Of Mice and Men reference that was probably in poor taste.
Wonder if they're missing their Cottage Chicken yet.
-
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
I know, I was being obtuse and alluding to Four Lions.
War Peaceman
You're a big guy.
That's hilarious. Love that film.
He actually did give speeches like this whilst in power. I remember a particularly good one about child poverty in the later years of his government. It is just speeches are not important at all when you cannot handle interpersonal relations.
JesseEwiak
Member
Probably because he actually wants to pay for government services, not cut or privatize all of them.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sure, but that Money is pretty useful to people. Having half your money taken by the government pretty significantly increases your chances of needing for its help.
JesseEwiak
Member
Except of course, the countries with the highest tax rates (the Nordic trio of doom) have some of the lowest levels of poverty, while countries with relatively low tax rates in the OECD, especially my lovely home of America, have far higher rates of poverty.
There's of course a level where taxes are higher than they should be, but there's no evidence that any of the Anglo-Saxon countries are close to that point.
WayneMorse
Banned
LMAO it's not even a whole day after and Westminster already reneged on their promise for devo max in Scotland.
anonymous_abc
Member
Colour me shocked... shocked I say!
I would be very happy to pay more tax, both income and capital gains, knowing the roads are maintained, the schools are good, the health system is good, the environment is protected, etc...
CyclopsRock
Member
And do you think that's a causal relationship? That they have less poverty because they have high tax rates? I think we can both agree its significantly more complicated than that, especially when you consider the peculiar manner in which we measure poverty (for example poverty in the UK has gone down since the recession - because people losing their jobs lowers the median income!)
Anyway, onto other business, I posted this in the Scotland thread but it's a pretty interesting convo IMO. What do y'all think about my scheme?
Out of the Ashes Cameron has managed to enact a pretty amazing coup. His statement just now suggests he wants this issue done and dusted before the next election, including a proper solution to the West Lothian Question and has expanded the definition of "devolved issue" to include welfare, tax and spending, in addition to Health and education.
So.... I think he means to genuinely offer this to Scotland, because that's the only way he can genuinely offer it to England too. And when he does that, Ed could well win the next election and effectively end up being the foreign secretary. The Tories will secure the English "parliament" (whether it's a parliament or simply a mechanism for voting in Westminster) which controls all the important stuff anyway, and Ed is out in the cold wondering what happened.
So now it really all comes down to time frame. If it all takes longer than before May and occurs after the next election, and Ed wins, will Miliband offer the English people the same as he has offered the Scottish? Seems hard to imagine, politically, how he couldn't but at the same time he'd be signing his party's own death warrant for at least a while if he does.
Interesting...
Devo max was never promised.
Nicktendo86
Member
As I have said in the referendum thread, it's amazing that labour have already poured cold water on English votes for English laws and Miliband mentioned 'change' in his speech 12 times without mentioning England.
Cameron could well have played a blinder. Came strait out and said OK, Scotland should get more powers, but the English question must be answered. How can Labour seriously go to the English electorate saying vote for us, even though we don't want to solve the west lothian question?
Edit: As usual, Dan Hodges puts it better than I could.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...the-united-kingdom-should-actually-look-like/
Cameron could well have played a blinder. Came strait out and said OK, Scotland should get more powers, but the English question must be answered. How can Labour seriously go to the English electorate saying vote for us, even though we don't want to solve the west lothian question?
Edit: As usual, Dan Hodges puts it better than I could.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/d...the-united-kingdom-should-actually-look-like/
Jezbollah
Member
Ho hum. This is actually quite a ploy by the Tories.
If Ed/Labour is seen to be the one that essentially vetoes the prospect of devolved powers (because that's how I read the concept of English votes for English policies, Welsh for Welsh, Scottish for Scottish etc) then that will make their party pretty unpopular in all regions in next year's elections..
Maybe I'm not looking at this the right way. I'll blame that on the two hours sleep I had last nigh... this morning..
Nicktendo86
Member
Its exactly how I'm reading it Dan.
Conference season starting in 48 hours. Could be the most important conference in Labour's history.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
It's an easy ball for Labour to play, they just have to push for regional assemblies for England rather than a single English Parliament.
phisheep
NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
Like having another layer of politicians is bound to down well, eh?
And when people go to vote on those assemblies they'll be rejected. Outside of the London Anomaly, I don't think there's *any* appetite for carving up England as a polity.
We need strong parliaments for England, Scotland, Wales, N.I. and London, and a weaker parliament for the handful of "UK" issues that can't/won't be devolved.
Nicktendo86
Member
First thing you have every posted I agree with 100%.
You'd probably be surprised by how little difference there is between our positions. I've never been against the idea of a supranational body across these islands coordinating on those issues that our nations wish to coordinate on. I don't really care whether we keep calling that body the "United Kingdom".
What I want is an English parliament that is the body through which our sovereignty is exercised (and by extension, the same for Scotland, Wales, etc.). If we are to have a UK parliament, I just want it to be subservient to the national parliaments.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
If you want something to really boil your blood, listen to that thacker cunt being grilled over rotherham. In a sane world the bitch would be swinging from a tree right about now.
Labour's fucked, this whole farce stems from their attempt in 1997 at rigging the constitution for their advantage. Now they're having to juggle between scotland, english marginals and safe wales. All of which have different wants, needs and expectations.
Best of all millipede had to drag brown out to save his arse.
Labour's fucked, this whole farce stems from their attempt in 1997 at rigging the constitution for their advantage. Now they're having to juggle between scotland, english marginals and safe wales. All of which have different wants, needs and expectations.
Best of all millipede had to drag brown out to save his arse.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
Bloke had a lot of gumption that's for damn sure.
WayneMorse
Banned
So what's next for Darling's political career now?
In the wake of the Scottish referendum, and with further devolution on the cards, is it time to think about 'English' as an identity rather than about 'British'?
I can sincerely say as an English person I have no idea about what my national identity is. When I think about it I just reach for what everyone who doesn't like England thinks it is.
Is it even important or necessary to have some kind of national identity?
I can sincerely say as an English person I have no idea about what my national identity is. When I think about it I just reach for what everyone who doesn't like England thinks it is.
Is it even important or necessary to have some kind of national identity?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
At that rate you'll end up with a super complicated political system that would be the democratic equivalent of England's pre-10th century feudal arrangement (multiple kingdoms).
Is it really super complicated? Isn't it just basically a bog standard Federal system?
Napoleonthechimp
Member
I'm anticipating layers and layers of government, complete with lots of extra expense.
CharmingCharlie
Member
What Cameron appears to be proposing for England seems like the ULTIMATE nightmare scenario. His idea that only English MP's should be allowed to vote on English matters is literally a Tory dictatorship via the backdoor. It would in essence mean even if Labour got a majority in Parliament they could be a minority when it comes to voting on English matters. I wondered why he was so keen on the idea.
What Cameron is proposing in no way shape or form comes close to what was given to the Scottish. As usual the sycophants in Westminster are taking an idea and twisting it to meet their own agenda.
What Cameron is proposing in no way shape or form comes close to what was given to the Scottish. As usual the sycophants in Westminster are taking an idea and twisting it to meet their own agenda.
Nicktendo86
Member
As apposed to what Labour have been doing since devolution and using their Scottish MP's to pass their English only legislation? I would take the Tory proposal over that any day.
CyclopsRock
Member
Like RedShift said in the other thread, it's basically impossible for a one-party dominance to work in our system, and that'd still be the case after the proposals - the UK wide results would cease to matter nearly as much, and just the England-specific results will (if you're English; Scottish if you're Scottish etc). At any given time, you're always going to have one party to the left of centre and one to the right, even if that centre ground has moved a bit.
Napoleonthechimp
Member
England has a population 5 times larger than the rest of Britain combined. Having significant reforms would mean it'd completely overwhelm the rest of Britain which is why we won't get the same deals as Scotland.
It is also likely why people suggest breaking it up into "regions". That way you split up the power.
It is also likely why people suggest breaking it up into "regions". That way you split up the power.
Nicktendo86
Member
That's why labour are so terrified, if they lose England they lose relevance.
Isn't this just fearmongering? According to the Graun, Labour only had to use Scottish and Welsh MPs to push through England-only legislation twice in all the time that Blair was in power.
Basically if the reason we need to keep the status quo is that without it the left can no longer be guaranteed support no matter how useless they are as a political entity (see: all of Ed Milliband's leadership), then it's time for the left to start doing some soul-searching and see how they can actually start appealing to people.
The fact is that during the worst recession in a lifetime, caused by Tory policies and worsened by Tory policies, Labour completely ceded the argument to the Tories. If they can't even win an easy goal against one of the most radical and destructive Tory governments in recent history, what the fuck are they even doing?
Nicktendo86
Member
So the recession was the Tories fault even though they were out of power for 13 years, got it.
Most radical and destructive Tory governments in history? Its a coalition government, and the upturn has been remarkable. Highest growth in the g7 whilst the eurozone continues its run of stagnation with falling unemployment and low inflation is destructive? Give me a break.
The recession traces its roots to the neoliberal economic policies of the Thatcher government in the 80s. Policies continued by New Labour, yes, but only as caretakers of the Thatcherite project. So yes, in a very real sense the recession was caused by Tory policies.
The upturn has been remarkable, as many economists have pointed out, only because the Tories artificially extended the recession with their policies. And I said recent history, because obviously this government is not as radical as Thatcher's. But by recent history I mean in the last century or so. On those grounds this one surely ranks.
Nicktendo86
Member
Miliband's position on the West Lothian question is just untenable, Labour have had a bit of a shocker of a conference really, doesn't feel like the conference of the party about to take power at the next election does it.
Edit: this is uncanny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-voice-of-the-everyday-working-people.html
Edit: this is uncanny.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...and-voice-of-the-everyday-working-people.html
He really needs to be careful because he is falling into Cameron's trap of perceiving him and the Labour party as anti-English. This would make Labour hugely vulnerable to being outflanked by UKIP for the white, working class vote - which is already under threat - and make it impossible to take seats off the Conservatives in the South.
Probably shitting himself at the thought of losing what is (for now, at least) a decent amount of Scottish Labour MP's voting on his behalf, as they dance to the tune of whatever daddy Labour tells them to. Therefore, giving them less say on English only matters. The minimum wage increase is also laughable, £8 by 2020. Basing this on the soon to be minimum wage of £6.50 and you have a total increase of 25p per year. Which still fails to keep up with inflation. And 2020 being the year of the next general election (after 2015), how convenient.
CyclopsRock
Member
I wouldn't be surprised if Osborne announces an even larger increase tbh. It would entirely deflate Labour's major policy announcement and there's a decent case for raising it anyway, as zomg has made before.
Nicktendo86
Member
Ed Balls refusing to answer if the current situation is unfair. Labour are going to be battered over this.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/telegr...s-for-english-laws-those-non-answers-in-full/
Edit: Ed Balls speech seems to have landed like a lead balloon, so boring people have left early apparently. This is not the party conference of a party ready to sweep into power.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/telegr...s-for-english-laws-those-non-answers-in-full/
Edit: Ed Balls speech seems to have landed like a lead balloon, so boring people have left early apparently. This is not the party conference of a party ready to sweep into power.
.
A useful twitter responder responded with this article back in 2013:
Guardian 10p Tax band will be funded by Mansion tax
These are Labour's priorities if they are elected:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29301289
Nicktendo86
Member
Labour have a habit of spending their tax rises many times over, they have spent their tax on bankers bonuses about 11 times!
They have no credible economic policy whatsoever.
QuicheFontaine
Member
Not liking this layout on the BBC website - they inserted part of Robert Peston's blog right into the article.
I've not watched the speech, does he go into any detail about what that "Jobs guarantee" is?
Over 3000 new members for the Scottish Greens as well. Which is also pretty impressive, for a party of their size.
Yeah, forgot to mention that. More than doubled their previous membership which I believe was just over 2,000 last week. The SSP have added at least 1,000 as well IIRC.
SNP are apparently over 45,000 members now, between them and the Greens they're going try their damndest to chase Labour out of Scotland.
--
