Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Fundamental changes ahead.



A potential scenario - labour get a majority of 20 at next election with a Manifesto commitment to raise upper rate taxes to 50% - lefties dancing in the street. Scottish MPS (29ish Labour) with scotlands independent and separtae tax raising powers won't(and shouldn't)be allowed to vote on this - English MPs defeat the govt.

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Labour's calculation in support of the union is

> easy to understand.

> What was in it for the Tories? Apart from

> preventing Cameron's heartbreak, that is.



Because the despite the relentless propoganda on their nastyness etc the tories have principles and believe that the union is and has been a good thing - above political expediency...just possibly

If anything I hope this has given the cynics and the conspiracists an insight not only how democracy works, but that democracy *works*.


Scots vote nationalist party into power, westminster goes, fair cop guv, have your vote, scots vote to stay, showing that the nationalists were voted in on a broader agenda than the nationalist agenda (a lesson sinn fein could do with learning here).


I'm sick to death of hearing that the government is a front for corporate interests and evrythings a plot to keep rich people in power and control the masses.


Quick lesson, the governemtn is the one the people voted for, it serves the interests expressed by that vote.

Just because its not the govt you want doesn't mean its not the govt the country want.

If you tell me they were voted by a minorty because of voter apathy then the onus is on you to persuade the people who dont vote to vote in their interests, or stand for the interests you think they want and talk to them.


Democracy, it lurches, it's a bit lowest common denominator, it appeals to people's (not corporations) selfish interests, it works!!!

> > > Labour's calculation in support of the union

> is

> > > easy to understand.

> > > What was in it for the Tories? Apart from

> > > preventing Cameron's heartbreak, that is.

> >

> >

> > Because the despite the relentless propoganda

> on

> > their nastyness etc the tories have principles

> and

> > believe that the union is and has been a good

> > thing - above political expediency...just

> > possibly

>

> A major party acting out of principle and not

> political expediency or vested interest, you say.

>

> It's possible.



Ooh look another cynic. of course expediency is hand in glove with politics, vested interests less so, though its there.

A politicians real vested interests are in making their voters happy (that they probably dont care about other voters might speak volumes about this govt's actions).


I think this is one of the most principled governments we've had in my lifetime. I may not like those principles but by god they have driven policy!!!

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Because the despite the relentless propoganda on

> their nastyness etc the tories have principles and

> believe that the union is and has been a good

> thing - above political expediency...just

> possibly


Happily for the Cons political expedience and principle are the same on this. Chicken / Egg.. who's to say?


Anyhoo, this could come out well for the Cons. The Union is saved - and there's also perfectly decent reason to do away with those pesky Scottish Labour MPs when voting on English legislation. Bosh!

the first one wasnt a reply, it was a rant prompted by yet another stupid captioned picture on facebook, we cross posted.

Apologies if you felt i was condescending, I've alot of respect for your opinions.


Of course i am sometimes condescending but it's mostly just ranty ;)


eta - "the spiritual and ideological vacuum of the government that preceded them." i may have to nick that and claim it as my own!!

>"My experience under multiple governments in multiple countries has taught me that self-preservation is the chief concern

>of people in power, and that people who seek these kinds of roles are by and large moral vacuums."


To an extent I think that's exactly why and how democracy works, to be relected you have to balance ideology with pragmatism. It's a necessary and self-interested check on power.


Its part of the reason why its hard for democracies to do anything about global warming while it still remains 'controversial'. It doesn't help when your environment minister doesn't 'believe' in it I guess :(


>people who seek these kinds of roles are by and large moral vacuums


The growth of the political class is a REALLY bad thing, absolutely. But I'm sure there are tons of people with great intentions or who enter it for the right reasosn. Maybe you just have to be a bit of a ruthless cunt to get anywhere near real power.

Phew, what a relief.


It sounds somewhat nasal and priggish in my head when it's put like that. But, well, what a relief. Bloody hell.


It's difficult to express the anxiety I felt about this whole destructive episode:


"The markers of Britishness for me include empiricism, irony, the ad hoc approach, pluralism, and a critical awareness of its own rich and sometimes appalling history. It?s sceptical, too: it has seen a thing or two and knows nothing lasts. But perhaps what recommends it most is the frail senescence that makes it an undemanding kind of belonging, and unexpectedly fits it for the modern world. The untangling of the institutions ? military, administrative, academic, ambassadorial, commercial, cultural ? that have sustained this identity can?t but be painfully destructive. The past 300 years have not been about nothing."


Modern Britishness is so vaporous. So poorly defined. So subject to the energy and visceral emotion of nationalism. So wispy in the face of economic imperative. But so damned important.


Twenty years ago I heard El Pibe describe the value of things that lay just beyond your reach - things that could never be defined or seized upon without their very essence slipping between your fingers. It has remained deeply engrained within my psyche.


"...a frail senescence..."


What powerful words.


Everything became petty about this Scottish independence campaign, compared with that frailty.


Battered by this oh-so-unsubtle separatist bullshit, bludgeoned by the small mindedness of UKIP, I hope that the intangible and indefinable joy of our national identity isn't lost to the small minded idiots who dance on portacabins.

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Twenty years ago I heard El Pibe describe the

> value of things that lay just beyond your reach -

> things that could never be defined or seized upon

> without their very essence slipping between your

> fingers.


Sounds like an excerpt from the 'Gladiator' script. You sure you're not getting mixed-up?

Crikey Huguenot, have we been living in the same country? Have you been to Scotland? Is it actually correct to describe it as 'oh-so-unsubtle separatist bullshit' debated by 'small minded idiots'? Do you really think that's what the Referendum was about? Surely the act of writing your final sentence is demonstrating the very opposite characteristics to the silvery set of words you quoted.


As for 'indefinable joy' frankly, the last two weeks have been a deeply unedifying exposure of political UK. The establishment came out with full, unsubtle, massively over-scaled artillery, to protect the status quo, largely because Cameron seriously under-estimated Salmond (yes, a polarising figure but love him or hate him an absolutely astute politician). It was Cameron that took 'devomax' off the referendum Q list to call Salmond's bluff.


What the 45% vote means that there is an appetite for something different, and don't assume Scots are all separatists, or stupid. There will be an interesting discussion about English governance as well. As for 'a frail senescence' - maybe in terms of some of the institutions of state that senescence is advanced and new kinds of democratic control will arise - city, local community etc. So what do you think? What do you think can be devolved to Scotland, or be established for England?


Really, the point that allows us to exist as a community, with varying views is that we are respectful, enquiring, and interested. As to undefinable Britishness - be careful that you are not actually trying to turn it into your own version.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • This is why the NFU are so unhappy that Clarkson is involved as it distracts from the issues for real farmers. Your assumption that all land is purchased as a tax dodge is a wide sweeping dog whistle generalisation and, I suspect, a long way from the truth but something to government would love for people to think. Again, read this: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo          
    • Anyone got any feedback on Transgender Awareness Week over the last week? I don't. And neither has my wife. And neither have my sisters. And neither has my mum, nor my daughter   x
    • It's an estate that they have been gifted. They may choose to earn a living from it, or to sell all, or part of it. In many cases, the land will only have been purchased as a way to avoid tax (as is the case for people like Clarkson, Dyson and other individuals with significant land holdings) and has little to do with farming at all. The idea that if I give you land worth £3m + tomorrow Rocks, it's not an massive windfall, but simply a necessary tool that you need to earn a living is silly. It's no different from someone inheriting any other estate where they would usually be required to pay 40% tax and settle up immediately.  If you're opposed to any tax on those inheriting multi-million pound estates - I would be interested in who you would like to place a greater tax burden upon? Or do you simply think we should watch public services collapse even further.
    • Because it's only a windfall if they sell it - until that time it is an asset - and in this case a working asset but, as far a the government is concerned a taxable asset. The farm is the tool that they use to earn a living - a living that they will be taxed on in the same way a nurse is - it's just to do their job they are now expected to pay extra tax for the privilege - just because the farm was passed to them. Or are you advocating nurses pay tax on the tools they are provided to do their job too? 😉  Now, if they sell the farm then yes, they should pay inheritance tax in the same way people who are left items of value from relatives are because they have realised the value and taken the asset as cash.  Our farming industry is built upon family business - generations of farmers from the same families working the land and this is an ideological attack and, like so many of Labour's policies, is aimed at a few rich farmers/farm owners (insert pensioners on Fuel Duty), but creates collateral damage for a whole load of other farmers who aren't rich (insert 50,000 pensioners now struggling in relative poverty due to Winter Fuel) and will have to sell land to fund it because, well, they are farmers who don't earn much at all doing a very tough job - the average wage of someone in agriculture is, according to the BBC around £500 a week and the national average is £671. Do you see the point now and why so many farmers are upset about this? It's another tax the many to get to the few. Maybe farmers should wear Donkey jackets rather than Barbour's and the government may look on them a little more favourably.... Some good background from the BBC on why farmers are fighting so hard. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c62jdz61j3yo
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...