|
|
Post by Devonian on Oct 22, 2014 17:14:27 GMT
From a UKIP point of view the interesting thing is the 6 votes that Viscount Massereene and Ferrard got. In the last whole house by election he ran with the following statement
That time he got 3 votes which is the same number as the number of UKIP peers, so they voted for him and no one else
On this occasion he ran with this statement
and got 6 votes, which suggests that there may be at least three more peers sympathetic to UKIP
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299 
|
Post by maxque on Oct 22, 2014 23:37:01 GMT
Among notable candidates, there is the grandson of Harold Macmillan and the great-grandson of HH Asquith. Aren't they all descended from someone notable? Yes, but some are more notable than other. Lord Kennel is grandson of Hilton Young, some Cabinet member of the 30's, which isn't probably notable anymore. Lord Margadale is the greatson of a Chairman of the 1922 committee. Much less known than Asquith or Macmillan. Lord Napier and Ettrick is realted to John Napier, the discoverer of logarithms. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 22, 2014 23:59:41 GMT
The Barony of Margadale is notable for being the last non-Royal hereditary peerage created before the practice died out, except for Mrs Thatcher's brief revival in the mid-80s. Two of the present Lord Margadale's uncles were Conservative MPs: Charles Morrison (Devizes 1964-92) and Peter Morrison (City of Chester 1974-92), the latter being Mrs Thatcher's PPS who mishandled her re-election campaign in 1990 and has also been the subject of some recent press coverage which is not to his credit.
|
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 27, 2014 17:03:32 GMT
I sometimes feel the Conservatives don't make enough of the massive coincidence that just when the world economy had its biggest postwar crisis, the British economy suffered as well. The success of the Labour government in 2008 was to ensure that there was an economy for the present government to inherit. The Conservative opposition was happy to endorse its spending plans up to 2008 and had the Conservatives had their way the banks would have been even less regulated than they in fact were. You mean caused by government's that allowed expanse of credit without banks having reserves. The government's that avoided this, Canada, Australia and New Zealand for the Anglo speaking nations, China (who got rich of the bill Clinton ' s most stupid action.) Weathered the storm yet you lefties seem to nightly annoyed that the Conservatives point out your lefty economics left this country with a structural deficit that surpassed the economic basket cases of southern Europe. If it makes you sleep better at night feel free to argue black is white, you carry on and enjoy opposition. In what way was the last Labour government into "lefty" economics? Their economic policy was a variety of neoliberalism, which is very clearly a right-wing economic framework. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 27, 2014 17:59:19 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't.
Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. As I have always said, in 2008 as in 1979, Labour showed us what happens when the country trusts them with the economy.
I wouldn't trust them with a wet match.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Oct 27, 2014 21:17:47 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't. Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. As I have always said, in 2008 as in 1979, Labour showed us what happens when the country trusts them with the economy. I wouldn't trust them with a wet match. Australia was managed by Labor during the crisis (and was endorsed by The Economist last election). |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 27, 2014 21:49:57 GMT
In what way was the last Labour government into "lefty" economics? Their economic policy was a variety of neoliberalism, which is very clearly a right-wing economic framework. They spent all the money whilst saving none! No reduction of debt levels during the good years and no allowing banks to borrow more then they had in savings, which I have argued before on this site, is not a right wing position. There have been plenty of right-wing governments which spent all the money and saved none, and let debt go up in the good years (George W Bush's administration being the first that comes to mind). Which leaves one rule about banking as the entire substance of your claim that they were left-wing in their economics. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Oct 28, 2014 9:26:54 GMT
Yesterday in Parliament:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 9:51:33 GMT
There have been plenty of right-wing governments which spent all the money and saved none, and let debt go up in the good years (George W Bush's administration being the first that comes to mind). Which leaves one rule about banking as the entire substance of your claim that they were left-wing in their economics. George W bush may have stood on a conservative manifesto but followed a pork barrel budget and heavily spent on a military budget without actually needing half of the stuff. Not many Conservatives would argue that his budgets were particularly right wing as Richard, Neil M and boogie have so ably argued before me. Regan again spoilt his conservative principles by only going into surplus once. At least he had the excuse of ending the cold war. I'll be contraversial and annoy Richard by saying The last real conservative president in terms of managing the state involvement was eisenhower and even he overspent but at least he recognised that government's should not be in the business of spending all its money So your argument is: 1. Right wing governments are good* at managing the economy. 2. A government which is bad* at managing the economy is not a right wing government - even if elected under a right wing label. Kind of a circular argument really? *by your criteria |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Oct 28, 2014 11:23:55 GMT
Shades of the "not real communism" line that is a favourite on a certain section of the far left  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 13:51:43 GMT
But. He. Was. Elected. As. A. Right. Wing. President.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2014 22:29:15 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't. Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. Yes, vast natural resources in both cases, meaning the financial sector contributed a relatively far smaller share of national income. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 29, 2014 2:46:35 GMT
Formerly a member of ILEA. Father of Emily. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Oct 29, 2014 4:56:27 GMT
The left, generally, and Labour supporters, specifically, will never stop thinking that "spend now, pay whenever" is a good policy. It ain't. Other countries, you mention Australia and Canada rightly, did not suffer anything near as much as we did. There has to be a simple reason for that. Yes, vast natural resources in both cases, meaning the financial sector contributed a relatively far smaller share of national income. And, what is often described at the main reason, Canada has very tight regulation of the banking system, especially about bank solidity. Regulations are stringent. So, sure, returns are lower than in most countries and fees are higher, but the crisis had almost no effect on the banking system in Canada. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2014 6:08:24 GMT
Yes, vast natural resources in both cases, meaning the financial sector contributed a relatively far smaller share of national income. And, what is often described at the main reason, Canada has very tight regulation of the banking system, especially about bank solidity. Regulations are stringent. So, sure, returns are lower than in most countries and fees are higher, but the crisis had almost no effect on the banking system in Canada. Our banking regulations were weakened, deliberately, by Gordon Brown. We suffered. Other countries did not, to the same degree. |
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,299
|
Post by maxque on Oct 29, 2014 7:28:54 GMT
And, what is often described at the main reason, Canada has very tight regulation of the banking system, especially about bank solidity. Regulations are stringent. So, sure, returns are lower than in most countries and fees are higher, but the crisis had almost no effect on the banking system in Canada. Our banking regulations were weakened, deliberately, by Gordon Brown. We suffered. Other countries did not, to the same degree. I don't disagree, but your point is putting weight behind the idea than "New Labour" wasn't left-wing. Weakening banking regulations isn't a left-wing idea, in my mind. Has Cameron tighthened them? |
|
|
|
Post by greenchristian on Oct 29, 2014 22:32:46 GMT
So your argument is: 1. Right wing governments are good* at managing the economy. 2. A government which is bad* at managing the economy is not a right wing government - even if elected under a right wing label. Kind of a circular argument really? *by your criteria No my argument was George W bush didn't run a right wing budget. His spending was surprisingly keynsian. It was the same with Nixon. I was attempting to argue that far too often Conservatives in the presidency fell for vested interests. In the case of Regan I can kind of understand it. My argument was spending all the money when the economy isn't good isn't exactly right wing ideology. Sure people will argue that George Bush did it. Yes he did but just because he sits on one branch of conservatism doesn't mean I'm not going to call his handling of the economy when clearly he was spending far too much. Huge tax cuts met with Huge increase in spending is an illogical eat your cake and still be a size 8 type of argument. Either you are deploying the "no true scotsman" logical fallacy, or you are redefining right wing economics to mean balancing the budget, which is a rather idiosyncratic definition. Also, looking at your final sentence, there's a certain school of right-wing thought that says tax cuts usually increase tax revenues. |
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Nov 8, 2014 21:02:10 GMT
Tony Benn didn't write the Peerage Act 1963. His sons are not bound to agree with him on everything (and both he and they made it clear that no-one should assume they did).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 11:38:01 GMT
Tax cuts don't increase tax revenue. When will the right wing realise that wishing it doesn't make it so. Look at the evidence
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2014 12:37:06 GMT
Tax cuts don't increase tax revenue. When will the right wing realise that wishing it doesn't make it so. Look at the evidence It depends on the current level of tax. As a generalist point, your comment is clearly and demonstrably false. As as an extreme example, decreasing tax from 1% to 0% decreases revenues (duh). Decreasing tax from 100% to 99% clearly would increase revenues as nobody would bother working to earn above the threshold at which the 100% rate applied. The arguable point is at which point the tipoff point is not the presence of one. |
|
