Some wise words I think on the problems for Cameron's leadership with an early EU vote on the FT, as well as a well put explanation on the natural order of politics being sure to return at some point, and with it Cameron's current
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
Making demons of the people you need to fund your angels isn't going to end well, is it?
Makes me think of the quote, paraphrased 'It's always a mistake to make gods out of men, but it's equally wrong to make devils'.
I'm truly APPALLED at that story - the daughter/mother were estranged for years, she explicitly said in her will that she didn't want her daughter to get a penny and to challenge any claim in the courts.
She left her £500k to three charities and now the daughter is getting £164k in the face of her mother's clear desire that she didn't want it.
I hope it's overturned on appeal. If your will is made with sound mind and without coercion it should stand.
Story on the BBC saying a court decision will mean it is much harder to disinherit people in Wills as the judge said it had been harsh and unreasonable. While it presumably washarsh, I feel oddly uncertain about it,restricting what people can do with their money.
You can blame Labour for that as well , apparently based on one of Sunny Jim's acts, Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
1(1)(c)a child of the deceased; ... that person may apply to the court for an order under section 2 of this Act on the ground that the disposition of the deceased’s estate effected by his will or the law relating to intestacy, or the combination of his will and that law, is not such as to make reasonable financial provision for the applicant.
Personally I feel that having had nothing to do with each other for more than three decades and then making an application on the basis of inadequate financial provision is slightly taking the p155.
What exactly did that have to do with Sunny Jim?
He was prime minister when that law was enacted.
No he was not. Callaghan became Prime Minister in April 1976.
Quite right, forgot Wilson resigned, it's been a long day!
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
If we're accepting a sweeping statement on how hard it is to become rich or poor, surely it must be equally hard? I don't see how it could be possible otherwise.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
Well, so what? Why would we want to see rich people become poorer?
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
There was that piece of research published recently in the USA which showed that there was no correlation between the remuneration of CEOs and the performance of their companies. For each of the Dysons (who deserve every penny in my book) there are hundreds of Victor Blanks who get paid millions for performance that is less than good by a long way. These superstar international CEO's who must be paid a fortune otherwise they will go elsewhere are mostly nothing of the sort and if they did clear off and bugger up some other country's companies we would be better off..
If there's a correlation between CEO remuneration and company performance it should really be a negative one, because it can't be fun running a shitty company in badly-performing market, so you need to pay good people more to get them to take on the job.
How to solve the conundrum is another matter. As we have discussed on here before, the system of corporate governance seems to be the key but, as Mr. Charles has said previously, nobody seems to know how to turn it. I confess I am becoming more and more impatient on this matter and see considerable merit in a radical statutory solution.
Unless the company is owned by the directors or their family then the salary of any director of a limited company should be, by law, be restricted to twenty times the median wage of the company's employees.
Great, so they'll outsource all the low-paid jobs.
Yes, another of those classic unintended consequences. Like preventing companies from sacking women who get pregnant, which sounds laudable, but the real world outcome is companies hire less women of child bearing age to reduce their exposure to the risk. Similarly if we start leaning on companies to publish their pay by gender, its possible that women might get pay rises where needed to equalise their pay with men, although its more likely the company will just stop hiring women in low paying jobs so that average salary goes up.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
Well, so what? Why would we want to see rich people become poorer?
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
But so long as you have an idiotic measure of relative poverty this will never be the case, and the left will never be happy, we could pull out our magic wand and double the salary of everyone in the country, and just the same number of people would be in poverty as before.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
Well, so what? Why would we want to see rich people become poorer?
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
Some wise words I think on the problems for Cameron's leadership with an early EU vote on the FT, as well as a well put explanation on the natural order of politics being sure to return at some point, and with it Cameron's current
How predictable, the not-nice-but-still-dim PB Tories wheel out the 1 in 100 James Dysons of this world as representative of the country's wealthy as opposed to the 99/100 opportunistic rent-seekers, thick-but-entitled inheritors of wealth, sociopathic exploiters of others and well-connected game players. I don't think more than a few percent of the 'left' would begrudge true 'wealth creators' like Dyson getting decent recompense, it's the other 99% feral rich that are the problem, who far from creating wealth, destroy it.
That's nothing more than blind prejudice on your part.
As I said upthread Sean- it's a damn site harder for a rich person to become poor than a poor person to become rich.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
Making demons of the people you need to fund your angels isn't going to end well, is it?
Makes me think of the quote, paraphrased 'It's always a mistake to make gods out of men, but it's equally wrong to make devils'.
That column from Ganesh is a lesson in why Cameron can not afford to be dishonest in his EU arguments, nor can he demonise his opponents in the referendum. He can survive a honest, mature conversation. But his opponents in his party will never forgive him if lies or doesn't play fair. That's why they need to do the right thing on purdah. If the Conservatives want to put this issue to bed, both sides need to feel they have been treated fairly.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
Except, they don't. When did you really hear of the wealthy suffering in a recession? Maybe they don't replace the car this year. The holiday to Thailand or the skiing trip? We'll have to put off one of them. That is the level of pain.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
Except, they don't. When did you really hear of the wealthy suffering in a recession? Maybe they don't replace the car this year. The holiday to Thailand or the skiing trip? We'll have to put off one of them. That is the level of pain.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The polls say basically the result 18th September restult.
They look a little better for Yes but once you factor Don't Knows as Shy No's it's a carbon copy.
Which is interesting as pre-referendum voters were asked would they vote Yes if they knew the Conservatives were going to win in 2015 and a Majoirty said yes.
Agreed. Changing the law is likely the only solution to this greed.
The problem comes when that well paid board of directors in their boardroom and try to decided which country to relocate their business to. I am sure they are all going to have their companies best interest at heart, but it would be unusual if they didn't spare a small though for the restrictions that would be put on their earnings, and decide to move to Germany (or Malaysia) instead.
If such a move is in accordance with the expressed will of the shareholders then off to foreign climes the business will go, regardless of the remuneration package of the directors. It happens now, so no change.
If, however, the directors recommend such a move and it would be to the detriment of the shareholders then they would be in breach of their duties and commit an offence in law for which they are liable to punishment. Furthermore if the directors of a company would recommend such a move for their own benefit then they are just crooks and should not be in a position of influence at any salary.
And if shareholders collectively start to feel that they wont be able to get directors of the calibre (real or perceived) that they deserve under the sort of pay regime you propose, and so request their various businesses go somewhere else ?
If there is no correlation between executive pay and company performance the any shareholders that take that view are doing themselves no favours, but they will of course be free to act on their judgement and relocate the business to somewhere else and some other legal system.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
Except, they don't. When did you really hear of the wealthy suffering in a recession? Maybe they don't replace the car this year. The holiday to Thailand or the skiing trip? We'll have to put off one of them. That is the level of pain.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
Share price falls, reductions in equity of assets and other investments, and company and or personal bankruptcies will reduce their wealth. Some may lose much more.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The SNP have no appetite for a 2nd referendum right now. I think the SNPs manifesto will have another referendum in it, but will link it to being triggered by a " Material Event ". The most mentioned ME is the EU Ref - with rUK voting to leave and Scotland to stay. Trident renewal could be another.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
Except, they don't. When did you really hear of the wealthy suffering in a recession? Maybe they don't replace the car this year. The holiday to Thailand or the skiing trip? We'll have to put off one of them. That is the level of pain.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
There is no monopoly on recession. Before the great recession the longest-lasting recession was in the early 80s, and it was certainly the one with the most permanent regional impact.
Redistribution of wealth, fairness and tackling inequality should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to represent the majority of the people. The rich can take care of themselves. The poor need active Govt.
100% wrong. CREATION of wealth should be the primary goal of any Govt of any colour that seeks to better the lives of the majority of people. That the Left cannot sign up to this notion is their worst failing. They seem to hate that New Labour's success was based on this very principle.
Precisely. But the Left have always been more interested in equality rather than prosperity.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
Except, they don't. When did you really hear of the wealthy suffering in a recession? Maybe they don't replace the car this year. The holiday to Thailand or the skiing trip? We'll have to put off one of them. That is the level of pain.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
And the rich might lose 5% of their savings, the poor might well lose 50%. I don't buy that society gets more equal in a recession. The folk with the least lose the most.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
'the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest.'
Would you include 'Buy to Let' landlords in that category?
I was just thinking back to Gordon Brown's coronation as party leader way back in 2007. There came a point when everyone was scrambling to get their names on the paper supporting him because it was said that if your name was not on the paper then you would be deemed to be disloyal and disloyalty was not going to be tolerated. All of a sudden most of the Labour party prostrated themselves (metaphorically).
Given that Corbyn is of the left and that, historically, the left is very intolerant of disloyalty, I wonder if Corbyn's increasing support is due to a fear of not been seen to be on the winning side? Will his support snowball like Gordon's did? And for much the same reason?
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
But, I don't buy this zero-sum argument. Today's rich are much richer than the rich of 200 years ago, but that doesn't prevent today's poor being immeasurably better off than the poor of 200 years ago.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses. And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The SNP have no appetite for a 2nd referendum right now. I think the SNPs manifesto will have another referendum in it, but will link it to being triggered by a " Material Event ". The most mentioned ME is the EU Ref - with rUK voting to leave and Scotland to stay. Trident renewal could be another.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses. And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
Property and share prices fell, during the last recession, so the rich got poorer.
But, they're getting richer now that the economy is growing again.
People who whinge about the wealthy should reflect on what happened to Uganda after the Asian population was expelled in the 1970s.
People who whinge about the wealthy should not in the same thread confess to giving up work in their early 40's, and making loads of wonga by buying and renting out property to those less fortunate. It whiffs.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The SNP have no appetite for a 2nd referendum right now. I think the SNPs manifesto will have another referendum in it, but will link it to being triggered by a " Material Event ". The most mentioned ME is the EU Ref - with rUK voting to leave and Scotland to stay. Trident renewal could be another.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
Anecdata... I voted yes in the indyref. If a new plebiscite is enacted, I shall vote no. I am not the only person I know of with this opinion.
I was just thinking back to Gordon Brown's coronation as party leader way back in 2007. There came a point when everyone was scrambling to get their names on the paper supporting him because it was said that if your name was not on the paper then you would be deemed to be disloyal and disloyalty was not going to be tolerated. All of a sudden most of the Labour party prostrated themselves (metaphorically).
Given that Corbyn is of the left and that, historically, the left is very intolerant of disloyalty, I wonder if Corbyn's increasing support is due to a fear of not been seen to be on the winning side? Will his support snowball like Gordon's did? And for much the same reason?
Thoughts anyone?
There is a big difference. Gordon Brown was already in a position to destroy the careers of those that showed disloyalty, as he had proved on many occasions. Corbyn’s support appears to be a spontaneous reaction by the ‘Old Labour’ socialists to get behind their chosen leader - without any threats of a Nokia phone being chucked at them.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
'the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest.'
Would you include 'Buy to Let' landlords in that category?
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The SNP have no appetite for a 2nd referendum right now. I think the SNPs manifesto will have another referendum in it, but will link it to being triggered by a " Material Event ". The most mentioned ME is the EU Ref - with rUK voting to leave and Scotland to stay. Trident renewal could be another.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
Anecdata... I voted yes in the indyref. If a new plebiscite is enacted, I shall vote no. I am not the only person I know of with this opinion.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
But, I don't buy this zero-sum argument. Today's rich are much richer than the rich of 200 years ago, but that doesn't prevent today's poor being immeasurably better off than the poor of 200 years ago.
really does depend what you measure and how, doesn't it?
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
So you have had the benefit of the system - but would slam the door on others.
I was just thinking back to Gordon Brown's coronation as party leader way back in 2007. There came a point when everyone was scrambling to get their names on the paper supporting him because it was said that if your name was not on the paper then you would be deemed to be disloyal and disloyalty was not going to be tolerated. All of a sudden most of the Labour party prostrated themselves (metaphorically).
Given that Corbyn is of the left and that, historically, the left is very intolerant of disloyalty, I wonder if Corbyn's increasing support is due to a fear of not been seen to be on the winning side? Will his support snowball like Gordon's did? And for much the same reason?
Thoughts anyone?
There is a big difference. Gordon Brown was already in a position to destroy the careers of those that showed disloyalty, as he had proved on many occasions. Corbyn’s support appears to be a spontaneous reaction by the ‘Old Labour’ socialists to get behind their chosen leader - without any threats of a Nokia phone being chucked at them.
I asked earlier about how keen the SNP might be on a referendum right now. what are the polls saying?
The SNP have no appetite for a 2nd referendum right now. I think the SNPs manifesto will have another referendum in it, but will link it to being triggered by a " Material Event ". The most mentioned ME is the EU Ref - with rUK voting to leave and Scotland to stay. Trident renewal could be another.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
The demographics are in favour of a vote in 2018, are you sure you wouldn't like a vote in 2017? What about 2016 or even 2015? How about one every six months starting this October until you get your compatriots to finally vote the correct way? Maybe even, as Mrs C suggested on here earlier today, widen the franchise to include the English.
I was just thinking back to Gordon Brown's coronation as party leader way back in 2007. There came a point when everyone was scrambling to get their names on the paper supporting him because it was said that if your name was not on the paper then you would be deemed to be disloyal and disloyalty was not going to be tolerated. All of a sudden most of the Labour party prostrated themselves (metaphorically).
Given that Corbyn is of the left and that, historically, the left is very intolerant of disloyalty, I wonder if Corbyn's increasing support is due to a fear of not been seen to be on the winning side? Will his support snowball like Gordon's did? And for much the same reason?
Thoughts anyone?
I think you'll find that Corbyn isn't generating much momentum amongst his Parliamentary colleagues, far from it- they are trying their upmost to burst his bubble. He did gain the support of gorgeous George Galloway today mind
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
Anecdata... I voted yes in the indyref. If a new plebiscite is enacted, I shall vote no. I am not the only person I know of with this opinion.
I have no doubt there are people with this mindset.
I certainly won't be voting for the SNP next year without a cast iron commitment to a second Referendum, even if that means my vote is wasted. Like you, I know people with this opinion.
Long terming this doesn't have a good history. You either face Ireland where a mainstream independence movement is outflanked and replaced by a far more radical movement or you get Quebec where the movement splinters all over the place into an inept and ineffective shell. And all the time we face the danger of becoming the next Wales and quickly sliding into poverty.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
'the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest.'
Would you include 'Buy to Let' landlords in that category?
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I think if you take bisect the midpoint of yours and that other noted 'property developer' Philip Davies' views on this you'd arrive at somewhere sensible.
Edit: This arrives more or less at George Osborne's view in the last budget...
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
The demographics are in favour of a vote in 2018, are you sure you wouldn't like a vote in 2017? What about 2016 or even 2015? How about one every six months starting this October until you get your compatriots to finally vote the correct way? Maybe even, as Mrs C suggested on here earlier today, widen the franchise to include the English.
Either four or five years is a fairly well understood and established time scale for political decision making found throughout the world. Given that precedent it seems perfectly reasonable for a country which is currently externally run to hold an independence plebescite every four or every five years.
Of course those who object to democracy (which would include anyone who supports FPTP) will no doubt object. Let them object, meanwhile set course for the next Referendum.
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
So you have had the benefit of the system - but would slam the door on others.
Nice.
Who is talking about slamming doors? I just want a little bit more redistribution and to have a Govt that reflects more broadly the society it serves.
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
So you have had the benefit of the system - but would slam the door on others.
Nice.
Who is talking about slamming doors? I just want a little bit more redistribution and to have a Govt that reflects more broadly the society it serves.
Redistribute away - that £30K you've made down thread for instance. Why should it be up to the government?
I'm not convinced that there is no appetite for an early second Referendum. The realpolitik of what is said by the SNP is likely to be quite different to the actual politics of what is offered. They will pay a heavy price if they fail to convince the public that they are committed to a second Referendum after the 2016 vote.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
The demographics are in favour of a vote in 2018, are you sure you wouldn't like a vote in 2017? What about 2016 or even 2015? How about one every six months starting this October until you get your compatriots to finally vote the correct way? Maybe even, as Mrs C suggested on here earlier today, widen the franchise to include the English.
Either four or five years is a fairly well understood and established time scale for political decision making found throughout the world. Given that precedent it seems perfectly reasonable for a country which is currently externally run to hold an independence plebescite every four or every five years.
Of course those who object to democracy (which would include anyone who supports FPTP) will no doubt object. Let them object, meanwhile set course for the next Referendum.
I suppose it depends on what you really want. If you really want independence my strategy would seem to give the best chance of obtaining it. On the other hand if you want to be able to moan about the evil English preventing you from running your own country your idea of a referendum every five years maximises the chances of being able to whinge for ever.
Anecdata... I voted yes in the indyref. If a new plebiscite is enacted, I shall vote no. I am not the only person I know of with this opinion.
Police Scotland Named Person policy Education "policies" SNP "antics" in Westminster Looming SNP landslide at Holyrood SNP activists and the increasing religious feel of the support.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses. And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
Property and share prices fell, during the last recession, so the rich got poorer. But, they're getting richer now that the economy is growing again. The deficit is a result of the spending. It was spending which could not be sustained after the recession which wiped out the tax raising base Brown thought would be there forever. Our banking system collapsed because Brown's regulation system broke down when faced with its first test Talking about rich and poor is sterile. Wayne Rooney is rich. I am poor.
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses. And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
Property and share prices fell, during the last recession, so the rich got poorer. But, they're getting richer now that the economy is growing again.
The deficit is a result of the spending. It was spending which could not be sustained after the recession which wiped out the tax raising base Brown thought would be there forever. Our banking system collapsed because Brown's regulation system broke down when faced with its first test Talking about rich and poor is sterile. Wayne Rooney is rich. I am poor.
Er! You can still afford broadband, probably a meal on your table at least 3 times a day, have a reasonably paying boring job and waste time commenting on Politicalbetting.com. Poor sod.
Comments
http://app.ft.com/cms/s/895c857e-344b-11e5-bdbb-35e55cbae175,Authorised=false.html?_i_location=http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/895c857e-344b-11e5-bdbb-35e55cbae175.html?siteedition=uk&siteedition=uk&_i_referer= Makes me think of the quote, paraphrased 'It's always a mistake to make gods out of men, but it's equally wrong to make devils'.
Quite right, forgot Wilson resigned, it's been a long day!
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
It's why they like recessions: people become (relatively) much less unequal even though everyone is worse off.
http://news.stv.tv/scotland-decides/analysis/1325439-stephen-daisley-david-cameron-rules-out-second-referendum-on-independence/
Japanese bosses tend to look long term and be reasonably benign, in my experience.
But Labour's recessions cause real hardship to folks at the other end of the scale. People lose jobs, lose houses. They lose years of their lives. They lose their savings. This is what it means to the very people Labour was supposed to be set up to help. That is what Gordon Brown's crass end to boom and bust means.
When you look at their roll call of misery every time they get power, Labour should hang their heads in shame.
And then agree to disband. They are just shite at politics. And they hurt many, many people they profess to care about in the process.
https://twitter.com/PlatoSays/status/626012377440456704
They look a little better for Yes but once you factor Don't Knows as Shy No's it's a carbon copy.
Which is interesting as pre-referendum voters were asked would they vote Yes if they knew the Conservatives were going to win in 2015 and a Majoirty said yes.
Hence the Nikkei ignoring the Olympus scandal (and instead printing ludicrous PR for the fraudsters) for the first two weeks after the FT broke it.
PS. Back on topic, Labour need to draft Michael Woodford.
I reckon the Nikkei is sensible enough to realise the FT's independence is vital to it remaining a going concern in any sense.
If readers smell a rat, one of the other very many other English language financial publications and websites beckons.
I've always had an affection for Scotland, but apparently I must be a racist.
Being anxious about the SNP's influence on UK politics is equal to anti-Scottish racism.
It must be true, because @Dair says so upthread - and he is always right, of course.
SNP would want to see over 60% support for Independence before going for a 2nd ref.
The aim of government should be to put conditions in place whereby most people can improve their standard of living. Where they stand in relation to each other doesn't matter much.
It matters very much indeed to those on the Left.
@Casino and sean
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
'the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest.'
Would you include 'Buy to Let' landlords in that category?
Given that Corbyn is of the left and that, historically, the left is very intolerant of disloyalty, I wonder if Corbyn's increasing support is due to a fear of not been seen to be on the winning side? Will his support snowball like Gordon's did? And for much the same reason?
Thoughts anyone?
@Casino and sean
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
But, I don't buy this zero-sum argument. Today's rich are much richer than the rich of 200 years ago, but that doesn't prevent today's poor being immeasurably better off than the poor of 200 years ago.
''Or the many 'rich' labour politicians and supporters?''
In a recession, the rich might lose 10% of their income, compared to the poor losing 5% of their income. But, it's easier to bear that loss if you're rich than if you're poor. So, society does become a bit more equal, at the same time that it becomes worse off.
@above link
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses.
And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
Waiting if the path to failure as has been seen quite plainly in Quebec, the pressure on the establishment has to be kept up, it is also necessary for the party to demonstrate it's own commitment to principles and not being merely a second incarnation of SLAB only in it for power. It is not a mistake I expect them to make.
The demographics are very clearly in favour of a positive vote in 2018 regardless of any other changes. When you also consider that since the 2011 they increased the backing for Independence from 25% to 45%, there has to be some expectation of being able to beat the Unionists over the course of the second Referendum campaign.
I think you'll find during the last recession the rich got a damn site wealthier- a perfect storm of QE, rising asset values, low borrowing,
And who was it who caused the last recession? Oh yes, bankers looking for bonuses.
And what did the Tories do? Manage to get people to believe it was Labour's spending. I mean for gods sake- a Govt that was spending a measly 40% or so took all the blame. Respect to the Tories though for getting that one to stick.
Property and share prices fell, during the last recession, so the rich got poorer.
But, they're getting richer now that the economy is growing again.
I voted yes in the indyref.
If a new plebiscite is enacted, I shall vote no.
I am not the only person I know of with this opinion.
'the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest.'
Would you include 'Buy to Let' landlords in that category?
Absolutely. And property developers- and I've done more than my fair share of both over the years. I can benefit from the system, but still critique it, and see it for what it is. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
Damn right- fairness and equality are important to the left. Inequality just means the cards are stacked in favour of the have's whose priority is to get richer at the expense of the rest. Take public schools for instance. Vehicles to protect the interests of the rich.
But, I don't buy this zero-sum argument. Today's rich are much richer than the rich of 200 years ago, but that doesn't prevent today's poor being immeasurably better off than the poor of 200 years ago.
really does depend what you measure and how, doesn't it?
Andrew Neil tweeted this about a lack of scrutiny over Japanese corporate accounting scandals
https://twitter.com/afneil/statuses/624930279694684160
Nice.
Do they still make Nokias?
I certainly won't be voting for the SNP next year without a cast iron commitment to a second Referendum, even if that means my vote is wasted. Like you, I know people with this opinion.
Long terming this doesn't have a good history. You either face Ireland where a mainstream independence movement is outflanked and replaced by a far more radical movement or you get Quebec where the movement splinters all over the place into an inept and ineffective shell. And all the time we face the danger of becoming the next Wales and quickly sliding into poverty.
Edit: This arrives more or less at George Osborne's view in the last budget...
Of course those who object to democracy (which would include anyone who supports FPTP) will no doubt object. Let them object, meanwhile set course for the next Referendum.
Who is talking about slamming doors? I just want a little bit more redistribution and to have a Govt that reflects more broadly the society it serves.
Named Person policy
Education "policies"
SNP "antics" in Westminster
Looming SNP landslide at Holyrood
SNP activists and the increasing religious feel of the support.
But, they're getting richer now that the economy is growing again.
The deficit is a result of the spending. It was spending which could not be sustained after the recession which wiped out the tax raising base Brown thought would be there forever. Our banking system collapsed because Brown's regulation system broke down when faced with its first test
Talking about rich and poor is sterile. Wayne Rooney is rich. I am poor.
Talking about rich and poor is sterile. Wayne Rooney is rich. I am poor.
Er! You can still afford broadband, probably a meal on your table at least 3 times a day, have a reasonably paying boring job and waste time commenting on Politicalbetting.com. Poor sod.