-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
CyclopsRock
Member
That's just because Major was in the audience.
WayneMorse
Banned
Why can't we just fulfill Boris' dream and just literally burn all poor people?
CyclopsRock
Member
You wanna be careful what you say about our future Prime Minister of this great country, Wayne.
PJV3
Member
You are one sick puppy, I try not to think about that.
WayneMorse
Banned
Where did I say anything about Theresa May?
CyclopsRock
Member
I dunno if I´d call their grip "iron" - they were forced to close the most popular Sunday newspaper, they aren´t the most widely read, and the party that they (among many others) championed at the 2010 election was forced to cohabit number 10 with the yellows. They are powerful, no doubt, but there are a number of other powerful groups in the UK media.
Jezbollah
Member
I'm not surprised Clegg wants to debate. His greatest moment was the bump in exposure he got after the first of the debates last election. He was soon put down in obscurity.
The fact he wants to do that again, trying to put someone else back into obscurity is quite predictable.
The fact he wants to do that again, trying to put someone else back into obscurity is quite predictable.
PJV3
Member
A lot of that was Gordon saying I agree with Nick every 5 minutes. Clegg is a laughing stock now, the debate would be a car crash of insults and bluster.
I'd love to watch, Farage is poor at facts and figures especially about Immigration, it should be a doddle for Clegg, but Farage could fire back plenty at the LibDem's about promises broken etc.
It could be very entertaining in a bad way, I'm not sure if either of them would gain much.
CyclopsRock
Member
I find that the radio is a bad place for debates, though. It´s ok to hear from one side, then the other, but not two people having a discussion with each other at once, I think. It´s basically impossible to chair a discussion like that! Still, it´s great for LBC.
Re: the EU clean air thing, I don´t really know what London is meant to do about it. It´s basically as horrible as it can be to drive in London now, there´s a charge to do it, it takes ages, half the roads are one way, it´s busy and the density means it´s full of lorries delivering stuff. I genuinely don´t think many people drive into or through London when public transport is a viable alternative, so what can they do?
Re: the EU clean air thing, I don´t really know what London is meant to do about it. It´s basically as horrible as it can be to drive in London now, there´s a charge to do it, it takes ages, half the roads are one way, it´s busy and the density means it´s full of lorries delivering stuff. I genuinely don´t think many people drive into or through London when public transport is a viable alternative, so what can they do?
Nicktendo86
Member
100% agree, you don't drive though London now unless you HAVE to. Couldn't help to sort the tube out a bit though as well, let's get cracking with driverless trains and running a more reliable service. We need new trains as well with half the seating capacity at most, more space to cram people on.
anonymous_abc
Member
If it were impoissible I doubt anyone let alone the UK would have signed up to it. It does however seem as though britains efforts have fallen significantly short their means and of others.
Anyway in such a matter imho it is far better to aim high and miss narrowly, overall still improving the air quality noticably than to aim for jack and accepting a decline...
CyclopsRock
Member
Perhaps, but I´m not sure it´s fair to be fined for something that, really, we can´t do much about. I think any more restriction would necessarily require stopping some journeys happening. As I said, I think the only ones happening now are the essential ones anyway, so stopping essential journeys is going to do harm. At that point, it effectively becomes a tax on busy, large cities.
anonymous_abc
Member
Let's not forget this isn't just about London, what did they say in the article 20 of 26 regions in the UK are breaking the limits.
Anyway that is part of the point it is to incentivize certain measures and stop certain travel from happening.
Im many towns that don't have propper roads going arround them trucks, lorries et al go through, because 'it's the shortest route' that is supposed to stop by A making it expencive to drive through the city because of costly certifcates and B build better infrastructure arround the city. Let alone trying to get more transport of goods onto the railway system which would be highly desirable.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, and those are all things we should be encouraging, no doubt. And I know it´s not about London only, but my point was rather that London is already doing a lot of things to make it incredibly unattractive to drivers (which has it´s own repercussions, obviously - as much as I like clean air, it´s not the only thing I care about) and yet it´s still going to take the longest to reach the quota in the country (and I imagine much of that is based on the expectation that, in 10 years, the average car engine will be that much cleaner and there will be that many less old cars on the road). To me this suggests that it´s a problem that´s primarily based on having loads of people in one place. If you take out weird little places that aren´t really countries, England has the highest population density in the EU. It´s a good target, but getting fined for failing to meet it seems a bit mean.
anonymous_abc
Member
'pon my word sir, if there were no fines nothing would happen. There would always be good reasons to not do something that is good for the environment and the health of the population.
Jezbollah
Member
WayneMorse
Banned
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ed-miliband-claims-plans-reform-3171785
Ah, so Miliband's going the Kinnock route, but how harder right can you push Labour? Everything Miliband's done shows me he's going to be further right than Blair as PM.
Maybe since the unions aren't attached to Labour anymore they can finally break off and form a true left wing party.
Ah, so Miliband's going the Kinnock route, but how harder right can you push Labour? Everything Miliband's done shows me he's going to be further right than Blair as PM.
Maybe since the unions aren't attached to Labour anymore they can finally break off and form a true left wing party.
CyclopsRock
Member
bwhbwhbwhatttt?
He's said he'll fix energy prices, he'll force people to develop their property, he wants a "reckoning" with the banks and he wants to raise income tax to a higher rate than Blair ever did.
He's also pledged to continue cuts in line with the Tories, but this doesn't negate the other stuff. It's really not "everything he's done", and even then, Blair was "a child of the long Summer", where as for Ed, Winter is Coming and the walkers are knocking at the door. As it were.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
As I've said before he'll promise to keep in line with cuts in the same way that Gordon Brown did pre-1997. Indeed if you want that level of cuts to happen, I'd wager you'd be better off voting for Labour.
CyclopsRock
Member
Was their pledge re: cutting based on today's Tory spending? Because I reckon that, if the tories get back into government next parliament, the cuts will be far more significant if Georgey really wants to get the deficit to 0. Even with tax receipts going up, actual government spending isn't going down that much - much slower than planned in 2010, which is why the deficit being reduced to 0 has been put back a whole 5 years.
Edit: My point being that I don't think Labour will match that, so there's still some fiscal clear water between them, even if your choice if between Cuts and More Cuts.
PJV3
Member
Ah poor old Clause 4, not much point to the party existing when that went. It makes me sad to see it mentioned.
I had meagre hope he would try and push the party leftwards a tad, but he's been a complete let down. He wants a membership exactly like the other two parties, so the meaningless policies match the meaningless party.
CyclopsRock
Member
I'd love for Labour to go back to being a working class party. I mean, the obvious trouble is that the working class has dried up to about 8 people now, but the Lib Dems basically already had the "metropolitan middle class liberals" area cornered, and then Blair came along, leaving a) no one representing working class people and b) no discourse about issues affecting the working class, which I think has some responsibility for the rise of UKIP and general anti-immigration stances.
The working class is definitely still there but a lot of them subscribe to the bootstraps ideology. It is a shame that there is no longer a genuine working class party. I remember how disgusted I was when Jess Asato (labour councillor) was a neighbour of mine and she had a barbecue. Lots of political types there and they mentioned the local working class boozer (Boston arms) and made some disparaging comments about not wanting to canvass anywhere near there. I said that they should be courting those voters but she said they'll vote for us anyway, we need to woo the middle. Cunt.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think you can blame them for the bootstraps ideals - these are the sort of people who, traditionally, would have been your plumbers or your masons, both of which are professions which now can make a fair bit of money, rather than simply being replaceable labour on a site (which also reduced the need for unions, since their individual bargaining power is so much more significant than before), and those guys at your local boozer aren't going to be the sort to be turned on by the idea of a few extra million being sent of SureStart locations and classes to help them with their CVs. Their party has abandoned them, and they see their fellow working class making bank doing traditional trades, they see their kids going to university for the first time in their family, and a lot of their taxes disappear on "lefty" issues that they don't actual care for (there's a pretty clear divide between working class left and metro liberal left) - all whilst immigration continues to make their chances of getting a job/a better job harder, with their party saying they're xenophobic if they don't like it and that the benefits that immigrants bring outweighs the negatives (a view to which I personally subscribe to, but that doesn't help the people who are negative affected, ie the working class poor who see more competition and their wages dampened). So it's hardly surprising they look at the bunch of equally well-heeled chancers on the Labour front bench, ask "what have you done for me lately?" and pick the bootstraps approach.
(I appreciate I'm not necessarily putting forward a view you disagree with here, just having a conversation).
Plumbers, sparks etc have actually seen their wages decrease over the past ten years or so, despite the occasional media story of £100k+ per year tradesmen.
Aside from that I have no idea what the solution is to the thinking out loud you have here. How do you appeal to the liberal types and the more old school working class types?
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
You have a coalition, that's what.
More to the point is, how do you appeal to the liberal types and both of the old-school working-class types and the squillions of small business owners and the disadvantaged and the big-business desk-fodder and the City and the bigass companies and the farmers and the ... well, you get the idea.
There's not anybody telling a big story here. Worries me a bit.
What somebody should be saying is we go for equal treatment for all, and propose some big obvious steps towards achieving it. Like for example:
- equal treatment under the criminal law would mean either no free passes on drug use for the upper/middle classes/politicians/bbc etc or free passes for everybody. It would also mean that nobody should be disadvantaged in their own defence, which means (because legal aid is apparently too expensive) radically simplifying the law and procedure for everybody. Besides, taxing drugs would be a nice big source of revenue.
- equal treatment under company tax law should mean that bigass national or global companies pay at least the average corporation tax as a proportion of their revenue that small companies in their sector do - because there's economies of scale right, and if they aren't making that much profit (or claim not to be) then they damn well ought to be either making it or divesting the business.
- equal, or at least sensible, treatment under benefits-in-kind tax would massively raise the current P11D threshold from the about £8k (which HMRC laughably refers to as "high earners") to something like £150k, and at the same time take such benefits as setoff against the minimum wage, in that way employers might be encouraged to provide accommodation and suchlike (yeah, there are downsides to this, but there are also upsides).
-
There is so much to be done better, so much that could be done better and cheaper, so much that needs more money if only some were freed up, so much that should be done locally rather than being overruled by some remote central civil service thing.
And all I bloody hear about is spending plans. And "the money has got to come from somewhere". No it doesn't have to. Not if it doesn't have to be spent at all.
Sorry for the rant guys, but I am getting a bit pissed off with this marginally-polarised politics where the parties appear to want to stand toe-to-toe and nose-to-nose over a narrow line labelled "centre ground" and all of them are so far up their westminster-facing political arses that they don't realise the centre ground is not narrow, it is broad; it is not singular, it is diverse; it is all the people who don't vote at all and probably most of those who do vote in safe seats of any flavour. It's something like 70% of the population probably. The 70% who want principles instead of soundbites, and passion rather than PR, and at least an attempt at inclusion rather than continually replaying the late 19th/early 20th centuries.
If Cameron Mackintosh had been a politician he would be producing nothing but Gilbert & Sullivan.
Gaaaagh!
CyclopsRock
Member
Reduced maybe, but I think there are still a lot that do very well; In no small part, this is due to a lot of them working for themselves and accepting most payments in cash! My dad fixes kitchen appliances for a living, and... well, his accounts are pretty flexible (not entirely without reason - he can claim a huge amount back with regards to household and vehicular costs etc). Fixing kitchen appliances doesn't get anything like the money that proper plumbers, sparks etc get, which I guess makes it easier, but generally speaking they're the last bastions of the nod and wink economics.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
So here's something that will definitely shake up the independence debate in Scotland. Standard Life (Britain's largest independent pension fund) has said it will move operations and employees into England if Scotland becomes independent.
The reasons listed are pretty numerous so I'll list the most important ones:
1. Need to be in a currency union with rUK and have aligned tax/spending plans to rUK.
2. Don't want to be treated as a foreign company by the London Stock Exchange.
3. Don't trust any new regulatory body in a newly independent Scotland.
4. 90% of their business is carried out in rUK, don't want those people to have their pensions held in a foreign country as it can cause complications.
5. Majority of their shareholders are based outside of Scotland.
For those reasons and many more as outlined by the fiscal report they say moving operations to rUK is what will have to happen should Scotland not enter a formal currency union with rUK.
My back of the fag packet calculation says that means around 4,500 job losses in Edinburgh and moving £220bn worth of capital into rUK from Scotland.
This is just the beginning of the financial sector exodus from Scotland if they become an independent nation. Lloyds and RBS are both registered in Edinburgh for tax and regulation which makes no difference right now, but I can guarantee that both will move down to London post-independence. Scotland would not be able to backstop either of these banks. Some people may see this as a desirable outcome, but other than London, Scotland has the highest proportion of it's GDP derived from the financial sector in all of Europe. Losing that would be devastating to the economic outlook in Scotland as jobs, capital and taxes would drain away into England.
If Salmond and the SNP dismiss this as bullying or whatever they have used so far then it isn't fair on the Scottish people. They should go into this vote knowing all of the facts and dismissing major businesses does Scots a disservice.
I am 100% certain that a currency union is not on the table as well. There is literally nothing in it for rUK to be in a currency union with Scotland. Salmond may want to leave behind Scotland's debt obligations, but really, that's a short term issue, the overall outlook of the rUK doesn't change with a slightly higher debt/GDP ratio but Scotland becomes a pariah state in the eyes of the money markets which means financing suddenly becomes very costly. Entering a currency union mean rUK will have to do anything and everything necessary to keep a separate nation tied to the pound or risk instability. I do not believe that the will exists in Westminster for that action. Neither Labour nor Conservatives would be willing to risk rUK taxpayer money to bail out Scotland should the need arise, and neither would an independent Scotland be willing to finance their share of any rUK bail out. As I said, a currency union just isn't on the table and Salmond dismissing this does a disservice to the Scottish people. He is saying anything necessary to get a yes vote, but I fear that people will feel very short-changed if they do go in under the current campaign of Salmond and there is no going back once the decision is made.
The reasons listed are pretty numerous so I'll list the most important ones:
1. Need to be in a currency union with rUK and have aligned tax/spending plans to rUK.
2. Don't want to be treated as a foreign company by the London Stock Exchange.
3. Don't trust any new regulatory body in a newly independent Scotland.
4. 90% of their business is carried out in rUK, don't want those people to have their pensions held in a foreign country as it can cause complications.
5. Majority of their shareholders are based outside of Scotland.
For those reasons and many more as outlined by the fiscal report they say moving operations to rUK is what will have to happen should Scotland not enter a formal currency union with rUK.
My back of the fag packet calculation says that means around 4,500 job losses in Edinburgh and moving £220bn worth of capital into rUK from Scotland.
This is just the beginning of the financial sector exodus from Scotland if they become an independent nation. Lloyds and RBS are both registered in Edinburgh for tax and regulation which makes no difference right now, but I can guarantee that both will move down to London post-independence. Scotland would not be able to backstop either of these banks. Some people may see this as a desirable outcome, but other than London, Scotland has the highest proportion of it's GDP derived from the financial sector in all of Europe. Losing that would be devastating to the economic outlook in Scotland as jobs, capital and taxes would drain away into England.
If Salmond and the SNP dismiss this as bullying or whatever they have used so far then it isn't fair on the Scottish people. They should go into this vote knowing all of the facts and dismissing major businesses does Scots a disservice.
I am 100% certain that a currency union is not on the table as well. There is literally nothing in it for rUK to be in a currency union with Scotland. Salmond may want to leave behind Scotland's debt obligations, but really, that's a short term issue, the overall outlook of the rUK doesn't change with a slightly higher debt/GDP ratio but Scotland becomes a pariah state in the eyes of the money markets which means financing suddenly becomes very costly. Entering a currency union mean rUK will have to do anything and everything necessary to keep a separate nation tied to the pound or risk instability. I do not believe that the will exists in Westminster for that action. Neither Labour nor Conservatives would be willing to risk rUK taxpayer money to bail out Scotland should the need arise, and neither would an independent Scotland be willing to finance their share of any rUK bail out. As I said, a currency union just isn't on the table and Salmond dismissing this does a disservice to the Scottish people. He is saying anything necessary to get a yes vote, but I fear that people will feel very short-changed if they do go in under the current campaign of Salmond and there is no going back once the decision is made.
Is that what they're threatening though? The statement on their website seems quite precautionary compared to what the BBC et al. were reporting earlier.
--
edit
--
Also another point of view attributed to a previously senior employee (Michelle Thomson) :
Curious if you have any insights, although I'm from Scotland I don't have a vote and can only watch with interest.
--
edit
--
Also another point of view attributed to a previously senior employee (Michelle Thomson) :
Curious if you have any insights, although I'm from Scotland I don't have a vote and can only watch with interest.
zomgbbqftw
Banned
I don't think it's a threat as much as it's an advanced warning of what they are going to do. The investor report is more detailed on the why. The same reasons apply to every financial corporation in Scotland.
As for the other comment, this idea that Westminster needs to get around the negotiating table with Salmond is ridiculous. Westminster holds all of the cards. Salmond's only move is to leave rUK holding the debt obligations, which is less of a big deal than it sounds. The Treasury and BoE already backstop all of Britain's debt and that doesn't fundamentally change if Scotland leaves without taking what is due. The uncertainty exists only because Salmon's doesn't have a plan B other than to say they will continue to use the pound, but take it up unilaterally like so many countries do with the dollar. That is what's causing uncertainty. Westminster's position has been very clear and consistent in that regard, no currency union has been the position of all the main parties. Salmond's refusal to acknowledge that is causing uncertainty, especially in the financial services industry and in oil which are Scotland's two largest industries.
WayneMorse
Banned
Jezbollah
Member
Nicktendo86
Member
What's wrong with giving the people of Britain a vote? This is supposed to be a democratic nation and the EU has far evolved from the mandate it was originally given, would never happen though. Labour would backtrack so fast on this if they got in they would be moonwalking.
As for the Scots news, I read a pole recently which stated more people in England are in favour of Scottish independence than Scots are. Says it all really.
I prefer to get my news from Bulgarians.
anonymous_abc
Member
Major treaty change is a pipe dream it's not going to happen.
I just do not see further cherry picking being enabled by a majority vote, it would just undermine the basic idea and lead to implosion.
It's a matter of moving forward with reforms. giving the democraticaly elected EP the power it deserves getting rid of the comission and installing a proper parliametry government.
IMHO that is the only way for the EU to go. Everyone agrees it cannot go on as before and going back would be the slow death of the entire project.
dapperbandit
Banned
That's because over the centuries the English have learned that reverse psychology is very effective on the Scottish.
Telling them it's okay to leave will only make them want to stay.
I always remember reading lots of articles about the 'West Lothian' problem or whatever it was called, as well the inequal distribution of tax revenues per head according to each country. I'd imagine that kind of stuff is playing a role in a lot of Englander thoughts.
To be honest I myself have little idea of what effect Scottish independence would have on the rest of the UK, other than probably securing another 2 terms of conservative government.
CyclopsRock
Member
Scotland's votes have never affected the returned Government in the UK as a whole.
That graph shows two instances in which it has (64 and 74v1), but there are two other things to consider:
1 - The trend of Scotland being almost entirely anti-Tory is a fairly recent one. In fact, for some time, Scotland was almost as much of a Tory heartland as the South East is now. It is really a post-Thatcher development of Scotland not returning any Tory MPs. Demographics and voting habits have changed so much that looking at voting data from the 50's is of limited use.
2 - One doesn't have to stop a majority in order to change the nature of a government. Tony Blair's 1997 government could basically pass any legislation they wanted to, so great was their majority; They could afford a significant rebellion if they had to, and still pass their legislation. That wasn't the case in 2005, as we saw when Blair suffered his first defeat in the commons just after the 2005 election (in November, over the Terror laws).
I think it's an equal amount of us English recognising that the national character of England and Scotland are so different as to warrant separate states.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
In addition to what Cyclops said, Scottish MPs have operated in some very significant ministerial posts (including PM) in the last couple of decades. Make no mistake, Scotland does have power in Westminster. Maybe not as much as it should (if you agree with independence), but it isn't some ignored appendage.
CyclopsRock
Member
That's why I'm such a London Nationalist. Let the glorious city-State of London rule Europe from it's lush green belt of the South East of England, leaving the barbarians in the North and West to their incest and cheese rolling.
WayneMorse
Banned
The people don't know what's best for them.
CyclopsRock
Member
Luckily Wayne's here to be daddy!
dapperbandit
Banned
Why stop there?