Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On fox-hunting a reminder from the SNP of the tight parliam
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On fox-hunting a reminder from the SNP of the tight parliamentary situation
“..The result may still work politically for both parties in one sense: in Scotland of course the headline ‘SNP stops Tories relaxing hunting ban’ works beautifully for Nicola Sturgeon’s party. But in England a headline saying ‘SNP stops Tories relaxing hunting ban’ will also help the party if it wishes to stir up more emotion in favour of English votes for English laws.
0
Comments
Oh
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2006/feb/scots-mps-should-abstain-england-only-votes
He came across as incredibly hot-headed during that intv - and it was without any provocation.
Either it's his total lack of Big Time media experience - or a glimpse of his persona that he carefully hides in corduroy and Lenin hat.
1. Private Royal Mail
2. Remove support for the poorest at University
3. Gut the BBC
4. Cut Corporation Tax
5. Remove tax credits to push children into poverty
Labour need to learn from the Conservatives and let their manifesto have no reflection to their actual beliefs.
Of course, none of this should be be any surprised when you consider the type of highly privileged sociopaths that would join the Conservative Party in the 80s and 90s. They fundamentally believe they are superior to the poor, in the same mindset that led to slavery.
The Tory/"libertarian" dream is for children to grow up in poverty, inevitably neglected by parents who have to force two jobs to make ends meet, have no state whatsoever support after 18, if they have the good fortune to go to university then force them into a lifetime of debt, then a lifetime of unskilled-or-semi-skilled servitude to the super-rich who control giant corporations in near poverty.
Then claim that's "freedom" and "liberty" and those people refused to "do the right thing".
Edit: for 5, cutting tax credits was in the manifesto. Not the pledge to push children into poverty! Thankfully, the pledge to continue eating babies remained).
The more I think about this - it just feels like a sprat to catch a mackerel.
Pick an emotive issue that has absolutely NOTHING to do with Scotland > SNP jumps in with both feet > EVEL as originally suggested shown to be inadequate > stronger proposals brought forward to enshrine EVEL.
That the proposals are simply to align E&W with Scottish hunting rules now, makes it a perfect test case.
If the hunting changes aren't passed - well that's no big deal for anyone since the hunts carry on as before. Where can this gem be found?
Oh
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2006/feb/scots-mps-should-abstain-england-only-votes
Do you think the SNP care if EVEL is passed? They'd love it. Every week they would point to another vote in which Scotland has second-class MPs.
Oh, wait, never mind...
Oh
http://www.snp.org/media-centre/news/2006/feb/scots-mps-should-abstain-england-only-votes
It's a long time ago.
Around the same time the Conservatives still thought Section 28 was right.
Oh...
What is interesting is under Grayling's plans nothing would be different. This is a vote on a United Kingdom Statutory Instrument, and every member of the House of Commons would have a vote. Therefore, Scottish MPs would still retain what is likely a decisive say on what is an English-only matter.
Another absurd feature of Grayling's plans is that there would be a different result if this were a Statutory Instrument subject to the negative resolution procedure, rather than the affirmative resolution procedure. English MPs could successfully block a motion to annul a Statutory Instrument on an English-only matter, but they will not be able to force through a motion to approve a statutory instrument on such a matter. Everything Grayling touches turns to dust...
Lastly, it should be stressed that the proposal itself, which in no way affects the criminal prohibition of tearing apart foxes with hounds as is each Englishman's birthright, is entirely modest, and in breach of the Conservatives' manifesto promise.
Perhaps it was too subtle for me.
So the problem is that they are less ashamed of their U-turns than the Conservatives.
Odd problem.
Everyone's a winner
Now we can have a robust discussion about the illegitimacy of Scottish MPs attempting to subvert E&W laws with a concrete example in this Parly.
That's what was needed to give the EVEL argument real teeth.
This isn't actually really true. Turning grants into extra loans in most cases won't actually result in a student paying a penny more. Rough estimates suggest in order for them to get to the stage of actually repaying that extra loan (rather than grant) they would have to come out of uni and start on about £35k a year and then get an above inflation pay rise for the next 30 years i.e they are likely to be a city worker, lawyer, doctor, successful business person.
Student loans ARE NOT REALLY LOANS...they are a capped graduate contribution and the amount you pay over your lifetime depends upon how successful you have been in life. It is basically a 9% tax on your earnings above the threshold of £21k, with a lifetime cap on total contribution.
Do you object to a person from a poor household, go to uni, and become a city lawyer on £100k's a year having to pay a bit of extra tax over their lifetime? Because basically this is all the government has done with all their changes, they have turned going to uni from taxing those currently in the workforce / parents to pay for it, into taxing those who go to uni based upon how successful they are after graduation.
On topic, the SNP were never going to sit things out as much as they did before when they have so many MPs now. That would be silly of them. This seems an odd choice though.
The SNP approach is in tune with English sentiments on fox hunting.
They can retaliate with EVEL, which suits the SNP fine. They can say Scottish votes now don't matter in general elections anyway, so you'll never let the Tories in, and you should just adopt full independence already.
Meanwhile the SNP merely vote in line with their beliefs on the substantive matter rather than abstaining out of political expediency, which is something that didn't happen enough, I thought we were meant to believe.
Furthermore, foxhunting CANNOT be the casus belli of EVEL. It is simply too divisive in England.
It's the stuff of Twitterati outrage.
Around the same time the Conservatives still thought Section 28 was right.
Section 28 obviously didn't go far enough. They should have reinstated the Buggery Act 1533.
But they don't count, because they're bad people who live on benefits and didn't "do the right thing".
And the Conservatives will raise VAT later in the parliament as a way of shifting the tax burden towards the worst off. Wealthy people don't consume as much of their income and income taxes prevent the wealthiest's ability to generate unearned income and therefore become richer. Because Conservatives fundamentally believe that consumption is bad and unearned income is good.
And, as a kicker, high minimum wages have the benefit of crushing small businesses and innovation and entrenching big corporations. Something that the old tax credit system used to acknowledge.
"The NHS faces a desperate fight for survival."
Really....I mean really...does anybody honestly think the NHS wont be about in 2020?
And a Cromwellian ban on the gay old time of Christmastide.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-mps-will-vote-on-english-issues
But they don't count, because they're bad people who live on benefits and didn't "do the right thing".
And the Conservatives will raise VAT later in the parliament as a way of shifting the tax burden towards the worst off. Wealthy people don't consume as much of their income and income taxes prevent the wealthiest's ability to generate unearned income and therefore become richer. Because Conservatives fundamentally believe that consumption is bad and unearned income is good.
And, as a kicker, high minimum wages have the benefit of crushing small businesses and innovation and entrenching big corporations. Something that the old tax credit system used to acknowledge.
Exactly right. We hate small businesses because the people that own them are not sufficiently rich enough. Innovation also threatens existing wealth owners, so we must put an end to that too.
#Lagershed
The cherry on top! Nicola Sturgeon
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-mps-will-vote-on-english-issues
They get to say they put forward a relaxation of the ban to their hunt supporters, while not having to go through months of debate about it that repel their urban supporters.
And it makes EVEL easier.
Hurrah for the SNP-Conservative mutual assistance pact.
But they don't count, because they're bad people who live on benefits and didn't "do the right thing".
And the Conservatives will raise VAT later in the parliament as a way of shifting the tax burden towards the worst off. Wealthy people don't consume as much of their income and income taxes prevent the wealthiest's ability to generate unearned income and therefore become richer. Because Conservatives fundamentally believe that consumption is bad and unearned income is good.
And, as a kicker, high minimum wages have the benefit of crushing small businesses and innovation and entrenching big corporations. Something that the old tax credit system used to acknowledge.
I dont believe that the old tax credit system had a variable for small businesses over large one. And the tories havent changed child poverty, and by the Child poverty Act its now down to the lowest levels since 1980 (which was a measurement taken from 1978/79).
Unlike most people, I actually read manifestos!
Edit: And I guess it makes sense that the right doesn't see the logical consequence of "cutting tax credits" as "pushing children into poverty", making it easy for them to rationalise the policy.
But they don't count, because they're bad people who live on benefits and didn't "do the right thing".
And the Conservatives will raise VAT later in the parliament as a way of shifting the tax burden towards the worst off. Wealthy people don't consume as much of their income and income taxes prevent the wealthiest's ability to generate unearned income and therefore become richer. Because Conservatives fundamentally believe that consumption is bad and unearned income is good.
And, as a kicker, high minimum wages have the benefit of crushing small businesses and innovation and entrenching big corporations. Something that the old tax credit system used to acknowledge.
£9 an hour equates to about £17,000 a year, quite a jump for the lowest earners coupled with the raising of the tax threshold. Child poverty should be absolute, not relative. An apprentice levy was levied on larger firms so it was not a Budget loaded in favour of big corporates either
Your VAT comments are pure speculation
CCHQ aren't missing a beat here. I'm rather impressed and will be signing up again. The Staggers piece about Labour's ground game was worth a look - though it's packed with excuses such as Evil Tories Had Money We Didn't blah blah http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/07/does-canvassing-matter
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/08/nicola-sturgeon-snp-mps-will-vote-on-english-issues
Sturgeon's opinion doesn't count, she's just a provincial politician. The SNP decision-makers are now in Westminster.
She is apparently leader of the SNP, which may count for something?
Nominally.
"Deny Scots Democracy So We Can Kill Cute Furry Animals"
I need to work on the slogan as I'm sleep deprived due to sick baby but that's the base of it and why it would be a bad idea.
She even quotes Darwin... http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4496787.ece
You identify support, you see where you have growth, where you are losing. You pick up what is happening on the ground, you get to sell your candidate.
But it is a fruitless exercise if what you are selling is tainted goods. A local labour PPC went for the 'local girl' thing, and did a lot of canvassing, it didnt help her to win (the swing in England to labour would have been enough to win, she ended up tripling the cons majority though) because she was a poor candidate. A plucky hard worker, but not a prospective MP.
https://twitter.com/plutotoday/status/620696205543108608/photo/1
" Political campaigning should never be about segmenting voters into patronising categories"
I almost died laughing.
I think this is once more the time for the French President to hear some good old British expletives and middle fingers along with a loud NO.
Even I'm having my doubts, and can see a lot of my left wing turning into committed outers.
I've gone from being 90% certain to voting for IN to maybe 60% certain.
I think you missed out inheritance tax .. You can have a nice bawl about how its all so unfair. Perhaps your party ought to have thought a bit more before choosing suck an obviously weird loser as their leader... not long before they choose another one from the list of 4 new candidate losers.