Join the Labour Party and save your country!

pinno

vimfuego wrote:

That's hilarious.
So, the Labour Govt apparently didn't overspend in the run up to the financial crisis ( :shock: ) it was de-regulation of the city (under Labour) to blame.

The Tories at the time wouldn't have done any different. They never opposed nor contradicted Labour spending. They even said that they would match Labour spending if they were elected.

Everything was booming in the global paper bubble. Everybody thought it wasn't going to change. The banking crises was more about the dovetailing of investments globally and how it was all intrinsically linked. Hardly anyone noticed and anyone one that did was a mad, swivel eyed (pessimistic) loon.

Meanwhile, the banks get a wrap on the knuckles from Osborne and co and we have to pick up the pieces under this 'austerity'. People have a right to feel aggrieved about how financial institutions mis-managed funds and portfolio's. To the every day man in the street (or at least 80%) of the population, it isn't their fault - so why should we pick up the tab?
Why should essential public services from social care to council budgets be hacked to oblivion? I know and can cite many examples of public service inefficiency and cost which really need to be addressed but to simply remove budgets for key areas is just plain brutal.

The other thing is perception. Apart from Lehman Brothers and some major financial institutions going t1ts up (do I care?), the vast majority of people in the higher financial services sector are still enjoying well paid positions and still getting in-ordinate bonuses but explain that to the parents of teenage daughter with mental health problems who gets flung into a prison cell and commits suicide because the funding and infrastructure has been stripped away. There's no where else to put her. There's a lack of hospital beds in mental health wards... there's a shortage of staff at the local social services dept.

People have this misconception that cutting funding back from local and regional councils will just simply result in the grass getting cut less often or the squeaky swing in the park not getting oiled. They need to wake up to the reality that pointing blame for the 2008 crash is not solving anything and the architects of the crash aren't directly paying the price for their games that went very wrong. Other people are though.

We also have to separate 'Labour spending' from 'Banking sector speculation and under-regulation'. A phenomenon which started back in the hedonistic 80's.

Stevo_666

Ballysmate wrote:

Not even got the sense to learn from their mistakes of the past. Labour would borrow billions more. Even lefties are dumbstruck by the plans.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... competence

Tee hee.

John 'Chairman Mao' McDonnell 'restoring' Labours economic credibility. The wording implies they had some credibility in the first place Although he is right on one point, it will be the 'struggle of a generation' - although maybe not this generation given how long it might take

The implication from this is one or more of three things if they have any hope of meeting their objective:
1. They will need to cut spending
2. They will fudge it by calling anything that moves 'long term investment' and so declassify it as 'spending' (Investment is not a bad thing but it is a phrase often applied to spending by lefties to make it sound more acceptable).
3. They will tax the living crap out of us to pay for it.

Probably all three in my view as once they start on point 3, they will reduce private investment/economic activity and so hit economic growth. But it'll keep me busy.

Leftie La-la land is still alive and kicking...

Stevo_666

vimfuego wrote:

That's hilarious.
So, the Labour Govt apparently didn't overspend in the run up to the financial crisis ( :shock: ) it was de-regulation of the city (under Labour) to blame. Oh and those greedy bankers, they're responsible for everything, lets mention them again that'll distract the masses.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

vimfuego

Stevo 666 wrote:

vimfuego wrote:

That's hilarious.
So, the Labour Govt apparently didn't overspend in the run up to the financial crisis ( :shock: ) it was de-regulation of the city (under Labour) to blame. Oh and those greedy bankers, they're responsible for everything, lets mention them again that'll distract the masses.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jul/13/andy-burnham-apologises-labour-overspending

Fair play to him

How did JC get voted leader......?

vimfuego

Pinno wrote:

vimfuego wrote:

That's hilarious.
So, the Labour Govt apparently didn't overspend in the run up to the financial crisis ( :shock: ) it was de-regulation of the city (under Labour) to blame.

The Tories at the time wouldn't have done any different. They never opposed nor contradicted Labour spending. They even said that they would match Labour spending if they were elected.

Everything was booming in the global paper bubble. Everybody thought it wasn't going to change. The banking crises was more about the dovetailing of investments globally and how it was all intrinsically linked. Hardly anyone noticed and anyone one that did was a mad, swivel eyed (pessimistic) loon.

Meanwhile, the banks get a wrap on the knuckles from Osborne and co and we have to pick up the pieces under this 'austerity'. People have a right to feel aggrieved about how financial institutions mis-managed funds and portfolio's. To the every day man in the street (or at least 80%) of the population, it isn't their fault - so why should we pick up the tab?
Why should essential public services from social care to council budgets be hacked to oblivion? I know and can cite many examples of public service inefficiency and cost which really need to be addressed but to simply remove budgets for key areas is just plain brutal.

The other thing is perception. Apart from Lehman Brothers and some major financial institutions going t1ts up (do I care?), the vast majority of people in the higher financial services sector are still enjoying well paid positions and still getting in-ordinate bonuses but explain that to the parents of teenage daughter with mental health problems who gets flung into a prison cell and commits suicide because the funding and infrastructure has been stripped away. There's no where else to put her. There's a lack of hospital beds in mental health wards... there's a shortage of staff at the local social services dept.

People have this misconception that cutting funding back from local and regional councils will just simply result in the grass getting cut less often or the squeaky swing in the park not getting oiled. They need to wake up to the reality that pointing blame for the 2008 crash is not solving anything and the architects of the crash aren't directly paying the price for their games that went very wrong. Other people are though.

We also have to separate 'Labour spending' from 'Banking sector speculation and under-regulation'. A phenomenon which started back in the hedonistic 80's.

I'm not going to get drawn into a 40 page dialogue/argument about Tory ("I'm alright Jack") vs leftie ("society owes me just because") views of the world & tedious one eyed political views.

I sort of think we probably agree in principal on a few things from what I can gather from skimming the reams of previous

But anyway, all career politicians are self serving halfwits. Two party politics is a joke. There are obscene wages in the public sector as well as the corporate world. "The Bankers/Corporate fat cats" are slated for high earnings despite being in high pressure jobs and with huge amounts of responsibility, whereas a "professional" footballer who cheats for a living can earn more in the time it takes him to to take a dump & nobody bats an eyelid. None of it makes sense. Life isn't fair. There is no right answer. The cycle continues and we lurch from left to right every 20 or 30 years putting up with the incumbents ways until they inevitably take it too far and c0ck up to the point that going back to the alternative, that was so inept previously, is the only option. The great unwashed (me included) just cannot get get engaged with our political system, which is a seriously sad state of affairs.

Life's too short & my bikes need riding so I'll draw a line there.

Well OK, one minor rant: .......why is it the left (sweeping generalisation I know) seem to think that political history began in, and all ills can be traced back to, Thatcher in the 80s? Why did she sweep to power in the first place....?

Lookyhere

what pee's people off is this...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 62386.html

doesnt matter for the dicks that rule us, their kids go to Milfield or Eton........ just as IDS carried on using ATOS despte the devastating affects it had on some vulnerable people.

Meanwhile back in Tory land http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35130734

mamba80

What sort of people would consider doing this....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26041.html

decision like this and others such as cutting flood budgets, cutting social care... lead to more expense longer term.

and apparently this is to give tax cuts to middle income earners, yeah i m sure their needs are paramount, voted in by some MPs who are fiddling their expenses on a grand scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18556.html

Meanwhile, 40% tax payers continue to get their pension tax relief......

ballysmate

I agree that the disabled should receive help to ensure they can live their lives as comfortable as possible. I do think though that the disability benefit system needs looking at.
A friend of mine took a redundancy package just short of his 60th birthday. He had always sought as much overtime as possible, working away from home if necessaary, even though his wife suffers from MS. From the day of his redundancy/early retirement, he began to receive carer's allowance. How can this be justified? His wife's condition hadn't changed, only his employment status.

I would like to post the following pic, not because I would wish that the UK adopt such a benchmark for the qualification of benefits, but to pose the question, "How many people are not able to work at all?"

The caption says it all really.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

What sort of people would consider doing this....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26041.html

decision like this and others such as cutting flood budgets, cutting social care... lead to more expense longer term.

and apparently this is to give tax cuts to middle income earners, yeah i m sure their needs are paramount, voted in by some MPs who are fiddling their expenses on a grand scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18556.html

Meanwhile, 40% tax payers continue to get their pension tax relief......

Which tax cuts to middle income earners exactly?

All tax payers get relief on their pensoon contributions. Too right. We need to incentivise saving for retirement.

Stevo_666

Lookyhere wrote:

Meanwhile back in Tory land http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35130734

So back in tory land, all income brackets are seeing an increase in wealth and you don't like that? Strange.

rick_chasey

Mr Goo wrote:

I would rather Trump than these two running my country.





Oh! Wait one. I think one of them might already be pulling strings at Westminster.

Alright Brownshirt calm down.

Supporting a populist leader with fascist, racist and discriminatory views over socialist democrats and centrist separatists? Confirming your own views with ill thought out conspiracy theories?

Because that always ends so well.

Stevo_666

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although unlike Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

What sort of people would consider doing this....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26041.html

decision like this and others such as cutting flood budgets, cutting social care... lead to more expense longer term.

and apparently this is to give tax cuts to middle income earners, yeah i m sure their needs are paramount, voted in by some MPs who are fiddling their expenses on a grand scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18556.html

Meanwhile, 40% tax payers continue to get their pension tax relief......

Which tax cuts to middle income earners exactly?

All tax payers get relief on their pensoon contributions. Too right. We need to incentivise saving for retirement.

Why should anyone wealthy enough to be paying 40% tax get back 40% in relief?
They r not part of the pension s time bomb, poorer people are.... So I'm surprised a right wing stand on your own two feet Tory thinks it's ok for the state to subsidies yor retirement ?
Why might that be mmmmmmm

Thatyouwish too take money of handicapped folk is no surprise.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

Not saying I want him to run the USA - he's a total liability. Just telling it how I see it. Although on reflection, Sturgeon might end up running a country if the Scots vote again and vote out.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

Not saying I want him to run the USA - he's a total liability. Just telling it how I see it. Although on reflection, Sturgeon might end up running a country if the Scots vote again and vote out.

That won't happen unless there is a Brexit.

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

What sort of people would consider doing this....
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 26041.html

decision like this and others such as cutting flood budgets, cutting social care... lead to more expense longer term.

and apparently this is to give tax cuts to middle income earners, yeah i m sure their needs are paramount, voted in by some MPs who are fiddling their expenses on a grand scale.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 18556.html

Meanwhile, 40% tax payers continue to get their pension tax relief......

Which tax cuts to middle income earners exactly?

All tax payers get relief on their pensoon contributions. Too right. We need to incentivise saving for retirement.

Why should anyone wealthy enough to be paying 40% tax get back 40% in relief?
They r not part of the pension s time bomb, poorer people are.... So I'm surprised a right wing stand on your own two feet Tory thinks it's ok for the state to subsidies yor retirement ?
Why might that be mmmmmmm

Thatyouwish too take money of handicapped folk is no surprise.

Since when was the 40% tax threshold - about £43k - a guide so anyone being wealthy? Also not sure where you get the idea that I want to take money from the handicapped? - what a bizarre thing to say.

But its pretty simple really. The more tax you pay, the more you will benefit from tax breaks. Nothing immoral about being able to keep a decent proportion of what you earn. Encourages wealth creation as I've explained several times before. Perhaps the more obvious reason is that the middle income bracket pay too much tax in the first place?

Have a read of this, it explains the tax break idea rather well, especially for people who are not too hot on finance and need a real life example. It also sheds a bit of light on the mindset of those who complain about who gets the benefit of tax breaks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

Not saying I want him to run the USA - he's a total liability. Just telling it how I see it. Although on reflection, Sturgeon might end up running a country if the Scots vote again and vote out.

That won't happen unless there is a Brexit.

Don't go telling everyone - you might give the 'Out' campaign that extra shot in the arm it needs to win

mamba80

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why should anyone wealthy enough to be paying 40% tax get back 40% in relief?
They r not part of the pension s time bomb, poorer people are.... So I'm surprised a right wing stand on your own two feet Tory thinks it's ok for the state to subsidies yor retirement ?
Why might that be mmmmmmm

Thatyouwish too take money of handicapped folk is no surprise.

Since when was the 40% tax threshold - about £43k - a guide so anyone being wealthy? Also not sure where you get the idea that I want to take money from the handicapped? - what a bizarre thing to say.

But its pretty simple really. The more tax you pay, the more you will benefit from tax breaks. Nothing immoral about being able to keep a decent proportion of what you earn. Encourages wealth creation as I've explained several times before. Perhaps the more obvious reason is that the middle income bracket pay too much tax in the first place?

Have a read of this, it explains the tax break idea rather well, especially for people who are not too hot on finance and need a real life example. It also sheds a bit of light on the mindset of those who complain about who gets the benefit of tax breaks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

Why should your own personal choice to save money be subsidised to the tune of 40% ? its got nothing to do with rates of income tax, as well you should know.

Osbourn had the chance recently to revise the rules on pension relief but chose not too, didnt want to upset middle income earners before the EU vote, however you dont seem so vocal on the cuts to ESA -
if he wanted to save 1 billion, he could have taken it off pension tax relief for the better off, he didnt and you ve not voiced any concern over this, so its safe to assume your happy to keep your pension relief at the expense of the handicapped, many of whom will suffer greatly because of this.

the link is rubbish, by that argument, we d not pay any tax at all.

the tories may not be pushing up income tax but they raised plenty of other taxes, inc insurance tax (no real choice there) VAT and some of his so called savings have cost us far far more, cuts to nurse training, cuts to flood defence.
How much wil pee ing off the jnr Doc's cost us longer term? or failing to invest in our nuclear industry? paying EDF double the whole sale cost of 'lecy for the life time of Hinkley, if it gets built?

we are now going to get another round of austerity... fan fcukung tastic, his policies are not working are they.

surrey_commuter

mamba80 wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

mamba80 wrote:

Why should anyone wealthy enough to be paying 40% tax get back 40% in relief?
They r not part of the pension s time bomb, poorer people are.... So I'm surprised a right wing stand on your own two feet Tory thinks it's ok for the state to subsidies yor retirement ?
Why might that be mmmmmmm

Thatyouwish too take money of handicapped folk is no surprise.

Since when was the 40% tax threshold - about £43k - a guide so anyone being wealthy? Also not sure where you get the idea that I want to take money from the handicapped? - what a bizarre thing to say.

But its pretty simple really. The more tax you pay, the more you will benefit from tax breaks. Nothing immoral about being able to keep a decent proportion of what you earn. Encourages wealth creation as I've explained several times before. Perhaps the more obvious reason is that the middle income bracket pay too much tax in the first place?

Have a read of this, it explains the tax break idea rather well, especially for people who are not too hot on finance and need a real life example. It also sheds a bit of light on the mindset of those who complain about who gets the benefit of tax breaks
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/conservative/9236469/There-is-a-moral-message-behind-the-low-tax-story.html

Why should your own personal choice to save money be subsidised to the tune of 40% ? its got nothing to do with rates of income tax, as well you should know.

Osbourn had the chance recently to revise the rules on pension relief but chose not too, didnt want to upset middle income earners before the EU vote, however you dont seem so vocal on the cuts to ESA -
if he wanted to save 1 billion, he could have taken it off pension tax relief for the better off, he didnt and you ve not voiced any concern over this, so its safe to assume your happy to keep your pension relief at the expense of the handicapped, many of whom will suffer greatly because of this.

the link is rubbish, by that argument, we d not pay any tax at all.

the tories may not be pushing up income tax but they raised plenty of other taxes, inc insurance tax (no real choice there) VAT and some of his so called savings have cost us far far more, cuts to nurse training, cuts to flood defence.
How much wil pee ing off the jnr Doc's cost us longer term? or failing to invest in our nuclear industry? paying EDF double the whole sale cost of 'lecy for the life time of Hinkley, if it gets built?

we are now going to get another round of austerity... fan fcukung tastic, his policies are not working are they.

The pensions time bomb refers to the unfounded liabilities in the public sector.

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

surrey_commuter

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

or you could punch the air in glee at how much tax those bugge4s are paying that the tax relief on their pensions comes to £22bn

pblakeney

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

or you could punch the air in glee at how much tax those bugge4s are paying that the tax relief on their pensions comes to £22bn

Or we could set the maximum relief much lower and collect more from those that can afford it. Double punch.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

or you could punch the air in glee at how much tax those bugge4s are paying that the tax relief on their pensions comes to £22bn

Or we could set the maximum relief much lower and collect more from those that can afford it. Double punch.

Already been done. There is a tapering of the £40k pa max contribution so that those on high incomes can only get tax deductions on £10k of contributions.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

So do you think that removing the tax incentives for people to save via their pensions is going to increase or decrease the average pension pot?

Stevo_666

mamba80 wrote:

Why should your own personal choice to save money be subsidised to the tune of 40% ? its got nothing to do with rates of income tax, as well you should know.

As mentioned above, those who contribute the most get the biggest benefit from any tax cut - simple maths. It's like moaning that people who pend more in the shops benefit more from the sales. And as also mentioned above, incentivising pension saving and future financial self reliance is important. The size of the average pension pot that PBlakeney mentioned shows why the incentive needs to be kept.

mamba80 wrote:

Osbourn had the chance recently to revise the rules on pension relief but chose not too, didnt want to upset middle income earners before the EU vote, however you dont seem so vocal on the cuts to ESA -
if he wanted to save 1 billion, he could have taken it off pension tax relief for the better off, he didnt and you ve not voiced any concern over this, so its safe to assume your happy to keep your pension relief at the expense of the handicapped, many of whom will suffer greatly because of this.

Pension relief has alredy been materially restricted for high earners. Above a certain limit, only £10k of contributions can attract tax relief. That's a 75% reduction on what went before. Did you know that? If you did, why do you not think that is enough?

mamba80 wrote:

the link is rubbish, by that argument, we d not pay any tax at all.

You don't understand the article then. The main point is that those who pay the most benefit most from tax break as I explained above. The other point which have mentioned many times in the past is that clobbering the wealth creators is usually counter productive. Your views do not take into account the human reaction to tax rises or to the ability of business and the wealthy to take their business elsewhere. That's life.

mamba80 wrote:

the tories may not be pushing up income tax but they raised plenty of other taxes, inc insurance tax (no real choice there) VAT and some of his so called savings have cost us far far more, cuts to nurse training, cuts to flood defence.
How much wil pee ing off the jnr Doc's cost us longer term? or failing to invest in our nuclear industry? paying EDF double the whole sale cost of 'lecy for the life time of Hinkley, if it gets built?

we are now going to get another round of austerity... fan fcukung tastic, his policies are not working are they.

If they are raising other taxes, stop moaning. You make various statement above about cuts as if they are fact without backing them up. It takes a long time to sort out the damage done by Labours policies.

pblakeney

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

So do you think that removing the tax incentives for people to save via their pensions is going to increase or decrease the average pension pot?

Setting a limit of £500k would still be 10x the average, so little difference.

Stevo_666

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Surrey Commuter wrote:

They incentivise pension savings so that people are not a burden on the state in their old age. The lowering of the lifetime limit to one million would give a married man an annual income of circa £40,000pa. This policy will, over time, will greatly reduce the cost of pension contribution tax relief.

£1 million? Greatly? The average UK pension pot as of last year was £53,000.
Back to the great, and getting greater, divide......

So do you think that removing the tax incentives for people to save via their pensions is going to increase or decrease the average pension pot?

Setting a limit of £500k would still be 10x the average, so little difference.

That doesn't answer my question.

pinno

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

Not saying I want him to run the USA - he's a total liability. Just telling it how I see it. Although on reflection, Sturgeon might end up running a country if the Scots vote again and vote out.

That won't happen unless there is a Brexit.

Don't go telling everyone - you might give the 'Out' campaign that extra shot in the arm it needs to win

The Tories were falling over themselves and offered huge concessions to keep the Union together.

Back to the Torygraph article.

He talks about the reduction of the state, one that the Neo-Liberals/Cons aspire to. However, Neo-Liberalism causes the proliferation of bureaucracy. The state does contract under Neo-liberal government, but only by proxy. I'e, essential services are contracted out to the private sector, cost twice as much and often fail - we've seen many examples of social care, care homes, care facilities for adult disabled etc etc go to the wall and people are left with a vacuum. Neo-Liberalist policies give rise to the Quango - funded by government, answerable to the government but unelected. Blairism gave greater credence to the Quango - he was a neo-liberalist.

So Mr Torygraph espouses the virtues of a reduced state and the reduction of red tape - good idea. Except for the flaws, those being:
1. A reduced state means that essential services are no longer funded or are run by profit making organisations which are badly run.
2. The 'red-tape' is side stepped by delivering services by proxy and/or privately.

If you want me to cite NHS red tape, I can. What it displays is the ease to which you can apply red-tape for apparent good intent but the massive difficulty in reversing it - without individuals in the system complaining about eggs been broken to make the Omelette. Every successive administration promises reduction in red tape but none do succeed, for the reasons above. The net effect is the successive accumulation of red tape, the opposite to what was intended.

So in Mr Torygraph journo's mind and the mind of many right wing protagonists, reduction of the state (conveniently neglecting to mention the small print and flaws in Neo-Liberal theory) is a great idea but very difficult to actually implement. The proliferation of bureaucracy under Neo-liberalist govt., means that the theory is self contradicting.

To satisfy all of the people some of the time, British Politics really needs to be more central to balance the pendulum between each end of the spectrum and between the swings (and uncertainty) of economic and political direction.

http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/em ... arkets.pdf

Stevo_666

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

Pinno wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

PBlakeney wrote:

Stevo 666 wrote:

It could well be argued that Sturgeon has discriminatory views against the English.

Although like Trump, neither have a feasible prospect of running a country.

FTFY
I hope! :shock:

Not saying I want him to run the USA - he's a total liability. Just telling it how I see it. Although on reflection, Sturgeon might end up running a country if the Scots vote again and vote out.

That won't happen unless there is a Brexit.

Don't go telling everyone - you might give the 'Out' campaign that extra shot in the arm it needs to win

The Tories were falling over themselves and offered huge concessions to keep the Union together.

Back to the Torygraph article.

He talks about the reduction of the state, one that the Neo-Liberals/Cons aspire to. However, Neo-Liberalism causes the proliferation of bureaucracy. The state does contract under Neo-liberal government, but only by proxy. I'e, essential services are contracted out to the private sector, cost twice as much and often fail - we've seen many examples of social care, care homes, care facilities for adult disabled etc etc go to the wall and people are left with a vacuum. Neo-Liberalist policies give rise to the Quango - funded by government, answerable to the government but unelected. Blairism gave greater credence to the Quango - he was a neo-liberalist.

So Mr Torygraph espouses the virtues of a reduced state and the reduction of red tape - good idea. Except for the flaws, those being:
1. A reduced state means that essential services are no longer funded or are run by profit making organisations which are badly run.
2. The 'red-tape' is side stepped by delivering services by proxy and/or privately.

If you want me to cite NHS red tape, I can. What it displays is the ease to which you can apply red-tape for apparent good intent but the massive difficulty in reversing it - without individuals in the system complaining about eggs been broken to make the Omelette. Every successive administration promises reduction in red tape but none do succeed, for the reasons above. The net effect is the successive accumulation of red tape, the opposite to what was intended.

So in Mr Torygraph journo's mind and the mind of many right wing protagonists, reduction of the state (conveniently neglecting to mention the small print and flaws in Neo-Liberal theory) is a great idea but very difficult to actually implement. The proliferation of bureaucracy under Neo-liberalist govt., means that the theory is self contradicting.

To satisfy all of the people some of the time, British Politics really needs to be more central to balance the pendulum between each end of the spectrum and between the swings (and uncertainty) of economic and political direction.

http://www.open.ac.uk/socialsciences/em ... arkets.pdf

I was joking...

But since you brought it up, show me some evidence to back up your assertions numbered 1 and 2 above.