politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Is Alex Massie right on Scottish Independence?
Over at the Spectator’s Coffee House, Alex Massie has written a piece about the forthcoming referendum following on from the viewing of the first part of the documentary called the Road to referendum, which can be viewed here.
I suppose the main problem for unionists is that it's easy for their opponents to characterise them as being essentially a bunch of boring old farts — ie. the same tactic that has traditionally been used against the Conservative Party.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Our establishment is utterly mediocre: self-serving, short-sighted, bland and generally not very talented. It needs shaking out of its complacency. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. I envy them even though I am very attached to the concept of the UK.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Our establishment is utterly mediocre: self-serving, short-sighted, bland and generally not very talented. It needs shaking out of its complacency. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. I envy them even though I am very attached to the concept of the UK.
Actually, they're pretty good. Naturally they could be better,but wouldn't swap for any other EU politics or return to some utopian bygone golden age.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Our establishment is utterly mediocre: self-serving, short-sighted, bland and generally not very talented. It needs shaking out of its complacency. The Scots have a chance to do something about it.
The recent Labour "U-turns" suggest the 2015 GE will be a case of "spot the difference" - and on rhetoric, not substance.
At the moment we're barely growing - and I suspect it will take another crisis, like the late 70s - to bring forward a leader willing to confront the cozy consensus. "Managerialism" is failing in one of its fundamental responsibilities - effective succession planning.
On topic - I suspect the vote when it comes in 2014 will be a lot closer than the current poling suggests - but still have the overwhelming impression that the SNP has not done its homework and is making it up on the hoof - which will lose them the referendum in the end,
"From the start, Mr Cameron (just like Mr Blair in Iraq) has been happy to entertain the proposition that this Syrian conflict is in essence a struggle between good and evil – benevolent democrats and liberals fighting a virtuous struggle against the murderous tyrant Assad. In fact, the rebels were not nearly as good (and President Assad not as evil) as Mr Cameron has thought."
"If stories matter in politics – and I think they do – then one of the largest problems facing Unionists is their lack of a narrative. What future are Unionists selling?"
Vote No get nothing.
They made damn sure everyone in scotland knows it as well by opposing Devomax and further Devolution.
Just wanted to say thank you to TSE for pointing out the programme about the 1983 General election(the link is on last nights Nighthawks thread.) It was a fascinating programme full of little titbits that I was either unaware of or had forgotten.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Our establishment is utterly mediocre: self-serving, short-sighted, bland and generally not very talented. It needs shaking out of its complacency. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. I envy them even though I am very attached to the concept of the UK.
Actually, they're pretty good. Naturally they could be better,but wouldn't swap for any other EU politics or return to some utopian bygone golden age.
I certainly would not swap our politicians for those in other EU countries - but that's principally because I do not see any great leaders out there currently. I would definitely swap many of our business leaders and public servants with those from other countries (but would not go near anyone who has gone near the Commission or other international bodies). There was never a mythical golden age in this country. Our class system ensured that and thanks to it most of our current problems have had very long gestation periods.
I suspect, Ms Vance, that there might once have been an element of truth in the idea that the Syrian rebels were "good guys", but it appears that this has long gone. IIRC Assad was seen as a "good guy" when he took over from his father.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
It sounds to me that you could be describing almost any Western country.
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
It sounds to me that you could be describing almost any Western country.
I am sure I could. I can certainly see the appeal of separatist movements in the UK, Spain, Italy etc. They offer a potential way out of a deep-seated mess! UKIP is the same, of course; as are many of the popular right and left wing parties emerging in various parts of the continent.
While the Unionists haven't been banging out a strong narrative, neither have the Nats. We've had a tedious 2 year phoney war before either side gets down to business. Very little has been achieved except pots calling kettles black. Really the campaign won't get going properly until next year.
I generally agree with Southam Observer about the quality of our leaders. Like generals fighting the last war, they have not got to grips with the very changed conditions in which they operate. Only this week we've seen Ed Miliband scrambling to do U turns as he is starting to wake up. But the Lib Dems and the Conservatives also fall prey to this - reducing the 50p top rate tax was a good example of this.
The public are waiting to be led. UKIP can more enthusiastically sell an illusion than any of the main parties, so it's hardly surprising they are attracting support from the "I Want To Believe" brigade. But the largest part of the public recognise the need for change and just want politicians to be reasonably honest with them. So far, our politicians haven't got as far as being honest with themselves.
There are no good guys at all in the Middle Eastern Isalmic world. Not a single secular, reasonable, democratic tendency. The choice is violent secular dictators (Assad, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Saddam, etc) or 'the street'. The street means Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood, Ayatollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc). And all of this is overlaid with the endless Sunni / Shia civil war and retributional hatreds.
Best we leave well alone. We have no national interest with either tendency. Our interest is to avoid terrorism and protect oil flow - nothing more.
It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak.
They are one and the same thing. The westminster elite shapes it and they in turn are shaped by westminster priorities. You need look no further than the dysfunctional scottish subsidiaries of labour, the lib dems and the conservatives to see that. All of whom are still crippled by being dictated to by leaders wildly out of touch with the realities on the ground yet those leaders are still terrified to cede real power to their scottish parties lest they scupper any overarching westminster election narrative. They blame those subsidiaries for recent misfortunes despite the having them all on the tightest of leashes and deciding on overall strategy. Independence would shatter that reliance on westminster leaders and force all of them to radically rethink how things are done. A No vote would ensure yet more power is ceded to their executives with the same all too predictable results.
Iain Gray, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie weren't accidents. They are a direct consequence of their own party systems and executives.
Balls and little Ed's welfare triangulation is no surprise for many of those watching scottish politics as the writing was on the wall a long time ago when Lamont and others in SLAB were ordered to obfuscate or push a distinctly tory line when they were inevitably questioned on it.
I suspect, Ms Vance, that there might once have been an element of truth in the idea that the Syrian rebels were "good guys", but it appears that this has long gone..
Indeed. We are now in a Shia - Sunni religious war - with Saudi Arabia/Qatar on one side and Iran/Russia on the other. Libya was much more straight forward.
Polly Toynbee on Radio 5 suggesting that Labour are going to bring in rent controls to try to control the housing market. This will be coupled with a 'massive housebuilding program'
A housebuilding program as happened during the 1997-2010 parliaments, I suppose.
I wonder if the rent controls will effect Tuscan villas?
I think that's a valid perspective, but there's another which rather helps the unionist side more: status quo versus uncertain change.
The power of inertia, especially when confronted by uncertainty, can be pretty strong.
Scots must wonder just how the currency issue will be resolved. If the eurozone's still in the doldrums and the UK economy is improving (at least in relative terms) that won't help the cry that "Bastard EnglishThe Union is to blame for all the problems".
What concrete changes would independence bring?
Monetary policy, according to the SNP, would be decided by London. Fiscal policy, in return for fiscal transfers (ie allowing the Scots to share British currency) would be decided in Edinburgh but with conditions laid down by the UK.
The fact is that right now we don't even know what Scottish money would be like. We know what the SNP want, but the UK, understandably, doesn't seem enthralled with the idea.
We also don't know how the EU/eurozone will be at the time of the vote, nor of how the British economy will compare.
We know what the SNP want, but the UK, understandably, doesn't seem enthralled with the idea.
It's ironic, given the SNP main gripe that people they didn't vote for dictate what happens in Scotland, for their primary negotiating position on Currency, EU, NATO, et al is "we will tell them what we want and they must agree to it"
The Conservatives will campaign for a No vote, but they aren't exactly popular in Scotland. Some Labour voters will vote Yes just to spite the hated Tories, no matter what their own party says. Is there any polling that shows how significant this effect is?
It's definitely going to be amusing watching the unionists and the clueless twits incompetent fops argue that the economy is only safe in the hands of the likes of Osbrowne and Darling while Blair, Cammie and the other westminster 'luminaries' are the only people fit to decide foreign policy and all the other huge areas of self-determination still untouched by Devolution.
It certainly sounds like a winner. ;^ )
The polling on Devomax suggests that the scottish public will hardly be keen on "Vote No get nothing" even if there is still persuading to do on full Independence. Happily most tories and even some of the more deluded labourites still don't realise that painting independence as a Devolution like power shift while quibbling about which powers London keeps might not be particularly wise given that blatantly obvious desire from the scottish public for more powers and the unionist alternative of none.
Still, at least they can always paint uncertainty about the EU while Cammie gets battered senseless by his own backbenches and Farage over whether he actually wants to stay IN or OUT of Europe for his own EU referendum. Bit hard to get more uncertain than that, isn't it?
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
I wonder if Frank Dobson still has a London council flat to go with his house in Yorkshire ?
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
The difference is that whereas then people who rented out houses were thought of as 'rachmans' now renting out houses is an acceptable, even ethically, form of investment for many middle class leftists. Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment.
So there is no way Labour will introduce rent controls.
French unemployment rose to 10.8% in the first quarter of the year - its highest level since 1998, official estimates have shown.
The jobless rate grew from 10.5% in the last quarter of 2012, the official Insee statistics agency said.
The French economy went into a recession after seeing GDP fall by 0.2% in the first quarter.
President Francois Hollande has pledged to boost jobs and growth, but demand has been sapped by the eurozone crisis.
According to Eurostat, the European statistics agency, which uses a slightly different measure, the jobless rate has already reached 11%.
The figures came as the European Central Bank (ECB) prepared to meet later, when it is expected to maintain its benchmark interest rate at 0.5%.
There has been speculation that the central bank will unveil plans to revive lending in the eurozone, especially for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs).
SMEs provide around three quarters of jobs in the eurozone.
The International Monetary Fund earlier this week warned that France needed to introduce fresh economic reforms or else risk lagging behind some of its European neighbours.
The Conservatives will campaign for a No vote, but they aren't exactly popular in Scotland. Some Labour voters will vote Yes just to spite the hated Tories, no matter what their own party says. Is there any polling that shows how significant this effect is?
There is the fact that some in Labour are so terrified of being seen as the tories duplicates (particularly in the run up to the 2015 election) that Brown waded in with the wonderfully named No campaign splinter group "United with Labour". He and they want to campaign well away from the tories and keep Labour independent of any joint tory-lib dem-labour strategy and pronouncements from "Better Together". Yes, the irony is superb indeed.
Of course some might wonder about Brown's other motives since this seems to be a rather direct challenge to Darling's authority in the No campaign, never mind Lamont. It certainly couldn't be that the war between the Brownites and the Blairites has merely shifted venue and that little Ed's recent conversion to a more Blairite triangulation strategy might not be going down too well with Brown and his acolytes.
Is there any reliable polling on class and views on independence? My own experience is that there is a tiny minority of the middle class in favour but that there is much greater support in the working/non working class. I would be interested to know if that was typical.
If it is I think it is somewhat consistent with the points that Southam Observer has made on this thread. Those that do alright out of the current set up don't want to risk that and those that do not have little to lose and are much more open to starting again.
I suspect we will see a similar dynamic when we start to focus on an EU referendum as well. Alex Massie is right that starting afresh with the new opportunities it gives is an easier story to tell but such a story struggles when faced with the realities of the inevitable ongoing relationship that Scotland would have with rUK or the UK would have to have with its biggest trading partner.
As Ed has found to his cost life is just more complicated than a clean sheet of paper.
President Francois Hollande has pledged to boost jobs and growth, but demand has been sapped by the eurozone crisis
By raising taxes to 'eff off' levels on the rich, by lowering the retirement age, by sticking to a rigid work week, by making the state an ever larger part of the French economy, etc, etc. And, shock horror, it is causing even more unemployment. Well I'm sure nobody could see that coming!
The more socialist a country the more socialist its economic outcomes will be. (That is not a good thing).
You can keep the lefty game going for a long time, gradually ruining your private sector and letting the tentacles of the state creep into every corner. But there does come a point at which this is no longer sustainable as the private sector is too small to pay for the public sector. You then need to claw back the state and let the private sector try to compete again. If you still have a private sector.
The French car industry is a perfect example. Peugeot / Citroen is losing E200m a month. Is not allowed to close factories. Cannot compete with its competitors and looks well on the way to going under. The 'protections' afforded it by the French state have in fact killed it. Compare and contrast with Jaguar Land Rover.
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
The difference is that whereas then people who rented out houses were thought of as 'rachmans' now renting out houses is an acceptable, even ethically, form of investment for many middle class leftists. Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment.
So there is no way Labour will introduce rent controls.
"Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment."
Really? Is that honestly the way you think share ownership is seen, even by middle-class leftists? I think you're wrong on that, and if you are not then those middle-class leftists need a rather large reality check.
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
The difference is that whereas then people who rented out houses were thought of as 'rachmans' now renting out houses is an acceptable, even ethically, form of investment for many middle class leftists. Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment.
So there is no way Labour will introduce rent controls.
"Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment."
Really? Is that honestly the way you think share ownership is seen, even by middle-class leftists? I think you're wrong on that, and if you are not then those middle-class leftists need a rather large reality check.
Maybe the Labour party could explain it to them. Apparently Labour is not allowed to sell the shares it has got from Mr Mills without his approval but the Telegraph are suggesting that they will not have to pay tax on the dividends as long as Labour continue to make a loss because they will set the dividend off against that loss. So Labour itself seems to welcome both dividends and tax avoidance. Has someone been too clever for their own good here?
On Topic: The chart shows historical support for Scottish independence at about 1/3, never up to 50% and on a declining trend. Throw in issues like currency, defense, EU status, share of UK debt, future of oil receipts, etc and I think the outcome is looking like a foregone conclusion is it not? (For full independence).
Labour tried rent controls once before - thinking that it would bring down the price of renting and help the rental market customers. Of course what actually transpired is that landlords withdrew and affordable rental contracts were simply not there. Need to be careful of unintended consequences. Bottom line is that Labour is the party of the state and simply does not understand markets. Rental markets are markets - if you force price in one direction then supply / demand will move too.
The difference is that whereas then people who rented out houses were thought of as 'rachmans' now renting out houses is an acceptable, even ethically, form of investment for many middle class leftists. Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment.
So there is no way Labour will introduce rent controls.
"Certainly compared to share ownership, which is regarded as profiting from exploiting the third world or destroying the environment."
Really? Is that honestly the way you think share ownership is seen, even by middle-class leftists? I think you're wrong on that, and if you are not then those middle-class leftists need a rather large reality check.
I don't view it in that way but some middle class leftists do.
Remember that many middle class leftists need to view things through their own 'moral compass' and find ways of justifying their own privilege and affluence.
Which is hard to do if you own shares in a multinational that 'exploits' the third world.
Its the belief behind fairtrade products, ethical investing and those Co-op bank adverts of recent years.
I think the argument here is that there is more than one way to do things, and the Independence referendum is not about choosing which way is the best way to do things, but about determining that the people who should make that choice for Scotland are the people of Scotland alone.
I agree that this argument creates the potential for uncertainty and doubt, but pushing the argument onto the specifics also has risks for Unionists: it can make them appear to be patronising.
Instinctively I'm a Unionist - I favour cooperation over competition, one state for the island of Britain, etc - but if I end up living in Scotland at the time of the referendum it currently looks likely that the Unionist campaign would convince me to vote for Independence, because their argument currently boils down to Scots being too stupid to run their own country.
Is there any reliable polling on class and views on independence? My own experience is that there is a tiny minority of the middle class in favour but that there is much greater support in the working/non working class. I would be interested to know if that was typical.
If it is I think it is somewhat consistent with the points that Southam Observer has made on this thread. Those that do alright out of the current set up don't want to risk that and those that do not have little to lose and are much more open to starting again.
I suspect we will see a similar dynamic when we start to focus on an EU referendum as well. Alex Massie is right that starting afresh with the new opportunities it gives is an easier story to tell but such a story struggles when faced with the realities of the inevitable ongoing relationship that Scotland would have with rUK or the UK would have to have with its biggest trading partner.
As Ed has found to his cost life is just more complicated than a clean sheet of paper.
On Topic: The chart shows historical support for Scottish independence at about 1/3, never up to 50% and on a declining trend. Throw in issues like currency, defense, EU status, share of UK debt, future of oil receipts, etc and I think the outcome is looking like a foregone conclusion is it not? (For full independence).
There does seem to be a gradual declining trend since the poll tax.
However, mixed in with that there have been rapid changes of ~20 percentage points in both directions. I reckon anything is still possible from 3:2 in favour of Independence to 5:1 in favour of the Union.
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
so how are they going to square that with their immigration policy ? When you let loads of people into the country and build very few houses rents go up. Wages also don't keep pace with inflation. It's basic supply and demand. Labour's position atm is to build the houses for newcomers they should have built years ago and then legislate a "living wage" so that more people want to migrate to the UK and the housing crisis gets even worse. Then we overload the rest of our creaking infrastucture - schools, hospitals, roads, energy .....
Scottish independence offers the Scots a way out of a country ruled by a self-interested, mediocre elite in politics, business, public services, the media and just about every other pillar of the establishment you can think of. I am a unionist and would hate to see it happen, but I can understand the rationale in voting for separation: it's a chance to start again and to build something better. It's not the union per se that's the problem, it's the people who run it, so to speak. As they are generally self-perpetuating, well-connected and very sharp-elbowed what hope is there for meaningful reform without a shock of some kind? In England our best hope is the jolt we'd get from quitting the EU.
You've been hanging around PB right wingers too long. They're beginning to get to you.
Our establishment is utterly mediocre: self-serving, short-sighted, bland and generally not very talented. It needs shaking out of its complacency. The Scots have a chance to do something about it. I envy them even though I am very attached to the concept of the UK.
Actually, they're pretty good. Naturally they could be better,but wouldn't swap for any other EU politics or return to some utopian bygone golden age.
I certainly would not swap our politicians for those in other EU countries - but that's principally because I do not see any great leaders out there currently. I would definitely swap many of our business leaders and public servants with those from other countries (but would not go near anyone who has gone near the Commission or other international bodies). There was never a mythical golden age in this country. Our class system ensured that and thanks to it most of our current problems have had very long gestation periods.
If you look at the long ninetheenth century, or you look at the post war period, up to the early 70s, to take 2 examples there was a huge amount of social mobility.
Alternatively, how about Robert Hooke, Richard Whittington or William Shakespere as examples of lower middle class folk who have made it big in the prime time.
It's been the level of social mobility that has distinguished the UK over generations and prevented it from become ossified in the way that France did
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
Looking forward to seeing the details of how rEd will drop rents - nationalising the housing stock overnight ?
" it's due to high rents and low wages from uncontrolled immigration pushing up demand for housing whilst pushing down wage rates"
there tim, hope that helps.
Given that the Tories have no plans to abandon free movement of labour but are ramping up rents at 10-20 times the annual wage increases I can't see them wanting to fight on that ground.
Rent rises 4% outside London, 8% in London Wage increase 0.4% per year
So Osborne's use of taxpayers money to fund it all goes up and up
Did you see Newsnight last night with Subprime George's housing policy ripped to shreds?
Ducking the question. How is importing more people going to increase wages and ease pressure on housing ? It won't. Labour have a dysfunctional economic approach which will leaves us worse off than when we started.
Can you remind us which idiots changed the GP's out of hours care?
'The NHS is conducting a review of out-of-hours care which may lead to GPs again taking responsibility for looking after patients outside normal working hours.
Controversial changes to GPs’ contracts made under Labour in 2004 allowed them to opt out of treating patients outside normal office hours. The review could see that policy reversed.'
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
Looking forward to seeing the details of how rEd will drop rents - nationalising the housing stock overnight ?
Moving housing benefit into housebuilding, the opposite to Osborne's policy.
So there will be a hiatus in housing benefits payments whilst this happens ?
The good news marches on in George's house-building led economic recovery
Confirmation in the Visa Expenditure Index for May that the British Retail Consortium's report of growth in retail sales was more reliable than the earlier CBI reports of declines.
Headline findings:
• Month-on-month consumer spending increases in May (+0.5%), following a reduction in April (-2.3%).
• Year-on-year spending increased for the third successive month in May: growth of +1.3%, up from +0.6% in April, and the strongest annual increase since October 2010.
• Underlying spending continued to improve: 3m/3m growth rate at +0.7% (April: +1.2%).
• Modest increase in Face-to-Face and Mail Order/Telephone Order spending over the year (+1.3% and +1.3%, respectively).
Government doesn't need to pay for housebuilding. It just needs to stop making it difficult for private sector housebuilders to build houses in the areas where they are wanted.
Government doesn't need to pay for housebuilding. It just needs to stop making it difficult for private sector housebuilders to build houses in the areas where they developers want them are wanted.
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
10 posts already tim and none on welfare u turns ?
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
I'd expect a few mor u turns yet. Labour is going to fight the next election on cutting welfare which is out of control due to high rents and low pay. Living wage and housebuilding policies will have huge public support, only people like you don't understand why Osborne is spending more on welfare.
On topic: I think that Alex Massie article is very interesting indeed. It challenges the common view that independence is a lost cause, and does so quite persuasively. It certainly caused me to wonder whether I've got my betting position right (a strong position on No to independence).
However, though he makes an interesting and quite powerful point, I still think that in the final analysis it will come down to Hope vs Fear, and that fear willl win. Maybe it could have been different if the SNP had not been so pig-headed, evasive and petulant when people asked perfectly reasonable and serious questions about the currency, the EU and NATO. There are more difficult questions to come - about pensions, cross-border fund management, and no doubt many other aspects of splitting the union. All those questions are perfectly answerable, but they do have be addressed seriously, not belittled in a cloud of Salmondesque bluster as unionist scaremongering. I just think the SNP have made it too easy for the unionist side to exploit the uncertaintly.
"George, you are a genius." - hardly. Not unless you expected the economy never to recover.
As ever mediocre Osborne has done little to reform and assist the economy and is now seeking credit for other people's efforts.
Yes that corporation tax cut happened by accident.
right H, one cut in corporation tax turned the economy round ? Makes you wonder why no-one else did it.
why then is the tax code bigger than it was in 2010 ? why have the banks still been left unreformed - RBS being the clanger - since 2008 ? why aren't we suffering heat stroke from the bonfire of regulation ?
Osborne has been not been a reforming CoE any recovery is down to other's efforts not his. He's mediocre and the sooner he goes the faster the UK might get someone who sees what needs to be done.
1.Childcare changes would have put up costs -Gove/Truss were wrong 2.Won't back Dave's snoopers charter. 3.Won't support Dave on Syria 4.Puts the boot into the derided Hunt over the 111 number (remember even the majority of PB Tories were bemused by Hunt's promotion)
"3.Won't support Dave on Syria"
That is particularly sick, given Miliband's flip-flop on the Libyan intervention. I wonder why he was so passionately against it at first?
Can you remind us which idiots changed the GP's out of hours care?
'The NHS is conducting a review of out-of-hours care which may lead to GPs again taking responsibility for looking after patients outside normal working hours.
Controversial changes to GPs’ contracts made under Labour in 2004 allowed them to opt out of treating patients outside normal office hours. The review could see that policy reversed.'
The GP doctors contract was changed so that they did not have to work unsocial hours and were paid more money.
The reason given was that there was a shortage of GPs, especially in run down areas, and it was hard to recruit.
This is probably the consequence of women now making up the majority of doctors newly qualifying. I suggest that women doctors are even less prepared than men to work unsocial hours and make home visits at night to run down areas.
WTF is a thirty-five year trend? I can see at least five cycles in that graph (which, incidently, would appear to coincide with the natural economic-cycle).
I still hope that the "Yes" campaign pull-it-off: They need to emphasise the 'Hope' element and not resort the Anglo-bashing to achieve this. Getting rid of the "Fat One" would be a positive step forward.
As for the criticism that the Unionists treat Nats as too immature to govern themselves well, sadly, this is proven by the interweb pixel-queens. The inability to hold a coherant argument with their opponents; to reflect how their "demands" may be offensive to others; their insignificance to the wider UK (whilst condemning others [c.f. UKIP] in similar terms) all show that they need to be let go from Mother-England's apron-strings.
Economically, at least in the short-term, the effect of independence should be negligable. It is how a future Scots government handles the demographic/geographic* consequences of independence that will determine the sensibility of the 2014 outcome.
* There are no guarentees that the commonly-funded/tariffed systems of SAR, Royal-Mail, National-Grid, Road-and-Rail will last more than (at best) ten-years. The population-dense areas of England, Wales and The Province** have no moral compulsion to subsidise the far-reaches of Scotland (not least as these areas hoard 'their'*** oil).
** Wales and The Province are economic basket-cases but the logic of a common-tariif system within the common Sterling-Area (outwith an independent Scotland) makes political, if not economical, sense.
*** Their old-resources should be defined by geography. Expecting rUK to fund other services within these area (via the common-tariff) is rank hypocracy ignorance...!
So. let's get this straight, the latest Labour idea is to target the disabled and other vulnerable people in order to pay for their pet projects?
[Liam Byrne] said Labour would introduce a cap on "structural spending" - such as housing benefit and disability allowances - to deal with the long-term pressures on welfare spending.
Since the union is between England/Wales/NI and Scotland, why is the referendum about the union not being held in England/Wales/NI as well as Scotland.
In my view there would an overwhelming vote for Scottish independence amongst the wider electorate.
Regarding the withdrawal of free bus passes for rich OAPs, isn't the only "saving" the money generated by these OAPs then paying for public transport instead? If they never used it anyway how would any money be saved?
ie hypothetically, the Queen might as well have a free bus pass as she is a million to use it anyway
Apologies if I have overlooked something or misunderstood.
Comments
Snp should rig the fuel price upwards - would nail on a majority.
Whoa. This is a bad look for @Ed_Miliband : Labour helped its top donor make £1.65m 'tax efficient' donation to party
Optics, eh?
At the moment we're barely growing - and I suspect it will take another crisis, like the late 70s - to bring forward a leader willing to confront the cozy consensus. "Managerialism" is failing in one of its fundamental responsibilities - effective succession planning.
On topic - I suspect the vote when it comes in 2014 will be a lot closer than the current poling suggests - but still have the overwhelming impression that the SNP has not done its homework and is making it up on the hoof - which will lose them the referendum in the end,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/10100943/Can-David-Cameron-explain-why-he-has-put-us-on-al-Qaedas-side.html
Vote No get nothing.
They made damn sure everyone in scotland knows it as well by opposing Devomax and further Devolution.
IIRC Assad was seen as a "good guy" when he took over from his father.
As was Saddam at one stage.
The public are waiting to be led. UKIP can more enthusiastically sell an illusion than any of the main parties, so it's hardly surprising they are attracting support from the "I Want To Believe" brigade. But the largest part of the public recognise the need for change and just want politicians to be reasonably honest with them. So far, our politicians haven't got as far as being honest with themselves.
There are no good guys at all in the Middle Eastern Isalmic world. Not a single secular, reasonable, democratic tendency. The choice is violent secular dictators (Assad, Gaddafi, Mubarak, Saddam, etc) or 'the street'. The street means Islamists (Muslim Brotherhood, Ayatollah, Taliban, Al Qaeda, etc). And all of this is overlaid with the endless Sunni / Shia civil war and retributional hatreds.
Best we leave well alone. We have no national interest with either tendency. Our interest is to avoid terrorism and protect oil flow - nothing more.
Iain Gray, Lamont, Davidson and Rennie weren't accidents. They are a direct consequence of their own party systems and executives.
Balls and little Ed's welfare triangulation is no surprise for many of those watching scottish politics as the writing was on the wall a long time ago when Lamont and others in SLAB were ordered to obfuscate or push a distinctly tory line when they were inevitably questioned on it.
A housebuilding program as happened during the 1997-2010 parliaments, I suppose.
I wonder if the rent controls will effect Tuscan villas?
I think that's a valid perspective, but there's another which rather helps the unionist side more: status quo versus uncertain change.
The power of inertia, especially when confronted by uncertainty, can be pretty strong.
Scots must wonder just how the currency issue will be resolved. If the eurozone's still in the doldrums and the UK economy is improving (at least in relative terms) that won't help the cry that "Bastard EnglishThe Union is to blame for all the problems".
What concrete changes would independence bring?
Monetary policy, according to the SNP, would be decided by London. Fiscal policy, in return for fiscal transfers (ie allowing the Scots to share British currency) would be decided in Edinburgh but with conditions laid down by the UK.
The fact is that right now we don't even know what Scottish money would be like. We know what the SNP want, but the UK, understandably, doesn't seem enthralled with the idea.
We also don't know how the EU/eurozone will be at the time of the vote, nor of how the British economy will compare.
It’s gone with the windfarms
New rules let locals block turbines
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4957208/Its-gone-with-the-windfarms.html#ixzz2VPtNcxaW
Ed turner
Labour leader backs Coalition benefits cuts...
after THREE YEARS spent rubbishing them
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4957242/Ed-turner.html
John Mills said the idea of using the shares in his TV shopping channel came from a discussion with party officials.
Labour insisted the donation had been declared in full and said Mr Mills' tax affairs were his own business.
But the Conservatives have accused Ed Miliband of hypocrisy because of his criticism of Google's tax avoidance.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22793181
http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-eco/2013/06/06/97002-20130606FILWWW00374-le-taux-de-chomage-a-104.php
It certainly sounds like a winner. ;^ )
The polling on Devomax suggests that the scottish public will hardly be keen on "Vote No get nothing" even if there is still persuading to do on full Independence. Happily most tories and even some of the more deluded labourites still don't realise that painting independence as a Devolution like power shift while quibbling about which powers London keeps might not be particularly wise given that blatantly obvious desire from the scottish public for more powers and the unionist alternative of none.
Still, at least they can always paint uncertainty about the EU while Cammie gets battered senseless by his own backbenches and Farage over whether he actually wants to stay IN or OUT of Europe for his own EU referendum. Bit hard to get more uncertain than that, isn't it?
So there is no way Labour will introduce rent controls.
Could be worse for Labour, though. At least they weren't on a yacht with someone they didn't take any money from. Just imagine the headlines then.
The jobless rate grew from 10.5% in the last quarter of 2012, the official Insee statistics agency said.
The French economy went into a recession after seeing GDP fall by 0.2% in the first quarter.
President Francois Hollande has pledged to boost jobs and growth, but demand has been sapped by the eurozone crisis.
According to Eurostat, the European statistics agency, which uses a slightly different measure, the jobless rate has already reached 11%.
The figures came as the European Central Bank (ECB) prepared to meet later, when it is expected to maintain its benchmark interest rate at 0.5%.
There has been speculation that the central bank will unveil plans to revive lending in the eurozone, especially for small and medium-sized businesses (SMEs).
SMEs provide around three quarters of jobs in the eurozone.
The International Monetary Fund earlier this week warned that France needed to introduce fresh economic reforms or else risk lagging behind some of its European neighbours.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22794313
It is on the front page of UK BBC News as I write and I am writing from a climate at a nice 28C.
Of course some might wonder about Brown's other motives since this seems to be a rather direct challenge to Darling's authority in the No campaign, never mind Lamont. It certainly couldn't be that the war between the Brownites and the Blairites has merely shifted venue and that little Ed's recent conversion to a more Blairite triangulation strategy might not be going down too well with Brown and his acolytes.
If it is I think it is somewhat consistent with the points that Southam Observer has made on this thread. Those that do alright out of the current set up don't want to risk that and those that do not have little to lose and are much more open to starting again.
I suspect we will see a similar dynamic when we start to focus on an EU referendum as well. Alex Massie is right that starting afresh with the new opportunities it gives is an easier story to tell but such a story struggles when faced with the realities of the inevitable ongoing relationship that Scotland would have with rUK or the UK would have to have with its biggest trading partner.
As Ed has found to his cost life is just more complicated than a clean sheet of paper.
By raising taxes to 'eff off' levels on the rich, by lowering the retirement age, by sticking to a rigid work week, by making the state an ever larger part of the French economy, etc, etc. And, shock horror, it is causing even more unemployment. Well I'm sure nobody could see that coming!
The more socialist a country the more socialist its economic outcomes will be. (That is not a good thing).
You can keep the lefty game going for a long time, gradually ruining your private sector and letting the tentacles of the state creep into every corner. But there does come a point at which this is no longer sustainable as the private sector is too small to pay for the public sector. You then need to claw back the state and let the private sector try to compete again. If you still have a private sector.
The French car industry is a perfect example. Peugeot / Citroen is losing E200m a month. Is not allowed to close factories. Cannot compete with its competitors and looks well on the way to going under. The 'protections' afforded it by the French state have in fact killed it. Compare and contrast with Jaguar Land Rover.
Really? Is that honestly the way you think share ownership is seen, even by middle-class leftists? I think you're wrong on that, and if you are not then those middle-class leftists need a rather large reality check.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-22793851
Britain’s economy is finally recovering – enjoy it while it lasts
http://www.cityam.com/article/britain-s-economy-finally-recovering-enjoy-it-while-it-lasts
Of course, every silver lining has to have a cloud....
For Devomax the answer may be quite different.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22794816#?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter
Remember that many middle class leftists need to view things through their own 'moral compass' and find ways of justifying their own privilege and affluence.
Which is hard to do if you own shares in a multinational that 'exploits' the third world.
Its the belief behind fairtrade products, ethical investing and those Co-op bank adverts of recent years.
Getting ready for another day of Red's u-turns.
Great comedy.
http://chapman.dailymail.co.uk/2013/06/syria-a-cabinet-divided.html
I agree that this argument creates the potential for uncertainty and doubt, but pushing the argument onto the specifics also has risks for Unionists: it can make them appear to be patronising.
Instinctively I'm a Unionist - I favour cooperation over competition, one state for the island of Britain, etc - but if I end up living in Scotland at the time of the referendum it currently looks likely that the Unionist campaign would convince me to vote for Independence, because their argument currently boils down to Scots being too stupid to run their own country.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/05/digital-economy-work-for-free
This form of Luddism seems to have a ready audience.
There s a speech later if you need to catch up on the new positions to take.
there tim, hope that helps.
However, mixed in with that there have been rapid changes of ~20 percentage points in both directions. I reckon anything is still possible from 3:2 in favour of Independence to 5:1 in favour of the Union.
Alternatively, how about Robert Hooke, Richard Whittington or William Shakespere as examples of lower middle class folk who have made it big in the prime time.
It's been the level of social mobility that has distinguished the UK over generations and prevented it from become ossified in the way that France did
Can you remind us which idiots changed the GP's out of hours care?
'The NHS is conducting a review of out-of-hours care which may lead to GPs again taking responsibility for looking after patients outside normal working hours.
Controversial changes to GPs’ contracts made under Labour in 2004 allowed them to opt out of treating patients outside normal office hours. The review could see that policy reversed.'
So put the tin foil hat down, my boy
Confirmation in the Visa Expenditure Index for May that the British Retail Consortium's report of growth in retail sales was more reliable than the earlier CBI reports of declines.
Headline findings:
• Month-on-month consumer spending increases in May (+0.5%), following a reduction in April (-2.3%).
• Year-on-year spending increased for the third successive month in May: growth of +1.3%, up from +0.6% in April, and the strongest annual increase since October 2010.
• Underlying spending continued to improve: 3m/3m growth rate at +0.7% (April:
+1.2%).
• Modest increase in Face-to-Face and Mail Order/Telephone Order spending over the year (+1.3% and +1.3%, respectively).
• Online spending decreased year-on-year, albeit marginally (-0.2%).
George, you are a genius.
dsmitheconomics
New car registrations in May up 11% on year earlier, says SMMT. Sales to private buyers up 20.9%. More private sales in May than pre-crisis.
No wonder rEd is flip flopping over to Con economic policies.
https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/342559007367634945/photo/1
frasernelson Fraser Nelson 20m
@pollytoynbee Here's a graph that makes my point.... pic.twitter.com/5hvjaNmL6b
Were you caught in an A&E queue yesterday?
"George, you are a genius." - hardly. Not unless you expected the economy never to recover.
As ever mediocre Osborne has done little to reform and assist the economy and is now seeking credit for other people's efforts.
However, though he makes an interesting and quite powerful point, I still think that in the final analysis it will come down to Hope vs Fear, and that fear willl win. Maybe it could have been different if the SNP had not been so pig-headed, evasive and petulant when people asked perfectly reasonable and serious questions about the currency, the EU and NATO. There are more difficult questions to come - about pensions, cross-border fund management, and no doubt many other aspects of splitting the union. All those questions are perfectly answerable, but they do have be addressed seriously, not belittled in a cloud of Salmondesque bluster as unionist scaremongering. I just think the SNP have made it too easy for the unionist side to exploit the uncertaintly.
why then is the tax code bigger than it was in 2010 ? why have the banks still been left unreformed - RBS being the clanger - since 2008 ? why aren't we suffering heat stroke from the bonfire of regulation ?
Osborne has been not been a reforming CoE any recovery is down to other's efforts not his. He's mediocre and the sooner he goes the faster the UK might get someone who sees what needs to be done.
After posturing for three years Red u-turns on every cut he has opposed.
Pure comedy.
That is particularly sick, given Miliband's flip-flop on the Libyan intervention. I wonder why he was so passionately against it at first?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12659391
The late husband of Labour MP Ann Clwyd was kept on a trolley in the emergency department of Wales' largest hospital for 27 hours, she has revealed."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-22794026
I expect the usual suspects will rush to denounce this callous treatment and the incompetent government presiding over such failings.....
The GP doctors contract was changed so that they did not have to work unsocial hours and were paid more money.
The reason given was that there was a shortage of GPs, especially in run down areas, and it was hard to recruit.
This is probably the consequence of women now making up the majority of doctors newly qualifying. I suggest that women doctors are even less prepared than men to work unsocial hours and make home visits at night to run down areas.
WTF is a thirty-five year trend? I can see at least five cycles in that graph (which, incidently, would appear to coincide with the natural economic-cycle).
I still hope that the "Yes" campaign pull-it-off: They need to emphasise the 'Hope' element and not resort the Anglo-bashing to achieve this. Getting rid of the "Fat One" would be a positive step forward.
As for the criticism that the Unionists treat Nats as too immature to govern themselves well, sadly, this is proven by the interweb pixel-queens. The inability to hold a coherant argument with their opponents; to reflect how their "demands" may be offensive to others; their insignificance to the wider UK (whilst condemning others [c.f. UKIP] in similar terms) all show that they need to be let go from Mother-England's apron-strings.
Economically, at least in the short-term, the effect of independence should be negligable. It is how a future Scots government handles the demographic/geographic* consequences of independence that will determine the sensibility of the 2014 outcome.
* There are no guarentees that the commonly-funded/tariffed systems of SAR, Royal-Mail, National-Grid, Road-and-Rail will last more than (at best) ten-years. The population-dense areas of England, Wales and The Province** have no moral compulsion to subsidise the far-reaches of Scotland (not least as these areas hoard 'their'*** oil).
** Wales and The Province are economic basket-cases but the logic of a common-tariif system within the common Sterling-Area (outwith an independent Scotland) makes political, if not economical, sense.
*** Their old-resources should be defined by geography. Expecting rUK to fund other services within these area (via the common-tariff) is rank hypocracy ignorance...!
[Liam Byrne] said Labour would introduce a cap on "structural spending" - such as housing benefit and disability allowances - to deal with the long-term pressures on welfare spending.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22785282
In my view there would an overwhelming vote for Scottish independence amongst the wider electorate.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22785282
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-22794313
ie hypothetically, the Queen might as well have a free bus pass as she is a million to use it anyway
Apologies if I have overlooked something or misunderstood.