|
Spangly A posted:He's been back in Kent for a bit. If it's loving Brazier I'll flip. Just reading his name brings on a serious case of the needtopunchafaces. He was such a dick when I lived in Canterbury. However, he and Michael Howard did get egged off the stage in the Gulbenkian during a YC meet and greet, and I was outside jeering them as they were rushed out by plod.
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
A friend suggested earlier that if 18-21 year olds don't get benefits, they shouldn't have to pay tax either. Can't say I disagree with the principle of that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
Acaila posted:A friend suggested earlier that if 18-21 year olds don't get benefits, they shouldn't have to pay tax either. Can't say I disagree with the principle of that. benefits are not social insurance between one's age cohort, surely
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:a Labour coalition...with the tories That's actually been mooted by some columnists with the recognition that Labour plus the Lib Dems and/or the SNP might not be enough to get stable government. It would probably set both parties back by a long mile, as a lot of each party's faithful would balk at the idea of doing a deal with the (in some eyes, literal) devil. The Lib Dem collapse would look like a drop in the pond. We're not accustomed to Grand Coalition as our European neighbours are.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
A colleague of mine floated the idea of, in the event of the West Lothian question being resolved, a minority Labour government with enough SNP MPs to hold their feet to the fire and essentially act as a whip for Scottish issues. Does this seem feasible to anyone or is he talking bollocks?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
It would be amusing to see Labour have no choice in making a coalition with the SNP in a General Election if the Tories are still ahead or the Tories are thinking of a coalition with UKIP. Strange as it may be and the odds of it happen our near under 5%. A Labour/SNP vs Tory/UKIP scenerio would be an interesting sight to see. Speaking of coalitions, can more then two parties be part of a coalition?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:Speaking of coalitions, can more then two parties be part of a coalition? Yes. Last election there was talk of Labour forming a "rainbow coalition" of about five parties but it fell through or was never going to happen but floated anyway. This is while the BBC were pretending the Tories had actually won because they didn't (or pretended not to) understand what happens when both main parties don't get a majority. Fun times. Can't wait for it to happen again only with actual fascist parties like UKIP involved!
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 05:39
|
|
|
although the SNP and Labour are ideologically more similar, it is hard to see common priorities for both at the present. What would they compromise on? the SNP can hardly benefit electorally in giving up FFA as part of a coalition agreement, and Labour can't call upon SNP support in duelling the Tories over English devolution
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 07:35
|
|
|
Extreme0 posted:It would be amusing to see Labour have no choice in making a coalition with the SNP in a General Election if the Tories are still ahead or the Tories are thinking of a coalition with UKIP. There's a small chance that either party might refuse to work with each other, from old wounds from the 1979 referendum being opened in the independence debate. The SNP would almost definitely demand fiscal autonomy as a red-line. Labour also has a habit of ruling like a majority government when they're actually running a minority administration. They've spent the best part of the past eighteen months pissing off the Lib Dems and the Independent in Calderdale, and then acted surprised when they lost a confidence vote.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 08:00
|
|
|
Can some one make a new scotland thread please.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 08:14
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Can some one make a new scotland thread please. Anyway, Lord Ashcroft has an interesting (non-paywalled) piece about the Tories' prospects in the Times. Consider the source and all that: http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/public/article1464338.ece quote:In the eight months remaining before the general election many voters face a dilemma. They prefer Labour to the Conservatives but would rather have David Cameron in Downing Street than Ed Miliband.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 08:25
|
|
|
Rapey Joe Stalin posted:The experience for me was a weird one in which I was left feeling confused, betrayed, and rejected by my own countrymen. 'Weird'? I feel like that after every general election.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 09:52
|
|
|
The obvious solution is that Dave and Ed change places for a bit and lead each others' parties. It's not like it'd make any real difference after all.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 10:19
|
|
|
Jippa posted:Can some one make a new scotland thread please. 55% of Scots don't want one.  A Labour/SNP coalition could work through Labour pushing nice things (TBD) to Scotland in exchange for support on key issues. Basically, answer the West Lothian Question with "Who gives a gently caress? All our interests are tied together."
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 10:58
|
|
|
TinTower posted:There's a small chance that either party might refuse to work with each other, from old wounds from the 1979 referendum being opened in the independence debate. The SNP would almost definitely demand fiscal autonomy as a red-line. Old wounds? The Labour party still will not support any SNP motion in the Commons. Labour being forced into relying on the SNP for confidence would be an utterly hilarious humiliation. I hope it happens just for entertainment. The ever dubious world of UK-GE prediction models makes it look possible too; 
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
Surely the SNP going into a coalition with Labour not long after an independence referendum would be the worst thing they could do? It just doesn't feel right to me.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:05
|
|
|
twoot posted:Old wounds? The Labour party still will not support any SNP motion in the Commons. Labour being forced into relying on the SNP for confidence would be an utterly hilarious humiliation. I hope it happens just for entertainment. That doesn't really reflect any other recent poll aggregates I've seen- Electoral Calculus for one is predicting a decent Labour majority, based on polls to the 25th.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:29
|
|
|
Acaila posted:A friend suggested earlier that if 18-21 year olds don't get benefits, they shouldn't have to pay tax either. Can't say I disagree with the principle of that. You do realise this 'principle' is enormously regressive, don't you?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:33
|
|
|
Oh dear me posted:'Weird'? I feel like that after every general election. I don't, but only because I expect most of my fellow Britishers to vote for parties that neither represent them nor give a poo poo about them. Therefore, no 'betrayal'.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Fellow Britishers? I'll need to see your teeth sir, I'm not convinced of your bona fides.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:40
|
|
|
I often wonder if the people who get into a flap about the prospect of some UKIP MPs ending up in coalition with the Tories forget that there is already a party with 8 MPs that unlike UKIP doesn't even have the decency to pretend to be anything other than bigoted lunatics living in a century past. Also sometimes wonder if Labour could include Sinn Féin in a coalition. I mean they represent the other side of the bigoted extremists from Northern Ireland coin, but they would be the ideal coalition partners given that they refuse to take their seats  okay, given a minute's thought not ideal, but a lot less work gorki fucked around with this message at 11:53 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Filboid Studge posted:That doesn't really reflect any other recent poll aggregates I've seen- Electoral Calculus for one is predicting a decent Labour majority, based on polls to the 25th. It's not just a poll aggregate, it models a result by taking into account historical performances. The guy wrote an enormous paper detailing his methodology. But the three overall effects are; quote:*Governments being more likely to recover and oppositions fall back. It is as-yet unproven so I did call it dubious, but it's an attempt to predict the overall figure because the UK has a dearth of constituency-level polling. Which lead to the hilariously poor performance of 538's Nate Silver in 2010 where he predicted the Lib Dems getting something stupid like 100 seats because national polling still showed the cleggmania effect.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:47
|
|
|
Fangz posted:You do realise this 'principle' is enormously regressive, don't you? Would you mind elaborating on this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
I'm really unsure why it's even an issue, if you're that against Cambridge or Oxford then stay in papa's east wing surely?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
ReV VAdAUL posted:I suppose at the heart of it I'm just confused. London and the Southeast keeping as much money as they can and looking solely to their own interests is very bad and detrimental to the poorer regions of the UK but Scotland keeping as much money as they can and looking solely to their own interests is very good, it is still viewed as detrimental to the poorer regions of the UK but I think it is now meant to be a good thing? Perhaps the poorer rUK regions are meant to bootstraps? So this is just about envy? Scotland being able to self determine and use its own money to help its own people isn't the equivalent to the Westminster angle of draining money from every other area of the country, then using it to prop up the tax haven that is London, an economy built entirely out of the housing market and the new bubble that's growing bigger every day. I'm not crying salty tears if Scotland up and left with their money. Good on them, at least one aspect of this terrible place can have nice things like people not dying due to lack of food or food banks, or families getting into crippling debt because of sanctions to their benefits leaving them at the mercy of predatory payday loan companies. This argument is literally the equivalent of telling someone "We're all in this together", when it's plainly clear some are more in it than others.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 11:53
|
|
|
Lugaloco posted:Surely the SNP going into a coalition with Labour not long after an independence referendum would be the worst thing they could do? It just doesn't feel right to me. If the SNP want to claim to represent the will of the people of Scotland, increasing participation in the UK after the people said they wanted to be part of the UK is not the worst thing they can do. Doubly so, when it is also a path to increased self-determination.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:02
|
|
|
twoot posted:Conservatives to announce manifesto pledge to scrap Human Rights Act I know this is going back a bit and changing the current topic of discussion, but the way this thing is being discussed and reported is extremely confusing. It's not surprising that the Tories would attempt to obfuscate the situation regarding the Human Rights Act and the ECHR, but I am surprised that the Guardian has done such a bad job of explaining it. quote:The European court of human rights will be prevented from overruling decisions made by British courts under plans set to be announced by the Conservatives this week. The Human Rights Act is not responsible for allowing people to appeal to the European Court of Human Rights. Scrapping the Human Rights Act would not allow the final decisions in controversial cases to be made by the Supreme Court rather than the European Court of Human Rights. The effect of the Human Rights Act is to empower British judges to take human rights concerns into account when making rulings. Scrapping the Human Rights Act would in fact reduce the power of British judges to make these decisions. If you simply scrapped the Human Rights Act and did nothing else then we would be back to the situation we were in before the Human Rights Act was introduced: i.e. there would be no ability for domestic judges to explicitly consider human rights issues within the context of their judgments, but individuals could still appeal to the ECourtHR over the heads of domestic judges if they wished to. In order to take the further step of preventing people from appealing to the European Court of Human Rights you would have to withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights (presumably by leaving the Council of Europe?). But as far as I can see the key provisions of the Human Rights Act could remain in force even if the UK did withdraw from the ECHR - there would be nothing legally inconsistent in doing that, although it would be politically odd. What the Tories want to do is withdraw from the ECHR, and also scrap the Human Rights Act. But these are not one and the same thing, and the way the Tories and the Guardian are presenting the issues is confusing. Whitefish fucked around with this message at 12:16 on Sep 28, 2014 |
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:13
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Would you mind elaborating on this?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:25
|
|
|
Obliterati posted:Would you mind elaborating on this? 'People who don't get benefits shouldn't pay taxes' do you not see the problem here
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:29
|
|
|
Zohar posted:'People who don't get benefits shouldn't pay taxes' do you not see the problem here coffeetable posted:rich kids who don't need welfare get a tax cut Think I get it now actually, thanks for explaining something surprisingly obvious.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:31
|
|
|
I think the principle is more like 'people who can't get benefits shouldn't have to pay taxes. Which would make sense, but obviously rich pricks are also most able to find the loopholes so they can take advantage of it too.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 12:32
|
|
|
Acaila posted:A friend suggested earlier that if 18-21 year olds don't get benefits, they shouldn't have to pay tax either. Can't say I disagree with the principle of that. Praseodymi posted:I think the principle is more like 'people who can't get benefits shouldn't have to pay taxes. Which would make sense, but obviously rich pricks are also most able to find the loopholes so they can take advantage of it too. If you're earning less than £10,000 you aren't paying income tax anyway and would get a council tax reduction. What tax should unemployed 18-21 year old's who're having their benefits withheld be exempt from that would actually make any difference, VAT? Capital gains?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 13:09
|
|
|
The point is that access to the social safety net is the most basic goal of drveloped societies, and if you don't have access to that then you shouldn't have to pay in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 13:29
|
|
|
So did anyone turn up to
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 13:33
|
|
|
gorki posted:I often wonder if the people who get into a flap about the prospect of some UKIP MPs ending up in coalition with the Tories forget that there is already a party with 8 MPs that unlike UKIP doesn't even have the decency to pretend to be anything other than bigoted lunatics living in a century past. A party that by policy can never vote in the Commons isn't exactly an ideal coalition partner.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
I just think that if you get taxed you should be able to get the benefits. That's why I'm against things like winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, etc. being means tested. Yes some people can afford them, but universal benefits mean that people aren't paying in and getting nothing back, which is when they're likely to get cranky with a tax system. UKIP seem to like not telling people where they are going to have events for that reason. They did the same when they came up to Glasgow for the referendum. And still ended up having one of them punching an anti-UKIP protester. Anyway, back to Scotland  . I only heard this week that the SNP have it written into their party constitution or whatever it is that they won't go into coalition with the Tories. So basically, they'd offer Labour a coalition again to form a government. (For context, I was worrying to a Nat pal about Yes folk trying to bring down Scottish Labour meaning we're all doomed to more Tories, since Ed seems intent on being useless and not trying very hard to win a decent majority). I do actually think it would be hilarious and I rather want Salmond to go back to Westminster like the first time he left the leadership, because the contrast between Ed as PM and him as deputy would be utterly hilarious. (yes, I know at the moment it would be Angus Robertson probably since he's their WM leader but shhh!)
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:06
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I just think that if you get taxed you should be able to get the benefits. That's why I'm against things like winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, etc. being means tested. Yes some people can afford them, but universal benefits mean that people aren't paying in and getting nothing back, which is when they're likely to get cranky with a tax system. Nobody is paying in and getting nothing back, and everyone that thinks they are is a loving idiot and their arguments are not worth listening to. In fact, the wealthier you are, the more you are getting back from the system. It's the complete reverse of what anti-tax/libertarian idiots believe.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:12
|
|
|
Acaila posted:I just think that if you get taxed you should be able to get the benefits. quote:That's why I'm against things like winter fuel allowance, free prescriptions, etc. being means tested. Yes some people can afford them, but universal benefits mean that people aren't paying in and getting nothing back, which is when they're likely to get cranky with a tax system.
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Maybe a slight tangent, but does this make Green policies like minimum income regressive?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:46
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 19:03 |
|
|
Why would it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 28, 2014 15:51
|
|