size, given the existing level of taxation and other spending commitments. That is very far from certain.
If the current stagnation in living standards continues - not only in the UK, but across the west - then voters will eventually vote to change things.
75% of bets Ladbrokes have taken this month have been for YES - but the odds are moving the other way. I've had a go at explaining why. http://t.co/YiKIzqN2Tk
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood. I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
I recommend, Mr Flightpath, that you do some genealogical research. You may well find that not all your forebears were the sort of fine upstanding chap that you undoubtedly are!
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood. I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
Interesting snippet on the Today programme this morning about a police officer in London (I think?) who broke up a gang by holding a few job fairs on their estate, so that gang members found jobs instead.
@SouthamObserver We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to? Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
I think the answer you are seeking is that we were not wealthy before the crash, but there was an illusion of wealth, fostered by our politicians, based on debt and house prices. When the crash came the illusion vanished, but some are desperately trying to re-build it.
There was also the shenanigans in the City, many of which were downright criminal, which were again helped along by the politicians (some of Gordon Brown's pronouncements were amazing). That so few people went to gaol and so many were allowed to walk away with their ill-gotten loot, or proceeds of their incompetence in the case of very senior people, is a disgrace. What is worse is that I am not sure the situation has improved, though CycleFree, lady of this Parish has probably a more accurate view on that.
I think the lefties here on PB do have a serious point about actually enforcing rules against abuses by the relatively powerful in our society. What I'd like to see is genuine free market well regulated capitalism. What we have is often crony corporatism. But often the laws and rules are pathetically weak. And the ones who get away with the worst are the politicians themselves. Gordon Brown ruined this country's finances - but he's not in jail. How come there weren't laws or checks and balances to prevent it? How come bankers were allowed to bet the farm and get super rich if the bet works but taxpayers take the hit if it doesn't?
One big problem is that we will only stop abuse if abuse is actually illegal. None of it was. Sir Fred broke no laws. Gordon broke no laws - just the bank.
Patrick, we agree entirely for once at least
I thought we agreed last week that you're going to eat some humble pie and wash it down with a pint of English scrumpy in a month's time!
@Financier Ahh, it was Fred, and Fred alone who was the bad apple? He must have been a busy man to bring the world economy to it's knees, even with the help of Gordon? Illusions and delusions are a powerful thing.
Royal Bank of Scotland went bust because they spent €72billion on ABN Amro just before the world turned upside down.
People forget that RBS and Barclays were in a bidding war for ABN Amro, that RBS narrowly won (Barclays bid a mere €68billion). Had Barclays bid slightly higher, or RBS slightly lower, it would have been Sir Fred and RBS who survived the global financial crisis without being bailed-out, and the management of Barclays who would have been the villains.
Do you not remember the bit when he parasailed into the Rose Garden, took out the nasty Labour majority, saved poor Prince David and was rewarded with a nothing job by a grateful nation?
This Police Commissioner election system has to go down as another Con-Dem fail.Britons do not want their areas run like Baltimore.The whole reform of government agenda,for the House of Lords,boundaries,change in the voting system,has all gone down the toilet.
@Patrick Build gas chambers for the poor? Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane? (Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Not really. Business can find savings and drive efficiency. So should the state. In the scale of our economy finding another 100 billion is not an unachievable task. In fact the current government's projections and OBR assume we will get to balanced books sooner or later.
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Get the poor up those chimneys, make them useful.
You are frivolous with a very serious matter. The UK has thousands of people who are uneducated and often unemployable - how would you propose to get them back to work, as technology has eliminated many of the unskilled jobs?
I don’t often agree with Financier but here he is on the right track. We do have a problem with education. It’s apparently been taken for granted for years that there will be a difficult to educate “lumpenproletariat” and that there will be simple, probably manual, jobs for them to do. Many of those jobs are either not going to be there in future, and as a society we’ve got to encourage those who “haven’t done well at school” to do what many of us now do normally..... contune their education right through life.
No one in their right minds will employ the Wayne and Waynettas of this world. Or da gangsta rappers inda 'hood. I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
The problem of the underclass has been with us for many years and has been getting steadily worse as the perverse incentives of the welfare system remain in place. How you break the cycle, I don't know - a teacher of my acquaintance who works in a sink school has suggested putting something in the water to stop them breeding, I hoped she was joking but I am not entirely sure she was.
Missed the last bit of P1 but just checked the times. Rosberg less than a tenth ahead of Hamilton. Have to wait and see if that gap's replicated at later sessions. Both had a little difficulty with rear tyres locking up.
@rcs1000 You are right about that, the point is that everyone thought the same thing, politicians, bankers, the public and the financial sector. and it happened everywhere. Illusions and delusions, but we won't get fooled again will we?
Comments
Build gas chambers for the poor?
Or finally do some basic maths, and realise that Capitalism in it's present form is insane?
(Note the "present form" before you all have kittens at the thought of a communist takeover)
Which knocks Tory hopes on here yesterday that it wouldn't.
They might all be wrong, despite using different techniques. But the overwhelming likelihood is that they are right.
However the move to more self-employment will reduce tax receipts from those people in the near future and GO needs to allow for that present and future change in employment habits.
The reason corporation tax takes are flat is because multi national companies have the leverage to force governments into giving them the best possible deal, and can play one country off against another.
This is one of the reasons that I am in the "No" camp, and against leaving the EU.
(There are plus points to "Yes" of course)
We're going to find out in four weeks time.
The question between now and then is this.
Will we see any polls showing Yes ahead from any BPC pollster using normal best practises?
The state is just too big. If we made all schools voucher funded competitive private entities we'd get a better outcome and it would cost alot less. If we made the NHS free at the point of use but created a very diversified competitive market for delivery then health outcomes would improve and it'd cost alot less. Benefit reforms are working. Cut overseas aid. Cut public sector fat cat pay. Put the public sector on private sector lookalike pension structures. Put retirement ages up in line with life expectancies and improving medical outcomes. Cut the BBC funding. etc etc. The world wouldn't fall apart - even for the poor (in fact there'd be alot less of them). It will fall apart if we don't deal with the problem.
Oh yes! Conaco, Shell, Esso, Texaco, BP
The whole show is on YouTube if any one is interested.
However, it is not illegal to base yourself in one country and export sales to other countries. If you base subsidiary operations in those other countries then you come into the realms of double-taxation agreements etc.
The populus results today are another very strong poll for Labour who seem to be drifting up from the mid 30s to the high 30s again. I think when this gets fed into Fisher's model we will see a big change with Labour most seats highly probable and a majority increasingly likely.
I blame Ed. If he was only on the telly more this wouldn't be happening.
Was that Wildcat or 7/84? I can't remember now as it was a while ago.
Same theatre company of course, but Maggie didn't like the 7/84 name.
I wonder why? And would it have to be renamed anyway as the numbers are out of date?
It was referenced on Newsnight last night
It's amazing that after all these years of "Left wing" administrations in both London and Edinburgh the wealthy elite are still doing so well. Almost as though it's not a party political issue...
I just cannot see why that is a concern for you either if raised or lowered.
It is jsut one of many taxes that can be used to determine your fiscal position. Also you are not leaving the EU if voting YES , new membership will be done and dusted long before independence actually happens.
Certainly you have a very very good chance of leaving if you vote NO, given England is not keen on EU at all and therefore you will be at the mercy of what they want as you will have no say in the matter, same way we get Tory governments despite never voting for them by huge majorities..
At least with a YES we will be able to decide what we want to do and be sure that it will happen. If you are happy to let other people make the decisions on how your life will go then that is obviously your choice but it seems a very strange one to me.
I do not want to be dependent on others.
The notion that politicians in Edinburgh will only do things you like while those in Westminster only do thing you don't is yet another Nationalist fantasy that would be sorely dashed on the rocks of reality
Not really strange. The smaller the country the greater the leverage companies can exert on it.
While independence might allow a fairer distribution of wealth, I think the above, would counteract any attempts to do so.
Currently we do not decide anything , the 60 million people in England decide, we just get what they decide they want. Not their fault but we have a chance to get off our bellies this month and to decide to make our own decisions. Hopefully we will have enough brave people who want to decide their own destiny rather than people happy to have it made up for them and for them to then just whinge about how badly they are treated.
If the vote is NO this month then Scotland is not a country, it is finished and will be just a small region of England and |NEVER again can anybody in that region complain about their lot as they choose to have other people decide their futures.
And there is no corruption in the UK? You will notice that it is the Banks who get fined, while the perpetrators generally walk away with the loot. And we know who ends up refunding the banks don't we?
Still, we managed a consumer led recovery without much in the way of "quantitive easing", didn't we? ........or perhaps not?
The curious might wonder where the consumers were getting the extra money from?
That's a global crash caused by their beloved private sector and only ameliorated by their hated State!
As darling said in the debate, he didn't vote SNP but he's stuck with an SNP administration he didn't vote for
Your argument is another fantasy
I cannot see how any labour socialist voter , other than by brainwashing, could vote NO to continue the current situation of the UK. Labour down south are just Tories with red ties and they will not change.
It will be an unmitigated disaster if the vote is NO and Labour will reap the benefits of being the Tories little helpers.
Purely on the name, 'cause I misread it.
My football bets for the weekend.
Everton to beat Arsenal
Sunderland to beat Manchester United
Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it. Do you propose limiting rewards for entrepreneurs like James Dyson? Or are you willing to cap the benefits of the public sector elite?
PS : When I said vote I meant the people of Scotland as a whole , not my personal vote. I am happy with a democratic vote where the majority vote is what counts. Darling's pathetic point was to be expected from a failed Labour lackey and the fact that you did not even understand it shows how thick you are. We are certainly challenged in this country with many people like yourself who are unable to think and understand simple facts but just accept lies from charlatans at face value. Dumbed down so much that a soundbite satisfies them.
"Also it is much harder to create wealth than to spend it"
Not really, all you have to do is create the illusion of wealth, then skim the cream from the punters who are fooled.
Ask George when you attend your next "event".
One big problem is that we will only stop abuse if abuse is actually illegal. None of it was. Sir Fred broke no laws. Gordon broke no laws - just the bank.
You are confusing majority with a plurality.
In 2011, a majority voted for parties that were not the SNP.
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/entertainment/celebrity/james-mcavoy-challenges-salmond-darling-4088334
Fred Goodwin who was enobled by Labour is a classic example for what you describe and AFIK has not lost wealth that he gained.
AC Milan want to replace Mario Balotelli with Bobby Soldado.
You might have a story there.
Ahh, it was Fred, and Fred alone who was the bad apple?
He must have been a busy man to bring the world economy to it's knees, even with the help of Gordon?
Illusions and delusions are a powerful thing.
I have a sort of spread bet with James Bond of this parish. We are using a 43-57 midpoint. (I'm overs for Yes)
Stop being a fanny and trying to show how smart you are.
Company links suggest Lord Ashcroft is funding the Tory party once more
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-ashcroft-paper-trail-suggests-billionaire-who-quit-donating-is-still-funding-tories-9681887.html
Gasp! Cheer! Wince! Weep! Nick Clegg: The Movie is coming to a screen near you
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bvogx7NIcAA-63D.jpg
http://www.paddypower.com/bet/novelty-betting/hollywood/biopic-betting/Clegg-Drama:-Who-will-play-Nick-Clegg?-7479190.html?force_racing_css=N
They got the SNP
We were wealthy before the "crash", so where did all that wealth go to?
Interesting thought for those that take off their blinkers, is it not?
Bham 10.26%
Cov 9.54%
Dudley 11.4%
Sandwell 9.78%
Solihull 11.58%
Walsall 10.72%
Wolv 10.19%
Total 10.32%
I doubt anyone will employ any of their children. How do you break the circle or do we put up with this underclass?
You stop creating them, by giving their children the hope of a better future.
You can change education systems and exams all you want, but the end result is the same.
Horses and water?
Tom Hollander at 25/1 looks tempting, but then I remember this market is going to be like the Euro Commissioner job, one you should lay everyone
Rubbish? Tell me then where all the wealth went to after the crash?
You seem to be a smart fellow, surely you have an idea?
General Boles @GeneralBoles · 6m
#banter excuses everything
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BvoksgHCAAExWBK.jpg:large
It is far from being as hopeless as you make out.
There was also the shenanigans in the City, many of which were downright criminal, which were again helped along by the politicians (some of Gordon Brown's pronouncements were amazing). That so few people went to gaol and so many were allowed to walk away with their ill-gotten loot, or proceeds of their incompetence in the case of very senior people, is a disgrace. What is worse is that I am not sure the situation has improved, though CycleFree, lady of this Parish has probably a more accurate view on that.
Go to the top of the class and award yourself a sticky gold star, and pass flightpath the dunce's cap as you pass.
People forget that RBS and Barclays were in a bidding war for ABN Amro, that RBS narrowly won (Barclays bid a mere €68billion). Had Barclays bid slightly higher, or RBS slightly lower, it would have been Sir Fred and RBS who survived the global financial crisis without being bailed-out, and the management of Barclays who would have been the villains.
Don't get to comfortable though, next you have to explain how it happened all over the world, and not Just in the UK.
Statham would be perfect.
You are right about that, the point is that everyone thought the same thing, politicians, bankers, the public and the financial sector. and it happened everywhere.
Illusions and delusions, but we won't get fooled again will we?