The only people who seem to think the SNP are making a mess of running Scotland seem to be the ones who don't live there. Sure, there are issues, but there isn't a better alternative right now.
From my perspective, there are aspects of the SNP lead government that are less than ideal.
The Scottish government has declared a climate emergency (yay!) but their actions don't back that up very well - trying to cut taxes on aviation, little to develop public transport, no legislation on carbon neutral housing. They've close all the coal power stations, and Scotland now exports low carbon electricity (mostly wind, with some hydro and nuclear) to England, but there is more needed to boost low-carbon power generation as we move towards electrification of transport, and that electrification process needs to be accelerated. And, there needs to be steps taken to make public transport affordable, with levels of service that can meet the need. The SNP still appear to be in love with oil.
The Scottish government has tweaked the tax system to raise more from the wealthier sectors of society to the benefit of the poorer, but a more progressive approach would be better. There has been some investment of that taxation income into education and skills, as well as health and welfare. But, there has been too little pressure against the introduction of the socially destructive UC system (which isn't entirely within the control of Holyrood) or funding support to offset the consequences of that system.
So, in summary, "making a mess of running Scotland", my report card would certainly be "could do better" but wouldn't be as strong as "making a mess of running Scotland" would imply. And, far better than the way that the UK has been run my Cameron/Clegg (not awful), Cameron (bad), May (disaster) or Johnson (looking like it'll be a catastrophe).
I agree with your summary over the running of the UK up to May; the jury is out on Johnson, but the prospects aren't rosy.
I think we all underestimate just how little governments can actually do when it comes to "running" the economy, and not just because most politicians are economic illiterates. The globalisation of business has taken away most, if not all, of the leverage that governments used to be able to exert on large companies, in particular when it comes to raising the revenue they need for infrastructure projects and for things like social, welfare and health spending. Any indication, never mind decision, that a government is minded to raise a bit more from business results in companies moving as much of their taxable activity off-shore as possible, and once there the chances of it coming back are small. Add into that the determination of some of the newer companies (yes, I'm looking at Google et al)) to avoid paying any tax anywhere, if they can and the result is that just at the time when jobs are disappearing and more spending is needed on social, welfare and health, the companies that should be providing the tax revenue to fund it are refusing to pay.
Maybe if we're getting screwed by large corporations voting for a party that doesn't respond by bending over and passing them the lube might be an idea? Staying in the EU and co-operating with measures to tackle tax avoidance would help too. The EU has thrown its weight around quite successfully in the past in challenging corporate power. A left wing British government could push it a lot further in tackling tax dodging, and the EU is big enough that corporations have to pay attention in a way that the UK alone is not.
I agree with your summary over the running of the UK up to May; the jury is out on Johnson, but the prospects aren't rosy.
I think we all underestimate just how little governments can actually do when it comes to "running" the economy, and not just because most politicians are economic illiterates. The globalisation of business has taken away most, if not all, of the leverage that governments used to be able to exert on large companies, in particular when it comes to raising the revenue they need for infrastructure projects and for things like social, welfare and health spending. Any indication, never mind decision, that a government is minded to raise a bit more from business results in companies moving as much of their taxable activity off-shore as possible, and once there the chances of it coming back are small. Add into that the determination of some of the newer companies (yes, I'm looking at Google et al)) to avoid paying any tax anywhere, if they can and the result is that just at the time when jobs are disappearing and more spending is needed on social, welfare and health, the companies that should be providing the tax revenue to fund it are refusing to pay.
The EU tax directive which tackles that comes into force shortly after we leave ... I'm sure that and the desire to sell us all out to big business by having a low-regulation economy has nothing to to do with the Tories current stance.
The Tories are deliberately pursuing a No Deal strategy that anyone with half a brain knows will impact industries and jobs - which no one voted for. Given the amount of foreign investment coming into the UK right now (minimal) and the number of companies talking about relocating (lots), your comments about governments having no influence read like so much bull.
O, aren't we the Isle of the Blest, to have such a doughty champion!
ION, I see that The Times reports a possible 'pact' between Labour, and the SNP, to 'oust' the People's Piffleglum.
Not quite sure how that would work, but a gleam of hope, perhaps?
If Corbyn - or rather his advisers - have any grain of sense they'll ignore the siren voices of Ms Sturgeon and the SNP: if they climb into bed with the SNP all it will achieve is to give the Conservatives a massive free billboard to label Labour as a danger to the Union and the general cohesion of the UK. Massive mistake.
The Conservatives may label Labour thus, but the reality is that by pushing for a Brexit the majority do not want (and, an even bigger majority in Scotland and NI don't want) the Tories are a far greater danger to the Union. And, the racism and islamophobia promoted by senior Tories, with the attacks on the poor like UC, is a further danger to the cohesion of the UK more generally than just the constitutional questions.
Excuse me? The Leave vote polled more at the Referendum.
As for the danger to the Union, fact is that Ms Sturgeon and her party are pushing the idea of a second referendum on Scottish independence in a desperate attempt to deflect the populace away from the absolute b*lls-up they're making of running Scotland.
As for racism - have you seriously looked at the Labour Party recently? In many constituences there is a faustian pact to accept rampant anti-semitism on the part of some communities because they vote Labour.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
And yes, as for racism Labour is worth investigating, but 90% of the criticism is based on its stance towards the policies of the Israeli goverment towards Palestine and Arab people (of any faith) in Palestine, not to Jews. Otherwise it is a smokescreen and utter bollocks and the Tories, especially the previous PM, have been architects and exploiters of racially divisive policies for a very long time. The institutional racism of the Conservative Party is a factor in the continued "Working-class Tory" vote.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
That's democracy for you.
95% of voters would vote for cheaper services, better benefits and lower taxes at every opportunity. It doesn't happen but the Tories continue to be elected on this spurious basis. An informed and only slightly smarter public wouldn't vote for that and wouldn't have voted to Leave, had the Remin case been put better and not been countered by falsehoods.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
That's democracy for you.
Even better, you're not allowed to change your mind. I call this super-democracy.
But if you vote for X as your local member, that remains the position until the next election. Similarly, had you voted against joining the then EEC 40 or more years ago, you would have been stuck with the result produced by that majority. To put it differently, the minority does not get things its way.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
That's democracy for you.
Even better, you're not allowed to change your mind. I call this super-democracy.
But if you vote for X as your local member, that remains the position until the next election. Similarly, had you voted against joining the then EEC 40 or more years ago, you would have been stuck with the result produced by that majority. To put it differently, the minority does not get things its way.
But the next election is probably very fucking soon.
Also many Tories seem to have changed their mind from "the best deal in history" to no deal. How come the officer class are allowed to change their mind, but the poor bloody infantry not?
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
That's democracy for you.
Even better, you're not allowed to change your mind. I call this super-democracy.
But if you vote for X as your local member, that remains the position until the next election. Similarly, had you voted against joining the then EEC 40 or more years ago, you would have been stuck with the result produced by that majority. To put it differently, the minority does not get things its way.
But the next election is probably very fucking soon.
Added to which, if the person elected as your MP cheats their expenses or break the law you get a chance to try and recall them and have another go at electing someone else.
At the moment it looks as if the LibDems are trying, with the help (perhaps that should be connivance) of The Speaker, to put together some sort of pact to install either Harriet Harman or Ken Clarke as PM for the Remain majority to gather around to form some sort of government of national unity.
Labour are, of course, saying that if that happens the person to be so installed should be Corbyn but unofficially most Labour MPs admit that if he is the choice then a no confidence vote will fail.
Only going on what I read in the newspaper and hear on the radio.
Given that even possible outriders (such as Jess Phillips) have been somewhat supportive of the idea I would suspect professional commentators were making shit up (at the very least they don't have a grasp of the Labour rulebook).
Yeah, but Jo Swinson will be able to marshall Labour MPs into order, and explain to them how they should follow her plan to install Clarke. What could be simpler? Fucking A, make her PM! More austerity!
" Mr Clarke said his government of national unity would be a "single-issue, short-term government" with a policy to "sort out Brexit".
He explained: “It would seek an extension; put together a mandate for discussions the majority of the House of Commons approved of and the Europeans would not resist like staying in the customs union, staying in regulatory alignment, keeping our free flows of trade and investment, protecting our jobs and our key sectors of business and agriculture in this country. "
So basically he wants to renegotiate the WA and then pass that -- which is a far cry from Swinson's support for a second referendum.
But, that revision to the WA looks very much like retaining EU membership and the deal we currently have. Put that on a referendum ballot with remain as the other option and it's not too bad even if leave wins again.
I thought that once Swinson put the kybosh on the Corbyn letter, the remain movement are left drowning in their own shit. This Clarke/Harman idea seems like an outlier to me, and who is going to organize the troops? The Lib Dems? Those whom the gods want to destroy ...
But, that revision to the WA looks very much like retaining EU membership and the deal we currently have. Put that on a referendum ballot with remain as the other option and it's not too bad even if leave wins again.
You can read the article, he's not talking about a referendum. Besides it's quite far from EU membership, being an enhanced customs union.
But, that revision to the WA looks very much like retaining EU membership and the deal we currently have. Put that on a referendum ballot with remain as the other option and it's not too bad even if leave wins again.
You can read the article, he's not talking about a referendum. Besides it's quite far from EU membership, being an enhanced customs union.
Yes, he's not talking about a referendum. But, any GNU would need broad cross-party support. Many Tories may support a new softer-Brexit deal built on the 2016 vote as a mandate, possibly some Labour as well. But, to get support from the LibDems, SNP, PC and much of the Labour party then the GNU would also need to commit to a proper confirmatory referendum with the choice between the GNU proposed softer-Brexit and remain. I can't see how enough support for an alternative government could be achieved without a popular, democratic vote on Brexit - IMO an actual refernedum that supplants the anti-democratic non-referendum vote in 2016 would be best, but a general election with the parties presenting their visions for Brexit as significant parts of their manifesto would be a not too bad second best.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
That's democracy for you.
Even better, you're not allowed to change your mind. I call this super-democracy.
But if you vote for X as your local member, that remains the position until the next election. Similarly, had you voted against joining the then EEC 40 or more years ago, you would have been stuck with the result produced by that majority. To put it differently, the minority does not get things its way.
Except folk had plenty of opportunities to vote for parties promising to leave the EU in that 40 years. Labour and the Greens have had either leaving or a referendum in their manifesto in the past, and there was James Goldsmith and his referendum party, and UKIP's various incarnations. They tried and failed to get Britain out of the EU over those forty years. They didn't put their hands up and say "the people have spoken", they carried on advocating their view. Why should remainers do any different?
But, that revision to the WA looks very much like retaining EU membership and the deal we currently have. Put that on a referendum ballot with remain as the other option and it's not too bad even if leave wins again.
You can read the article, he's not talking about a referendum. Besides it's quite far from EU membership, being an enhanced customs union.
Yes, he's not talking about a referendum. But, any GNU would need broad cross-party support. Many Tories may support a new softer-Brexit deal built on the 2016 vote as a mandate, possibly some Labour as well. But, to get support from the LibDems, SNP, PC and much of the Labour party then the GNU would also need to commit to a proper confirmatory referendum with the choice between the GNU proposed softer-Brexit and remain. I can't see how enough support for an alternative government could be achieved without a popular, democratic vote on Brexit - IMO an actual refernedum that supplants the anti-democratic non-referendum vote in 2016 would be best, but a general election with the parties presenting their visions for Brexit as significant parts of their manifesto would be a not too bad second best.
The only person who is offering the last bit right now is Corbyn. Swinson wants a referendum first before a GE (no idea how she gets that one through the current parliament), and Clarke (her chosen candidate) is talking about renegotiating the WA and passing it as a means of ending the Brexit episode.
But, that revision to the WA looks very much like retaining EU membership and the deal we currently have. Put that on a referendum ballot with remain as the other option and it's not too bad even if leave wins again.
You can read the article, he's not talking about a referendum. Besides it's quite far from EU membership, being an enhanced customs union.
Yes, he's not talking about a referendum. But, any GNU would need broad cross-party support. Many Tories may support a new softer-Brexit deal built on the 2016 vote as a mandate, possibly some Labour as well. But, to get support from the LibDems, SNP, PC and much of the Labour party then the GNU would also need to commit to a proper confirmatory referendum with the choice between the GNU proposed softer-Brexit and remain. I can't see how enough support for an alternative government could be achieved without a popular, democratic vote on Brexit - IMO an actual refernedum that supplants the anti-democratic non-referendum vote in 2016 would be best, but a general election with the parties presenting their visions for Brexit as significant parts of their manifesto would be a not too bad second best.
The only person who is offering the last bit right now is Corbyn. Swinson wants a referendum first before a GE (no idea how she gets that one through the current parliament), and Clarke (her chosen candidate) is talking about renegotiating the WA and passing it as a means of ending the Brexit episode.
I don't know how anything can get through Parliament at the moment. But, since I don't understand how Cameron got his unprecedented public vote through Parliament without the majority of the House pointing out the unconstitutional, anti-democratic and downright illogical problems of it anything is possible. Once Parliament (metaphorically) ripped up the British constitution and through democratic process under the bus in 2015 all bets are off as to what Parliament can achieve as far as I'm concerned - hopefully with a sensible outcome that's for the best for the country.
I was talking in the general sense that if someone obtains a majority of only 1 vote, that person is the MP until the next election; not talking about the present UK mess.
And, generally the time until the next election isn't fixed - whether the MP is elected by 1 vote majority or a 10,000 vote majority. If there are serious irregularities in the election, or if the elected MP is subsequently found guilty of a crime or Parliamentary misconduct, then a by-election can be called.
And, generally the time until the next election isn't fixed - whether the MP is elected by 1 vote majority or a 10,000 vote majority. If there are serious irregularities in the election, or if the elected MP is subsequently found guilty of a crime or Parliamentary misconduct, then a by-election can be called.
No quibble with any of that*, but it does not really answer my point about majority decisions.
*Although at least in my State, elections are for a fixed 4 year term. Perhaps other States as well, and don't get me onto the term for which Federal Senators are elected.
This is going to go down to wire, like some ghastly game of Chicken.
Of course, what should happen is that organists are brought in to impose common sense, decency, decorum and order on the whole shower of politicians, European and (especially) our own. Ah, for a perfect world.
This is going to go down to wire, like some ghastly game of Chicken.
Of course, what should happen is that organists are brought in to impose common sense, decency, decorum and order on the whole shower of politicians, European and (especially) our own. Ah, for a perfect world.
Or stuff them all in a suitable 32 foot pipe and shake some sense into the lot of them.
Comments
The Scottish government has declared a climate emergency (yay!) but their actions don't back that up very well - trying to cut taxes on aviation, little to develop public transport, no legislation on carbon neutral housing. They've close all the coal power stations, and Scotland now exports low carbon electricity (mostly wind, with some hydro and nuclear) to England, but there is more needed to boost low-carbon power generation as we move towards electrification of transport, and that electrification process needs to be accelerated. And, there needs to be steps taken to make public transport affordable, with levels of service that can meet the need. The SNP still appear to be in love with oil.
The Scottish government has tweaked the tax system to raise more from the wealthier sectors of society to the benefit of the poorer, but a more progressive approach would be better. There has been some investment of that taxation income into education and skills, as well as health and welfare. But, there has been too little pressure against the introduction of the socially destructive UC system (which isn't entirely within the control of Holyrood) or funding support to offset the consequences of that system.
So, in summary, "making a mess of running Scotland", my report card would certainly be "could do better" but wouldn't be as strong as "making a mess of running Scotland" would imply. And, far better than the way that the UK has been run my Cameron/Clegg (not awful), Cameron (bad), May (disaster) or Johnson (looking like it'll be a catastrophe).
I think we all underestimate just how little governments can actually do when it comes to "running" the economy, and not just because most politicians are economic illiterates. The globalisation of business has taken away most, if not all, of the leverage that governments used to be able to exert on large companies, in particular when it comes to raising the revenue they need for infrastructure projects and for things like social, welfare and health spending. Any indication, never mind decision, that a government is minded to raise a bit more from business results in companies moving as much of their taxable activity off-shore as possible, and once there the chances of it coming back are small. Add into that the determination of some of the newer companies (yes, I'm looking at Google et al)) to avoid paying any tax anywhere, if they can and the result is that just at the time when jobs are disappearing and more spending is needed on social, welfare and health, the companies that should be providing the tax revenue to fund it are refusing to pay.
It could hardly do worse than the current bunch of gobshites.
The EU tax directive which tackles that comes into force shortly after we leave ... I'm sure that and the desire to sell us all out to big business by having a low-regulation economy has nothing to to do with the Tories current stance.
The Tories are deliberately pursuing a No Deal strategy that anyone with half a brain knows will impact industries and jobs - which no one voted for. Given the amount of foreign investment coming into the UK right now (minimal) and the number of companies talking about relocating (lots), your comments about governments having no influence read like so much bull.
Leave may have polled more, but it is still a bloody bad idea which is not in the best interests of the United Kingdom.
And yes, as for racism Labour is worth investigating, but 90% of the criticism is based on its stance towards the policies of the Israeli goverment towards Palestine and Arab people (of any faith) in Palestine, not to Jews. Otherwise it is a smokescreen and utter bollocks and the Tories, especially the previous PM, have been architects and exploiters of racially divisive policies for a very long time. The institutional racism of the Conservative Party is a factor in the continued "Working-class Tory" vote.
That's democracy for you.
Even better, you're not allowed to change your mind. I call this super-democracy.
95% of voters would vote for cheaper services, better benefits and lower taxes at every opportunity. It doesn't happen but the Tories continue to be elected on this spurious basis. An informed and only slightly smarter public wouldn't vote for that and wouldn't have voted to Leave, had the Remin case been put better and not been countered by falsehoods.
But if you vote for X as your local member, that remains the position until the next election. Similarly, had you voted against joining the then EEC 40 or more years ago, you would have been stuck with the result produced by that majority. To put it differently, the minority does not get things its way.
Yes, it seems to be. But what has the support of a majority in the Commons? Nothing in that week of votes managed to garner one.
But the next election is probably very fucking soon.
Labour are, of course, saying that if that happens the person to be so installed should be Corbyn but unofficially most Labour MPs admit that if he is the choice then a no confidence vote will fail.
Your evidence for this is what exactly ?
Only going on what I read in the newspaper and hear on the radio.
Given that even possible outriders (such as Jess Phillips) have been somewhat supportive of the idea I would suspect professional commentators were making shit up (at the very least they don't have a grasp of the Labour rulebook).
Unfortunately she has omited to find out the sort of policy to which Clarke would commit:
https://www.heraldscotland.com/news/17843238.tory-grandee-ken-clarke-willing-lead-unity-government-39-way-39-stop-no-deal-brexit/
" Mr Clarke said his government of national unity would be a "single-issue, short-term government" with a policy to "sort out Brexit".
He explained: “It would seek an extension; put together a mandate for discussions the majority of the House of Commons approved of and the Europeans would not resist like staying in the customs union, staying in regulatory alignment, keeping our free flows of trade and investment, protecting our jobs and our key sectors of business and agriculture in this country. "
So basically he wants to renegotiate the WA and then pass that -- which is a far cry from Swinson's support for a second referendum.
You can read the article, he's not talking about a referendum. Besides it's quite far from EU membership, being an enhanced customs union.
Except folk had plenty of opportunities to vote for parties promising to leave the EU in that 40 years. Labour and the Greens have had either leaving or a referendum in their manifesto in the past, and there was James Goldsmith and his referendum party, and UKIP's various incarnations. They tried and failed to get Britain out of the EU over those forty years. They didn't put their hands up and say "the people have spoken", they carried on advocating their view. Why should remainers do any different?
The only person who is offering the last bit right now is Corbyn. Swinson wants a referendum first before a GE (no idea how she gets that one through the current parliament), and Clarke (her chosen candidate) is talking about renegotiating the WA and passing it as a means of ending the Brexit episode.
https://dfa.ie/
It's worth enquiring...
No quibble with any of that*, but it does not really answer my point about majority decisions.
*Although at least in my State, elections are for a fixed 4 year term. Perhaps other States as well, and don't get me onto the term for which Federal Senators are elected.
Feel free. One less tory voter is an improved chance of the rest of us being able to salvage what's left of the country.
Never voted Tory in my life.
As well as any sane person would expect.
...if it wasn't for the fact that their countries will possibly be affected by No Deal, they'd probably be enjoying themselves...
I wonder if he offered coloured beads to Frau Merkel, and 'clinky' to Monsieur Macron?
Of course, what should happen is that organists are brought in to impose common sense, decency, decorum and order on the whole shower of politicians, European and (especially) our own. Ah, for a perfect world.
Or stuff them all in a suitable 32 foot pipe and shake some sense into the lot of them.
It's difficult to laugh these days, and laughing where Mr de Piffle Johnson is involved leaves a nasty taste in the mouth, but 😜