Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » SNP councillors give their response to the Smith report by
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » SNP councillors give their response to the Smith report by burning it
politicalbetting.com is proudly powered by WordPress
with "Neat!" theme. Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
I really don't get the problem?
Why not reject the report, as they have rejected it already, and not give them any powers.
He's made the front page of the Indy
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B34naDQCYAAgmSh.jpg
GEORGE Osborne's huge lead over Labour on the economy is slipping as pessimism over the economy returns
There are more libertarians out there than the major parties realise. The degree varies, of course. I think the state does have a valid role in things like law & order, defence, diplomacy/foreign policy, key infrastructure and a minimum/safety net approach for health & welfare. That probably makes me a lefty compared to the more fervent libertarians who are close to anarchists! But still very much to libertarian end of the spectrum compared to mainstream party politics in the UK.
No party adequately services voters like us, so we end up reluctantly voting for whichever one perceives as least worst (if you prioritise the economics, probably Tory; if you prioritise the social side, probably LD or Blarite Labour; if you think the lack of liberty is down to EU oversight, probably UKIP).
A party that could pull together all these disparate voters in a truly liberal (economically & socially) coalition could probably do quite well. It would have appeal to a host of people across traditional demographic boundaries. But of course, it's one thing to think that in theory and quite another to make it practical.
Instead of dreaming, I decided to figure out how protect myself & those close to me from government rather than worry about how much harm it was doing to everyone else. Adequate wealth is by far the best defence. Financial freedom gives you the tools & privileges to maintain your social freedoms and keep the state at arms length, and of course financial freedom also creates the possibility to further enhance it through a wider range of investment options and life opportunities for you & your family. It's a virtuous circle. That's why I prioritise the Tories as my personal least-worst option.
On the topic of near-absolute power being given to our governments, paradoxically I wonder if that's the one saving grace of our system, from a libertarian perspective. They can do just about anything. But the next parliament can also do that. So in practice, as long as there is more than one strong party, the political games should mean they can keep cancelling each other out. Small majorities either way (or two party coalitions) should keep things nicely paralysed due to infighting and let individuals slide through the middle without too much extra interference. There's a cost to continually adapting to the change of course, but it rather stops them doing anything too crazy & extreme given that the electoral centre of gravity holds politicians in low enough esteem to not let them get away with too much.
The handful of Tories that haven't ever been described as senior or grandee must feel really left out.
After big improvements, he is now back down to a -8 approval rating, having posted -3 in March.........In March, 39% said they expected the economy to get better over the next 12 months and only 23% said it would get worse.
But now, just 25% think it will improve and 32% expect it to get worse again
But the poll also revealed Mr Osborne still enjoys a 13 point lead over Labour opposite number Ed Balls - now 36% versus 23%, having only slipped one point since March.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/autumn-statement-cameron-will-have-to-cut-nhs-spending-warns-senior-tory-9899136.html
Kwasi went on to work with another friend of mine, Crispin Odey, and I have enormous respect for hours intelligence, and do not doubt his sincerity one bit.
The Spectator said that too though, in a rare attack on Osborne this week:
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2014/12/in-graphs-george-osborne-fought-the-debt-and-the-debt-won/
However, fundamentally, I don't find UKIP to be a plausible, coherent party yet: they are more of a movement, and with some elements that I would feel very uncomfortable supporting, albeit vicariously. Mind you, I find that the case with every party, but still least with the Tories vs the others. If anything, some of nature of the seepage from Tory to UKIP has probably strengthened their least-worst status in my eyes, but I realise I'm in a minority on that. And I also realise the damage being done to the Tories through that very seepage so it's quite the pyrrhic victory....
Having said all that, I don't let it worry me, since I'm in a constituency that won't change colour unless there's a political earthquake so my vote's irrelevant anyway!
I believe that is the basis of why he is still in the backbenches,
My point is a simple one. At every opportunity, the government attempts to add to its powers : whether through anti terror legislation, or restricting what pornography (carried out by consenting adults) we are allowed to watch.
Some people call this democracy.
But I think the founders of the US constitution got this right. Democracy is too often mob rule. The rights of citizens should always trump the desires of the majority.
It is also the same Osbourne that has missed every target he set himself
There is just very little appetite for the party you describe in my experience: most people who are very in favour of little government intervention when it comes to the economy and public services, are also people who are socially conservative on immigration and other things. While on the other side, most people who are truly socially liberal will also believe in very strong public services and a very big safety net for the poor (even if they're not out-and-out socialists).
Ukip is “very, very short of money” and has failed to build up a war chest for the general election yet has still granted Nigel Farage a £60,000 annual chauffeur allowance, The Times can reveal.
Stuart Wheeler, the spread-betting millionaire who has bankrolled the party for years and who served as treasurer until July this year, said Ukip “desperately needs more money”.
Some of us aren't wedded to a political party. We flit according to who best reflects our world view.
Maybe it's UKIP, maybe it's the Conservatives, maybe it's labour, and maybe it's the LibDems or the greens.
The old ukip was a broadly libertarian party. The new one, realistically, not so much.
The LibDems seem to have forgotten about civil liberties, and towed the mi5 line at every opportunity.
The Conservative party has some very smart people. And some spectacularly stupid ones.
And labour. What does labour believe in, anyway?
That 60K per annum Chauffeur must be wonderfully talented.
Regarding the general election Paul Sykes alone has pledged £1.5m.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/millionaire-donor-paul-sykes-gives-ukip-15m-in-bid-to-win-100-seats-in-parliament-9819415.html
Although he's also said he will stop donating money to UKIP after the election.
http://www.itv.com/news/calendar/2014-11-27/paul-sykes-what-next-for-the-scrap-metal-tycoon-who-became-ukips-biggest-donor/
Interesting for the times article, there's a quite a few on the record quotes.
I think there are some Kippers concerned about the management of the party.
Come on Sean Fear, Casino Royale, etc., etc. ....... you know you want to ....... divi up ........ someone has to pay for that chauffeur.
I have no sympathy for the LDs at all. They are reaping the electoral consequences of spending 20 years pretending to be a totally different party in Conservative vs Labour constituencies. A lot of voters projected their own fantasies onto them and/or used them as a protest vehicle. Now they've had to do the right thing, grow up and make decisions in government, it's not surprising that a lot of their national support vanished. In fact I'm surprised at how much is left. They'll still be hard to unseat in a lot of constituencies because they're a known quantity there, so the "spoiled fantasy" isn't so much of a factor. They'll lose about 30% of seats, but I doubt much more.
Sadly, they have never honestly & passionately sold themselves as a libertarian party, with too many economically interventionist policies in the past, and now their brand is far too damaged by the dissonance to be rebuilt to its former levels for at least 10 years.
But yes, even a libertarian agenda would be a minority interest, maybe about 20%. But I think it would cut right across a lot of traditional demongraphic boundaries, affecting the other parties disproportionately in many marginals. All just a pipe dream, of course...
It does protect the right of its citizens to be killed by guns, though.
As LBJ said, it's better to have the buggers inside the tent peeing out, instead of outside peeing in.
http://bit.ly/1pNPlZj
I think that's a little unfair. Gordon Brown, the father of the nation, promised the Scots effective home rule if they voted no. Instead they've had one or two new tax powers proposed.
They have a point. Looking back it really was quite ludicrous for them to promise the Scots effectively devomax but at the same time say the Scots could keep the Barnett formula! And then we had the preposterous vow.
To my mind, they seem inherently contradictory positions. If you believe in leaving people to their own devices as much as possible, surely that should cut across both economic & social issues. And if you believe people's social choices are important to regulate for the good of society, surely you'd also want to regulate their economic choices for the same reason too. After all, the two are inherently intertwined: if you have wealth, you can create social freedom; if you're poor, you are far more socially restricted. And If you want to redistribute from the wealthy to the poor, then you are necessarily making a judgement on people's relative social value for them rahter than letting the market (i.e. the aggregate of everyone's individual decisions) decide it. It's always seemed simpler to me to divvy things up according to how much you want to interfere in lives, rather than subdividing artificially into economics & social issues. As I said, I know I'm in a minority!!
I agree Kennedy's and Ashdown's attempts to slot the LDs as 'the leftwing conscience of Labour' has been totally reversed by Clegg's more fiscally conservative stance, but nonetheless as he has also kept their social liberalism he is the closest leader to a libertarian stance at present
And a big reason is that 120 years ago, society was very religious. There was no need for legislative control of public behaviour when informal control by the churches was so strong. Likewise, voluntary activity (much of it by churches) covered all sorts of social services that are now done by the State. But that wider religious culture is now long gone, and I can't see anything similar replacing it.
02/12/2014 16:30
William Hill are now taking bets on how long #CameronMustGo will trend. pic.twitter.com/fKlDyvuend
WRT modern attitudes, there are clearly very large numbers of people who favour State intervention in both the economic and social spheres.
'just a bit silly'? Yes.
http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/cw47.pdf
Most people, quite frankly, don't trust humanbeings other than their friends and family. They don't trust that benevolent rich people will step up and fill the void if government stops providing public services, nor do they trust that people if left to their own devices would stop committing crimes/planning terrorism/watching kiddy porn if the government isn't snooping around, stopping people before they can do those things, and cracking down hard on anyone who steps out of line. Much as people right now are furious with the politicians as individuals, I really don't think too many people are protesting against big government as a principle.
Apart from bringing your own food, I can't see anything wrong with it (but then, I am Italian).
Any notion that somehow it is difficult to freely buy alcohol or it is expensive in the USA seems to be wrongheaded - there are plenty opportunities to buy alcohol, and not from state owned stores, and just how is the USA restricting sex activity.
Really, people worrying about breast feeding need to get a life.
First time I've mentioned it, think you are barking
Up the wrong tree
Pun intended
However, the Lib Dems remain right wing on economics and individual freedom whilst left wing on social and welfare issues - which means they can justifiably emphasise right wing economics in the the south and left wing welfare in the north.
Does seem a bit odd, when you see how kippers demand checks on parliamentary expenses, that they throw their own money (well donors) around so blindly.
British culture is changing (generally getting less excited by body exposure), and your reaction is common when that happens, but resisting it is a bit like trying to stop people changing language usage. I'm still annoyed by people saying "I'm bored of" instead of "I'm bored by", but I can see I'm going to need to get used to it.
.... And learn to look the other way.
Because I travel a lot for my job I have to do a lot of adjusting anyway. When I was last in Moscow, I was using a fairly basic public toilet when a middle-aged woman cleaner walked in briskly and indicated politely to the bloke standing a couple of feet away from me that he should shift along in my direction so she could make a start on cleaning the other end of the urinal. Neither he nor she seemed to think anything odd or embarrassing about it, and he shuffled along obligingly while she got to work with a mop at the far end.
2% In 32% Out (Scotland, London and Midlands and Wales, the North and South Out)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/wbz4pttdol/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-011214.pdf
42% In 39% Out (Scotland, London and Midlands and Wales, the North and South Out)
http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/wbz4pttdol/YG-Archive-Pol-Sun-results-011214.pdf
A puerile stunt for the easily lead...