Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
A few we may well be well shot of I suspect. Given we own a significant portion of Nat West I am sure we will be just fine.
I hate to break it to you Malcolm, but unless you were referring to your family pension portfolio rather than the Scottish government, 'you' do not own any part of NatWest. It's 60-odd% controlled by the UK government.
Am I missing something , are we not part of the UK , do we not have constant whinging about Barnet on here. However I would tend to agree that as we will almost certainly leave debt free then we will probably forgo our share of Natwest.
Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
A few we may well be well shot of I suspect. Given we own a significant portion of Nat West I am sure we will be just fine.
I hate to break it to you Malcolm, but unless you were referring to your family pension portfolio rather than the Scottish government, 'you' do not own any part of NatWest. It's 60-odd% controlled by the UK government.
Am I missing something , are we not part of the UK , do we not have constant whinging about Barnet on here. However I would tend to agree that as we will almost certainly leave debt free then we will probably forgo our share of Natwest.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
A few we may well be well shot of I suspect. Given we own a significant portion of Nat West I am sure we will be just fine.
I hate to break it to you Malcolm, but unless you were referring to your family pension portfolio rather than the Scottish government, 'you' do not own any part of NatWest. It's 60-odd% controlled by the UK government.
Am I missing something , are we not part of the UK , do we not have constant whinging about Barnet on here. However I would tend to agree that as we will almost certainly leave debt free then we will probably forgo our share of Natwest.
Which was my point.
I know I was stimulating discussion, and trying to educate the Tory cultists.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Music lovers hate the Last Night, or at least in my experience. The reason they should keep it is that for many non-musicos (which is most of us) it justifies the rest the series which otherwise might disappear through lack of interest. It is notable in recent years that classical music has been padded out with film scores and the like. It is like Test cricket fans wanting to axe ODIs and so on -- get their way and in twenty years time it will have shrunk to the level of croquet.
The two song in question make the UK look backward and wallowing in long gone past glories. They celebrate nothing of importance.
Interesting thing I learned from Lucy Worsley's 'The Georgians' - when Rule Britannia was first written, it was a subversive patriotic song trying to get Britain to adopt a more naval-dependent foreign policy, and stop getting involved in costly land wars. It was 'Britannia 'rule' the waves, not 'rules'. It became 'rules' when it happened, and we did. As such, it potentially still has some relevance, and we should maybe re-adopt the original lyrics as a reminder to our political class.
I am happy with 20% Government ownership of Openreach if it enforces full FTTP for all and in a timely manner. 2025 is easily doable with some work.
Why do you want to confuse ownership with regulations?
A golden stake would prevent any approach by overseas companies.
Apparently the new national security law means government approval will need for any ownership of critical firms/industries and BT will qualify.
The new national security law means the government doesn't need a golden share, all takeovers/major investments in critical firms, such as telecommunications will require government approval.
Isn't there, to put it mildly, a non-trivial risk that such legislation would lead to several banks ceasing to operate in Scotland instead?
Well the assumption that we would start off with no debt (as opposed to our share of the £2trn national debt) is an interesting starting point.
The idea that Scots savings somehow and magically give us foreign reserves has the attraction of novelty.
The idea that we would be able to buy foreign goods with these Poonds at the rate that we want is imaginative.
The implications of forcibly converting both debts and liabilities to property rights protected by Article 1 Protocol 1 of ECHR are challenging.
Life wouldn't be dull, that's for sure!
Well, Ireland didn't pay any of its agreed share of UK debts.
But that was in exchange for selling out Fermanagh and Tyrone during the Boundary Commission debacle.
What could Scotland offer that England wants?
Faslane and Edinburgh
Do you mean Rosyth? They've been dredging away what's left of the Mary Rose wreck (not much, on ehopes, after reexcavation) to be able to park the big carriers in Portsmouth.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
The current setup is rather reminiscent of the C19 Speenhamland System - using land taxes to subsidise big farmers' payment of below-starvation wages to their workers.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
Don't we have this conversation every single year?
Two months today it will be people talking about poppies and claiming that poppies are being banned/overly enforced.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
Honestly, I think the BBC is now run by a set of moles from the radical right who are determined to get it pulled off air or made subscription only by repeatedly and deliberately shooting the corporation in its own foot.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The Last Night of the Proms is a celebration of British patriotism in a light-hearted party atmosphere which is fun and inclusive. It's the most popular proms night of them all. It's loved by overseas visitors, as well as Britons here, and comes at the end of an annual event which forms a significant part of British culture - so it's very appropriate.
The continual attacks on it from the elitist Left, which have been going on for decades, simply reflect the fact that, for them, celebrating Britain is crime enough.
So you would ban all non-British music/composers from the Proms then?
No, of course not.
The proms season forms part of British culture and includes a wide variety of classical music from around the world and always has done.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
Well, on your third point - exactly. Not being a branch of a Westminster party helped the DUP. And I think Scots are wise to that. I believe that a plurality of people living in Scotland want to be defended strongly and pugnaciously within the union, but don't especially want to leave it. For the most part, this was my own view regarding the UK within the EU.
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
You see Wales matters to me and my grandchildren and there is no evidence they are doing anything different to England, indeed all the CMOs are in lock step
Whilst I actually agree that Scotland should be allowed to start debt free, it won't be debt free for long!
Nobody ever argued otherwise.
The SNP White Paper did:
What about our share of the national debt? Scotland and the rest of the UK will agree a share of the national debt. This could be by reference to the historical contribution made to the ’s public finances by Scotland. n alternative approach would be to use our population share.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
Yes, but it is harsh on Blake to take it that he is affirming the myth, when he puts it as a question
Jesus got around, mind. It is widely recognised in some circles in the US that he spent the time between being crucified and resurrected, mooching around Central America.
But - fortunately from their point of view - 75% of schools and nearly 85% of schoolchildren are in England, so that is where most of the attention goes.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
No you are making a logical leap. If a working family needs benefits that is coming from taxpayers . . . why is the taxpayer then therefore subsidising the employer? The employee is the one getting the money, not the employer.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
But - fortunately from their point of view - 75% of schools and nearly 85% of schoolchildren are in England, so that is where most of the attention goes.
And then they whinge that their 8% of the pupils "aren't getting fair coverage on the BBC".
On FTTP, leaks of Starlink’s (SpaceX) performance to beta testers have been hitting the net in the last week or two. Looking good. 10-20mb upload and 50-60mb download and thats with a non optimised service with pretty scarce coverage. Should only get better from there.
I think it will be available to non fibre connected users in south England by around late 2021 (south of a line between Ipswich and Gloucester).
Don’t know why the government didn’t go for a stake in SpaceX rather than get conned into bailing out OneWeb, who can never hope to compete with SpaceX given the overriding cost component is the launch cost.
Everywhere else in the UK would get covered perhaps 18 - 24 months later is a reasonable guess, but would no doubt be accelerated if the government made available free polar to polar launch capability.
As with everything, Big Tech is leaving the state bureaucracies in its wake. For anyone else that wants in, there aren’t any good pure plays sadly. But you do get some diluted exposure by buying Google or Baille Gifford’s Scottish Mortgage Trust or US Growth funds.
SpaceX valued at $44bn this week, looks as clear as day a quick 10x bagger from here.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
Yes, but it is harsh on Blake to take it that he is affirming the myth, when he puts it as a question
Jesus got around, mind. It is widely recognised in some circles in the US that he spent the time between being crucified and resurrected, mooching around Central America.
I've always taken 'did those feet' as just an archaic way of saying 'those feet did' rather than an actual question.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
"Join us in the main buletin, when we will will be reporting that it took longer than six days to create the world."
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
Well, on your third point - exactly. Not being a branch of a Westminster party helped the DUP. And I think Scots are wise to that. I believe that a plurality of people living in Scotland want to be defended strongly and pugnaciously within the union, but don't especially want to leave it. For the most part, this was my own view regarding the UK within the EU.
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
The trouble is I can't see that any London HQ would really let go enough to allow a true release. Or the party members in Scotland, which have tended to lose all but the hardline Unionist rumps anyway. Butd what is interesting is that [edit] in 2010 when they had the SCUP leadership election, Murdo Fraser who outlined just such a proposal came quite close to beating Ms Davidson - surprisingly close I see on checking back. He had 90% of her first preference votes and 80% of the final vote when the losers' were divvied up. However, that was in 2010 pre-indyref and I suspect the disparity would be rather higher ifg it were replayed next week.
Labour can't without a basic reorganization anyway - indeed we saw that when the Gen Sec slapped down Ms Dugdale spending Party money on her court case, IIRC.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
No you are making a logical leap. If a working family needs benefits that is coming from taxpayers . . . why is the taxpayer then therefore subsidising the employer? The employee is the one getting the money, not the employer.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
It means the employer can pay below the market rate for employees, since the state will top up their wages. This is bad because it drives out good employers (operationally defined as those who pay higher wages) and distorts the market. So there is a right wing economic case against these subsidies, not just the traditional anti-scrounger Tufton Bufton rant (and you get to blame Gordon Brown!).
In the last few minutes, someone has mopped up everything on Betfair. Is anyone watching the RNC livestream? If they were, they'd know Pence has just been nominated.
Just like virtually every other member of this Brexit Party-Lite government, he is lightweight, fucking useless and does not have a clue what he is doing. But as far as Johnson is concerned, that is OK, because (unlike Johnson) he is a true believer, and so completely inept that he is no threat (even) to Johnson, ever.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
No you are making a logical leap. If a working family needs benefits that is coming from taxpayers . . . why is the taxpayer then therefore subsidising the employer? The employee is the one getting the money, not the employer.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
It means the employer can pay below the market rate for employees, since the state will top up their wages. This is bad because it drives out good employers (operationally defined as those who pay higher wages) and distorts the market. So there is a right wing economic case against these subsidies, not just the traditional anti-scrounger Tufton Bufton rant (and you get to blame Gordon Brown!).
No it doesn't, since again the welfare has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the job being done and everything to do with how many children and other things totally unrelated to the job.
If the welfare state were removed overnight with nothing to replace it and the minimum wage were abolished overnight with nothing to replace it then would the market rate for what we call minimum wage jobs at the minute go up or down? If you believe welfare is subsidising employers then presumably abolishing welfare state would see wages go up? I doubt it personally.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
Aw - I find Jerusalem very stirring, but more than that, I think it's a cracking tune. Oh well, just goes to show we're all different.
As I have said before:
It's phenomenally hard on the organ.
Making judgements with your organ again eh?
When you have an eight foot horn at full swell, it's hard to look beyond it.
I'll have to take your word for it.
Don't be modest Lucky
I'm told it's what you do with your organ that counts.
*I'll stop
Ydoethur's sostenuto and vibrato are often favourably commented on by the ladies in the congregation.
Somebody clearly doesn't know much about organs.
It's the superoctave coupler that determines the final climax.
Although I sometimes add the tremulant if I'm feeling bored.
I wonder if it is because of these kind of jokes that you very rarely see women organists. :sigh:
Or maybe it's just because you weren't looking? A great many organists in the Church of England are female. Cannock as a parish is unique in my experience in having three male organists. I once played in a large benefice where I was the only male organist - the other seven were women.
The snag in PR terms is that most senior professional organists are developed from the all-male choir schools. Which is why, of course, the stereotype of an organist is a white posh male.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
Well, on your third point - exactly. Not being a branch of a Westminster party helped the DUP. And I think Scots are wise to that. I believe that a plurality of people living in Scotland want to be defended strongly and pugnaciously within the union, but don't especially want to leave it. For the most part, this was my own view regarding the UK within the EU.
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
The trouble is I can't see that any London HQ would really let go enough to allow a true release. Or the party members in Scotland, which have tended to lose all but the hardline Unionist rumps anyway. Butd what is interesting is that [edit] in 2010 when they had the SCUP leadership election, Murdo Fraser who outlined just such a proposal came quite close to beating Ms Davidson - surprisingly close I see on checking back. He had 90% of her first preference votes and 80% of the final vote when the losers' were divvied up. However, that was in 2010 pre-indyref and I suspect the disparity would be rather higher ifg it were replayed next week.
Labour can't without a basic reorganization anyway - indeed we saw that when the Gen Sec slapped down Ms Dugdale spending Party money on her court case, IIRC.
Sometimes you have to let go to gain anything.
By the same token, the Tories should adopt the policy of democratising the House of Lords intake by allocating spaces in the Lords according to overall vote share. It would discomfit the SNP, at least mildly, because they'd be forced to either nominate candidates to be ennobled, or be accused of diminishing Scotland's potential influence.
It would however mean the Tories losing a degree of the power of patronage, and a gradual ebbing of their domination of the HOL.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
"Join us in the main buletin, when we will will be reporting that it took longer than six days to create the world."
Not really the strongest point ever made on PB. The evidence against the one claim is virtually all of science, the evidence against the other is ... what?
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Debt isn't the relevant metric, the deficit and the economic cycle are the two relevant metrics.
We aren't growing, we're in a recession. We weren't in a recession in 2010. Once the recession is behind us the deficit must be dealt with.
The Budget Deficit under Brown pre-GFC was 2.9% - not significantly higher than the average Deficit 1953 - 1967 of 2.5% - a period which saw rapid economic growth and no serious recession. Barber's Boom of 1973 we saw a Budget Deficit of 4% - much higher than under Brown.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
Aw - I find Jerusalem very stirring, but more than that, I think it's a cracking tune. Oh well, just goes to show we're all different.
As I have said before:
It's phenomenally hard on the organ.
Making judgements with your organ again eh?
When you have an eight foot horn at full swell, it's hard to look beyond it.
I'll have to take your word for it.
Don't be modest Lucky
I'm told it's what you do with your organ that counts.
*I'll stop
Ydoethur's sostenuto and vibrato are often favourably commented on by the ladies in the congregation.
Somebody clearly doesn't know much about organs.
It's the superoctave coupler that determines the final climax.
Although I sometimes add the tremulant if I'm feeling bored.
I wonder if it is because of these kind of jokes that you very rarely see women organists. :sigh:
Or maybe it's just because you weren't looking? A great many organists in the Church of England are female. Cannock as a parish is unique in my experience in having three male organists. I once played in a large benefice where I was the only male organist - the other seven were women.
The snag in PR terms is that most senior professional organists are developed from the all-male choir schools. Which is why, of course, the stereotype of an organist is a white posh male.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
Aw - I find Jerusalem very stirring, but more than that, I think it's a cracking tune. Oh well, just goes to show we're all different.
As I have said before:
It's phenomenally hard on the organ.
Making judgements with your organ again eh?
When you have an eight foot horn at full swell, it's hard to look beyond it.
I'll have to take your word for it.
Don't be modest Lucky
I'm told it's what you do with your organ that counts.
*I'll stop
Ydoethur's sostenuto and vibrato are often favourably commented on by the ladies in the congregation.
Somebody clearly doesn't know much about organs.
It's the superoctave coupler that determines the final climax.
Although I sometimes add the tremulant if I'm feeling bored.
I wonder if it is because of these kind of jokes that you very rarely see women organists. :sigh:
Or maybe it's just because you weren't looking? A great many organists in the Church of England are female. Cannock as a parish is unique in my experience in having three male organists. I once played in a large benefice where I was the only male organist - the other seven were women.
The snag in PR terms is that most senior professional organists are developed from the all-male choir schools. Which is why, of course, the stereotype of an organist is a white posh male.
I'm glad to be corrected. My misconception may also be something to do with most of the organists I see now are either in a concert hall or in a large and historic church, which probably also suffer from your "senior professional organist" observation. When I was younger I went to quite lot of smaller curches for the service, and while I remember a few female pianists, I do not remember any female organists at all.
1) A 'combination' in organ playing is where you hit either a pedal or a button and a preselected set of stops come out together. Usually they are called 'combination pedals' and 'composition buttons.' My organ at home has the latter, because it's electronic, the organs at Chadsmoor and Cannock have the former. (The great advantage of electronic is you can change the stops each button registers.)
2) But I think from the context you are referring to a combined action, which is where the keys/stops are partly mechanical ('tracker') and partly electronic or tubular pneumatic (hopefully not the latter as they're a right bugger to keep in order).
Why not just copy what they're doing in Scotland? They're back first. (What are they doing in Scotland?)
The stop press is the WHO pronouncing in favour of masks for 12-year-olds, which might have taken HMG by surprise. Maybe Gav can get hold of that warehouseful of masks the NHS cannot use.
Quite what? Without Bercow, there was a general election so that point is moot. Until then, it was possible (if unlikely) to construct a Labour government to revoke Article 50 and call an election.
Actually Wales didn't cock up on this year's A-level exams. The Welsh Government had in the previous decade taken the wise decision to retain AS levels in contrast to Gove's move to put A levels all into one Year 13 basket in England. Hence about 40% of the overall Welsh A level marks were already banked having been marked independently in the normal way the previous year. Unlike England, that meant there was a pretty good benchmark to fall back on. AS results are a pretty good predictor of A level grades and in addition a guaranteed floor of AS level results was also offered from the outset.
I think the only reason that the Welsh Government announced a change of approach was because at the 11th hour they became aware that there would be rampant grade inflation across the rest of the UK from the use of predicted grades in England as well as Scotland. That followed from the pending announcement of the u-turn on policy in England, which forced the hand of the Welsh so as not to devalue Welsh results relative to those elsewhere.
But - fortunately from their point of view - 75% of schools and nearly 85% of schoolchildren are in England, so that is where most of the attention goes.
Where have Scotland cocked up, they have been open for two weeks with no issues. All you see on here is Tories trying to deflect from the Tories cock ups in England, constant whining about others rather than castigate their own government, pretty pathetic all round.
Quite what? Without Bercow, there was a general election so that point is moot. Until then, it was possible (if unlikely) to construct a Labour government to revoke Article 50 and call an election.
No it wasn't. Do the maths and show how you get a majority behind a Labour government.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
That just goes to show how massively unrepresentative some of the commissioning editors and directors at the BBC are.
Change is needed.
This is going to be one of those stories that's been put out there to drum up advertising for the Proms and the BBC will say they never had any plans to drop the last night songs.
A more cynical view might be that the BBC were testing the water.
I've been astonished at how strong the backlash has been (I expected it to divide along two tribes lines) so hopefully this will mean we hear no more of this nonsense for several years.
Really? Given the sort of people who go to the proms - oh, and take their EU flags with them to the last night - I'd have thought it was fairly obvious that plenty of remainers don't have a problem with the songs.
Music lovers hate the Last Night, or at least in my experience. The reason they should keep it is that for many non-musicos (which is most of us) it justifies the rest the series which otherwise might disappear through lack of interest. It is notable in recent years that classical music has been padded out with film scores and the like. It is like Test cricket fans wanting to axe ODIs and so on -- get their way and in twenty years time it will have shrunk to the level of croquet.
The two song in question make the UK look backward and wallowing in long gone past glories. They celebrate nothing of importance.
Without the Last Night, the audience figures would not justify the whole season. That's the point.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
Well, on your third point - exactly. Not being a branch of a Westminster party helped the DUP. And I think Scots are wise to that. I believe that a plurality of people living in Scotland want to be defended strongly and pugnaciously within the union, but don't especially want to leave it. For the most part, this was my own view regarding the UK within the EU.
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
The trouble is I can't see that any London HQ would really let go enough to allow a true release. Or the party members in Scotland, which have tended to lose all but the hardline Unionist rumps anyway. Butd what is interesting is that [edit] in 2010 when they had the SCUP leadership election, Murdo Fraser who outlined just such a proposal came quite close to beating Ms Davidson - surprisingly close I see on checking back. He had 90% of her first preference votes and 80% of the final vote when the losers' were divvied up. However, that was in 2010 pre-indyref and I suspect the disparity would be rather higher ifg it were replayed next week.
Labour can't without a basic reorganization anyway - indeed we saw that when the Gen Sec slapped down Ms Dugdale spending Party money on her court case, IIRC.
Sometimes you have to let go to gain anything.
By the same token, the Tories should adopt the policy of democratising the House of Lords intake by allocating spaces in the Lords according to overall vote share. It would discomfit the SNP, at least mildly, because they'd be forced to either nominate candidates to be ennobled, or be accused of diminishing Scotland's potential influence.
It would however mean the Tories losing a degree of the power of patronage, and a gradual ebbing of their domination of the HOL.
SNP would refuse to sit in HOL, it is a joke for troughers to cash in
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
No you are making a logical leap. If a working family needs benefits that is coming from taxpayers . . . why is the taxpayer then therefore subsidising the employer? The employee is the one getting the money, not the employer.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
It means the employer can pay below the market rate for employees, since the state will top up their wages. This is bad because it drives out good employers (operationally defined as those who pay higher wages) and distorts the market. So there is a right wing economic case against these subsidies, not just the traditional anti-scrounger Tufton Bufton rant (and you get to blame Gordon Brown!).
No it doesn't, since again the welfare has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the job being done and everything to do with how many children and other things totally unrelated to the job.
If the welfare state were removed overnight with nothing to replace it and the minimum wage were abolished overnight with nothing to replace it then would the market rate for what we call minimum wage jobs at the minute go up or down? If you believe welfare is subsidising employers then presumably abolishing welfare state would see wages go up? I doubt it personally.
Benefits subsidise the cost of labour. If benefits were abolished then employers would have to pay a higher price for staff (or import cheap labour from abroad but that's another story). This would in the long term favour "better" employers (or increase demand for automation, which is another another story).
If there are two makers of widgets, company A paying £20 an hour and B paying £10 an hour, workers would flock to A, and B would go out of business.
Then benefits come along so that workers at company B take home the same amount as their peers at A. Now A and B have similar quality workforces but B's expenses are less, so it can charge less for its widgets, undercutting A who goes bust.
Whilst I actually agree that Scotland should be allowed to start debt free, it won't be debt free for long!
Nobody ever argued otherwise.
The SNP White Paper did:
What about our share of the national debt? Scotland and the rest of the UK will agree a share of the national debt. This could be by reference to the historical contribution made to the ’s public finances by Scotland. n alternative approach would be to use our population share.
Page 50.
That was based on a fair share of ALL of thevalue of UK assets being deposited in our central bank. Usual half (s)tory.
Quite what? Without Bercow, there was a general election so that point is moot. Until then, it was possible (if unlikely) to construct a Labour government to revoke Article 50 and call an election.
No it wasn't. Do the maths and show how you get a majority behind a Labour government.
It depends how busy dentists are on the day of the vote.
But - fortunately from their point of view - 75% of schools and nearly 85% of schoolchildren are in England, so that is where most of the attention goes.
Where have Scotland cocked up, they have been open for two weeks with no issues. All you see on here is Tories trying to deflect from the Tories cock ups in England, constant whining about others rather than castigate their own government, pretty pathetic all round.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
At least Paisley was talking about his own province. Spot the difference!
You keep imposing alien, outside rule on a different nation.
And going on legal technicalities misses the point entirely.
I don't accept your premise of 'alien outside rule' - but I do agree that heavy handed behaviour would give such an accusation more fuel.
It's also unfportunate of HYUFD to hold up the Ulster Protestants of the mid-late 20th century as an example, given their electoral, erm, strategies.
Perhaps, but on a slight tangent, I do think there would be a benefit to Scotland within the union of the NI system of unionist parties like the UUP and DUP, that are not branches of UK parties. Nobody would seriously accuse the DUP of being a creature of the Tory Party, but by working with them, Arlene was able to squeeze billions out of Theresa May.
The SNP have pretty much recused themselves of such cooperation as their sole aim is to break away from the UK. The Tories are the most likely to head this way; don't see it happening with Labour.
The logic about recusement isn't valid as the UK has to be run meantime so the SNP's voters are entirely entitled to representation within the UK.
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
Well, on your third point - exactly. Not being a branch of a Westminster party helped the DUP. And I think Scots are wise to that. I believe that a plurality of people living in Scotland want to be defended strongly and pugnaciously within the union, but don't especially want to leave it. For the most part, this was my own view regarding the UK within the EU.
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
The trouble is I can't see that any London HQ would really let go enough to allow a true release. Or the party members in Scotland, which have tended to lose all but the hardline Unionist rumps anyway. Butd what is interesting is that [edit] in 2010 when they had the SCUP leadership election, Murdo Fraser who outlined just such a proposal came quite close to beating Ms Davidson - surprisingly close I see on checking back. He had 90% of her first preference votes and 80% of the final vote when the losers' were divvied up. However, that was in 2010 pre-indyref and I suspect the disparity would be rather higher ifg it were replayed next week.
Labour can't without a basic reorganization anyway - indeed we saw that when the Gen Sec slapped down Ms Dugdale spending Party money on her court case, IIRC.
Sometimes you have to let go to gain anything.
By the same token, the Tories should adopt the policy of democratising the House of Lords intake by allocating spaces in the Lords according to overall vote share. It would discomfit the SNP, at least mildly, because they'd be forced to either nominate candidates to be ennobled, or be accused of diminishing Scotland's potential influence.
It would however mean the Tories losing a degree of the power of patronage, and a gradual ebbing of their domination of the HOL.
SNP would refuse to sit in HOL, it is a joke for troughers to cash in
That's the trap. If they refused, Scotland would have less representation. The other parties would be able to point to the SNP's 'anti' everything stance denying Scotland the representation to which it is entitled. Especially if the spaces were redistributed amongst the other parties, resulting in more Tory Lords.
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
What evidence do you have that Joesph of Arimathea never visited Glastonbury?
There's only one song that needs to be banned from the last night of the proms.
Jerusalem, it is a fecking dirge.
'And did those feet in ancient time, walk upon England's mountains green?
NO!
There are actually four questions in the first verse.
And the answer to all of them is 'no.'
Lit crit is a minefield when the author is as mad as a meat axe, but is it not possible that he realises the answer is "no" and the second verse outlines his plans to put things right?
The first verse is a reference to the legend that Jesus visited Glastonbury in the company of Joseph of Arimethea before starting his Galilean ministry, and that Joseph of Arimathea later brought the Holy Grail there to be concealed.
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the iAncome/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Re your last paragraph Philip I don't know if the solution is social housing or welfare but at least with your suggestion you aren't trapping people in housing they then can't escape from whereas it is easier to come off welfare. So I can see the merit of what you suggest.
However in an ideal world also most welfare for low earners should not apply as the taxpayer should not be subsidising companies who refuse, or which are uncompetitive enough, to offer reasonable wages. I'm not sure why this is tolerated. We could all run successful businesses if we didn't pay the fair price for labour, goods and services.
If the latter existed then welfare would be a lot less (ideal world I know). Having said that It would also however be necessary to provide some temporary accommodation when people are made unfortunately homeless. However that should really be temporary and not long term.
Utopia planning over.
I'm glad you can see the merit in what I propose.
As for welfare being a subsidy to companies I've never thought that. Welfare is a subsidy to the recipient not the employer.
If it was a subsidy to an employer everyone on the same wage would be receiving it but that's not the case. A couple both working 40 hours a week even on minimum wage may not get much if any welfare, whereas a single parent of 5 children who works 16 hours per week may be entitled to a lot. Should the company employing someone part time for 16 hours per week be expected to pay enough for that person to live without welfare with five children? Is the employer responsible for the children an employee h as?
You make a good point. It isn't what I meant to suggest although I didn't make that clear. If it were I suspect I would be suggesting Communism.
I get peeved with companies paying pitiful wages and complaining if they paid more they would go out of business. In which case out of business they should go. The probably of course is that in a free market it is more likely that those paying poorly will put the better paying company out of business (unless it is counterbalanced by their more competent staff). I know we have the minimum wage, but I do feel something more is needed to stifle exploitive employers without introducing lots of red tape to hinder employers.
No company in the UK pays pitiful wages on a global scale. The minimum wage is fast approaching £10 per hour not £1 per hour.
Exploitative employers do exist but they exist far more in the cash-in-hand side of businesses to whom the minimum wage doesn't apply - and to whom the employee will because they're getting paid cash in hand claim full welfare benefits too.
They are fair points.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
No you are making a logical leap. If a working family needs benefits that is coming from taxpayers . . . why is the taxpayer then therefore subsidising the employer? The employee is the one getting the money, not the employer.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
It means the employer can pay below the market rate for employees, since the state will top up their wages. This is bad because it drives out good employers (operationally defined as those who pay higher wages) and distorts the market. So there is a right wing economic case against these subsidies, not just the traditional anti-scrounger Tufton Bufton rant (and you get to blame Gordon Brown!).
No it doesn't, since again the welfare has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the job being done and everything to do with how many children and other things totally unrelated to the job.
If the welfare state were removed overnight with nothing to replace it and the minimum wage were abolished overnight with nothing to replace it then would the market rate for what we call minimum wage jobs at the minute go up or down? If you believe welfare is subsidising employers then presumably abolishing welfare state would see wages go up? I doubt it personally.
Benefits subsidise the cost of labour. If benefits were abolished then employers would have to pay a higher price for staff (or import cheap labour from abroad but that's another story). This would in the long term favour "better" employers (or increase demand for automation, which is another another story).
If there are two makers of widgets, company A paying £20 an hour and B paying £10 an hour, workers would flock to A, and B would go out of business.
Then benefits come along so that workers at company B take home the same amount as their peers at A. Now A and B have similar quality workforces but B's expenses are less, so it can charge less for its widgets, undercutting A who goes bust.
@DecrepitJohnL - Your last 2 posts on this subject were much better than mine so thank you. Very well argued.
Philip twice gave specific instances where welfare was clearly needed for an individual. That is not the same as where large numbers of employees at an employer require that welfare assistance. In that case it is subsidising the employers overhead at the expense of the taxpayer and distorting the marketplace.
Comments
The idea that Scots savings somehow and magically give us foreign reserves has the attraction of novelty.
The idea that we would be able to buy foreign goods with these Poonds at the rate that we want is imaginative.
The implications of forcibly converting both debts and liabilities to property rights protected by Article 1 Protocol 1 of ECHR are challenging.
Life wouldn't be dull, that's for sure!
But on the wider point, that's an interesting thought.
SLAB is a full part of UK Labour, I think the Electoral Commission term is 'accounting unit' but you may correct me on that. It's only because of a special clause in electoral law slipped in by (I think) BLair et chums, uniquely exempting the word "Scottish" of any meaning in that context, that it can describe itself as the Scottish Labour Party on ballot papers at all.
In that sense it's the SCUP which has a slightly more detached existence. However, what would happen if (say) Murdo Fraser went UDI and tried to take the money and computer lists with him I don't know. There is also the point made b y another PBer (sorry I forget whom) that when it came to Brexit the 12 SCUP MPs got nothing compared with a smaller number of DUP despite their big promises.
SLDs used to be much more woolly and about home rule before they got into bed with Labour in Holyrood and the Tories down south and remarketed themselves as mean, tough hardline unionists in the model of the GPO privatisers and Jo Swinson. But again there is some distinction I believe.
Greens are completely separate.
No idea about UKIP.
But that was in exchange for selling out Fermanagh and Tyrone during the Boundary Commission debacle.
What could Scotland offer that England wants?
Newsflash - Jesus did not visit Glastonbury. It's a later myth developed as part of the romances of Chretien de Troyes.
In 2015 they bought EE for £12.5 billion, today the BT Group, including, might go for £15 billion.
However if a working family needs benefits (so not a single mum scenario for example) that is coming from taxpayers and in that case the taxpayer is therefore subsidizing their employer.
The welfare state should exist for those who have fallen on unfortunate times. It should not be used to subsidise uncompetitive (or exploitative) businesses.
This of course is another issue the universal wage ameliorates as a minimum wage would not be an issue any more. Businesses could offer what they like and there would be an open market place without potential employees being exploited as they already have a guaranteed income.
Two months today it will be people talking about poppies and claiming that poppies are being banned/overly enforced.
The proms season forms part of British culture and includes a wide variety of classical music from around the world and always has done.
The two are not mutually exclusive.
And Labour in Wales
And DUP/SF in NI
Or do they get a pass
Regarding a UDI, I don't see it as likely, but if the Tories are cunning enough, there could be a stage-managed spat that could result in Douglas Ross sending proud Boris to think again. Cummings is quite good at creating rows.
*I'll stop
What about our share of the national debt?
Scotland and the rest of the UK will agree a share of the national debt. This could be by reference to the historical contribution made to the ’s public finances by Scotland. n alternative approach would be to use our population share.
Page 50.
Jesus got around, mind. It is widely recognised in some circles in the US that he spent the time between being crucified and resurrected, mooching around Central America.
People are moving away from landlines, and in some instance fibre broadband, but there's so many other issues for BT to deal with.
But - fortunately from their point of view - 75% of schools and nearly 85% of schoolchildren are in England, so that is where most of the attention goes.
You might have a situation where a full time dad earning minimum wage with multiple children at home and a stay at home mum are entitled to benefits. Whereas one of those dad's colleagues who is in a relationship with two adults both working full time with no children are not entitled to any. In that scenario is the employer being subsidised?
The welfare state is geared towards welfare for children, not welfare for employers.
I think it will be available to non fibre connected users in south England by around late 2021 (south of a line between Ipswich and Gloucester).
Don’t know why the government didn’t go for a stake in SpaceX rather than get conned into bailing out OneWeb, who can never hope to compete with SpaceX given the overriding cost component is the launch cost.
Everywhere else in the UK would get covered perhaps 18 - 24 months later is a reasonable guess, but would no doubt be accelerated if the government made available free polar to polar launch capability.
As with everything, Big Tech is leaving the state bureaucracies in its wake. For anyone else that wants in, there aren’t any good pure plays sadly. But you do get some diluted exposure by buying Google or Baille Gifford’s Scottish Mortgage Trust or US Growth funds.
SpaceX valued at $44bn this week, looks as clear as day a quick 10x bagger from here.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1297915329599987714?s=20
It's the superoctave coupler that determines the final climax.
Although I sometimes add the tremulant if I'm feeling bored.
Labour can't without a basic reorganization anyway - indeed we saw that when the Gen Sec slapped down Ms Dugdale spending Party money on her court case, IIRC.
I find hand pumping is more reliable, but all smart people these days use electric.
In the last few minutes, someone has mopped up everything on Betfair. Is anyone watching the RNC livestream? If they were, they'd know Pence has just been nominated.
If the welfare state were removed overnight with nothing to replace it and the minimum wage were abolished overnight with nothing to replace it then would the market rate for what we call minimum wage jobs at the minute go up or down? If you believe welfare is subsidising employers then presumably abolishing welfare state would see wages go up? I doubt it personally.
The snag in PR terms is that most senior professional organists are developed from the all-male choir schools. Which is why, of course, the stereotype of an organist is a white posh male.
By the same token, the Tories should adopt the policy of democratising the House of Lords intake by allocating spaces in the Lords according to overall vote share. It would discomfit the SNP, at least mildly, because they'd be forced to either nominate candidates to be ennobled, or be accused of diminishing Scotland's potential influence.
It would however mean the Tories losing a degree of the power of patronage, and a gradual ebbing of their domination of the HOL.
That could refer to two things:
1) A 'combination' in organ playing is where you hit either a pedal or a button and a preselected set of stops come out together. Usually they are called 'combination pedals' and 'composition buttons.' My organ at home has the latter, because it's electronic, the organs at Chadsmoor and Cannock have the former. (The great advantage of electronic is you can change the stops each button registers.)
2) But I think from the context you are referring to a combined action, which is where the keys/stops are partly mechanical ('tracker') and partly electronic or tubular pneumatic (hopefully not the latter as they're a right bugger to keep in order).
https://twitter.com/DomWalsh13/status/1297919085657890816?s=20
https://twitter.com/StevePeers/status/1297920078382587904?s=20
I think the only reason that the Welsh Government announced a change of approach was because at the 11th hour they became aware that there would be rampant grade inflation across the rest of the UK from the use of predicted grades in England as well as Scotland. That followed from the pending announcement of the u-turn on policy in England, which forced the hand of the Welsh so as not to devalue Welsh results relative to those elsewhere.
NEW THREAD
If there are two makers of widgets, company A paying £20 an hour and B paying £10 an hour, workers would flock to A, and B would go out of business.
Then benefits come along so that workers at company B take home the same amount as their peers at A. Now A and B have similar quality workforces but B's expenses are less, so it can charge less for its widgets, undercutting A who goes bust.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_de_Boron
Philip twice gave specific instances where welfare was clearly needed for an individual. That is not the same as where large numbers of employees at an employer require that welfare assistance. In that case it is subsidising the employers overhead at the expense of the taxpayer and distorting the marketplace.