"You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote."
You know what, Socrates? That would be a truly devastating argument if a) the people of southern England had been voting for self-government in the way that Scotland did between 1979 and 1997, and b) if you hadn't been responding to me merely making the point that the Labour government listened to the south.
In fact, I'd put it rather more strongly than that - they were utterly obsessed with the south.
Self-government? The Scots voted for a rather limited form of devolution where most control would remain with Westminster, because that was what was on offer. Besides, they now have that devolution, so you're just trying to pick a scab off a wound that is now healing.
New Labour 1997-2010 didn't listen to the south at all. Not on mass immigration, not on debt, not on an ever expanding state. Scotland gets far more attention than any other part of the country because it's always threatening to leave. Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end, and we can start paying attention to the poorer parts of Britain like Northumbria and Cornwall, that lose out in the Barnett formula.
"That's the rub about manifestos. 74% voted for parties that supported a Scottish Parliament. That's not exactly the same as saying 74% supported a Scottish Parliament - it could be more, or it could be less. Voting for a party is about balancing their various policies and selecting who you think is the best overall."
Hmmm. So what you're saying is that the Tory government should have put that to the test by holding a referendum. Pity they went down the colonial route instead.
No, that's not what I am saying.
What I am saying is that the people of Scotland voted for representatives to a UK Parliament. They did not form a majority in that parliament. Consequently, their ability to make decisions was constrained.
You need to accept the fact that Scotland has less than 10% of the population of the UK. Unless Scotland votes for independence then it will not always get precisely what it wants.
Daily Politics leading on the Labour donation - Jackie Smith making heavy weather of it - Neil also points out that as the company is private what dividends it declares will not be in the public domain.....'we will pay tax on these dividends - of course, you'd go to prison if you didn't.....
....basically its not alright for Google to follow the letter of the law to minimise tax, but its perfectly fine for Labour donors.....
So far this week, Labour are telling us that benefit cuts are bad except when they're ours, and tax avoidance is unacceptable except when it's from a leading benefactor.
REds going to need new tyres and a handbrake by teatime, after so many U turns. He's in a right pickle.
"The tax affairs of individuals are a matter for them and HMRC. My questions are for you and the Labour Party rather than Mr Mills. Can you confirm that the Labour Party advised Mr Mills on how to avoid tax on his donation? As leader of the Labour Party, and given your previous statements on tax avoidance, such actions by your party appear to be directly at odds with your public statements.
Most importantly, will you now pass the amount of tax that has been avoided to the Exchequer? As you say, this is money that is needed to fund vital public services such as the health service and our schools."
Mark Serwotka on the Daily Politics: 'the Labour Party is the party of complete confusion...Liam Byrne is the IDS mini-me...bring back rent control....Labour has decided there is advantage in attacking people on benefits which I think is shameful......'
Scotland gets far more attention than any other part of the country because it's always threatening to leave. Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end
End? You've got more chance taking on 300 Spartans armed with a spoon.
"Were the vast majority of southerners who voted against Labour listened to between 1997 and 2010?"
Oh yes.
You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote.
I think we should be demanding freedom for all those poor glaswegian Labourites toiling under the yolk of Salmond's Holyrood.
"The tax affairs of individuals are a matter for them and HMRC. My questions are for you and the Labour Party rather than Mr Mills. Can you confirm that the Labour Party advised Mr Mills on how to avoid tax on his donation? As leader of the Labour Party, and given your previous statements on tax avoidance, such actions by your party appear to be directly at odds with your public statements.
Most importantly, will you now pass the amount of tax that has been avoided to the Exchequer? As you say, this is money that is needed to fund vital public services such as the health service and our schools."
"What I am saying is that the people of Scotland voted for representatives to a UK Parliament. They did not form a majority in that parliament."
The vast majority of those representatives did not want Scotland to be governed by that parliament on domestic policy. That is the point you are steadfastly pretending not to understand.
"Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end, and we can start paying attention to the poorer parts of Britain like Northumbria and Cornwall, that lose out in the Barnett formula."
Vote No, Scots, so we can confiscate even more money from you! We really must get you on the campaign trail, Socrates...
"What I am saying is that the people of Scotland voted for representatives to a UK Parliament. They did not form a majority in that parliament."
The vast majority of those representatives did not want Scotland to be governed by that parliament on domestic policy. That is the point you are steadfastly pretending not to understand.
I entirely understand your point.
And if the people of Scotland vote for independence then those representatives (or their equivalents) would have exclusive jurisdiction over Scottish domestic policy.
What you are missing is that Scotland is part of the Union and until it leaves then the rules of the Union apply. One of which is that certain powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament (albeit after 1992) and certain powers are reserved to Westminster. The representatives of the Scottish voters are in a minority in Westminster and so will occasionally be outvoted.
"One of which is that certain powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament (albeit after 1992)"
After 1992? I think you mean in 1999, under a Labour government - in other words, if the Tories had remained in power they would simply have continued to ignore Scotland's overwhelming desire for self-government.
"The representatives of the Scottish voters are in a minority in Westminster and so will occasionally be outvoted."
'Occasionally' must mean something different to you.
Tim I have quoted from the DWP March 2013 figures which includes THE BUDGET whereas many of the figures you quote from are
1. Dated August 2012 and are simply out of date.
2. From a partisan website called "Inside Housing" that is dedicated to "social housing news". One of their key programmes is to get the Govt to spend even more money on social housing.... http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/SPIN2_NO_ADS.aspx?navCode=2077
Mark Serwotka on the Daily Politics: 'the Labour Party is the party of complete confusion...Liam Byrne is the IDS mini-me...bring back rent control....Labour has decided there is advantage in attacking people on benefits which I think is shameful......'
Miliband being attacked by Trot.
What a shame, that'll destroy the whole strategy.
(btw, realised your amateurish errors yesterday with Dan Poulters graph? Assume you have)
It's easy to deride Serwotka as a Trot, but regardless of how ludricrously loony-lefty he is, you cannot escape the fact that this is the man in charge of a large union and a man with a direct responsibility for lots and lots of Labour voters.
He is a regular voice on telly. He comes across as someone with influence. He always claims to represent the working classes and real Labour party ideals.
People who see him on telly, slamming Labour as copycat Tories, won't know he's a Trot.
The American Civil war caused a massive loss of life. They abolished slavery, but as it had already been abolished in the British Empire, wouldn't it have been better not to have had the War of Independence?
And as it hasn't turned out so well for them, we should let them back into the Commonwealth - as long as they pay the 250 years or so of back-tax on the tea.
Mark Serwotka on the Daily Politics: 'the Labour Party is the party of complete confusion...Liam Byrne is the IDS mini-me...bring back rent control....Labour has decided there is advantage in attacking people on benefits which I think is shameful......'
Miliband being attacked by Trot.
What a shame, that'll destroy the whole strategy.
(btw, realised your amateurish errors yesterday with Dan Poulters graph? Assume you have)
He is a regular voice on telly. He comes across as someone with influence. He always claims to represent the working classes and real Labour party ideals.
People who see him on telly, slamming Labour as copycat Tories, won't know he's a Trot.
We saw yesterday that mis-trust of Labour on the economy is lowest among ABs - people like the Labour Front Bench - mistrust is much higher among C1/C2s & DE - and Serwotka speaks much more for them than Miliwonk....
"The fact that ‘Check your privilege!’ has even become a thing is symptomatic of the modern tragedy of the British left. This is what happens to a political movement when it gets colonised by sanctimonious, humourless, self-loathing middle-class hypocrites, perhaps of just the sort I’d be myself if I were devoid of any irony, wit or self-knowledge.”
The American Civil war caused a massive loss of life. They abolished slavery, but as it had already been abolished in the British Empire, wouldn't it have been better not to have had the War of Independence?
And as it hasn't turned out so well for them, we should let them back into the Commonwealth - as long as they pay the 250 years or so of back-tax on the tea.
Would not work:
Our Eighteenth-Century penal-colony may be happy to accept the back-taxes demand, but what about the detritus they rejected? Would they suffer all those Australians...?
"James - I'm totally confused as to what you are complaining about."
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have absolutely no idea what you're complaining about, and if you're not even capable of articulating it, perhaps you shouldn't have said anything at all.
"James - I'm totally confused as to what you are complaining about."
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have absolutely no idea what you're complaining about, and if you're not even capable of articulating it, perhaps you shouldn't have said anything at all.
The Guardian has put up a quite interesting and nuanced set of responses to Ed M's speech. On the politics, I rather suspect that John Harris will have got it right:
In the real world, nuance, texture and line-by-line analysis are for the birds: on Sky TV, the headline on the ticker for Miliband's speech simply said WELFARE CAP. The danger is that left-inclined people will hear a surrender to Tory cruelties, while right-leaning swing voters will only behold Labour people unconvincingly singing the government's tunes.
Miliband should seek Serwotkas approval in the same way that Cameron chased UKIP votes by ramping up immigration and Europe.
Are you Lynton Crosby in disguise?
Let's face it, they are ALL chasing UKIP votes. Not with the same intensity or energy I grant you, but they are all doing it.
If there's a theme at the moment its mainstream politicians inching rightwards whilst desperately trying to pretend that's what they thought all along.
Look at May berating the EU. Without Farage that would never have happened.
Mark Serwotka on the Daily Politics: 'the Labour Party is the party of complete confusion...Liam Byrne is the IDS mini-me...bring back rent control....Labour has decided there is advantage in attacking people on benefits which I think is shameful......'
Miliband being attacked by Trot.
What a shame, that'll destroy the whole strategy.
(btw, realised your amateurish errors yesterday with Dan Poulters graph? Assume you have)
He is a regular voice on telly. He comes across as someone with influence. He always claims to represent the working classes and real Labour party ideals.
People who see him on telly, slamming Labour as copycat Tories, won't know he's a Trot.
We saw yesterday that mis-trust of Labour on the economy is lowest among ABs - people like the Labour Front Bench - mistrust is much higher among C1/C2s & DE - and Serwotka speaks much more for them than Miliwonk....
Miliband should seek Serwotkas approval in the same way that Cameron chased UKIP votes by ramping up immigration and Europe.
Are you Lynton Crosby in disguise?
Of course you are quite right -C1/C2 and DE voters are much more likely to listen to Miliband than Serwotka or MacClusky....
The American Civil war caused a massive loss of life. They abolished slavery, but as it had already been abolished in the British Empire, wouldn't it have been better not to have had the War of Independence?
And as it hasn't turned out so well for them, we should let them back into the Commonwealth - as long as they pay the 250 years or so of back-tax on the tea.
I highly doubt the British Empire would have banned slavery in the 1830s had the American south been part of it, with the combined power of the cotton lobby and the sugar lobby against the abolitionists. British slaveholders in the Caribbean also accepted lower compensation for their slaves than Lincoln offered the southern slaveholders and was refused. This is mainly because Caribbean islands knew they would have been immediately screwed by the Royal Navy in any conflict, while a land based country had a shot at achieving independence.
As for the tax on tea, the Boston tea party occurred because the East India Company got a special tax exemption in the most appalling type of crony capitalism that decent Englishmen should rightly abhor.
robindbrant IDS adds that ed mili idea for collective negotiation for local authorities on rent is 'waffly nonsense', says they already have that power
"Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end, and we can start paying attention to the poorer parts of Britain like Northumbria and Cornwall, that lose out in the Barnett formula."
Vote No, Scots, so we can confiscate even more money from you! We really must get you on the campaign trail, Socrates...
Will it be confiscation when money is taken from Edinburgh to pay for slums in Glasgow? I thought you were supposed to be progressive. It's an interesting line: "Scots will only stay in the union if they don't have to support poorer parts of the country".
"Why Liz Truss Should Consider Resigning" (over Clegg blocking child care reforms) http://www.iaindale.com/
I agree - if she really wants to be a substantial player in the future she needs to resign over such a funadamental issue at the centre of her core of principles and objectives. We shall see.
Following Eds speech is the realistic conclusion that Labour have spent 3 years opposing any Government cut imposed and saying how terrible they were, and now quite suddenly they agree with the cuts. It will be an interesting sell as there must be hours of TV of the shadow cabinet over the past three years slating policies which they now agree with. Andrew Neil will have so much fun. I heard a labour MP yesterday saying that the CB cuts were horrendous, but now they were in there was nothing they could do?? If they win the election they can do what they like. If they genuinely think they are terrible they could reverse them.
She is getting short shrift from most of the posters, often on the lines of that she did not care about ordinary jobs being automated and off shored, but now that it is affecting creating types like her, she is up in arms about the digital world.
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.
Keep it up tim, spinning the farcical meme that benefits are splurged on rent, rather than cheap fags and booze.
I see REd is green lighting any future cuts that the Coalition wish to make.
How many Labour supporters regret that the Unions chose the wrong Miliband now?
"Were the vast majority of southerners who voted against Labour listened to between 1997 and 2010?"
Oh yes.
You're a complete hypocrite. South of the Severn-Wash line, the Tories had a huge majority, yet southerners had to put up with Labour governments. Every argument you make about Scots during Thatcher can be put right back to you about Southerners under Blair. Or, indeed, about Bavaria under Schroeder or New England under Bush or a hundred other examples in democracies around the world. You just have an acute sense of Scottish grievance, and can't accept that sometimes areas of a state get governments of the opposite stripe to the way they vote.
Comments
New Labour 1997-2010 didn't listen to the south at all. Not on mass immigration, not on debt, not on an ever expanding state. Scotland gets far more attention than any other part of the country because it's always threatening to leave. Well, once you vote to stay in, that will thankfully end, and we can start paying attention to the poorer parts of Britain like Northumbria and Cornwall, that lose out in the Barnett formula.
Succinct and democratic diplomatic: I can't be arsed to talk to these 'contributors' nae moore. Good for you!
What I am saying is that the people of Scotland voted for representatives to a UK Parliament. They did not form a majority in that parliament. Consequently, their ability to make decisions was constrained.
You need to accept the fact that Scotland has less than 10% of the population of the UK. Unless Scotland votes for independence then it will not always get precisely what it wants.
REds going to need new tyres and a handbrake by teatime, after so many U turns. He's in a right pickle.
"The tax affairs of individuals are a matter for them and HMRC. My questions are for you and the Labour Party rather than Mr Mills. Can you confirm that the Labour Party advised Mr Mills on how to avoid tax on his donation? As leader of the Labour Party, and given your previous statements on tax avoidance, such actions by your party appear to be directly at odds with your public statements.
Most importantly, will you now pass the amount of tax that has been avoided to the Exchequer? As you say, this is money that is needed to fund vital public services such as the health service and our schools."
http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/79622/george_osborne_letter_to_ed_miliband_over_donors_taxes.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/10102853/Novelist-Tom-Sharpe-dies-age-85.html
Where oh where is the 'like' button
The vast majority of those representatives did not want Scotland to be governed by that parliament on domestic policy. That is the point you are steadfastly pretending not to understand.
Vote No, Scots, so we can confiscate even more money from you! We really must get you on the campaign trail, Socrates...
And if the people of Scotland vote for independence then those representatives (or their equivalents) would have exclusive jurisdiction over Scottish domestic policy.
What you are missing is that Scotland is part of the Union and until it leaves then the rules of the Union apply. One of which is that certain powers are devolved to the Scottish Parliament (albeit after 1992) and certain powers are reserved to Westminster. The representatives of the Scottish voters are in a minority in Westminster and so will occasionally be outvoted.
Mills defies Ed Miliband and the OWG and announces the campaign for a Labour referendum with two former ministers, Keith Vaz and Lord Gilbert.
Two days later Mills is getting panned from all sides for tax avoidance and Lord Gilbert is dead.
If I was Keith Vaz I wouldn't be walking down any dark alleyways...
After 1992? I think you mean in 1999, under a Labour government - in other words, if the Tories had remained in power they would simply have continued to ignore Scotland's overwhelming desire for self-government.
"The representatives of the Scottish voters are in a minority in Westminster and so will occasionally be outvoted."
'Occasionally' must mean something different to you.
A very severe punishment. He can no longer trough at public expense. He'll have to do some honest labour.
I have quoted from the DWP March 2013 figures which includes THE BUDGET whereas many of the figures you quote from are
1. Dated August 2012 and are simply out of date.
2. From a partisan website called "Inside Housing" that is dedicated to "social housing news".
One of their key programmes is to get the Govt to spend even more money on social housing.... http://www.insidehousing.co.uk/SPIN2_NO_ADS.aspx?navCode=2077
I do not. Self-government means self-government.
He is a regular voice on telly. He comes across as someone with influence. He always claims to represent the working classes and real Labour party ideals.
People who see him on telly, slamming Labour as copycat Tories, won't know he's a Trot.
The American Civil war caused a massive loss of life. They abolished slavery, but as it had already been abolished in the British Empire, wouldn't it have been better not to have had the War of Independence?
And as it hasn't turned out so well for them, we should let them back into the Commonwealth - as long as they pay the 250 years or so of back-tax on the tea.
"The fact that ‘Check your privilege!’ has even become a thing is symptomatic of the modern tragedy of the British left. This is what happens to a political movement when it gets colonised by sanctimonious, humourless, self-loathing middle-class hypocrites, perhaps of just the sort I’d be myself if I were devoid of any irony, wit or self-knowledge.”
Our Eighteenth-Century penal-colony may be happy to accept the back-taxes demand, but what about the detritus they rejected? Would they suffer all those Australians...?
Of course it's self-government, on limited matters. What's complicated about this?
I trust you've now succeeded.
The main reason for the war was power.
Are you just astroturfing this blog ? If so mission accomplished.
You took the words right out of my mouth. I have absolutely no idea what you're complaining about, and if you're not even capable of articulating it, perhaps you shouldn't have said anything at all.
Ah, more casual racism from the man who the moderators indulged when he called me a member of the Ku Klux Klan.
Who said irony was dead?
That's certainly always been my impression of your posts.
I presume this is just random noise now.
In the real world, nuance, texture and line-by-line analysis are for the birds: on Sky TV, the headline on the ticker for Miliband's speech simply said WELFARE CAP. The danger is that left-inclined people will hear a surrender to Tory cruelties, while right-leaning swing voters will only behold Labour people unconvincingly singing the government's tunes.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jun/06/ed-miliband-social-security-speech
Are you Lynton Crosby in disguise?
Let's face it, they are ALL chasing UKIP votes. Not with the same intensity or energy I grant you, but they are all doing it.
If there's a theme at the moment its mainstream politicians inching rightwards whilst desperately trying to pretend that's what they thought all along.
Look at May berating the EU. Without Farage that would never have happened.
One for Plato if she's around
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/10103153/Cats-in-hats.html
Do you mean being too willfully stupid to understand something is similar to hearing random noise? Yes, I can imagine it must feel a bit like that.
Well done, Alan. You've managed one non-racist post, just about. It's something to build on.
As for the tax on tea, the Boston tea party occurred because the East India Company got a special tax exemption in the most appalling type of crony capitalism that decent Englishmen should rightly abhor.
http://www.iaindale.com/
I agree - if she really wants to be a substantial player in the future she needs to resign over such a funadamental issue at the centre of her core of principles and objectives.
We shall see.
That's certainly not my line. I'm in favour of independence - I'm not looking for reasons to stay in the union.
The reason why the 'progressive case for the union' is laughable drivel has been explained many times, but I'm happy to do so again if you want.
The email is entitled "The clue is in the name"
unfortunately the email doesn't tell me the name of his speech - not very bright