What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
I think STV is a reasonable system. It's not reallly proportionate, but it does enable candidates from parties with substantial, but widely dispersed, support to get elected. And, it avoids the the worst feature of PR, which is to concentrate power in the hands of party bosses.
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
+1
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
I assume you are suggesting that it is implausible that the SNP and Greens together will have more seats that all the other parties combined yet again in 2021 just as they did in 2011 (SNP on their own did then) and 2016.
In that case you need inter alia to explain why the SNP with only 6 Westminster seats in 2010 GE went on to have an overall majority in 2011 at Holyrood just 1 year later.
As I said, Dugdale remain useless, but ironically locked in place although SLAB gains at GE 2017 were down to Corbyn not her. and Davidson's popularity is less than Sturgeon's although the MSM likes to pretend otherwise by comparing dissimilar questions.
Lol - if there is another election soon the SNP will lose more seats to both Labour and the Tories. Re - your middle paragraph - that was then...
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
+1
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
Agreed, but that means there will never be a majority of MPs that want to change the system and even if there were, there is no guarantee there would be public support in a referendum (given the right-wing press would no doubt widely trash it).
I'd like to be positive but I cannot see FPTP being changed in my lifetime - more chance of re-joining the EU imho.
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
Really? which part of the Labour party manifesto costing paper did you think was grossly dishonest?
(I do agree though that most will need to pay a bit more tax, even if it is through freezing personal allowances for a few years.)
I wonder if the Government should start constructing ready for quick start manufacturing plants - such as car assembly lines or semiconductor production, ready to attact more companies to build here.
I wonder if the Government should start constructing ready for quick start manufacturing plants - such as car assembly lines or semiconductor production, ready to attact more companies to build here.
I wonder if the Government should start constructing ready for quick start manufacturing plants - such as car assembly lines or semiconductor production, ready to attact more companies to build here.
Thanks for confirming that the Scottish Government did not promise that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation event.
The relevant word is "promise". They didn't "commit" to it either.
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.
If we have lost a once in a generation opportunity, can there be another one?
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
If Corbyn is serious (which is a full debate all by itself), he (or indeed Vince) needs to work out a route map to get us from here to a Scandinavian Tax and Benefit system.
Tessy's would obviously be quite specific: 07/06/17.
I suspect Robert Harris favourite date would be 1349. After all killing off half the population of the country would teach those plebs a lesson and remind them not to challenge their betters.
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Is there any reason why we shouldn't equip a shipyard and manufacturing for cruise liners, say? The Italian and Korean shipyards are half owned by their governments.
Why not build some plant suitable for modern drug manufacture?
Often, there is a report in the news of some new startup with half a dozen people, no finance and in truth not much product - that is going to be a world scale success apparently - in a new field untouched by anybody else. But why turn your back on billion pounds industries that really exist? And take steps to enter them.
You don't seem to understand English (reminds me of just before the election when you could not follow the result of an opinion poll on Sturgeon and Davidson).
Where does the Scottish Government PROMISE there will only be a once in a generation referendum? Try and grasp that as distinct from what they were doing-which is warning Scots that it might well be their only chance in a generation, which if the non-democrats at Westminster have their way might, just might, be true..
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
If Corbyn is serious (which is a full debate all by itself), he needs to work out a route map to get us from here to a Scandinavian Tax and Benefit system.
That's a good point because, whilst there is no doubt the country could get used to higher overall tax rates, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause too much of a short term disruption to the economy.
Although, on that point, if taxes and spending go up in parallel, broadly the same amount of money will keep circulating in the economy and there is no brake on growth; whereas if taxes go up or spending is cut, to reduce the deficit, unless I am mistaken there is a direct brake on growth as money is sucked out of the economy.
(Someone will no doubt put me right on that if I am under a misapprehension there!)
You don't seem to understand English (reminds me of just before the election when you could not follow the result of an opinion poll on Sturgeon and Davidson).
Where does the Scottish Government PROMISE there will only be a once in a generation referendum? Try and grasp that as distinct from what they were doing-which is warning Scots that it might well be their only chance in a generation, which if the non-democrats at Westminster have their way might, just might, be true..
You seem to be having trouble with comprehension
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Is there any reason why we shouldn't equip a shipyard and manufacturing for cruise liners, say? The Italian and Korean shipyards are half owned by their governments.
Why not build some plant suitable for modern drug manufacture?
Often, there is a report in the news of some new startup with half a dozen people, no finance and in truth not much product - that is going to be a world scale success apparently - in a new field untouched by anybody else. But why turn your back on billion pounds industries that really exist? And take steps to enter them.
That all sounds far too much like centralised soviet-style planning to me. I am not sure trust any politicians to guess which industries might need what skeleton factories. (Correction: I am sure I don't trust any politicians to get that right!)
Reminds me of a programme I saw a few months back with Robert Peston in China... he came across some massive white elephant empty factories out there built for some industry or other the central committee planned but which never took off.
You don't seem to understand English (reminds me of just before the election when you could not follow the result of an opinion poll on Sturgeon and Davidson).
Where does the Scottish Government PROMISE there will only be a once in a generation referendum? Try and grasp that as distinct from what they were doing-which is warning Scots that it might well be their only chance in a generation, which if the non-democrats at Westminster have their way might, just might, be true..
You seem to be having trouble with comprehension
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.
Is lost
Not "might be" lost
Is lost. If it is lost, can they still have it?
Take your time. Show your working
I've got a feeling your English comprehension lessons are wasted Scott, he ain't gonna ever get it
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
If Corbyn is serious (which is a full debate all by itself), he needs to work out a route map to get us from here to a Scandinavian Tax and Benefit system.
That's a good point because, whilst there is no doubt the country could get used to higher overall tax rates, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause too much of a short term disruption to the economy.
Although, on that point, if taxes and spending go up in parallel, broadly the same amount of money will keep circulating in the economy and there is no brake on growth; whereas if taxes go up or spending is cut, to reduce the deficit, unless I am mistaken there is a direct brake on growth as money is sucked out of the economy.
(Someone will no doubt put me right on that if I am under a misapprehension there!)
Why should we want higher taxes?
Let the government cut its coat to suit its cloth.
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
If Corbyn is serious (which is a full debate all by itself), he (or indeed Vince) needs to work out a route map to get us from here to a Scandinavian Tax and Benefit system.
For McDonell and probably Corbyn a manifesto represents "transitional demands", popular measures that seem superficailly reasonable but cannot be implemented under capitalism. Once initial governmental power is achieved then the leadership can push through the socialist transformation of society via a mass movement with extra parliamentary activities to defeat the forces of reaction. That is why McDonell is so genuine in espousing a programme that is clearly ludicrous to anyone who is numerate and has a grasp of economics and history. They believe in the programme, the programme is impossible unless....
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
+1
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
Agreed, but that means there will never be a majority of MPs that want to change the system and even if there were, there is no guarantee there would be public support in a referendum (given the right-wing press would no doubt widely trash it).
I'd like to be positive but I cannot see FPTP being changed in my lifetime - more chance of re-joining the EU imho.
Agreed.
Blair had the kind of majority that would have enabled him to do something about it and i think there was even a reasonable amount of support around at the time, but he clearly never thought it important. That was probably PR's last chance for a very long while.
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
+1
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
Agreed, but that means there will never be a majority of MPs that want to change the system and even if there were, there is no guarantee there would be public support in a referendum (given the right-wing press would no doubt widely trash it).
I'd like to be positive but I cannot see FPTP being changed in my lifetime - more chance of re-joining the EU imho.
Agreed.
Blair had the kind of majority that would have enabled him to do something about it and i think there was even a reasonable amount of support around at the time, but he clearly never thought it important. That was probably PR's last chance for a very long while.
It went much further than that - Labour had already promised to change the system, commissioned a review under Roy Jenkins to recommend an alternative, the review came up with AV+ (reflecting Labour's long-standing if irrational resistance to multi-member constituencies), the review conclusions generally welcomed by campaign groups and other expert bodies, but then Labour got cold feet and shelved the whole thing. How history might have been different if they had kept to their word.
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
If Corbyn is serious (which is a full debate all by itself), he needs to work out a route map to get us from here to a Scandinavian Tax and Benefit system.
That's a good point because, whilst there is no doubt the country could get used to higher overall tax rates, it needs to be done in a way that doesn't cause too much of a short term disruption to the economy.
Although, on that point, if taxes and spending go up in parallel, broadly the same amount of money will keep circulating in the economy and there is no brake on growth; whereas if taxes go up or spending is cut, to reduce the deficit, unless I am mistaken there is a direct brake on growth as money is sucked out of the economy.
(Someone will no doubt put me right on that if I am under a misapprehension there!)
Why should we want higher taxes?
Let the government cut its coat to suit its cloth.
Well "it's cloth" is our cloth - it's our money and it is used to fund our services. Within reason, government can set the level of taxation and spending as it sees fit. The debate is what is the right level of taxation and spending.
Personally, I would like to see good public services (health, education, defence, etc.) and these need to be paid for.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
You don't seem to understand English (reminds me of just before the election when you could not follow the result of an opinion poll on Sturgeon and Davidson).
Where does the Scottish Government PROMISE there will only be a once in a generation referendum? Try and grasp that as distinct from what they were doing-which is warning Scots that it might well be their only chance in a generation, which if the non-democrats at Westminster have their way might, just might, be true..
You seem to be having trouble with comprehension
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.
Is lost
Not "might be" lost
Is lost. If it is lost, can they still have it?
Take your time. Show your working
I can certainly think of one person on this thread who just under a year ago thought that there should be another indy referendum. Would you like me to show my workings for that assertion now or shall I wait till the actual anniversary?
Still waiting for one of you illiterates to point out where the SNP promised there would not be a second referendum for a generation-as opposed to warning that might be the case.
My honours degree in English suggests my comprehension skills are at least as good as anyone's around here :-)
Still waiting for one of you illiterates to point out where the SNP promised there would not be a second referendum for a generation-as opposed to warning that might be the case.
Which part of "is lost" do you think is "a warning" ?
What is good about FPTP? It forces people to vote for people they dont want, it marginalises third parties, it puts the choice of who you want as MP in the hands of party members and many other bad things. Simple multi member STV with open lists is the sensible way forward in a moder world.
Absolutely but you may get a wee bit of a response from some on here who regard proportional representation as the tool of the Devil himself.
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
FPTP is incredibly divisive.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
+1
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
Agreed, but that means there will never be a majority of MPs that want to change the system and even if there were, there is no guarantee there would be public support in a referendum (given the right-wing press would no doubt widely trash it).
I'd like to be positive but I cannot see FPTP being changed in my lifetime - more chance of re-joining the EU imho.
Agreed.
Blair had the kind of majority that would have enabled him to do something about it and i think there was even a reasonable amount of support around at the time, but he clearly never thought it important. That was probably PR's last chance for a very long while.
It went much further than that - Labour had already promised to change the system, commissioned a review under Roy Jenkins to recommend an alternative, the review came up with AV+ (reflecting Labour's long-standing if irrational resistance to multi-member constituencies), the review conclusions generally welcomed by campaign groups and other expert bodies, but then Labour got cold feet and shelved the whole thing. How history might have been different if they had kept to their word.
That all rings a bell, but you are obviously more familiar with the details than me.
Yes, one of Blair's/Labour's great missed opportunities. Not the only one by any means.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Mmmm ok, I am not sure I totally follow your logic but... I am all for encouraging manufacturing jobs but I am not sure the goverment funding them is going to work.
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Is there any reason why we shouldn't equip a shipyard and manufacturing for cruise liners, say? The Italian and Korean shipyards are half owned by their governments.
Why not build some plant suitable for modern drug manufacture?
Often, there is a report in the news of some new startup with half a dozen people, no finance and in truth not much product - that is going to be a world scale success apparently - in a new field untouched by anybody else. But why turn your back on billion pounds industries that really exist? And take steps to enter them.
That all sounds far too much like centralised soviet-style planning to me. I am not sure trust any politicians to guess which industries might need what skeleton factories. (Correction: I am sure I don't trust any politicians to get that right!)
Reminds me of a programme I saw a few months back with Robert Peston in China... he came across some massive white elephant empty factories out there built for some industry or other the central committee planned but which never took off.
I have just taken up a lease on a very cheap rent for some industrial premises that have been empty for some time in the South East. You get white elephants under the free market too. It doesn't mean the system overall isn't working. The Chinese seem to be doing fine.
He really is a gormless, unreconstructed Marxist turd, isn't he?
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
The economy is at present grossly unstable exactly because most income tax is paid by a tiny, tiny minority. This minority receives hatred, not gratitude, for doing so, from people who applaud themselves for believing they themselves should receive even more free stuff funded by even more taxes on the same people.
Benpointer - it worked in South Korea, though. They got Appledore to advise them how to set up shipyards and bought Appledore's containership design to build. They recruited BMC engineers to set up car production. It was all goverment initiatives.
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Benpointer - well, we are going to have much more flexibilty on supporting home industries outside of the EU.
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Is there any reason why we shouldn't equip a shipyard and manufacturing for cruise liners, say? The Italian and Korean shipyards are half owned by their governments.
Why not build some plant suitable for modern drug manufacture?
Often, there is a report in the news of some new startup with half a dozen people, no finance and in truth not much product - that is going to be a world scale success apparently - in a new field untouched by anybody else. But why turn your back on billion pounds industries that really exist? And take steps to enter them.
That all sounds far too much like centralised soviet-style planning to me. I am not sure trust any politicians to guess which industries might need what skeleton factories. (Correction: I am sure I don't trust any politicians to get that right!)
Reminds me of a programme I saw a few months back with Robert Peston in China... he came across some massive white elephant empty factories out there built for some industry or other the central committee planned but which never took off.
I have just taken up a lease on a very cheap rent for some industrial premises that have been empty for some time in the South East. You get white elephants under the free market too. It doesn't mean the system overall isn't working. The Chinese seem to be doing fine.
True, maybe it's worth doing. Can't see a Tory government doing much of it though.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at a lurker's expense.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at someone's expense.
This seems reasonable to me with one proviso. I would amend marriage laws to say that marrying without making clear one's biological sex at birth should make the marriage immediately null and void.
I don't know where the idea has emerged from that your gender is something you just choose on a whim.
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself.
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
The economy is at present grossly unstable exactly because most income tax is paid by a tiny, tiny minority. This minority receives hatred, not gratitude, for doing so, from people who applaud themselves for believing they themselves should receive even more free stuff funded by even more taxes on the same people.
This will not end well.
The reason they are paying most of the tax is that they are unhealthily receiving most of the income.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at a lurker's expense.
Far too subtle for me alas, but preferable to George's pasty face tbf.
He really is a gormless, unreconstructed Marxist turd, isn't he?
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
He really is a gormless, unreconstructed Marxist turd, isn't he?
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
No, he is simply a little ahead of the game. All of the parties will be looking to tap into the windfall equity gains of property owners, sooner or later (cf. Mrs May's dementia tax).
He really is a gormless, unreconstructed Marxist turd, isn't he?
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
He really is a gormless, unreconstructed Marxist turd, isn't he?
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
No, he is simply a little ahead of the game. All of the parties will be looking to tap into the windfall equity gains of property owners, sooner or later (cf. Mrs May's dementia tax).
+1 Just watch that Overton window swing to the left!
I don't know where the idea has emerged from that your gender is something you just choose on a whim.
Choose Life. Choose a job. Choose a career. Choose a family. Choose a fucking big television, choose washing machines, cars, compact disc players and electrical tin openers. Choose good health, low cholesterol, and dental insurance. Choose fixed interest mortage repayments. Choose a starter home. Choose your friends. Choose leisurewear and matching luggage. Choose a three-piece suite on hire purchase in a range of fucking fabrics. Choose DIY and wondering who the fuck you are on a Sunday morning. Choose sitting on that couch watching mind-numbing, spirit-crushing game shows, stuffing fucking junk food into your mouth. Choose rotting away at the end of it all, pishing your last in a miserable home, nothing more than an embarrassment to the selfish, fucked up brats you spawned to replace yourself.
Its not just the wealthy that needs to pay more tax. Corbyn is being grossly dishonest in claiming that you can have a socialist society and please all the groups that he has promised a better deal on post Thatcherite levels of basic income tax, with 80% paying no more tax, and corporation tax at the same level as it was under Blair and Brown.
The economy is at present grossly unstable exactly because most income tax is paid by a tiny, tiny minority. This minority receives hatred, not gratitude, for doing so, from people who applaud themselves for believing they themselves should receive even more free stuff funded by even more taxes on the same people.
This will not end well.
The reason they are paying most of the tax is that they are unhealthily receiving most of the income.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at a lurker's expense.
Far too subtle for me alas, but preferable to George's pasty face tbf.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at a lurker's expense.
Far too subtle for me alas, but preferable to George's pasty face tbf.
Benpointer - Just one example, we have 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000. And we have supported 100,000's middle class lawyers jobs on the back of it. We are absolutely OK in using the government to create jobs for the middle class, apparently these are useful jobs. And we seem to be totally against spending the same sort of money on supporting manufacturing jobs. On moral grounds?
Do you have a reputable link/source to the 10,000 new criminal offences since 2000 figure?
Ahah and there's me thinking, only 10k crimes committed since 2000? that doesn't seem too bad
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Obsession by Calvin Klein, just a very subtle in joke at a lurker's expense.
Far too subtle for me alas, but preferable to George's pasty face tbf.
George will be back.
Yeah, but like as an unnecessary sequel to the Aliens franchise.
Given that there is at least one non EEA country in the EHIC scheme your point seems rather dumb.
Not really, perhaps you should read up further on this.
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
I would suggest you read up instead since your posts seem ludicrously ill informed these days. Each issue is taken individually. The EHIC does not relate to freedom of movement and no threat was made against Switzerland regarding the EHIC when it put limits on freedom of movement. Nor does Liechtenstein which has sever limits on freedom of movement have any exclusions under the EHIC. The current UK position is actually exactly the same as that offered under the EHIC. Indeed the UK position is that they will continue to offer EHIC cover unchanged for all EHIC members visiting Britain. Indeed the Guardian, that bastion of Brexit, highlighted this as one of the bits of 'good news' about the British position.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Given that there is at least one non EEA country in the EHIC scheme your point seems rather dumb.
Not really, perhaps you should read up further on this.
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
I would suggest you read up instead since your posts seem ludicrously ill informed these days. Each issue is taken individually. The EHIC does not relate to freedom of movement and no threat was made against Switzerland regarding the EHIC when it put limits on freedom of movement. Nor does Liechtenstein which has sever limits on freedom of movement have any exclusions under the EHIC. The current UK position is actually exactly the same as that offered under the EHIC. Indeed the UK position is that they will continue to offer EHIC cover unchanged for all EHIC members visiting Britain. Indeed the Guardian, that bastion of Brexit, highlighted this as one of the bits of 'good news' about the British position.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Instead of whipping yourself into a frenzy, think about this, my good friends at Slaughter and May analysed this for my firm this week.
Now, who am I going to trust, one of the leading law firms in the country, who have impartially analysed this based on DExEU's output, or you?
I don't know where the idea has emerged from that your gender is something you just choose on a whim.
If you believe in personal freedom then you should be supporting this.
I dislike narcissism.
I will reserve judgement until I read the article, but I don't see how the Government can grant you a legal right to defy your own biology either.
It might sound progressive to some, and thereby its opponents bigoted, but it's actually very self-centred.
My worry is that it ends with all forms of gender identification being taboo, to the point where uttering phrases like "ladies and gentlemen" becomes to be considered as bad as using the N word.
Given that there is at least one non EEA country in the EHIC scheme your point seems rather dumb.
Not really, perhaps you should read up further on this.
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
I would suggest you read up instead since your posts seem ludicrously ill informed these days. Each issue is taken individually. The EHIC does not relate to freedom of movement and no threat was made against Switzerland regarding the EHIC when it put limits on freedom of movement. Nor does Liechtenstein which has sever limits on freedom of movement have any exclusions under the EHIC. The current UK position is actually exactly the same as that offered under the EHIC. Indeed the UK position is that they will continue to offer EHIC cover unchanged for all EHIC members visiting Britain. Indeed the Guardian, that bastion of Brexit, highlighted this as one of the bits of 'good news' about the British position.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Instead of whipping yourself into a frenzy, think about this, my good friends at Slaughter and May analysed this for my firm this week.
Now, who am I going to trust, one of the leading law firms in the country, who have impartially analysed this based on DExEU's output, or you?
I would carefully consider both, and certainly not dismiss Richard's view.
I know plenty of large legal firms who offer sloppy service and advice that doesn't justify the fee.
My worry is that it ends with all forms of gender identification being taboo, to the point where uttering phrases like "ladies and gentlemen" becomes to be considered as bad as using the N word.
The "ladies and gentlemen" greeting on Tube announcements is to be scrapped, Transport for London (TfL) has announced.
London Underground staff have been told to say "hello everyone" in an effort to become more gender-neutral.
TfL said the move was to ensure all passengers felt "welcome".
Given that there is at least one non EEA country in the EHIC scheme your point seems rather dumb.
Not really, perhaps you should read up further on this.
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
I would suggest you read up instead since your posts seem ludicrously ill informed these days. Each issue is taken individually. The EHIC does not relate to freedom of movement and no threat was made against Switzerland regarding the EHIC when it put limits on freedom of movement. Nor does Liechtenstein which has sever limits on freedom of movement have any exclusions under the EHIC. The current UK position is actually exactly the same as that offered under the EHIC. Indeed the UK position is that they will continue to offer EHIC cover unchanged for all EHIC members visiting Britain. Indeed the Guardian, that bastion of Brexit, highlighted this as one of the bits of 'good news' about the British position.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Instead of whipping yourself into a frenzy, think about this, my good friends at Slaughter and May analysed this for my firm this week.
Now, who am I going to trust, one of the leading law firms in the country, who have impartially analysed this based on DExEU's output, or you?
I would carefully consider both, and certainly not dismiss Richard's view.
I know plenty of large legal firms who offer sloppy service and advice that doesn't justify the fee.
Theirs and others analysis on Brexit since June 23rd has been spot on so far.
90% of my day job is focused on Brexit, so I'm heavily invested in making Brexit a success.
Given that there is at least one non EEA country in the EHIC scheme your point seems rather dumb.
Not really, perhaps you should read up further on this.
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
I would suggest you read up instead since your posts seem ludicrously ill informed these days. Each issue is taken individually. The EHIC does not relate to freedom of movement and no threat was made against Switzerland regarding the EHIC when it put limits on freedom of movement. Nor does Liechtenstein which has sever limits on freedom of movement have any exclusions under the EHIC. The current UK position is actually exactly the same as that offered under the EHIC. Indeed the UK position is that they will continue to offer EHIC cover unchanged for all EHIC members visiting Britain. Indeed the Guardian, that bastion of Brexit, highlighted this as one of the bits of 'good news' about the British position.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Instead of whipping yourself into a frenzy, think about this, my good friends at Slaughter and May analysed this for my firm this week.
Now, who am I going to trust, one of the leading law firms in the country, who have impartially analysed this based on DExEU's output, or you?
My worry is that it ends with all forms of gender identification being taboo, to the point where uttering phrases like "ladies and gentlemen" becomes to be considered as bad as using the N word.
The "ladies and gentlemen" greeting on Tube announcements is to be scrapped, Transport for London (TfL) has announced.
London Underground staff have been told to say "hello everyone" in an effort to become more gender-neutral.
TfL said the move was to ensure all passengers felt "welcome".
Comments
Short of saying that Brexit was a huge mistake and we will all burn in the fires of Hades (back to the Devil) for our mistake I doubt there's much you could say that would elicit a stronger reaction.
We share much more than divides us, but FPTP forces us into enemy camps and weakens the centre ground. One of its supposed advantages - strong government - is a myth, as is all too evident at the moment.
Our unfair broken voting system poisons our politics and gifts us a raft of politicians sitting in safe seats who don't give a damn.
I'd like to be positive but I cannot see FPTP being changed in my lifetime - more chance of re-joining the EU imho.
(I do agree though that most will need to pay a bit more tax, even if it is through freezing personal allowances for a few years.)
What happened before can happen again-and I said nothing about the result of a UK GE.
Thanks for confirming that the Scottish Government did not promise that the independence referendum would be a once in a generation event.
The relevant word is "promise". They didn't "commit" to it either.
If we have lost a once in a generation opportunity, can there be another one?
Take your time. Show your working...
It isn't that difficult to licence Samsung's 7nm manufacturing process because Samsung already lets other companies licence it. I should think among ARM and Imagination there are products that we could support by having subsidised fabrication plants. Germany, with quasi state support for its banks has managed to do it. So why not oven ready plants here?
Is there any reason why we shouldn't equip a shipyard and manufacturing for cruise liners, say? The Italian and Korean shipyards are half owned by their governments.
Why not build some plant suitable for modern drug manufacture?
Often, there is a report in the news of some new startup with half a dozen people, no finance and in truth not much product - that is going to be a world scale success apparently - in a new field untouched by anybody else. But why turn your back on billion pounds industries that really exist? And take steps to enter them.
You don't seem to understand English (reminds me of just before the election when you could not follow the result of an opinion poll on Sturgeon and Davidson).
Where does the Scottish Government PROMISE there will only be a once in a generation referendum? Try and grasp that as distinct from what they were doing-which is warning Scots that it might well be their only chance in a generation, which if the non-democrats at Westminster have their way might, just might, be true..
Although, on that point, if taxes and spending go up in parallel, broadly the same amount of money will keep circulating in the economy and there is no brake on growth; whereas if taxes go up or spending is cut, to reduce the deficit, unless I am mistaken there is a direct brake on growth as money is sucked out of the economy.
(Someone will no doubt put me right on that if I am under a misapprehension there!)
If we vote No, Scotland stands still. A once in a generation opportunity to follow a different path, and choose a new and better direction for our nation, is lost.
Is lost
Not "might be" lost
Is lost. If it is lost, can they still have it?
Take your time. Show your working
Reminds me of a programme I saw a few months back with Robert Peston in China... he came across some massive white elephant empty factories out there built for some industry or other the central committee planned but which never took off.
Let the government cut its coat to suit its cloth.
Blair had the kind of majority that would have enabled him to do something about it and i think there was even a reasonable amount of support around at the time, but he clearly never thought it important. That was probably PR's last chance for a very long while.
Here are actual words, written by the Scottish Government in their published white paper
once in a generation opportunity ... is lost
@JPJ2 "No it isn't!. It's just resting..."
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/888859986885005314
Personally, I would like to see good public services (health, education, defence, etc.) and these need to be paid for.
Still waiting for one of you illiterates to point out where the SNP promised there would not be a second referendum for a generation-as opposed to warning that might be the case.
My honours degree in English suggests my comprehension skills are at least as good as anyone's around here :-)
Take your time. Show your working.
Yes, one of Blair's/Labour's great missed opportunities. Not the only one by any means.
"What happened [with the mansion tax] was that that language put a lot of people off: they felt it was attacking people who live in wealthy houses".
Wealthy houses? What are those?
My mother bought one house in 1970 and 47 years later she still owns that one house. Is she wealthy? Was she wealthy in 1970? Or is it her house that's wealthy?
https://twitter.com/WestmonsterUK/status/888032289929691136
Looks like Holyrood in voting for IndyRef2 did not agree with your interpretation.
That is one argument that you "lost"
More importantly, what's with the perfume avatar TSE?
Speaking of which
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-jeff-sessions.html
This will not end well.
Progress! Do you want a Gold Star?
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/888866049701146624
"Politicians Break Promise - Shock!"
I agree that the SG were (I am glad to say) wrong in suggesting independence would be a once in a generation event.
However, my case was, and is, that they never PROMISED that it would be, so neither they, nor I, have reneged on anything.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/888866552099033088
They didn't say it might be lost. They didn't say it could be found again.
They said once.
Anyone who claims they didn't mean once is a liar, or a fool. Or Nicola Sturgeon.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5Lec3m1pLY
Choose your future.
Choose life.
It was a Tory PM that made same sex marriage legal.
Now, if they could just drop the bat-shit crazy neoliberal economics they might be getting somewhere!
Stay 71%
Stand down 22%
Don’t know 7%
The current UK offer is much less than the one non EEA country offers re EHIC.
Not like Arnie.
Of course this is just another of those dumb Europhile scare stories that you love so much.
Another sign of the desperation becoming apparent amongst the Remaniac side.
Now, who am I going to trust, one of the leading law firms in the country, who have impartially analysed this based on DExEU's output, or you?
It might sound progressive to some, and thereby its opponents bigoted, but it's actually very self-centred.
My worry is that it ends with all forms of gender identification being taboo, to the point where uttering phrases like "ladies and gentlemen" becomes to be considered as bad as using the N word.
I know plenty of large legal firms who offer sloppy service and advice that doesn't justify the fee.
I object to the idea that gender is simply a choice, or that people can have no gender.
The "ladies and gentlemen" greeting on Tube announcements is to be scrapped, Transport for London (TfL) has announced.
London Underground staff have been told to say "hello everyone" in an effort to become more gender-neutral.
TfL said the move was to ensure all passengers felt "welcome".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-40591750
90% of my day job is focused on Brexit, so I'm heavily invested in making Brexit a success.