You have to draw the line somewhere, unless you allow all the party leaders to speak, which would be unmanageable and probably unwatchable. Nick Clegg at least has a remote chance of becoming Prime Minister (more so,now).
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
The Official UK Election Thread! 6th May it is!
- Thread starter andyandy
- Start date
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
Of course it is politics. I don't see what that changes. I don't believe that the electorate are going to vote for any party proposing tax increases anywhere near the scale you are proposing. It appears all the mainstream parties agree.
As I said: they are certainly not going to vote for it for reasons not a million miles from Soapy Sam's separate point.
That is a completely different matter from saying that there can be no alternative. And that is what has been asserted
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
A bit like it was asserted that there was no possibility of cutting any waste in the public sector?
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
I haven't been following the SNP-for-debate arguments, but my own opinions are that the current set up is OK. The SNP only hold 7 seats in Westminster. This is a national election - so including parties which the vast majority of the population can't even vote for and who represent a tiny fraction of the House of Commons seems an indulgence. Sure, we could include the SNP and then also Plaid Cymru, and then also Respect etc etc. But on the Westminster scheme these are all very small minorities - why should we have a stage crammed full of people irrelevant to the big majority of voters?
By all means have a Scotland and also Wales televised debate - as they are doing. And if the SNP or Plaid Cymru graduate from being very small minorities in the House of Commons then maybe they should be included in future national debates. But now? I don't think so.
Last edited:
@ Jaggy Bunnet:No: not really like that. I was guilty of hyperbole in saying there is no possibility of cutting waste in the Public sector but there are two completely separate issues. The first is whether there is waste: and we are all agreed that there is (just as there is in the private sector, though we are often invited to see that as efficient, by virtue of its nature). the second is whether we can do anything substantive about the waste that exists. We have been making serious efforts in that direction since 1979 under different governments. We have demonstrably failed. Some of the policies we have adopted to achieve that have in fact increased waste: or that is my experience and also Lothian's.
I think therefore that there is evidence to show that we cannot cut public spending in any significant degree by cutting out waste. You may differ but unless you (or anyone else) can show just how it is to be done I do not feel constrained to believe it.
If that cannot be done then the parties should spell out exactly what it will cost the voters if the savings are to be made in that way: and then we will see whether they find those costs lesser or more acceptable than tax rises.
It is not going to happen, for that debate is not being had. It does not matter whether the parties believe that route would be unacceptable to voters because there is nothing at all to prevent them acknowledging there is an alternative; spelling out what the options will mean for the electorate, and then showing why they have chosen the policies they have. In the absence of that we are not having a truly national debate: it is ideological politics: and we are being asked to believe that it is not that but rather it is some kind of scientific necessity.
There is a very strong hegemony of free market capitilism. It has led to the predictable consequences in so many areas. It has corrupted our politicians and it has led to a great deal of distrust in the political process and a great deal of apathy. It is bad for democracy and it is bad for our society (IMO). As I have said before: I will vote SNP because I see no possibility of a change while we remain part of the UK. I have little hope of a change through independence, but there is some. And even if that is not realised I can hope that my country will stay out of the war which I fear is the free market response to the results of these policies. It may be we can avoid that outcome: and it may be that there are significant difference between now and the 30's. I sincerely hope so.
But even if there are significant differences there is no doubt in my mind that these policies are divisive and I think we can see the kind of society we will get if we continue on this path: the example is America, and it is not for nothing that we have "anglo-american" as a preface for so many social and economic policies. I do not want that model for my country. It is what Americans want and that is perfectly reasonable. We are told that it is what British people want too. But I do not think it is. There are enormous areas where that model is decisively rejected in this country (NHS, is the obvious example but it is not the only one). There are other areas where, if the choice was made explicit, I think the people would choose otherwise, too. And I see no similarity between our economy and size which would suggest that what is right for America is right for the UK.
I may be wrong: but I do not think it is an accident that the costs to ordinary people of dealing with this crisis by cuts in public spending are not admitted or debated. I think that tax rises have become quite literally unthinkable for some: that approach is now outside the limits of conventional wisdom. That is handy. But I have seen the results of that wisdom: and it does not look very wise to me. It looks self serving, and it looks brutal, and it look like the inevitable failure that laissez faire capitalism always is.
We may avoid a war. Europe appears to have put up some greater resistance to plutocracy than the US and the UK, and that may yet save us. But we appear to be looking for an enemy outside that continent: the world has shrunk, what can I say?
And perhaps I am paranoid and this is not the way things will or even might go: not a chance I am willing to take: Scotland is not on the way to anywhere, luckily. We cannot avoid the consequences of any war which might arise: but we can perhaps stay out of it: and that, in the end, is why I will vote for independence. I could wish it were otherwise
I think therefore that there is evidence to show that we cannot cut public spending in any significant degree by cutting out waste. You may differ but unless you (or anyone else) can show just how it is to be done I do not feel constrained to believe it.
If that cannot be done then the parties should spell out exactly what it will cost the voters if the savings are to be made in that way: and then we will see whether they find those costs lesser or more acceptable than tax rises.
It is not going to happen, for that debate is not being had. It does not matter whether the parties believe that route would be unacceptable to voters because there is nothing at all to prevent them acknowledging there is an alternative; spelling out what the options will mean for the electorate, and then showing why they have chosen the policies they have. In the absence of that we are not having a truly national debate: it is ideological politics: and we are being asked to believe that it is not that but rather it is some kind of scientific necessity.
There is a very strong hegemony of free market capitilism. It has led to the predictable consequences in so many areas. It has corrupted our politicians and it has led to a great deal of distrust in the political process and a great deal of apathy. It is bad for democracy and it is bad for our society (IMO). As I have said before: I will vote SNP because I see no possibility of a change while we remain part of the UK. I have little hope of a change through independence, but there is some. And even if that is not realised I can hope that my country will stay out of the war which I fear is the free market response to the results of these policies. It may be we can avoid that outcome: and it may be that there are significant difference between now and the 30's. I sincerely hope so.
But even if there are significant differences there is no doubt in my mind that these policies are divisive and I think we can see the kind of society we will get if we continue on this path: the example is America, and it is not for nothing that we have "anglo-american" as a preface for so many social and economic policies. I do not want that model for my country. It is what Americans want and that is perfectly reasonable. We are told that it is what British people want too. But I do not think it is. There are enormous areas where that model is decisively rejected in this country (NHS, is the obvious example but it is not the only one). There are other areas where, if the choice was made explicit, I think the people would choose otherwise, too. And I see no similarity between our economy and size which would suggest that what is right for America is right for the UK.
I may be wrong: but I do not think it is an accident that the costs to ordinary people of dealing with this crisis by cuts in public spending are not admitted or debated. I think that tax rises have become quite literally unthinkable for some: that approach is now outside the limits of conventional wisdom. That is handy. But I have seen the results of that wisdom: and it does not look very wise to me. It looks self serving, and it looks brutal, and it look like the inevitable failure that laissez faire capitalism always is.
We may avoid a war. Europe appears to have put up some greater resistance to plutocracy than the US and the UK, and that may yet save us. But we appear to be looking for an enemy outside that continent: the world has shrunk, what can I say?
And perhaps I am paranoid and this is not the way things will or even might go: not a chance I am willing to take: Scotland is not on the way to anywhere, luckily. We cannot avoid the consequences of any war which might arise: but we can perhaps stay out of it: and that, in the end, is why I will vote for independence. I could wish it were otherwise
Last edited:
mummymonkey
Did you spill my pint?
Alex Salmond is always annoyed.
He is not the slightest bit annoyed - I bet he can't help grinning when he thinks about the debates - it plays entirely into his one issue agenda.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
So should the BBC edit out David Cameron's contributions when they broadcast the debates in Scotland? After all the Tories are a very small minority party in Scotland.
Jaggy Bunnet
Philosopher
- Joined
- May 16, 2003
- Messages
- 6,241
In exactly the same way as those saying that tax rises cannot cure the deficit are guilty of hyperbole. It is possible that taxes could be raised that much, but in the real world it is not going to happen.
Really?
So you don't think that there have already been extremely significant tax rises announced? Which no major party is pledged to reverse? If as you claim tax rises were "literally unthinkable" then any party crazy enough to proposed them or which did not promise to reverse them would be unelectable. However this does not appear to be the case in the real world.
Or are the "some" who think this irrelevant, in the same way that those who think we can cure the deficit without any cutbacks in public spending are irrelevant?
Undesired Walrus
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2007
- Messages
- 11,691
Will the Lib Dems come under some scrutiny now? The only scrutiny I've read of them was their alleged dodgy figures for their tax break.
andyandy
anthropomorphic ape
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2006
- Messages
- 8,377
You could definitely make an argument that the Tories shouldn't take part at all in the Scotland debates.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Given the state of the parties prior to dissolution, they would then have to include George Galloway (Respect), along with SNP, Plaid, Unionist party leaders. I think that scenario would be fascinating, but it's never gonna happen.
No it is not going to happen: the option is not available
No. I think they are unthinkable for those who are wedded to the free market plutocracy. It is obvious that I do not think that includes the electorate. I suspect the electorate do believe the drip feed of how awful that would be: but I do not think they would necessarily think so if the cost of public spending cuts were made equally explicit. As I said, I discussed the issue in a very black and white way: but all three parties propose some tax rise - about 1/3 of the sum I think.
Perhaps you are prepared to lay out the costs of public spending cuts of this order? Maybe you can show how we can save 18 billion through reducing waste?
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Those of us who have lived with an SNP admin for a few years know they have more than one issue.
Perceptions are wonderful things - we each often see what the other doesn't.
Of course - they are all to make it look as if an independent Scotland would be better for folk.
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
Certainly as much as ignorance can be a wonderful thing.