Politics Thread!

[Ollie]

One bit of good that basic income would bring about, would be an improvement in how well many employers treat their employees. Whether enough people will work if they don't have to is debatable. Whether they will work for an employer that treats them like shit if they don't have to isn't. And certainly something ought to be done to stop employers being able to get away with treating their employees like shit. If it's not going to be trade unions this time around, maybe basic income would do the trick.

[adam]

i'd imagine a basic income wouldn't be enough to pay for an amazing house, luxury items etc, so people are always going to want to earn more

it's an interesting idea to in effect give the profits from state owned industries to people - it works better if anything valuable isn't privatised of course & there would still be taxation after, and those people would be returning some of that money to the treasury when they use those services

in a way it's like the difference between being citizens & subjects who are ruled (by some robber baron perhaps) - if the income generating things are (or were) communally owned in effect

there was that rail renationalisation campaign before, i spoke to someone at a station about it (ex br staff were promoting it locally) - she said renationalisation was easier than it seemed - in that the track is owned by government & trains are mostly leased from german finance groups, one franchise in the south east had been renationalised already in effect and was running better than under a private operator

[Harlequin]

Bobbins! There actually was a choice of phones, it's just that the standard GPO model was the cheapest one to rent.…

So I was right about the "same telephone" "everyone had" just being the cheapest model? Thank you. I was almost beginning to believe my childhood memories were all delusional.

[adam]

the mickey mouse phone was the most expensive



http://home.bt.com/news/btlife/historyo ... 3902022286

[merman]

Remember Cameron's Big Society?

The Big Society Network, responsible for directing the funding, is now under investigation by the Charities Commission. Allegations include misuse and abuse of funding and paying large salaries to executives, including several people connected to the Tory Party (one of them a major party donor):

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 29848.html

[pogo]

'Statistically significant' rise in net migration to UK

To 243,000 a year, from 175,000. Those of you with long memories will remember the Tories promised to get it down to 100,000 by the next election, though they've dropped that target as it's never going to happen. Now they say they will "control migration at sustainable levels" which is meaningless; it just means they'll accept whatever levels happen, they clearly have no control over them.

Which is good. It was a stupid target, both as it was unlikely to be met and as it's not something they should try to reduce. We have high immigration from the rest of the EU, but that's as our economy is doing well while the eurozone is failing. The only way to stop people coming here would be to leave the EU or wreck the economy, neither of which is a good idea.

The danger is in trying to meet the target they do damage to the economy, as immigrants significantly boost it, especially those from outside the EU. But they seem not to have done too much harm: people have coped with the pointless extra steps and complexity introduced and are still coming. And with dropping the target they seem to have given up fiddling with the system.

[merman]

Tory MP for Clacton defects to UKIP triggering a by-election. Proves how little difference there is between the two parties.

[zip accident]

Tory MP for Clacton defects to UKIP triggering a by-election.

I though MPs were allowed to change party and keep their seat until the next General Election?

Proves how little difference there is between the two parties.

I don't think it does, MPs have changed from Labour to Tory (I think) or Liberal (Ramsay Macdonald) and Liberal to Tory (Winston Churchill) before now.

[pogo]

Yes, there's nothing to stop MPs changing party between elections. That he's forcing a by-election suggests he truly believes in UKIP as it's arguably the best chance they have of getting an MP. Not only is it easier for such upsets to happen in by-elections but he may benefit from personal support and name recognition. On the other hand the other parties won't want to make it easy for UKIP. I wouldn't be surprised if Labour and the Lib Dems largely step aside to give the Tories their best chance at retaining the seat.

As for what it says about the parties: not much. Yes, the Tories are closest to UKIP politically but we knew that already. But they're not especially close. The current Tory party has more in common with Labour, or at least with Tony Blair's Labour, than anything else. The Lib Dems sometimes seem even closer to Labour.

[zip accident]

Yes, there's nothing to stop MPs changing party between elections. That he's forcing a by-election suggests he truly believes in UKIP as it's arguably the best chance they have of getting an MP.

If you're right about the first sentence, they've just got an MP. What they don't have is an MP elected on their slate.

[gravy]

Tory MP for Clacton defects to UKIP triggering a by-election. Proves how little difference there is between the two parties.

Presumably he's switching because he feels there is a difference

[Darkflame]

as immigrants significantly boost it, especially those from outside the EU. But they seem not to have done too much harm: people have coped with the pointless extra steps and complexity introduced and are still coming.

Plus, who would people blame without them?

[Dio]

Yes, there's nothing to stop MPs changing party between elections. That he's forcing a by-election suggests he truly believes in UKIP as it's arguably the best chance they have of getting an MP. Not only is it easier for such upsets to happen in by-elections but he may benefit from personal support and name recognition.

Well, forcing a byelection less than six months from a general election is about very little more than publicity. Although one (outside) possibility is that there's been some behind the scenes shenanigans with him being deselected by his local committee.

If he wins, it would make him much better qualified for the job of party leader than Farage .

[pogo]

If he wins, it would make him much better qualified for the job of party leader than Farage .

That's a very low bar though: dress a chimp in a suit it would probably make a better leader than Farage.

Anyone been following the Scottish polls? Seems the odds on a yes vote have narrowed somewhat, and not just due to undecideds making up their minds. Previously I wasn't too bothered but I now hope for a no vote as the yes vote campaign is almost entirely a con.

How? One big con is the promise of a currency union. It's not going to happen. It would of been a poor choice a decade ago and now it's absolutely impossible as the eurozone has shown how these things turn out. For the euro to survive it needs far more centralisation and integration. But if Scotland vote yes they're voting to tear up the things that make a UK currency union possible, in particular centralised taxation and spending.

Absent a currency union they need a plan B, they need to explain what they actually will do. Joining the euro would be no better than a currency union with the rest of the UK and would take many years. Just using the pound without a union is possible but would dramatically weaken the economy – it's the sort of solution only adopted by small, poor countries and failed states.

Probably the only viable option is their own currency. There's nothing wrong with that, it's what independent countries normally have, including many smaller than Scotland. Long term it's by far the best option. They just need to tell voters that's what they're voting for, and the (very short term) costs of it.

What else? They've recently been threatening to not take on their share of the UK's debt burden. This would be an even worse move than a currency union as essentially writing off all their debts would mean they were shunned by lenders for many years, forced to immediately slash spending to run a surplus. But it also seems unlikely to happen: they would need to negotiate the separation with the British govt. who are not about to voluntarily take on all of Scotland's debts.

A lot of the rest of their case seems based on wishful thinking and wilfully disregarding facts. For example Scotland now benefits from a large subsidy for all its renewable energy. UK consumers pay extra for green energy, with those subsidies paying for more expensive renewable supply much of which is north of the border. An independent Scotland will have to pay all those subsidies itself, on top of the higher costs it has for distribution because it's more sparsely populated. So bills will rise.

[pogo]

More on Scotland. I noted last week that Scotland has two real choices, using the pound without monetary union, "Sterlingisation", and a new currency. Here's the FT on the same subject:

http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2014/09/10/1 ... it-anyway/

They agree that Scotland can't 'share the pound', or at least not with a negotiated agreement with the rest of the UK (rUK) over common financial policies, bank policies, transfers, etc. I.e. the sort of thing that's failed in the eurozone and what they'll be rejecting if they vote yes.

But the FT goes further and say Sterlingisation is not an option if Scotland wants to join the EU. The EU puts strict conditions on new members that they must join the euro, for which they need their own currency, as a key part of joining is aligning exchange rates (the ERM) so at midnight on a chosen day all currency can be converted to € at an agreed rate. They can hardly do that if they're using the pound.

The UK has an opt out but that's exceptional. No country has been granted one since. And Scotland will be looking for favours with an accelerated process, so they can hardly play hardball over currency. It doesn't matter that joining the euro is at least a bad idea as sharing the pound, if they want into the EU then they have no choice so need their own currency.