After PMQ's, you say? Well strike me for not paying attention to that. The explanation only makes it worse.
After PMQ's, you say? Well strike me for not paying attention to that. The explanation only makes it worse.
So he's just going to be sat there unable to do a part of his job?
It's going to be very difficult for the 'leave' side since every party is officially in 'remain'. How is that representative of the country as a whole, when it's around 50/50? If it weren't for big businesss, I reckon the common man is very much in favour of leaving.
None have changed from the stated positions before the election, so people knew what they were going in for.Originally Posted by QE Harold Flair
That's besides the point. Parties are supposed to represent the population, and this perhaps shows how they don't really represent the common man at all.
It's not. All major parties had clearly stated views on Europe, and people voted by huge majority for parties that did not actively support leaving the EU.
Half the country might support leaving, but they didn't care enough about that issue alone to vote for a party that explicitly agreed with them on it.
If only a political party that was against the EU had stood at the election.
Obviously nobody is going to vote en masse for fringe parties. 4 million was a massive vote, all in all. But general elecetions are quite different from Europe, as I I'm sure you must be aware. Guess who won the European elections?
I know all parties had stated their views. Those views do not represent the views of their consituents. Labour used to be for the working class, didn't it?
Are you saying people were too stupid to vote for who they actually wanted?
Clearly those who support leaving did not rank it as their number one priority, or parties supporting that would have received more than an eighth of the vote.
No, in the European elections people voted for UKIP. Pretty clear message. Let's not pretend people voted in the general elections for parties based on their position on Europe. Very few did. That doesn't change the fact that the working class want out and have few representatives of that view, officially. Corbyn doesn't really believe in the EU, either. So much for the 'principled man'.
Well, exactly. Because it's not as important to them as other issues.
Of course it isn't. Although the massive shift to UKIP has shown it's become more of an issue than it was previously. There are many on the left who just couldn't make that leap, obviously. Where are their representatives?
Dunno, none of them seem to care enough to run.
UKIP 'won' the European elections with a quarter of the vote, which means most people voted for pro-European parties.
That's how to twist it.
This Tim Farron broadcast is making the best of it.
'Mate, you don't want... Westminster? It's just a load of... Politics is in your living room.'
Palmerstone, Gladstone, Asquith, Lloyd George...
This stuff and his Boris stuff the other day has left me wanting a leave vote to happen just to piss Cameron off. Highly unpleasant man.
Ashdown... Clegg. Sessions.
It looks quite petty from Cameron - how is Gove meant to do the job if he has having documentation withheld from him? Corbyn was a shambles again - any leader worth his salt should be making huge inroads at the minute, but he's just incapable of doing it.
He should thank him for the afternoons off. It throws it back in his fat face, but it also makes a lol point.
German threatens to leave Britain if we leave the European Union. If it was good enough for Rudolf Hess, son... And is your name a pun?
"I've got an email here from GS, which says I should be making huge inroads"
It looks quite petty from Cameron - how is Gove meant to do the job if he has having documentation withheld from him? Corbyn was a shambles again - any leader worth his salt should be making huge inroads at the minute, but he's just incapable of doing it.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-35678048
All good retro stuff, but what strikes me most is less the Wee Jimmy Krankie part and more the bit where Corbyn is a boring, shit speaker. If you're going to be a left wing crank, at least spit some decent rhymes.
Trident is another one of those things, like the EU, that people on either side seem to get really worked up about but I don't really see what all the fuss is about.
Graham Stuart was doing one of his street surgeries in Hedon this afternoon, telling all the old biddies why we have to stay in Europe, so somebody parked a UKIP-branded Land Rover in the square to hassle him.
Opponents of "the nuclear deterrent", Trident or otherwise, appear to labour under the presumption that everybody agrees with their view on world peace and international cooperation. I mean, Sturgeon saying "it's the exception to possess them" is a right laugh, as if that's somehow an argument. There's a reason, lads. Do you think Kim Jong-Un is going to bin off the nuclear programme if the Americans said they were going to unilaterally scrap nuclear weapons? Would he fuck. Hence you don't get rid of your own.
Malawi don't have them, so we should get rid imo.
Jezza turned up as well. On one hand, fair play for adhering to your principles etc. etc. On the other, surely he realises by now that doing this sort of thing highlights the divisions in his own party, which become the story rather than the many (many) things the government should be held to account over.
You'd think he'd stop being selfish, but it would seem they're more interested in beating the 'red Tories' than they are the actual Tories. Top work, lads.
@GS What do you make of the proposal for lowering corporation tax in NI? I don't think I've asked you about this before.
Prompted by seeing Gerry on TV giving it the big one about being progressive in the south and not going into a regressive government with FF or FG.
In principle, I'm in favour of reducing the tax rate to try and stimulate growth, but I think there's a worrying trends which suggests that some parties see it as some sort of silver bullet for outside investment. That's unlikely to be the case, and it would present considerable short-term funding shortfalls.
Cutting the rate to, say, 12.5% would result in a significant decrease in tax income, and there's analysis which has been completed which indicates that it would take years (upon years upon years) to reach present day levels where you've successfully plugged the gap through increased volume. That means you would be reliant on 'indirect' (i.e. not directly related to CT but probably stimulated by the cut) taxation arising from job creation and subsequent increased spending in the province, but until that time we'd have to use a not inconsiderable chunk of our block grant to fund something which may not generate the sort of thriving economic scene you'd need it to in order to justify it.
I think it's unlikely that existing companies based here would do much else other than redirect the savings of the cut out through increased intracompany transfers or dividends to shareholders based in GB, particularly the multinationals. It might lead to some direct job creation or additional investment from companies with significant operations already here, but not in the sort of numbers which would justify a massive cut.
The main issue, I think, is that what do we really have going for us? Dublin can get away with it because it's a big city with excellent connections for business. They have a huge port and a 20M+ passenger airport with direct connections to major hub airports like JFK, Dubai, Abu Dhabi, Istanbul, Heathrow, Charles de Gaulle, Amsterdam etc. Beyond this, there are plenty of direct flights to other major business locations. It also has an infrastructure (e.g. a vast number of hotels) which can cope, and a wider political stability which we don't have. It's therefore a reasonable location to base your business irrespective of the highly generous tax rate - but the tax rate is such that it will make a tangible difference to the decision as to where to base (or indeed increase) your European presence. We would be wholly reliant on the tax rate itself. Rather than using it as a 'clincher', it's the entire fucking argument.
In those circumstances, why would you invest in Northern Ireland when you can just go down to Dublin where it already works, the government isn't in danger of collapsing after a police raid on the parliament building and you already have an infrastructure and business connections which make your life easy? It's just not the silver bullet the executive want it to be.
So, on balance, I wouldn't bother because we can surely use the money for something more worthwhile.
I'm fascinated by the 'silver bullet' (as you put it) stuff. The NORTHERN POWERHOUSE strikes me as a spectacular example. Ooh, devolved transport. That should sort Bradford right out whilst its elected officials bumble around doing nothing for anybody.
People are desperate for easy answers and quick wins, as if there's only one thing holding somewhere back.
Politicians have a constant dilemma between needing people's votes in areas which have lost out from globalisation, but not wanting to do anything to reverse it or mitigate its effects. Stuff like the Northern Powerhouse idea is a good example of their solution to this dilemma, lip service which will actually achieve fuck all if not make things worse.
Doesn't a corporation tax cut mean we'd face a cut in the block grant as well? So we couldn't even use that to cover up the hole.
My understanding was that we could use the block grant to fund it if we wanted to, but we wouldn't be getting any extra money to do it. Quite fucking rightly too.
I think there are probably some EU restrictions (they remain continually aggrieved with the Irish for undercutting their 'partners' in the Eurozone with an obscenely low CT rate), but we can probably play the Troubles card again if we need to.
Scottish Government has announced it's Council Tax freeze will be lifted from April next year, albeit with a 3% cap on annual increases. Only other change - the bands remain the same - appears to be a proposed tax on vacant properties.
A couple of months before an election seems like a terrible time to announce such an uninspiring policy.
They could probably announce a total ban on porridge and still win 50% of the vote.
And don't forget the heroin!
It is a one party state though. The only opposition party with any level of competence or likeability in its leadership, the Tories, are also really unpopular. All the nats need to do is avoid catastrophes and corruption, so inspiration is never going to be at the top of their list.
It's a country with one dominant party - don't be the wank who tries to make it sound like North Korea. They're dominant because the others are useless. This decision is already looking unpopular with a lot of the individuals and media outlets that drive a lot of support for independence (and the SNP), so there's definitely some opportunity to capitalise. In all likelihood nobody will, but it's still a risky move given it goes so much against what they've been saying for the past ten years.
Gideon has BACKED DOWN on yet another major policy decision. He's becoming useless.
Voting against English Sunday shopping laws is seriously shitebag behaviour from SNP MPs.
Although it's some genuinely backwards shit that there are laws against that in the first place.
I suppose it gets the lol Scottish deficit story off the news.
I like the Sunday trading restrictions. One of the few areas where bean counters are not given free rein to rule the world.
Dan Jarvis gave a speech this morning. If he's their best hope then fucking 'eck stick with Jezza.
I got bored after the fifth shit joke about the army.
Not so much politics as modern media embarassing itself again
I'm confused. Do they think that the Sun based its story on that quote?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote