Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 391
1  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: Scottish politics on: August 28, 2017, 01:43 am
Who's been talking about the resources available to Scotland?

Scotland definitely is capable of paying it's way, and becoming a successful independent country. That doesn't however mean there wouldn't have to be extremely harsh spending cuts in the short and medium term.

GERS shows that Scotland does do almost as well as rUK on the revenue side. I think on the latest figures only 3 English regions do better. It's on the spending side where the problem (mostly) lies.
To give a stupid analogy: if someone were to give a successful country a few extra billion a year, and the country got used to that extra spending, then however successful the country is, suddenly removing that spending is going to be painful, and will require more taxes or less spending.

And this would definitely last for many many years. Generations. I think someone made a calculation that at the higher rate of growth hoped for by the indy white paper, we're talking around 100 years till they'd reach parity with rUK.

With regard to priorities, can you tell me one or two an independent Scotland would possibly look to pursue?
2  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: Scottish politics on: August 27, 2017, 07:20 pm
Yes. Rubbish. Yes. Any more stupid questions?
Hey, calm down.
Why is it rubbish? Without talking historically what could have been, nor hypothetically what could be in, say, 50 years time, how do you think Scotland could afford what they currently spend if it were independent?
3  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: Scottish politics on: August 27, 2017, 10:03 am
I sometimes wonder, fiverings, do you actually read anything anything outside what indy supporters say? You do realise all those things are only possible because of the Union? Have you even looked at GERS?
4  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: July 11, 2017, 02:50 pm
The term might make people more understanding of how it works, but an actual tax has a few (potentially) undesirable consequences. For example with the loan system money is paid directly to universities, bypassing the government (so no temptation to skim a bit for other uses).

Ultimately as a society we need to accept that either more people go to university but do so with the aid or a loan/tax, or fewer people go to university, but do so at no cost.

I agree it definitely should not become a regular tax, for the reason you give, but they should just call it that, so people understand what it really is.

I saw Martin Lewis suggests calling it a 'graduate contribution' (which he says is what it's called in Australia).


On the other hand, the fact that uptake of further education amongst the disadvantaged is fairly good in England, shows that the people this all affects understand what the system is better then we realise.
5  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: July 11, 2017, 10:45 am
Why is it wrong she ends up with a "debt" of £69k? It doesn't impact credit scores, she'll never pay it all off and it'll be wiped in 30 years. She'll just pay an effective tax rate of 9% on earnings over £21k. Which seems quite fair, really.

It's marvellously redistributive - people who end up in well paying careers will pay back the full cost of the loan. People who don't, won't.

They should just call it a graduate tax and be done with it.
6  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: July 05, 2017, 09:24 pm
Everyone keeps saying that, but the Tories would have looked to make a deal with the DUP with May as leader or without her.
7  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 30, 2017, 02:27 pm
I was honestly asking what you felt. I meant "morally superior" just as a phrase roughly with the opposite meaning to "lacking in integrity".
You said you found May staying to be lacking in integrity, so I was asking which of the 3 possibilities would be better.
I get now that it was an off-the-cuff remark without much thought having gone into it, but was I so terrible for asking? I wasn't looking to attack you!
8  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 30, 2017, 09:55 am
I think you misunderstand where I'm coming from. I genuinely want to understand your position. So please don't be condescending.

Whataboutery is where you defend your position by saying "but what about...". I'm not trying to defend anything/anyone.
9  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 30, 2017, 12:52 am
I go along with all of that LB, and her calling an unnecessary GE primarily to boost up her own authority showed a complete lack of judgement, and now that that's backfired she's compounding this by forming what I see as a rather dubious alliance, even if it isn't that in the true sense of the word.  In fact she's so incompetent I wonder what she'll cock up next, particularly with the Brexit negotiations.
Calling the election wasn't the problem, the campaign was. The most you could say is she should have realised what a bad campaigner she was, and therefore shouldn't have called it!

Whatever her personal reasons were, there definitely were sound political reasons to hold the election. There will be many controversial votes in parliament in the next couple of years, and her majority was very small. She was also beholden to the wackier members of her party. The problem, again, was in the campaign, not the calling of the election.

If another election isn't happening, what do you think she should have done now? Considering the importance of the Brexit negotiations, it was crucial to get support for votes in that area, as well of course, as support for supply and confidence votes.
10  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 30, 2017, 12:44 am
As the people rejected me and didn't endorse Corbyn, sorry folks it's "not another one" time.
So you believe a party not winning an absolute majority when previously having had one have been rejected and should resign?
What about the SNP in Holyrood?
11  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 29, 2017, 07:04 pm
The PM has a constitutional duty to stay in power until a replacement can be appointed (like Gordon Brown did in 2010).
So, if May should have had the 'integrity' to resign, you would have to consider one of the following to be morally superior:
1) Prime Minister Corbyn
2) A new Conservative Prime Minister
3) A new election
12  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 29, 2017, 05:50 pm
ILA, you imply May should have had the integrity to resign after the election result. Who do you think should have replaced her?
13  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 27, 2017, 11:55 am
Just curious - is that because you're a supporter of Irish republicanism despite a majority of NI prefering to remain in the UK?
14  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: The future of British politics on: June 26, 2017, 09:28 pm
(a) For NI it's a lot of money, but in the big scheme of things, looking at the UK as a whole, it's not all that much.

(b) I wouldn't say she risks the peace. She risks perhaps the power-sharing agreement, but I don't think anyone really believes things will go back to how they were twenty years ago.

(c) We may not agree with what she does, but it's her right to try and get a majority of MP's to support her in what she believes is best for the UK.
You could as much complain about the SNP having a majority in Holyrood (as they used to have), that it's terrible they could do "whatever they wanted whether they're in the best interests of Scotland or not".
15  General Community / Chit Chat / Re: News Thread on: June 22, 2017, 04:25 pm
That's a good post, but I'm going to pick out this particular point because I think it highlights the problem with the current system. In theory welfare is needs-based, but the current system is disjointed and coarse. Without radical reform (such as UC promised before it got Duncan Smithed), a cap is necessary.

I have to say I agree that it's disjointed. There are certainly many cases which end up with extremely unfair results because of that.

However, almost always the problem is that someone with greater needs is receiving too little support, not the opposite.

Concerning the benefit cap, the government already recognise some of the worst examples of the benefit cap policy, by allowing families more then single people, and allowing claimants in Greater London more then outside London.

I honestly cannot think of a case (I have a fair amount of experience with the welfare system) where you could say a claimant is receiving (relatively) too much considering his circumstances, and therefore his payments should be capped.


On the wider point of the welfare system being needs based. I don't think UC in and of itself ever helped from the point of view of ensuring the system was more needs-based. It had other good possibilities, like ensuring a smoother transition from out-of-work benefits to in-work benefits or the opposite. Also, combining various benefits into one, making it simpler to ensure claimants are always better off when working/working more.

However, as you mentioned, some of the choices made during the implementation were terrible.

Then there are other policies, not specifically connected to UC, which are taking us further away from the principle of the system being needs-based. For example, the capping of CTC and equivalent benefits to two children. Another example is the ending of the link between increases to LHA rates and increases to local rents.

I have to admit that cutting the welfare budget will never be easy, but the choices made were and are atrocious.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 ... 391