politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Leave voters rate leaving the EU as more important than peace
Options
Comments
-
What you say is arguable.Cyclefree said:
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.Charles said:
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).Cyclefree said:
Whether Carson believed it from a moral and philosophical stance is, frankly, irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy suited him and his followers when they were on top and didn't when they realised they could no longer be top dog. So they started a campaign to ensure that they remained top dog. And the political party which supported them then had the brass neck to lecture the remaining inhabitants in the statelet created for the purpose of allowing Craig and co to prance around lording it over others about democracy and the views of the majority and parliaments etc .....Charles said:
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Mike called them “the real terrorists”
I think 3,000+ dead and their families and friends would disagree.
They were elected politicians who used legitimate means (plus some public protest / theatre) to advance their cause. Whether they were right or wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they acted within the law and mores of a democratic society0 -
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:0 -
Yes, those summers. I believe the summers weren't even that warmer. But I prefer to live in the Alice in Wonderland dream thanks.ydoethur said:
You mean the pre-war summers marred with an impending civil war in Ireland, a wave of coal and railway strikes, and political deadlock?rottenborough said:ydoethur said:This is the best reply - and oh I so agree with it!
https://twitter.com/humanpilot/status/1024367740591779840?s=20
It's like yearning for that long Edwardian pre-war summer, when there really was still honey for tea!!! *
* I know modern historians are not too keen on this version of pre-war life.
Those pre-war summers?
0 -
Wed have concluded negotiations with a nice Ed Miliband government within the EU by now.tlg86 said:
Do you think the English should care? Remember, the Scots had a referendum of their own. Had Yes won that, we'd be in a far more difficult position than we our now.AlastairMeeks said:
There is polling on Scotland. English Leavers are entirely happy to throw it to the four winds in order to secure Brexit.Acorn_Antiques said:
As we have discovered from the EU referendum itself, trying to draw detailed conclusions about what the public are thinking and what they want from simple questions like this is not always easy.
The respondents who put leaving the EU ahead of the NI peace process could easily have been thinking any of the following:
1. We don't care about Northern Ireland, let it burn
2. We do care about Northern Ireland, but we're not about to be blackmailed by terrorists and the security services will make short work of them anyway
3. We see no realistic possibility of a return to violence, so of course we're going to jump the way we want to, because the alternative just isn't going to happen
The question itself is also couched in blackmailing terms, of course. It hypothetically holds Northern Ireland to ransom and asks the voters if they are willing to pay up or not. I'm not at all sure that a mode of politics that consists entirely of one group of people using threats to try to force another group into compliance is a road that we want to travel any further down than we have already.
Two more observations:
1. Let us imagine instead that we asked both Leave and Remain voters whether they thought that Britain should jettison Northern Ireland, whether by calving it off as a separate state or giving it to Leo Varadkar as a birthday present. Which segment of the electorate is, on average, more likely to have Irish Republican sympathies and to want to throw the DUP overboard because they detest them? No prizes for guessing on that one.
2. As a general point, it might be best not to drag Scotland into this as well. In the last couple of days we've had Brexit, antisemitism, Israel-Palestine and now Northern Ireland to deal with. I'm afraid that throwing any more combustible material into the mix may result in an uncontrollable blaze.
That's my point. Any attempt to claim that the Northern Ireland polling is about the rule of law runs into the separate and clear polling that shows English Leavers will sacrifice either Northern Ireland or Scotland if that is needed for Brexit. So we can dispense with 2 and 3 and go straight to 1.0 -
MJW said:
That's what documentaries - remember them? - are for.Acorn_Antiques said:
The bigger problem is that it's not a news story whose importance and vileness you can explain easily in more than a couple of minutes without some previous grounding in a) the real far, conspiracist left, b) Corbyn's past in that milieu, c) The nature of their animus against Israel and Jews and why it goes beyond being upset about Palestinians and d) Internal Labour politics and all the nonsense that goes with it.matt said:oxfordsimon said:TheScreamingEagles said:
It's just not as easy a story to tell as 'Tory right-winger does a racism' - a type of prejudice that most people are familiar with, and doesn't require a bit of knowledge about why hardcore Marxism has always had a bit of a problem with Jews to work out why the nice old duffer (who may be useless, but probably means well) with the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.
The risk to Labour is this: one day there will be another terrorist attack in which, as has happened in other countries, Jews or Jewish places are targeted. And some or more of the perpetrators will be found to have used very similar language to that being used by these ordinary Labour folk or will have been inspired by some of the people with whom the Labour leader has associated over the years. God help Labour if, say, there was a photo of one of the perpetrators at one of the rallies at which the Labour leader has spoken or even a picture of him with the Labour leader or with someone closely associated with the Labour leader. Then the link between the words used and terror will be made vivid. And people will realise that anti-semitic words and attitudes can lead to actual acts of violence against real Jews. And all the chaff about how this is Labour taking a principled stand against Israeli policies will be seen for what it is - a diversion - when it will be British people killed here by other British people inspired by the sort of language and mentality on display within the Labour Party.
Now I hope that none of this happens. I really do. But that is the risk: bad words very often precede bad actions. We have seen this in the Continent. Labour seem oblivious to this but it could come back and embarrass them very greatly. It is one reason why the Jewish community is concerned. They know about this stuff. They don't have guards outside synagogues and cultural centres for fun. They know that when you start talking about killing people, when you start dehumanising people, someone somewhere will think it a good idea to do some actual killing, as has happened in France and Denmark and as some have attempted to do here.0 -
Apart from, as you said, Larne. I'm not quite sure on what planet illegally importing guns and ammunition from a hostile, soon to be enemy, power counts as "legitimate means", let alone acting "within the law and mores of a democratic society".Charles said:
What you say is arguable.Cyclefree said:
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.Charles said:
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).Cyclefree said:
Whether Carson believed it from a moral and philosophical stance is, frankly, irrelevant. Parliamentary democracy suited him and his followers when they were on top and didn't when they realised they could no longer be top dog. So they started a campaign to ensure that they remained top dog. And the political party which supported them then had the brass neck to lecture the remaining inhabitants in the statelet created for the purpose of allowing Craig and co to prance around lording it over others about democracy and the views of the majority and parliaments etc .....
"Ulster will fight and Ulster will be right" was uttered by a Tory not by a Fenian. The Tories - and others - learnt the hard way that it wasn't just Unionists who could and would fight. The Troubles did not just start in 1968, much as it might be convenient for some to think so.
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Mike called them “the real terrorists”
I think 3,000+ dead and their families and friends would disagree.
They were elected politicians who used legitimate means (plus some public protest / theatre) to advance their cause. Whether they were right or wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they acted within the law and mores of a democratic society
Or did that constitute the "theatre"?0 -
What an ungrateful bastard.FrancisUrquhart said:twitter.com/SkyNews/status/1024259728615137281
0 -
I seem to recall that a major selling point of Brexit during the campaign was that it would protect us from Islamic terrorists. No ‘the potential for terrorism must never influence democracy’ then.0
-
I didn't exactly disagree except that it seems to me nothing turns out to be a disaster for Labour.ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:
However the whole political scene at present (and not just here in the UK) seems to me to be a sort of terrifying parody of the Keystone Kops.
Good evening, everybody.0 -
Seems a bit harsh.AnneJGP said:
I didn't exactly disagree except that it seems to me nothing turns out to be a disaster for Labour.ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:
However the whole political scene at present (and not just here in the UK) seems to me to be a sort of terrifying parody of the Keystone Kops.
Good evening, everybody.
The Keystone Cops were at least funny.0 -
Well last time the Tories were this publicly divided in government Labour had 20-30 point leads in the polls. Now Labour is lucky to scrape a 2-3 point lead. That might be considered a disaster for Labour.AnneJGP said:
I didn't exactly disagree except that it seems to me nothing turns out to be a disaster for Labour.ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:
However the whole political scene at present (and not just here in the UK) seems to me to be a sort of terrifying parody of the Keystone Kops.
Good evening, everybody.0 -
It is surprising. Equally it’s surprising that the defendant did it and not in their own signaure noting that they were acting under some form of authority be it a POA or otherwise.ydoethur said:
That is an extremely strange story on absolutely every level.MarqueeMark said:
So, not content with pissing off the Jews, the Labour Party moves onto pissing off the LGBT community.YBarddCwsc said:From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-45021023
The acquittal means that Carolyn Harris MP lied, and tried to get an innocent woman (or in Carolyn’s words “a dyke”) convicted.
Big questions need to be asked of Welsh Labour. For example, how did such a monster ever become an MP, let alone Deputy Leader?
Still, it will play well with the roof-top chuckers.....
For our legal eagles - is it not an offence to instruct somebody to forge your own signature on financial returns? The reason I ask is because that is what it appears the jury believe Ms Harris has done.
Unless this is a usual and accepted approach which might be even more surprising.
Juries can produce verdicts which don’t seem always to fit the facts but perhaps fit what they perceive to be equity.0 -
I think Labour are planning to fund their next General Election by cornering the world's supply of What The Fuck???ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:
Nothing else makes any sense.0 -
I thought that was the remain message. Vote stay to stop the jungle moving to kent.Stark_Dawning said:I seem to recall that a major selling point of Brexit during the campaign was that it would protect us from Islamic terrorists. No ‘the potential for terrorism must never influence democracy’ then.
0 -
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
0 -
Hmm ...... I'm not sure that trying to get the army to disregard legal orders is acting within the law and mores of a democratic society.Charles said:
What you say is arguable.Cyclefree said:
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.Charles said:
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).Cyclefree said:
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Mike called them “the real terrorists”
I think 3,000+ dead and their families and friends would disagree.
They were elected politicians who used legitimate means (plus some public protest / theatre) to advance their cause. Whether they were right or wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they acted within the law and mores of a democratic society
Mike can justify the phrase he used. His wider point is that the problems of Northern Ireland started a long time before the recent Troubles and that the Unionists were active players in that, not simply victims. Those 3000 + were not all killed by the IRA. A good proportion were killed by Protestant terrorists. And the worst atrocity of the Troubles was carried out by Protestant terrorists in Dublin.0 -
Cyclefree said:
Oh I know - although I'd be more concerned for the victims than its effect on Labour. At the end of the day, when a political party is disgraced, there's always a new one. Although I don't think it's that much of a risk to Labour in the great scheme of things. The party will have split or re-entered civil war again by then anyway if this carries on any longer - we may have crossed the Rubicon already and battle plans are being drawn, as MPs private fears about Corbyn are coming true. It's more of a risk to the left in general rather than the Labour Party. The toxicity of this when it plays out will ensure a lot of people won't be taken seriously on anything for a very long time. And it will be their own stupid fault for shutting their eyes to what Corbyn is because they all got a bit excited about being able to put one over those of us on the centre-left.MJW said:
That's what documentaries - remember them? - are for.Acorn_Antiques said:
the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.matt said:oxfordsimon said:TheScreamingEagles said:
They know that when you start talking about killing people, when you start dehumanising people, someone somewhere will think it a good idea to do some actual killing, as has happened in France and Denmark and as some have attempted to do here.0 -
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
0 -
When was that?Cyclefree said:
Hmm ...... I'm not sure that trying to get the army to disregard legal orders is acting within the law and mores of a democratic society.Charles said:
What you say is arguable.Cyclefree said:
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.Charles said:
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).Cyclefree said:
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Mike called them “the real terrorists”
I think 3,000+ dead and their families and friends would disagree.
They were elected politicians who used legitimate means (plus some public protest / theatre) to advance their cause. Whether they were right or wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they acted within the law and mores of a democratic society0 -
No, the French government made that silly claim. Remainers, who are all highly intelligent and legally astute, knew all that was governed by an entirely separate treaty.ralphmalph said:
I thought that was the remain message. Vote stay to stop the jungle moving to kent.Stark_Dawning said:I seem to recall that a major selling point of Brexit during the campaign was that it would protect us from Islamic terrorists. No ‘the potential for terrorism must never influence democracy’ then.
0 -
The Curragh incident in March 1914. I know it is more complicated than my simplistic summary. My point - though I bow to your superior knowledge as a history teacher - is that many on the unionist side were prepared to act in a way which came close to mutiny against the laws of a Parliamentary democracy, in a way they would have - and did - severely criticise when carried out by the nationalist community. It was very far from how @Charles described it - acting "within the law and mores of a democratic society". IMO.ydoethur said:
When was that?Cyclefree said:
Hmm ...... I'm not sure that trying to get the army to disregard legal orders is acting within the law and mores of a democratic society.Charles said:
What you say is arguable.Cyclefree said:
How he was perceived by the UK tells you about how he was perceived by the UK. It does not tell you whether his actions were similar to that of a terrorist. Others in Ireland might well view all the pomp accorded to him as no more than the traditional British hypocrisy in honouring someone who did their dirty work for them, at the expense of other citizens of Britain less valued by the government.Charles said:
There’s a perfectly reasonable case to make against Carson (although I’d argue that he was stitched up by Craig - Cardon viewed partition as illogical and tried to use Ulster as a tool to keep Ireland in the Union... hmmh).Cyclefree said:
But that’s a long way from saying he is the “real terrorist”.
He was a member of the Cabinet, Solicitor-General for Ireland and one of the few non royals in history to have been given a full State funeral in the U.K. That alone suggests he wasn’t perceived as a terrorist by the U.K.
The Unionists, so prone to take the moral high ground against Fenians and then the IRA, do not have clean hands, going all the way back to over a century ago. That is Mr Smithson's point - and it is a good one, regardless of the relative merits of Carson over Craig.
Mike called them “the real terrorists”
I think 3,000+ dead and their families and friends would disagree.
They were elected politicians who used legitimate means (plus some public protest / theatre) to advance their cause. Whether they were right or wrong doesn’t alter the fact that they acted within the law and mores of a democratic society
And now I am sure I will be corrected by your good self.....0 -
The concept is known as Jury Nullification, and well established in Law. It allows a Jury to deliver a verdict against facts if the Jury feels that either the law or punishment are unjust. There are some examples in the article here:matt said:
It is surprising. Equally it’s surprising that the defendant did it and not in their own signaure noting that they were acting under some form of authority be it a POA or otherwise.ydoethur said:
That is an extremely strange story on absolutely every level.MarqueeMark said:
So, not content with pissing off the Jews, the Labour Party moves onto pissing off the LGBT community.YBarddCwsc said:From the point of the Deputy Leader of Welsh Labour, the quarrels over antisemitism are at least ensuring her attempt to frame an innocent women won’t get much public notice.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-45021023
The acquittal means that Carolyn Harris MP lied, and tried to get an innocent woman (or in Carolyn’s words “a dyke”) convicted.
Big questions need to be asked of Welsh Labour. For example, how did such a monster ever become an MP, let alone Deputy Leader?
Still, it will play well with the roof-top chuckers.....
For our legal eagles - is it not an offence to instruct somebody to forge your own signature on financial returns? The reason I ask is because that is what it appears the jury believe Ms Harris has done.
Unless this is a usual and accepted approach which might be even more surprising.
Juries can produce verdicts which don’t seem always to fit the facts but perhaps fit what they perceive to be equity.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification
Indeed, this is a large part of the reason to have juries, after all if the jury does not have this right then the judge may as well do the verdict too.0 -
MJW said:
I too would be much more concerned about the victims than about Labour. I was just pointing out that this is the risk Labour run and I'd have thought that it would still have people in it intelligent enough to understand this and take action to mitigate this - potentially - party-ending risk. But apparently not.Cyclefree said:
Oh I know - although I'd be more concerned for the victims than its effect on Labour. At the end of the day, when a political party is disgraced, there's always a new one. Although I don't think it's that much of a risk to Labour in the great scheme of things. The party will have split or re-entered civil war again by then anyway if this carries on any longer - we may have crossed the Rubicon already and battle plans are being drawn, as MPs private fears about Corbyn are coming true. It's more of a risk to the left in general rather than the Labour Party. The toxicity of this when it plays out will ensure a lot of people won't be taken seriously on anything for a very long time. And it will be their own stupid fault for shutting their eyes to what Corbyn is because they all got a bit excited about being able to put one over those of us on the centre-left.MJW said:
That's what documentaries - remember them? - are for.Acorn_Antiques said:
the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.matt said:oxfordsimon said:TheScreamingEagles said:
They know that when you start talking about killing people, when you start dehumanising people, someone somewhere will think it a good idea to do some actual killing, as has happened in France and Denmark and as some have attempted to do here.0 -
Funny I thought it was one David Cameron.Stark_Dawning said:
No, the French government made that silly claim. Remainers, who are all highly intelligent and legally astute, knew all that was governed by an entirely separate treaty.ralphmalph said:
I thought that was the remain message. Vote stay to stop the jungle moving to kent.Stark_Dawning said:I seem to recall that a major selling point of Brexit during the campaign was that it would protect us from Islamic terrorists. No ‘the potential for terrorism must never influence democracy’ then.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/migrant-refugee-camp-calais-britain-brexit-eu-exit-david-cameron-kent-a6860466.html0 -
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
David Cameron served the French government?Stark_Dawning said:
No, the French government made that silly claim. Remainers, who are all highly intelligent and legally astute, knew all that was governed by an entirely separate treaty.ralphmalph said:
I thought that was the remain message. Vote stay to stop the jungle moving to kent.Stark_Dawning said:I seem to recall that a major selling point of Brexit during the campaign was that it would protect us from Islamic terrorists. No ‘the potential for terrorism must never influence democracy’ then.
Explains a lot about how his renegotiation went.0 -
I assumed that was what you meant, but as it wasn't what happened I thought you might be referring to a different incident I was unaware of.Cyclefree said:The Curragh incident in March 1914. I know it is more complicated than my simplistic summary. My point - though I bow to your superior knowledge as a history teacher - is that many on the unionist side were prepared to act in a way which came close to mutiny against the laws of a Parliamentary democracy, in a way they would have - and did - severely criticise when carried out by the nationalist community. It was very far from how @Charles described it - acting "within the law and mores of a democratic society". IMO.
And now I am sure I will be corrected by your good self.....
The Unionists, including Carson, never tried to persuade the army to mutiny. They did, although this is almost unbelievable but I assure you is true, consider disbanding the army by refusing to pass the annual Mutiny Act. This would perhaps have been a less than sensible move in 1914, and one of the ironies of the Curragh Mutiny is that in causing Law to believe this unnecessary it probably did everyone a very large favour.
The event at Curragh was that a number of senior officers were asked by Paget, the C in C in Ireland, if given the option would prefer fighting the UVF or to be dismissed. They all replied that if given orders to fight the UVF they would as soldiers follow those orders but if given the option would prefer dismissal.
They were given this 'choice' - which was intended to be a hypothetical choice to gauge morale in the Army and Navy in Ireland - on the orders of Winston Churchill and John Seely. Churchill and Seely also told Paget (again I am not making this up) that if officers had moral objections to fighting Protestants they would be allowed to temporarily desert without detriment to their future promotion prospects.
The whole situation became (well - was) farcical and ultimately to defuse the situation their own stupid bungling had created Seely, John French (CIGS) and Paget issued a written declaration to the senior recalcitrant, Hubert Gough, that the Army would not be used against the UVF. Which essentially left them a free hand in Ulster to form their own state (as ultimately happened).
I don't see how you can blame Carson for any of that (and while it is true he did nothing to stop the Larne gun-running, he was opposed to it, and he was willing to concede home rule for what later became the republic if the six counties were excluded even though he was a southern Protestant).
I don't know enough about the Irish civil war to comment on the rest.
For further reading, may I recommend Seely's ODNB article?
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-360070 -
I suppose the association with Liberals?Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
On the other hand 7% rather like Fascism...0 -
I suspect they are thinking this is the Liberal Democrats - there are still quite a few people who haven't forgiven the coalition with the Conservatives.Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
The one that surprises me is anarchism -55 - I'm nowhere near an anarchist myself, but they don't get routinely bashed like communism and fascism.0 -
In 1991 the Russian anarchists were responsible for one of the great political soundbites.NickPalmer said:
I suspect they are thinking this is the Liberal Democrats - there are still quite a few people who haven't forgiven the coalition with the Conservatives.Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
The one that surprises me is anarchism -55 - I'm nowhere near an anarchist myself, but they don't get routinely bashed like communism and fascism.
'We must organise.'0 -
To be pedantic, Hodge gave Corbyn the benefit of her opinion on Parliamentary estate. So no libel.ydoethur said:
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
Or does this only apply to speaking in the actual chamber?0 -
I think that classical Anarchism has long had a tradition of ground level organised workplaces and agitation. Anarchism is about restructuring society from the ground up organisations rather than the top down approach of the orthodox Communists.ydoethur said:
In 1991 the Russian anarchists were responsible for one of the great political soundbites.NickPalmer said:
I suspect they are thinking this is the Liberal Democrats - there are still quite a few people who haven't forgiven the coalition with the Conservatives.Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
The one that surprises me is anarchism -55 - I'm nowhere near an anarchist myself, but they don't get routinely bashed like communism and fascism.
'We must organise.'0 -
But if the response is "that Hitler, he had the right ideas....", then who knows which Party they might favour.....Foxy said:
I suppose the association with Liberals?Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
On the other hand 7% rather like Fascism...0 -
McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
Re your first point - yes you are no doubt right, I hadn't thought of that. I suspect Keiran's first point 'These terms mean little to a good chunk of people' is very true. Maybe more political education education about politics would be a good thing in schools? (Tbf I don't know if any is given theses days - there was none below 'A' levels at my school when I was a lad.)NickPalmer said:
I suspect they are thinking this is the Liberal Democrats - there are still quite a few people who haven't forgiven the coalition with the Conservatives.Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
The one that surprises me is anarchism -55 - I'm nowhere near an anarchist myself, but they don't get routinely bashed like communism and fascism.0 -
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.0 -
Regrettably the sections in Erskine May which references parliamentary privilege appears to run to dozens of pages, so it may be a slightly tricky area to get into.rottenborough said:
To be pedantic, Hodge gave Corbyn the benefit of her opinion on Parliamentary estate. So no libel.ydoethur said:
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
Or does this only apply to speaking in the actual chamber?0 -
0
-
Cyclefree said:
They are there - look closely and even McDonnell is starting to worry he's tied to something totally unhinged - but are pretty much powerless to do anything about it short of taking the ultimate option of burning down the village to save it. Every time an MP denounces Corbyn or his acolytes, it in fact makes things worse as the cult take it as more evidence of conspiracy. A leadership challenge looks an impossible task. 100 MPs demand he resign? Tried it.MJW said:
I too would be much more concerned about the victims than about Labour. I was just pointing out that this is the risk Labour run and I'd have thought that it would still have people in it intelligent enough to understand this and take action to mitigate this - potentially - party-ending risk. But apparently not.Cyclefree said:
Oh I know - although I'd be more concerned for the victims than its effect on Labour. At the end of the day, when a political party is disgraced, there's always a new one. Although I don't think it's that much of a risk to Labour in the great scheme of things. The party will have split or re-entered civil war again by then anyway if this carries on any longer - we may have crossed the Rubicon already and battle plans are being drawn, as MPs private fears about Corbyn are coming true. It's more of a risk to the left in general rather than the Labour Party. The toxicity of this when it plays out will ensure a lot of people won't be taken seriously on anything for a very long time. And it will be their own stupid fault for shutting their eyes to what Corbyn is because they all got a bit excited about being able to put one over those of us on the centre-left.MJW said:
That's what documentaries - remember them? - are for.Acorn_Antiques said:
the allotment is being accused of allowing and endorsing really nasty racism, to understand.matt said:oxfordsimon said:TheScreamingEagles said:
They know that when you start talking about killing people, when you start dehumanising people, someone somewhere will think it a good idea to do some actual killing, as has happened in France and Denmark and as some have attempted to do here.
I think a lot of people within Labour are aware - even some of the more independent minded Corbynistas who know it's awful but haven't got to the cognitive stage where they can admit it - but no one has a clue what to do about it, given that the membership has become even more and more conspiracist with time as the good people leave and the ones attracted by this vile stuff join.0 -
Did you finish reading through it in the end? Am still a bit jealous.kle4 said:
Regrettably the sections in Erskine May which references parliamentary privilege appears to run to dozens of pages, so it may be a slightly tricky area to get into.rottenborough said:
To be pedantic, Hodge gave Corbyn the benefit of her opinion on Parliamentary estate. So no libel.ydoethur said:
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
Or does this only apply to speaking in the actual chamber?0 -
I can hazard a guess...MarqueeMark said:
But if the response is "that Hitler, he had the right ideas....", then who knows which Party they might favour.....Foxy said:
I suppose the association with Liberals?Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
On the other hand 7% rather like Fascism...0 -
I wouldn't have thought that likely while this phase of Brexit is still ongoing.rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
I thought parliamentary privilege applied in the following situations?kle4 said:
Regrettably the sections in Erskine May which references parliamentary privilege appears to run to dozens of pages, so it may be a slightly tricky area to get into.rottenborough said:
To be pedantic, Hodge gave Corbyn the benefit of her opinion on Parliamentary estate. So no libel.ydoethur said:
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
Or does this only apply to speaking in the actual chamber?
1) In the Commons/Lords chambers
2) Select committee hearings
3) Speaker sanctioned events in Westminster Hall.
4) Any site where the relevant Speaker (or the House in a vote) has approved to hold temporary meetings
So Dame Margaret Hodge isn't protected by privilege.0 -
Tbh I’m not sure it does. I said yesterday something strange I noticed was that even when this was the major story on the BBC Website (Ian Austin), it was hardly the most read story - even though it should have been. Then there’s the fact that today I’ve looked on both BBC and Sky News (you’d think the guys with audio would have this as a big story on their site) and there is no mention of the crisis on the former, only one story on the latter that is some way down. And that story is ‘Corbyn ally apologises’.ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:
It’s not in the top 10 read stories.
Newspapers, aside from the Times and Telegraph aren’t covering it on their front pages, when this scandal is arguably WORSE than the previous ones. If people don’t actually know the extent to which the scandal is deepening, it’s capacity to damage Labour is limited. So far the only places which I see regularly talking about this is on Twitter and PB. That this isn’t getting more coverage is simply bizarre.
0 -
It's probably less common than with communism (since people seem less inclined that fascist regimes are fascist), but I wonder how many of that 7% are of the 'True fascism has not been tried' variety?Foxy said:
I suppose the association with Liberals?Benpointer said:
Most amazing to me is that 30% view Liberal Democracy negatively. The other negatives I can understand even where I do not personally agree.TheScreamingEagles said:
On the other hand 7% rather like Fascism...0 -
I don't know, but I would have thought it covered parliamentary business only - select committees and the Houses themselves. It derives, I think, from the ability of the houses to criticise the Sovereign before the lapse of the old Libel Act.rottenborough said:
To be pedantic, Hodge gave Corbyn the benefit of her opinion on Parliamentary estate. So no libel.ydoethur said:
World popcorn supplies are already under unprecedented pressure. I don't think they could cope with two wealthy hard left members of Islington Labour Party knocking lumps out of each other over who is or isn't a racist.Philip_Thompson said:
If it's so libellous he should sue Mrs Hodge. I'd love to see that court case!JoeJamesB said:
Jeremy Corbyn is not anti semitic, that is libellous. Most Corbyn supporters use zionism as a legitimate criticism of Israeli oppression against Palestinians (or possibly just being right wing at the moment) , what right minded person can disagree with that.rottenborough said:
As the Prospect article I linked down thread points out, there has always been a lefty fringe of such views. Many of the exponents were not even in the Labour party, but in SWP etc etc. It is just that now, thanks to the £3 coup, many of the leading fringe exponents of it are leading figures or candidates for things like NEC. Presumably they feel emboldened by Corbyn and his now infamous shrug.SquareRoot said:Does the anti sematic attitude within Labour stem from how Corbyn behaves , or has it been around for much longer?
Or does this only apply to speaking in the actual chamber?
So I would guess Hodge is not covered.
HOWEVER, she might herself have grounds for defamation given a supporter of Corbyn claims she swore - a claim she denies but that has made its way into the media.0 -
Thank you.ydoethur said:Cyclefree said:
The Unionists, including Carson, never tried to persuade the army to mutiny. They did, although this is almost unbelievable but I assure you is true, consider disbanding the army by refusing to pass the annual Mutiny Act. This would perhaps have been a less than sensible move in 1914, and one of the ironies of the Curragh Mutiny is that in causing Law to believe this unnecessary it probably did everyone a very large favour.
The event at Curragh was that a number of senior officers were asked by Paget, the C in C in Ireland, if given the option would prefer fighting the UVF or to be dismissed. They all replied that if given orders to fight the UVF they would as soldiers follow those orders but if given the option would prefer dismissal.
They were given this 'choice' - which was intended to be a hypothetical choice to gauge morale in the Army and Navy in Ireland - on the orders of Winston Churchill and John Seely. Churchill and Seely also told Paget (again I am not making this up) that if officers had moral objections to fighting Protestants they would be allowed to temporarily desert without detriment to their future promotion prospects.
The whole situation became (well - was) farcical and ultimately to defuse the situation their own stupid bungling had created Seely, John French (CIGS) and Paget issued a written declaration to the senior recalcitrant, Hubert Gough, that the Army would not be used against the UVF. Which essentially left them a free hand in Ulster to form their own state (as ultimately happened).
For further reading, may I recommend Seely's ODNB article?
http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/10.1093/ref:odnb/9780198614128.001.0001/odnb-9780198614128-e-36007
I knew it was more complicated. I still feel that this behaviour is not acting within the laws and mores of a democratic society. I accept that Carson was not responsible. I intended to refer to unionism more generally rather than him specifically. But to nationalists it did look as if violence - or the threat of violence - was a successful tactic and that the British state would back down from a policy they had adopted and passed into law.
I'm not an army person but is it normal to ask soldiers whether they have moral objections to fighting people of the same religion? Was it then? Or was it only the Protestant UVF army leaders were bothered about?
And this lesson was not forgotten by unionists, was it? See the response to the Sunningdale Agreement many decades later.
Unionism did not have clean hands. A lesson some of their supporters then and now tend to forget.0 -
McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/10243917848462417930 -
Is she snorting about it?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.0 -
As for that Opinum poll - I don’t think it means too much. YouGov found in 2016 voters are divided into these tribes: https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/11/16/trump-brexit-front-national-afd-branches-same-tree/
Authoritian Populists are the biggest tribe.0 -
Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.0
-
Well let's hope he does something about it then!rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
Not really. It's the word 'disaster' I have trouble with. It's a persistent, unnecessary distraction and hindrance for the party, but it's not had much actual effect up until now, and until such time as it has, I can't see how it can be called a disaster. A few more people who didn't know this story will now know, a few more who knew but hadn't come down against the ruling clique might now do so, but it's an incremental thing than anything major, as far as I can see.ydoethur said:
Would those people who disagreed with my comment that this was a disaster for Labour because it offered a distraction from Brexit at the start of the silly season wish to reconsider their views?rottenborough said:0 -
I doubt McDonnell hasn’t told Corbyn to confront this issue. Presumably, given what we’ve seen Corbyn is ignoring him.Benpointer said:
Well let's hope he does something about it then!rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
That's for everyone? Including Jews?rottenborough said:McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/10243917848462417930 -
Many of those in the Labour party who profess their abhorrence of antisemitism seem to do so because it's a vote loser. Have they lost the art of virtue signalling?kle4 said:
I wouldn't have thought that likely while this phase of Brexit is still ongoing.rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.0 -
No, they’re wealthy plutocrats so will be paying for it.SandyRentool said:
That's for everyone? Including Jews?rottenborough said:McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/10243917848462417930 -
I've always assumed McDonnell pulled the strings, Corbyn was the front man. A major rift would be interesting to watch. They've probably got time to have one and still beat the Tories at the next GE.The_Apocalypse said:
I doubt McDonnell hasn’t told Corbyn to confront this issue. Presumably, given what we’ve seen Corbyn is ignoring him.Benpointer said:
Well let's hope he does something about it then!rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
so what have we learnt tonight
Remainer advice is to start dragging them out in the street and shooting them as terrorists get to dictate brexit, as long as we kill more than the irish the leavers win and brexit goes ahead0 -
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.0 -
It was anything but usual, in fact it was totally unprecedented. It was also deeply hypocritical since if matters had gone the other way and the Army called on to face a rebellion by the IRB no Catholic regiments would have been given the option of a nice holiday while the fighting happened.Cyclefree said:.I'm not an army person but is it normal to ask soldiers whether they have moral objections to fighting people of the same religion? Was it then? Or was it only the Protestant UVF army leaders were bothered about?
And this lesson was not forgotten by unionists, was it? See the response to the Sunningdale Agreement many decades later.
Unionism did not have clean hands. A lesson some of their supporters then and now tend to forget.
The particular concern however was that the majority of senior army officers in Ireland, e.g. Gough, were Irish Protestants and it was thought they might actually swap sides. That was certainly not the case - Gough himself repeatedly stated that if a rebellion broke out and he was ordered to crush it he would do so - but in the atmosphere of the time it was perhaps an understandable fear. So they came up with this clumsy and irresponsible way of trying to find out if they would.
To my mind, what it really shows is the mind-bending incompetence (as well as the hypocrisy) of the British army. The Romans would not have had tribes in the provinces provide the legionary officers, precisely to avoid this kind of situation. If they had swapped some of the Irish officers for Indian ones (although possible not Dyer of Amritsar fame, who was also an Irish Protestant) there wouldn't even have been a sniff of a problem.
Of course, Bonar Law might then have vetoed the Mutiny Act and at the start of World War One we would have had no Army in Europe. But that is a different problem.0 -
I think she has finally Cracked. The Met are on the Rocks.ydoethur said:
Is she snorting about it?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.0 -
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.0 -
You could put together a story that in order to deal with mass automation then basic income is part of the answer, as per many Silicon Valley types (and indeed Green policy for decades).
Might work. Might even be Populist.
But, the middle classes/Tory swing voters are going to be looking at this one very very closely.0 -
This surely cannot be a new story - he's been leader for ages and every event he was ever at has probably been gone over.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
Was supposed to be 2x4yrs for Putin also. 18 years later he's just started another (now 6 year) term.rottenborough said:It's only two terms at the moment:
0 -
Good summary - it may actually be a good idea but I think most people's initial reaction will be 'who's going to pay for it?'kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.0 -
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
He was only restricted to consecutive terms though, he didn't have to change that element, as I recall, only the length of the terms and the powers of the PM while he waited for his next chance.Andrew said:
Was supposed to be 2x4yrs for Putin also. 18 years later he's just started another (now 6 year) term.rottenborough said:It's only two terms at the moment:
0 -
Is working class cocaine-use ok?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.0 -
Those bankers' bonuses must be REALLY good in the coming years.Benpointer said:
Good summary - it may actually be a good idea but I think most people's initial reaction will be 'who's going to pay for it?'kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.0 -
The difference is the tax rises on those above Basic Income..... They will be massive.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
It's obvious he doesn't like Jews. It'd be interesting to hear what him, Milne and co say about them in private.TheScreamingEagles said:0 -
My impression is that Corbyn is profoundly stupid and that the competing powers behind the throne are McD and Milne.Benpointer said:
I've always assumed McDonnell pulled the strings, Corbyn was the front man. A major rift would be interesting to watch. They've probably got time to have one and still beat the Tories at the next GE.The_Apocalypse said:
I doubt McDonnell hasn’t told Corbyn to confront this issue. Presumably, given what we’ve seen Corbyn is ignoring him.Benpointer said:
Well let's hope he does something about it then!rottenborough said:McD is not happy:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-universal-basic-income-john-mcdonnell-party-manifesto-corbyn-poverty-social-benefits-a8471416.html
Will the tensions with Corbyn finally boil over?0 -
To be serious, given she should have been quietly promoted to Chief Superintendent for Paperclips after the de Menezes shooting and coverup, that is not surprising, but I do take issue with 'finally.'Foxy said:
I think she has finally Cracked. The Met are on the Rocks.ydoethur said:
Is she snorting about it?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.0 -
The level is crucial. One option is to pay at level well below the personal tax threshold and argue that this threshold is a credit that is the same as being given the money. So no tax payer gets it. Then you roll in all work related benefits, so anyone on say JSA doesn't get it either (or they do but JSA doesn't exist anymore). So basic income is say £70 a week.Benpointer said:
Good summary - it may actually be a good idea but I think most people's initial reaction will be 'who's going to pay for it?'kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
A major issue, for many voters, will be the idea that a job seeker who never gets around to actually getting a job will get £70 a week.
The flip side is it gives people a floor of absolute security of some income.0 -
SandyRentool said:
That's for everyone? Including Jews?rottenborough said:McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1024391784846241793
It's also problematic to implement - should the universal flat rate payment be the same in Sunderland as in London where housing benefit payments are higher. Do the disabled and elderly needing care - currently getting attendance allowance - get more. How do you deal with localised council tax benefit too or tax credits.kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
As the government has found with universal credit simplification and integrating multiple benefits into one is not easy at all. Will those claiming HB in London be worse off and those living in cheaper areas better off?
And will there be an income or asset cut off - should multi Millionaires get the payment?0 -
Which is dangerous for Labour. The whole key to their appeal last year was (admittedly uncosted) vast bungs to middle and upper-middle income brackets which were promised without tax rises. Knock that prop away and they would be back down to 25%.MarqueeMark said:
The difference is the tax rises on those above Basic Income..... They will be massive.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
Well it can always be dropped, kicked into the long grass or modified as unworkable after the election.brendan16 said:SandyRentool said:
That's for everyone? Including Jews?rottenborough said:McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1024391784846241793
It's also problematic to implement - should the universal flat rate payment be the same in Sunderland as in London where housing benefit payments are higher. Do the disabled and elderly needing care - currently getting attendance allowance - get more. How do you deal with localised council tax benefit too or tax credits.kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
As the government has found with universal credit simplification and integrating multiple benefits into one is not easy at all. Will those claiming HB in London be worse off and those living in cheaper areas better off?
And will there be an income or asset cut off - should multi Millionaires get the payment?0 -
0
-
It was tried in Finland, but ultimately wasn't considered a success.brendan16 said:SandyRentool said:
That's for everyone? Including Jews?rottenborough said:McD:
Universal Basic Income to be in Manifesto:
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1024391784846241793
It's also problematic to implement - should the universal flat rate payment be the same in Sunderland as in London where housing benefit payments are higher. Do the disabled and elderly needing care - currently getting attendance allowance - get more. How do you deal with localised council tax benefit too or tax credits.kle4 said:
Well I did say 'presumably' populist. It's one of those ideas that instinctively just sounds wrong to me, and in my experience plenty of people on lower incomes are among the harshest when it comes to welfare generosity, so it sounds like something which if you sell it successfully will be very successful, but if you sell it badly, you end up looking insanely wasteful.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
As the government has found with universal credit simplification and integrating multiple benefits into one is not easy at all. Will those claiming HB in London be worse off and those living in cheaper areas better off?
And will there be an income or asset cut off - should multi Millionaires get the payment?
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years0 -
The article says "Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto" So Pilot only.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.
£10k pp sounds far too high to me, surely it would be closer to the basic state pension? The Finnish trial was closer to £6k pp.
Don't forget it would be taxable, so quite a few would be paying 20% or 40% straight back. Not sure about NI.
Still gonna cost a lot though!0 -
The brexit dividend should cover it.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
If he hasn’t heard of Pete Willsman, he’s not been deeply in Labour politics. Willsman is a big deal on the left.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1024399738513383429
If only it were that simple Andrew.0 -
My thinking was that anything below ten grand wouldn't be a meaningful basic income.Benpointer said:
The article says "Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto" So Pilot only.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.
£10k pp sounds far too high to me, surely it would be closer to the basic state pension? The Finnish trial was closer to £6k pp.
Don't forget it would be taxable, so quite a few would be paying 20% or 40% straight back. Not sure about NI.
Still gonna cost a lot though!
Also, of course, Corbyn has always promised high.
Even if I cut the figure to 6k, however, that's still a 30% rise in expenditure. It would sweep every single other thing out of the 2017 Labour manifesto to pay for it.0 -
Bollox , she had to make the call as Gold commander , with the information she had at the time.ydoethur said:
To be serious, given she should have been quietly promoted to Chief Superintendent for Paperclips after the de Menezes shooting and coverup, that is not surprising, but I do take issue with 'finally.'Foxy said:
I think she has finally Cracked. The Met are on the Rocks.ydoethur said:
Is she snorting about it?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.
Easy for you to sit there making judgement knowing f Al! ,,about it.0 -
IIRC until fairly recently he didn’t know Tony Benn was friends with Enoch Powell as well.Jonathan said:
If he hasn’t heard of Pete Willsman, he’s not been deeply in Labour politics. Willsman is a big deal on the left.rottenborough said:https://twitter.com/Andrew_Adonis/status/1024399738513383429
If only it were that simple Andrew.
0 -
I was thinking mostly of the coverup. Easy to make a mistake particularly at the time. Very difficult to justify what happened afterwards.Yorkcity said:
Bollox , she had to make the call as Gold commander , with the information she had at the time.ydoethur said:
To be serious, given she should have been quietly promoted to Chief Superintendent for Paperclips after the de Menezes shooting and coverup, that is not surprising, but I do take issue with 'finally.'Foxy said:
I think she has finally Cracked. The Met are on the Rocks.ydoethur said:
Is she snorting about it?Yorkcity said:https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jul/31/middle-class-cocaine-users-are-hypocrites-says-met-chief-cressida-dick
You middle class cocaine users , who preach on here , are hypocrites .
About time someone from the Police and politicians called them out.
Easy for you to sit there making judgement knowing f Al! ,,about it.
Unless you think that the jury were wrong in accusing all the officers involved of perjury?0 -
I'm not disagreeing with you. It'll be interesting to see if it actually makes it into the manifesto.ydoethur said:
My thinking was that anything below ten grand wouldn't be a meaningful basic income.Benpointer said:
The article says "Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto" So Pilot only.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.
£10k pp sounds far too high to me, surely it would be closer to the basic state pension? The Finnish trial was closer to £6k pp.
Don't forget it would be taxable, so quite a few would be paying 20% or 40% straight back. Not sure about NI.
Still gonna cost a lot though!
Also, of course, Corbyn has always promised high.
Even if I cut the figure to 6k, however, that's still a 30% rise in expenditure. It would sweep every single other thing out of the 2017 Labour manifesto to pay for it.0 -
Nah, they've come up with a solution to traditional economic theories. If you look through Twitter the true Momentum believers have nailed the old 'fiat currency' conundrum and discovered a way to print and spend hundreds of billions of pounds without ever having to pay it back or worry themselves about trivial bollocks like inflation. Go look at the threads on it. They really believe it works and that they've mastered economics. Basically free money for everyone (apart from Tories) forever.ydoethur said:
Which is dangerous for Labour. The whole key to their appeal last year was (admittedly uncosted) vast bungs to middle and upper-middle income brackets which were promised without tax rises. Knock that prop away and they would be back down to 25%.MarqueeMark said:
The difference is the tax rises on those above Basic Income..... They will be massive.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
Have they renamed themselves the Gogalfrinchams yet?Fenster said:
Nah, they've come up with a solution to traditional economic theories. If you look through Twitter the true Momentum believers have nailed the old 'fiat currency' conundrum and discovered a way to print and spend hundreds of billions of pounds without ever having to pay it back or worry themselves about trivial bollocks like inflation. Go look at the threads on it. They really believe it works and that they've mastered economics. Basically free money for everyone (apart from Tories) forever.ydoethur said:
Which is dangerous for Labour. The whole key to their appeal last year was (admittedly uncosted) vast bungs to middle and upper-middle income brackets which were promised without tax rises. Knock that prop away and they would be back down to 25%.MarqueeMark said:
The difference is the tax rises on those above Basic Income..... They will be massive.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
No way is it gonna be more than, say, ESA, which is about £5K a year (less if you don't make the support group). Carers Allowance is £3.5k.Benpointer said:
The article says "Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto" So Pilot only.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.
£10k pp sounds far too high to me, surely it would be closer to the basic state pension? The Finnish trial was closer to £6k pp.
Don't forget it would be taxable, so quite a few would be paying 20% or 40% straight back. Not sure about NI.
Still gonna cost a lot though!
The other issue is the DWP will still be dealing with the clusterfuck that is known as UC. So this pilot will definitely need to be a pilot for whole of first term of Corbyn.
As I say, I'm not totally against the idea in general, but all in all, this McD announcement today smacks of 'look squirrel', after a dire day for Labour.0 -
Perhaps the point is to ensure that nobody receives more than a maximum ceiling income.MarqueeMark said:
The difference is the tax rises on those above Basic Income..... They will be massive.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.0 -
If it does, the rest has to go. Otherwise, they hand not so much ammunition as an entire arsenal to even a government as abject as this.Benpointer said:
I'm not disagreeing with you. It'll be interesting to see if it actually makes it into the manifesto.ydoethur said:
My thinking was that anything below ten grand wouldn't be a meaningful basic income.Benpointer said:
The article says "Labour set to include pilot of radical basic income policy in next manifesto" So Pilot only.ydoethur said:
Let's assume £10,000 for everybody over 16 who is a British resident for at least five years. That's around 43 million people.rottenborough said:
Hmm. Basic Income is eye-wateringly, unbelievably costly. Just billions and billions. Not that I am totally against the idea, but McD better be ready with more than a few figures on the back of a fag packet for this one.kle4 said:
Long running story about political infighting and racism vs huge (presumably) populist proposal for the poor. Tough choice.rottenborough said:Well, that's one way of moving the discussion on from Willsman.
Of course that is one of the hallmarks of the antisemitism stories - it always gets bumped off the headlines, we don't hear about it for months, then it pops up again and so on and so forth. I don't think that is a deliberate strategy, just that it is one of those stories which is cyclical.
Let's also assume however that one-fifth are pensioners so the number goes down to about 35 million.
Three million are on benefits totalling less than this, true, but still a significant sum. Make that the equivalent of 33.5 million to pay.
That's £335 billion - three times the budget of the NHS and not far short of the total NHS, welfare and care budget.
The total budget for 2017-18 is £802 billion.
So that's a 50% increase in expenditure before we've paid for anything else at all (tuition fees, school meals, nationalising water, free unicorns...)
Even on the back of a fag packet I don't see how this adds up. It can't be universal on those numbers.
£10k pp sounds far too high to me, surely it would be closer to the basic state pension? The Finnish trial was closer to £6k pp.
Don't forget it would be taxable, so quite a few would be paying 20% or 40% straight back. Not sure about NI.
Still gonna cost a lot though!
Also, of course, Corbyn has always promised high.
Even if I cut the figure to 6k, however, that's still a 30% rise in expenditure. It would sweep every single other thing out of the 2017 Labour manifesto to pay for it.
But that may not stop Corbyn on past form. Remember his 'deal with' student debt pledge?0
This discussion has been closed.