Quote of the day 29th May 2015
"In the fantasy world that many on the left inhabit there are money trees at the end of the garden and a nationalised British Rail offered a better train service than we have today. To even suggest that, maybe, we should encourage economic growth instead of thinking we can pay for everything by “taxing the rich” or that, actually, competition has driven up standards on the railways, as in many other areas, is nothing better than treachery.
"The Green party represent the apotheosis of this approach, as seen at a close-to-comical way in their housing proposal to end excessive rents in the private sector by building social housing paid for by taxes on excessive rents in the private sector.
"Such perpetual motion machines are a leftist commonplace, and even to point the flaws out is to reveal oneself as part of the enemy – lacking faith in the sense of a refusal to believe in an idea for which no supporting evidence exists."
(Adrian McMenamin, a Labour party member, in an article in Labour Uncut called "I am a revisionist not a right-winger," in which he argues that the Labour party should move a bit closer to the real world. Good luck with that, but I admire his guts.)
"The Green party represent the apotheosis of this approach, as seen at a close-to-comical way in their housing proposal to end excessive rents in the private sector by building social housing paid for by taxes on excessive rents in the private sector.
"Such perpetual motion machines are a leftist commonplace, and even to point the flaws out is to reveal oneself as part of the enemy – lacking faith in the sense of a refusal to believe in an idea for which no supporting evidence exists."
(Adrian McMenamin, a Labour party member, in an article in Labour Uncut called "I am a revisionist not a right-winger," in which he argues that the Labour party should move a bit closer to the real world. Good luck with that, but I admire his guts.)
Comments
Who are the rich?
Its something I have wondered for a long time, is there a mystical figure? one that you when you go beyond you are rich, and below it you are not?
or are "the rich" just, anyone who has earned more money than me.
its a good question, and I really dont know the answer, though I will say that to endlessly tax millionaires, wont work for 2 reasons
Reason 1: Because they will move all assets to a place where a fairer tax system exists, for example Lichenstein. The more you try to take the more resistance you will meet and in fact the less you will take (ask Mr Whiteside about the Laffer curve, he will help you understand it)
Reason 2: Even if every millionaire done the "right thing" (though its debatable if it is the right thing), and paid every penny that the government demands, there is still a flaw, you see there are not enough millionaires to make a difference. It really is a flaw in the Left plan, millionaires are quite an endangered species to be honest.
I have tried hard to give a fair hearing to the Left, I really have tried, but every time I do try logic and reason sort of send me off packing......
I see the first reading of the Referendum bill has gone though the house of commons, which is only a procedural matter. The second reading, which actually involves a debate is scheduled in for the 1st June.
It seems the question they are looking to set is "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union?"
apparently "remain a member of" rather than "be a member state of" is to take account of those who don't know that the UK is currently a member. Make of that what you will.
Lots of people saying they wanted the Yes side, i.e. "Should the United Kingdom leave the European Union", but to be honest I dont think the Yes or the No side makes too much difference.
the last 2 referendums ended in a victory for the "no" side (scotland and AV) so its bye the bye to be honest.
I suspect the best reason for going for "Should the UK remain a member of the European Union" is that it avoids getting into the argument about which model we adopt if we choose to leave (Norway, Switzerland, something new ...)
I was initially expecting that the question would be "Should the UK leave the European Union" but following a "Yes" vote on that question we might get into horrendous arguments about whether adopting, say, the Norway option was a breach of the referendum mandate because we were still in the European Economic Area.
If I were to decide to support the "Out" side - and I am currently trying to think as objectively as possible about which side it is in Britain's interests to support and not be overly influenced by preconceptions and previous opinions - I would consider that making the "In" option "Yes" does have some advantages for the "Out" campaign because it does not create the risk that the wording of the question could be used to present people as having voted for a particular "Out" scenario which they might not have intended.
Of course, just as the "Better Together" campaign attempted with some success to make life difficult for the Scottish "Yes" campaign by asking them to specify what currency an Independent Scotland would have, you can bet your last Euro that the "In" campaign will be constantly asking the "Out" campaign what relationship they want the UK to have with the countries which remain in the EU if they win.
Its not a referendum on the EEA, Its not a referendum on EFTA, Its a referendum asking should we remain part of the political EU or not.
We want to be part of the single market, yes, just like Norway. that sidesteps the economics, no jobs are lost and no fear for trade. Now do we want our laws to be set by the EU or do we want those powers back here? that is the question. No amount of "reform" will ever change a supranational government into anything else than a supranational government, the question is really who should govern the UK, the UK or the EU?
I was using the terms In and Out only because to discuss which way round the terms "Yes" and "No" were being applied you had to have another way to describe the choice.
That's one thing I am not keen on with DC's renegotiation, he has stated if he does not get the reforms he seeks then he will support "No", but has thus fair failed to let us know what reforms he seeks. Thus, following the reform, which will be an article 48 TEU "simplified procedure" tweak, there is no way we can see if the reform was successful or not.
on the yes/no thing, whilst a lot of people do think having the "yes" answer is a great advantage, I really don't think it makes too much difference. I think its a well over hyped "advantage".