UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
I've been criticising the policies of UK governments since 1979, before Twitter had even been dreamt of
Actually I thought the Living wage idea was good. Employers are pretty well compensated for it by cut in corporation tax or cut in National Insurance.The employers who'll be hit worst are those who've been paying minimum wage AND have been taking people on for less hours than the NI threshold.
Will wrote: "The Chinese could, Marc. The Trillions and trillions of US Export Guarantee credits they are sitting on would fund Greece for ever, in return for access to the Med & the Black Sea.Watch the pani..."
Actually, the idea of the Chinese building a naval base in Greece and projecting power into the Med and Black Sea is pretty far-fetched. They are a naval power, but their sights are pretty firmly set on the China Sea and the Pacific.
like all budgets, it is difficult to decode because of its complexity. The chancellor has hundreds of levers to pull. In some cases he pulls a lever up and some people benefit. In other cases he pushes a lever down and some people suffer. And the ridiculous thing is that the opposition get next to no time to respond. The leader of the opposition only sees the budget speech when the Chancellor is talking. They have to reply instantly. That can't make for good government.As to the budget itself, it's not as austere as Osborne had said it would be. That has to be a good thing. We do need to get the deficit down but his previous plans were much too fast for my tastes this looks better.
there is some political sniping in there, adopting Labour proposals and going further. That could either be a bit if opprtunism during a labour leadership contest or a government sensibly varying its policies to adopt good ideas suggested by others. Delete according to your prejudices.
As usual, there sre some things in the budget I agree with and some I don't. but on the whole it seems to ge heading in the right direction. The devil is in the detail though. There are more cuts to come to departmental budgets. They will hurt, but not so much as allowing the deficit to get worse
Reading the budget details only confirms what I always knew: the Tories are nothing more than scum and vermin! They should be chased out of Parliament with a horse whip, not praised. This is pie-in-the-sky economics from Osborne.
I'm not commenting on the budget until I've found a chance to spend a day -or maybe two this year as some of the changes are very complex and technical - so much for simplifying the tax system eh?Will is right though. It's a very political budget: nicking some Labour policies makes the job of opposition that bit harder...
We have a millionaire (Osborne) who claimed 100,000 for a second home, lecturing people on living standards, and another millionaire (IDS) who also claimed for a second home, lecturing people about benefit cheats. Welcome to Conservative Britain. Don't get sick, don't become disabled, and don't lose your job...or you're f****d!
I don't think you will find a successful economy anywhere in the world where its leaders are poor, There is a sort of logic here. Successful people tend to earn more and then rise to positions of authority.There is no point in whining about one particular party or another. it applies to all political parties, the unions, heck even blue collar workers. Those who are good at their jobs tend to earn more than those who are incompetent.
we need more poets in government, but then they have better things to do with their time. The last author we had was Louise Mensch and she was a complete nightmare. Don't know if that's a reflection of her genre? :-)
The likes of Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and Osbourne aren't successful because they're good at their jobs, they're successful because of their fortunate upbringing.
the most talented people certainly don't go into politics. They go where the money is. Hence we can have rich privileged guys with private incomes in government, or those paid for by the Trades Unions.
Will wrote: "I don't think you will find a successful economy anywhere in the world where its leaders are poor, There is a sort of logic here. Successful people tend to earn more and then rise to positions of a..."It's the hypocrisy that annoys me. I have no problems with people making money, but a lot of these millionaire MPs had the nerve to claim expenses from the taxpayer, when their wealth, and their MP salary, was more than enough.
Money? Yes. Class? No way.
Michael Cargill wrote: "The likes of Boris Johnson, David Cameron, and Osbourne aren't successful because they're good at their jobs, they're successful because of their fortunate upbringing."What I wanted to say.
Marc wrote: "the most talented people certainly don't go into politics. They go where the money is. Hence we can have rich privileged guys with private incomes in government, or those paid for by the Trades Uni..."I think we need the Roman approach - decimation. When Roman soldiers failed, 1 in 10 were killed. When our government buggers things up, 1 in 10 MPs should get the sack.
they usually do. MPs face losing their jobs at every election - and at a greater rate than 1 in 10.Good schools tend to produce people who do well in life, whether it is politics, business, art or sport. Training generally equals success.
Is there anything wrong with that? Success is rewarded with higher pay. Higher pay means that you can afford to pay for your kids' education (as well as paying tax towards the state education that your kids don't get).
Work hard at school to get good qualifications. Then work hard in a job to earn promotion. Get paid more. Spend the money you have earned on a good education for your kids. Your kids then go on to be successful in their own right.
or should we reward mediocrity?
Will, are you seriously trying to suggest that the politicians we've just been talking about - Johnson, Cameron, Osbourne - are successful due to hard work, rather than because they were born into wealth?
Like all of this generation of MPs they were born into politics. The Shadow Business Secretary admitted that he had business experience because his wife ran her own business before it went bust.I attended a public meeting on behalf of the FSB that was attended by Edward Timpson and a representative of the Lib Dems before the 2010 election. The Labour candidate didn't bother to attend aswe were only businessmen, I presume.
I cornered Timpson after he spouted that he was going to support businesses by subsidising new employees. After I questioned him for some time on it, it became apparent that he hadn't got a clue and was spouting from a pamphlet.
It didn't stop him being elected, by the way. Glyns Dunwoody's old seat.
Will wrote: "they usually do. MPs face losing their jobs at every election - and at a greater rate than 1 in 10.Good schools tend to produce people who do well in life, whether it is politics, business, art o..."
I have no problems with successful people earning more. The problem in the UK though, is that the elite have pulled up the drawbridge behind them, and are content to keep everybody else out.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Will, are you seriously trying to suggest that the politicians we've just been talking about - Johnson, Cameron, Osbourne - are successful due to hard work, rather than because they were born into ..."We know for a fact that Cameron had help from the old school tie brigade, early in his career.
And Boris? He's just an idiot.
he's not an idiot, he's very sharp. His bufoon act is what makes him very dangerous, because underneath he's extremely calcuating.London is a Labour town, yet Boris has conjured up a persona that's seen him elected mayor twice plus take all the plaudits for the Olympics. I was at Wembley for an NFL match and he got a rapturous reception when introduced to the crowd beforehand. This was soon after the Olympics. made me feel proper queasy I can tell you.
Marc wrote: "he's not an idiot, he's very sharp. His bufoon act is what makes him very dangerous, because underneath he's extremely calcuating"Calculating? Points and laughs at Marc :)
He wears his ambitions on his sleeve, which is why Dave and Osborne have swatted his 'leadership' ambitions aide on many an occasion. He's not as sharp and as calculating as he thinks he is. A true master of the dark arts would not be caught out so easily.
we'll see who gets the next leadership of the Party... The only thing against Boris is that I wonder how popular he might be outside of the South-East
MPs can work very long hours. This study suggests an average of 69 hours per weekhttp://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/rese...
Senior politicians (cabinet members and the PM) can be longer still. Not only do they get a full day in the office or meetings, but they are also given a red box fill of paperwork to deal with every evening.
And one of the reasons that independent schools get good results is that their working day is much longer than in a state school.
Boris is a buffoon, but by all accounts he works long and hard at it.
Will wrote: "MPs can work very long hours. This study suggests an average of 69 hours per weekhttp://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/rese...
Senior politicians (cabin..."
It's the social mobility aspect that bugs me. Working class people could use the grammar school system to their advantage, not too long ago, and there's no need to remind yourself the number of famous people that benefited from this, but unfortunately, that was long ago.
Looking back at this, it surprised me to see that the destroyers in chief of this system, were, of all people, the Tories...
Thatcher famously closed down a ton of such schools when she was education secretary...
Hold on there RMF. The closure of the grammar schools was a Labour policy. The fact that Thatcher continued it was a surprise.The Elite will not prevent someone joining them, whilst the left always wants to level the field by bringing everyone down to their level. Hence Working Tax Credits, Gordon Brown's way of tying people down to vote Labour.
Gordon Brown was very much part of the elite and he wasn't left wing either.
Thatcher tried to stop the conversion to comprehensives but the process was too far advanced. She did end the labour-inspired legislation to force councils to convert all schools to comprehensives.so more comprehensive schools were opened while she was education secretary but not because of her. It was a process started by Labour.
"Thatcher tried to stop the conversion to comprehensives but the process was too far advanced."The Tories were in power for 18 years. No excuse if they were really serious about social mobility.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Hold on there RMF. The closure of the grammar schools was a Labour policy. The fact that Thatcher continued it was a surprise.The Elite will not prevent someone joining them, whilst the left alw..."
Like I said to Will, you're acting as though the Tories weren't in power for 18 years.
R.M.F wrote: ""Thatcher tried to stop the conversion to comprehensives but the process was too far advanced."The Tories were in power for 18 years. No excuse if they were really serious about social mobility."
In her biography published in 1982, Susan Crosland claimed her husband had told her "If it's the last thing I do, I'm going to destroy every fucking grammar school in England.
In the classic words of Richard Crossman, "the trouble with grammar schools is that they take kids from good Labour families and turn them into f*****g Tories.
And the NUT and the educational establishment has closed ranks over it and fought tooth and nail to make sure it's as hard as possible to open new grammar schools. In the areas where it has been tried under new legislation there have been labour party and union led campaigns to make sure it never happens.
So we now have academies which is probably an attempt to sidestep the entrenched vested interests which have screwed our education system
And don't forget the Free Schools Jim, which have been such an educational success and models of financial probity...
Will wrote: "And don't forget the Free Schools Jim, which have been such an educational success and models of financial probity..."They probably took their idea of financial probity from watching MPs
Jim, I'm not buying the idea that the Tories couldn't take on vested interests when they were in power. After all, the Tories crushed the Miners' union, which was arguably more powerful than the NUT.
R.M.F. - so let me get this straight, you are criticising the Tories for not reversing a labour policy and for not opposing a trades union?To be perfectly honest, I didn't have too much of a problem with comprehensive schools. I went to one myself, and from there to University.While the school may not have selected by ability for entry, the classes were streamed by ability. In effect you ended up with a grammar school and a secondary modern under the same roof. And you got to mix with pupils of all backgrounds.
That seemed more likely to improve social mobility than an arbitrary decision based on a single set of exam results at age 11.
But I'm sure you'll manage to think up a way to blame the Tories, even if they had nothing to do with it.
R.M.F wrote: "Jim, I'm not buying the idea that the Tories couldn't take on vested interests when they were in power. After all, the Tories crushed the Miners' union, which was arguably more powerful than the NUT."Obviously not, the NUT is still there with influence.
I think you misunderstand how a parliamentary democracy works. It works by doing what is possible. All parties are coalitions and on certain issues MPs will rebel.
Then even if you can get a majority in parliament (including the Lords) the law can be delayed or the wording altered
And then even when you get it through you still have to square the various vested interests on the ground. As Nye Bevan said about the doctors, to get the NHS in (with a very comfortable parliamentary majority) he "stuffed their mouths with gold"
After all, the Conservatives have a majority in the parliament of the UK. So you feel that with this simple majority they can just vote to end the experiment of Scottish devolution and parliament in Scotland would just quietly close down and Scotland would go back to being just so many more British counties.
Ar Jim lad, but the Tories have now taken devolution to their hearts, after opposing it tooth and nail.There was a recent speech by the Sec of State for Wales in which he said they were going to accelerate the pace of devolution for us, with enthusiasm.
Timeo Toreos et dona ferentes indeed!
(I fear both the Tories and the gifts that they purport to bring)
I'm mildly amused by how the two wills are almost mirror images.The other one started in a comprehensive school, his lad is (I believe, without being intrusive) in private education and he has ended up on the right of the political spectrum.
Whilst I had an expensive private education, opted for a state education for my kids and became a socialist.
Separated at birth, do you think?
Will wrote: "Ar Jim lad, but the Tories have now taken devolution to their hearts, after opposing it tooth and nail.There was a recent speech by the Sec of State for Wales in which he said they were going to ..."
But you see the point I'm making Will, that merely having a majority in parliament doesn't let a government actually do what they want.
Will wrote: "I'm mildly amused by how the two wills are almost mirror images.The other one started in a comprehensive school, his lad is (I believe, without being intrusive) in private education and he has en..."
It does look as if Richard Crossman was wrong, perhaps exposure to the comprehensive system is more likely to build Conservative voters? :-)
Lol!Maybe, maybe. You are spot on about the paths we took, but I wouldn't class myself as exclusively right wing. Geoff thinks I am a raving left wing commie for my views on the environment, for example.
Politics shouldn't be like supporting a football team. There is nothing wrong with agreeing with the conservatives on some issues and labour on some others. The important thing is to think for yourself and try to see the other person's point of view.
Fr'instance, I believe that some form of austerity is needed right now on socialist grounds, because if we don't reduce our borrowing our children and grandchildren will suffer. but i don't agree with the pace of the reductions that the Tories were making. The latest budget has slowed the pace of the cuts, but there is still more pain to come.
Jim - I was a socialist at school, moderately right wing when I started work and a bit of both now (a few days shy of my 51st birthday).And I have voted for all three of the main parties during my lifetime.
Will wrote: "R.M.F. - so let me get this straight, you are criticising the Tories for not reversing a labour policy and for not opposing a trades union?To be perfectly honest, I didn't have too much of a prob..."
No, I'm saying that a supposed party of social mobility, was never really serious about promoting social mobility. Otherwise, they would have done more.
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "Jim, I'm not buying the idea that the Tories couldn't take on vested interests when they were in power. After all, the Tories crushed the Miners' union, which was arguably more powerf..."I'm saying that the Labour party were dead and buried in the 1980s, and that there was nothing stopping the Tories from changing the education system, if they were serious about being a party of social mobility and aspiration. Clearly, the evidence says they were not.
As for Scotland, they would need a referendum under the Sewell agreement, before they could scrap the Scottish Parliament.
R.M.F wrote: "I'm saying that the Labour party were dead and buried in the 1980s, and that there was nothing stopping the Tories from changing the education system, if they were serious about being a party of social mobility and aspiration. Clearly, the evidence says they were not. As for Scotland, they would need a referendum under the Sewell agreement, before they could scrap the Scottish Parliament. ..."
You forget that Parliament is sovereign
Parliament can make laws concerning anything.
No Parliament can bind a future parliament (that is, it cannot pass a law that cannot be changed or reversed by a future Parliament).
A valid Act of Parliament cannot be questioned by the court. Parliament is the supreme lawmaker.
If parliamentary majorities worked as you say they do, then the 13 seat majority is enough to legislate that the Sewell agreement doesn't bind the current parliament
R.M.F wrote: "No, I'm saying that a supposed party of social mobility, was never really serious about promoting social mobility. Otherwise, they would have done more. ..."I agree that it's shocking that they didn't undo the damage you apparently agree was done to social mobility by Labour
RMF, I fear hat you misunderstand the intentions of the Tories here.There are 5 main areas in the UK where the 'recovery' has not led to prosperity of any sort.
Scotland.
Wales.
The North West (excluding affluent cheshire gap/Alderley)
The North East
Cornwall.
Hence devolution is supported for Scotland & Wales, a 'Powerhouse' for the manchester-Liverpool corridor. (The plan to include Leeds has already been dropped as the decent rail link has been postponed indefinetly).
We can await calls for an elected Tyneside Mayor, and devo light for Cornwall, I suspect!
That way, there's someone else to blame, you see when you starve these areas of cash and investment. That's the normal way they operate. vis the Big Lie of blaming the entire Global Crash on Labour. Say it often enough, and people start to believe it.
Will wrote: "RMF, I fear hat you misunderstand the intentions of the Tories here.There are 5 main areas in the UK where the 'recovery' has not led to prosperity of any sort.
Scotland.
Wales.
The North West..."
I think the problem is Westminster. Devolution for England would solve a lot of problems, but Westminster being Westminster, don't like giving up power, so they'll water down England by splitting it up with Northern Powerhouses and the like.
Jim wrote: "R.M.F wrote: "I'm saying that the Labour party were dead and buried in the 1980s, and that there was nothing stopping the Tories from changing the education system, if they were serious about being..."There's always a few Tories rebels looking to cause mischief.
Until the last election Wales was almost exclusively Labour. The WA is labour controlled. What do you expect Westminster to do when certain subjects like health are devolved and they have no responsibility for it? Most people in Wales blame Westminster for everything that doesn't come up to their expectations.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
I can sleep soundly at night. For two years I campaigned for Scotland to leave the UK. I warned people that this is what would happen if Scotland voted No, and the Tories got back in.
My conscience is clear.
I mention this because some No voters I know were moaning about this budget. I told them to suck it up - they didn't have a leg to stand on.