Off Topic Political Debate

Although you can play around with figures for ever, I did have a look at my old parish and district council election results out of interest. Great shame that the parish election was a non-election as all the members were returned unopposed. Shows up the point I made some time ago that despite it being the most local form of government, people are not prepared to give a couple of hours a month to make it work well. In the district council elections however there were turnouts in excess of 90%. That to me says that people are engaging with the local political scene. I had thought that there had to be some issue that had brought people out in such numbers, but no, just a means of keeping the left wing out. No SNP, but Labour, Socialist Workers Party and Greens hardly registered on the votes cast in their favour. The Tory MP was elected with over 60% of the vote, but it has been an area where the Liberals made a lot of progress in the past, and might have won the seat as Maggie lost the plot towards the end of her period in power. They did suffer, but not on the same scale as they did countrywide. Trying to make sense of results countrywide doesn't generally work. Maybe that is where the polls got it wrong.

 

There's nothing obvious about that at all. 38 Degrees are currently circulating a petition calling for backing for the north of England to breakaway and form a union with Scotland. The SNP received plenty of verbal support from south of the border - expressing regret that they weren't standing in any English constituencies. Words, I know, and not really quantified - but simply showing that the desire is there.

 

I wouldn't mind chopping off a few bits of leftie Northern England. That really would be efficient boundary changes. This is all making the remaining part of England richer and more dynamic, don't suppose it will happen though.

 

It would appear to be further afield than I realised - letter in today's Guardian...

 

I wonder why the SNP is in no rush now to achieve full fiscal autonomy? Seems that they once were, but now seem to be backing off.

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7722

 

I cannot be bought

 

In their submission to The Smith Commission, or Pish Commission as it's known up here, the SG did request FFA, but identified that it would take several years to implement. In other words, they still want it, never particularly wanted it in a rush, probably think that Cameron will argue long and hard about it - the 'backing off' is someone else's interpretation, I seriously doubt it's theirs.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-32700575

If I have a problem with people being this rich it makes me a 'lefty' and against wealth creators?

How can people say the system isn't broken when one person can afford to spend so much on a painting?

 

To be fair, it did say 'buyers'...

But I agree - it simply highlights a attitude of 'things over people'. Just greed I suppose - on an enormous scale.

 

The thing with printed news media is that you have choices. To buy or not and then the viewpoint you wish to read Guardian, Telegraph, Express etc or God forbid the Daily Mail, even the Sun and Sport. The BBC has a different problem, it is funded by us, there is (in theory) no escape, you have a TV you pay the licence fee. The organisation sees itself as impartial but for whatever reasons and in varying spheres it isn't. I am sure the left see it as baised in favour of the right and vice versa. The independent stations, funded by advertising, have a freer rein when it comes to news reporting and their bias is actually difficult to see if visible at all.

On a personal level I preferred the style of the BBC news reporting, even if it is slowly becoming more like a panel show, to the ITV news which somehow just doesn't seem to carry the same gravity, even if the subjects covered are more or less the same.

 

I'm a lefty (sort of) but I can see that they are not buying a painting, they are buying an investment. What the buyer(s) hope is that the value of the painting will increase faster than the value of anything else that they could spend their money on.

What this does show, of course, is that they have absolutely no faith in businesses and business leaders. The buyers of the painting do not think that investing in business will bring them the same returns. So much for the notion that low taxation for business results in high economic growth. Actually, that argument has been shown to be false many times. What has been shown to increase growth is raising the minimum wage. Most business leaders are not interested in increasing growth; they are more interested in increasing their incomes, and there is not a close correlation between the two.

 

This left or right thing does my head in ...

I am more of a Marxist....

Groucho that is

remember his joke: I DON'T WANT TO BELONG TO ANY CLUB THAT WILL ACCEPT PEOPLE LIKE ME AS A MEMBER


That is why I really struggle with the tags.... and being told my some Tory I am a leftie.... I own two properties for goodness sake!

 

Very true NZ. The key is to increase spending power at the base of the pyramid and to stabilize demand. These 2 were the key to European growth up to the 80s.

 

What is it with people? What business is it of anyone else if someone or a group of people buy a painting. For all we know it could have been bought by some Russian oligarch - does that mean the British political system is broken? Whether it is an investment or just that someone has enough money to buy a painting to look at - I don't care - it was not my money and nobody asked me for taxes to pay for it. None of my business. As it happens it will no doubt sell for a similar sum or more - who cares?

So Mr A now has a load of money that used to sit in the bank account of Mr B and Mr B has a painting that he wants. Where did a little old lady get mugged in that?

Yes we know the left wing mantra about taking wealth off the rich and redistributing it - but that is just envy. And of course people who argue for that are of course NOT left wing - rap my knuckles for trying to pigeon hole them.

A person who can argue largely along anti right wing lines and sees a problem with too much wealth and wants a Greener country where fuel etc is not wasted can happily defend owning two properties in two countries. Personally I have zero problem with any of that. If you have money you should be able to spend it as you like. Provided you pay the taxes the state tells you to you are doing nothing wrong. So it is only a matter of degree. I can own two small houses can I - but not two mansions probably and I can own a nice little watercolour I bought in a local shop but not an expensive painting.

To me it is hypocrisy and jealousy. People want to pass on their things to their children - but not if it is "too much".

I am in favour of taxes that take more from the better off than others and even inheritance tax if it not simply penal. However if you want to re-distribute massively then that requires a revolution. I cannot see people (in the UK at least) voting for it - every time Labour abandons the Blairite middle it loses - it gets no support for left wing stance.

And why oh why oh why does the left wing hate being described as such? Adopt it and be proud if it is what you support

 

Cologne - can you explain to me how the trickle down theory is wrong? I accept it is not a form of wealth redistribution and nobody ever said it was. However explain to me how the person who buys a Lamborghini does not part with money that goes partly to a person less well off who gets commission for selling it to him. Then when that salesman celebrates, tell me how the restaurant and flower shop do not benefit from the spend and so on. Of course money "trickles down" It does NOT cascade and as I say it is not intended to be a form of redistribution of wealth. But every time something expensive is bought somebody less well off benefits.
Please no Keynesian or other economic "lessons" - I just need to know how money does not flow from the sale of expensive items to smaller purchases.

 

and look where it got Greece!

 

I really think the only way forward is a way that embraces all people... so called left and right... some people make great carers... others great car .... etc.... all have their place.

If I say I am left then I am excluding right and vice versa....

 

No point in talking about Lamborghini's to me Leo - I'm not a car driver and never will be, and so wouldn't know if a Lamborghini is expensive or not (I would happily trade it in for a bicycle). The trickle down theory is just that, a theory, the opposite of this is the 'trickle up' theory which is what I was talking about. It is a basic law of capitalism (and even I as a critic of capitalism know this) that when workers have more money, businesses have more customers and so consumers are the true job creators not rich businessmen. It is this trickle up theory which was the basis behind the post war boom in Europe and so has more evidence to back it up. The alternative idea holds that the richer the rich get the better our economy does (conversely does it hold that if the poor get poorer then that is also good for the economy - sometimes I think that this is implied). If the gulf between rich and poor keeps growing and so much of the purchasing power and economic gain goes to the top then there is not enough purchasing power in the rest of society - also money at the top of the pyramid tends to get washed or disappear which doesn't happen at the base. We will take your example of the Lamborghini - if the money for this (I have no idea how much this is) were given to 20 other consumers and spent on cheaper goods then the money would circulate faster - benefit more people at more different points of sale, and, if given out to small local businesses, would be more likely to stay in the locality.

 

The only problem I would have with owning 2 houses is if the second were in an area where there are homeless people or if my buying of such a house forces up house prices beyond the reach of local people - which has happened in many parts of the West country. If locals leave an area and outsiders buy houses but don't live there then local infrastructures die. Also the analysis of when Labour always does badly rather ignores the fact that at this election they lost most of their votes to parties further to the left ie. SNP and the Greens (they also may have lost some to Ukip)- but there is no evidence that they lost any voters to the Tories.

 

The Green way is neither left nor right but forwards Yorkie ! Despite all of the criticism of them on here I have seen no mention of the problem of global warming from anyone on here, and no viable environmental alternatives offered by any other party.