Recently an Angus mother of three infant children was separated from them and jailed for ten months for over-claiming £10,000 per year in benefits. Meanwhile the Duke of Westminster evades £3.6 billion in inheritance tax through a transparently fraudulent use of trusts which “have the option” to give the money to someone else instead.
The United Kingdom is a socially backward and sometimes vicious polity, an island which prides itself on the state enforced conservatism which allowed it to evade intellectually motivated reform and retain a historical legacy of gross injustice and privilege.
For historical reasons land reform is an immensely popular cause in Scotland, and one of so many areas where SNP timidity is a deep, deep disappointment. The fact that they are covered in buildings does not make the vast London estates of the Grosvenors any more acceptable than the unnecessarily empty Highland estates where golden eagles are destroyed so the chinless wonders, hedge fund managers and sheikhs can blast away at tame grouse.
The late Duke of Westminster is characterised as a “philanthropist” by mainstream media even though the percentage of both his income and his wealth he gave to charity was less than most ordinary people’s mite, myself included, and I am willing to bet that what he did do, was tax-deductible. That a parasite who sat on £9 billion of unearned money in a country where disabled people commit suicide from poverty, and who got two O levels from Harrow, was Prince Charles’ closest friend, cuts through the lying propaganda about the Royal family we are constantly fed.
The political class have a deliberate will not to enforce inheritance tax on the super wealthy. They have a political will not to tackle landlordism, which as it affects both residential and commercial tenants is a fundamental malaise of the British economy. Neither problem is technically difficult. The problem is that the political class as a whole are in the pockets of the super-wealthy, promote their interests and ache to join them.
Which is why in the UK it is important that the threat to them posed by Corbyn is maintained, and why in Scotland it is essential that the SNP membership now push their own leadership into bold action on fundamental land reform and Independence. To call the current SNP approach to both issues desultory would be excessively polite.
Lesley Riddoch, one of the founders of OurLand, and her public backed campaign, which has gone down quite well. Has called for a registry of all, land in Scotland, and more importantly who owns the land. She says it should not be legal for land in Scotland to be owned from secret tax haven, and I have to agree with her.
OurLand along with the Common Weal think tank, led by Robin McAlpine, believe a land tax is the way forward. Why should some faceless wealthy person/syndicate, be allowed to buy up huge swathes of Scottish land, as a tax dodge, that land then effectively becomes unusable or undevelopable to the people who live and work in Scotland.
The Land Reform act which was passed by the Scottish government in March of this years, needs to be strengthened, firstly, clarity as to own the lands in Scotland must be forthcoming.
Martinned
Thanks for the response. I’m not trying to be deliberately argumentative, simply trying to improve my understanding and raise public awareness.
And what does any of this have to do with Scotland’s right to self-determination?
The right to development is underpinned by the imperatives of self-determination and self-governance of a nations’ natural resources.
Dysfunctional? It’s working just fine. This just in:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-ruling-appeal-owen-smith-tom-watson-election-latest-a7184691.html
Unconfirmed as yet : permission to appeal to Supreme Court reportedly (by Balirite) refused.
Let’s not get any uppity ideas about grassroots democracy, eh?
Though I think this episode stands a fair chance of destroying Labour completely. At best a lorra Blairites will be looking down the deselection barrel now.
Yes, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal. So now they can go to the Supreme Court and ask for permission to appeal there.
Hannah F, and other new Labour members are in trouble with legal fees, May not appear as great value for money as the likely Tony Blair case (early days), but worth considering, especially since they have been ordered to pay the Labour Party’s costs, possibly upto Pds 80,000.
https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/labour-party-membership/
So I agree with Baal, all working out just fine. This is petty cash stuff compared to a neat little happy avoidance of inheritance taxes, the primary subject here.
I gave some money to the crowdsourcing site. Probably a waste, but still.
This is, indeed, a curious decision. The first judge only gave leave to appeal somewhat reluctantly. And then the appeal court judge just happens to be a Blair-ite insider; what strings were pulled we may only guess at. And, lo!, the Blairite insider rules against Corbyn. I wonder if the judge talked to Blair personally?
On the upside, this looks so obviously bent that a few eyebrows may have been raised. Some long overdue questions about quite how bent our judiciary is will be asked. And, Corbyn will still win, handily, because whotsisname is so pathetic. Still, it’s quite infuriating, and also completely self-defeating. The Blairites in their bunker are yesterday’s news. The Party has already changed, and they’ve got to accept it with some dignity. They won’t though.
Perhaps of interest, courtesy of The Economist’s Bagehot: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2016/08/labour-pains
Yeah, lol. What we really, really need is another compliant centrist party, to be characterised by the ever-obliging media as left wing and hence validate the other lot’s next shift to the right. Brilliant idea, who’da thought it? But with no clear blue water between the neo-SDP and the Tories, who’s going to vote for it? Well, you might, but I’m guessing you can afford a nice house of your own and don’t do a lot of boring routine stuff for the minimum wage…think on.
I would never vote for any version of the Labour party. (Well, I gave Sadiq Khan my 2nd choice, but that was just to do my level best to keep Zac Goldsmith out.)
Instead of hyperventilating about the evil of rich people doing legally what they can to minimize their liability to tax, something that even you probably do, why not think about a practical approach to a fairer a tax system.
A step in the right direction would be a capital tax of one to one and a half percent, as they have in Switzerland, which would generate enough to allow raising the basic personal exemption to tax to something like a living wage, say 25 thousand pounds.
Well, the UK already taxes income from savings/investments, which is generally considered an alternative to a tax on capital/wealth. It doesn’t really matter which one you do (they both have incentive implications, but I can’t be bothered to work out which is worse), but it seems unnecessarily messy to do both.
the UK already taxes income from savings/investments, which is generally considered an alternative to a tax on capital/wealth.
If the wealthy get wealthier year by year, as is the general trend according Thomas Pickety, then taxes on income from investments can hardly be considered a tax on wealth unless it exceeds 100% of income, something that was considered an outrage when Roy Jenkins tried it briefly.
A one or one and a half percent tax on capital, with a personal exemption of say a million pounds, sounds much more reasonable, and would apply to all assets, income bearing or otherwise. Such a tax would eliminate the need for death duties, a truly messy and inequitable tax.
Such a tax would still result in the rich getting richer, at least assuming they can earn more than 1.5% real return on their investments, which I assume they will be able to, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about.
For comparison, Dutch income taxes impute a fixed, fictional return of 3% on all savings and investments (other than the house you live in), and tax that return at 40% for a net wealth tax of 1.2%. Conceptually, that’s not that different from taxing actual returns, except that it has less impact on the incentive to invest, and it saves everyone the trouble of measuring returns.
CanSpeccy, one aspect that gets conveniently overlooked in these debates about taxation rates is that wealthy people mostly get where they are because of the State; ie, by taxation on the populace.
Let’s call our typical wealthy person Mr Barstard. Suppose Mr Barstard is a businessman, then he is employing people who have been educated by the state, and their healthcare is taken care of by the State, etc.
Even if Mr Barstard does not employ people, he is still using roads, railways, airports, etc, all provided by the State.
The fact that Mr Barstard can live in a secure country is also provided by the State (the armed forces and police).
Etc, etc, etc.
Yet My Barstard does not want to pay a penny in tax…
I don`t consider that someone who runs a business is necessarily a bastard or even a Barstard. Without such people, there wouldn`t much of an economy, as the Soviets discovered. Also, your assumption that an employer does not pay for the education that his employees receive from the state is incorrect, since employers pay more to workers with relevant educational qualifications than to uneducated workers, who they may not wish to hire under any circumstances other than to pick potatoes or sweep the factory floor. Thus, it is employees who are the primary beneficiaries of state funded education, which is chiefly funded by taxes on high income earners such as successful business owners.
As for employers not wanting to pay a penny in tax, how many actually take such a position? As Adam Smith pointed out, wealth is incompatible with anarchy, and therefore it is appropriate to tax property to pay for police and military defense of property. I don’t think many business owners would disagree. What they may complain about is tax money being squandered by inefficient bureaucracies, or applied to socially destructive programs such as the political brainwashing that is an integral part of our K to middle-age system of state controlled education.
CanSpeccy, I don’t think we’ll be able to agree on anything here.
So I’ll just say, look at the society we now live in.
Are you able to see it?
When the masses come with rope in hand will you understand what’s happening? (before they string you up)
Difficult to argue with any of that, CanSpeccy. Good to see facile, simplistic and trite banality answered by economic literacy.
Thanks, Habba.
Unfortunately, my attempt at rational analysis has earned me the hatred of a murderous lynch mob with ropes.
I’m afraid that is the normal reaction to anyone who contests “pensee unique” which prevails on this blog. The funny thing is that the more unanswerable the dissenters’ comments, the greater the likelihood of the response being an insulting and/or diversionary one.
Don’t be silly, employers are not altruists, they’re greedy bastards who steal from people.
Who’s being silly? No one said employers are altruistic. They work for money just like the employees, who are often greedy bastards too.
It wasn’t just dumb management that wrecked the British car industry in the 1960’s, but also a bunch of unions led by Trotskyites, constantly calling wildcat strikes and destroying productivity. Then there were the print unions, the rail unions and the and public service unions that not only drove down productivity, but horribly inconvenienced the public including sick people. Just before I left Britain in 1968, I asked if I could help an old lady in tears outside the Devon and Exeter hospital. It turned out she’d come into town on the bus for treatment but been turned away because the nurses were on strike: bastards.
As for employers stealing from people, sure, some have: Robert Maxwell is one name that comes to mind. But he came to a bad end. But most employers, I suspect, operate within the law, if only on the principle that honesty is the best policy.
And the thieving employer Robert Maxwell was a representative of the downtrodden masses, the Labour Party MP for the struggling workers of Buckingham.
Robert Robber Maxwell was a LABOUR politicians, just like
The Blairs
The Kinnocks
The Mandelsons
The Straws
The Benns
The Sainsburys
The Hodges
The Milibands
The Janners
Filthy rich and passing their swag down the generations of their spawn
Norton
Well, “filthy richness” is in the eyes of the beholder but I doubt if most people would consider the Kinnocks, the Straws, the Milibands and the Janners to be “filthy rich”.
But it would be interesting to hear your definition of “filthy rich”. Is it simply quantitative or does it also encompass how those individuals made their money?
I am SURE most people would call
The Blairs
The Kinnocks
The Mandelsons
The Straws
The Benns
The Sainsburys
The Hodges
The Milibands
The Janners disgusting money grabbing NULABOUR SCUMBAGS
Norton
And your definition of “filthy rich” is….?
We are extremely lucky to live in The UK – because it rains a lot and rarely gets too hot or too cold.
I know our politicians and their American and Israeli controllers are horrible, but Thank God, most of Them do not actually live here – and in my experience most people who do are actually rather nice.
In our travels, my wife – thinks most people who were born and bred North of Watford are much friendlier and nicer than you Southern Tossers…but us Northerners have spent the last 35 years trying to bring you Southerners up to Our Standards – and to be Fair – I think you are Exceedingly Tolerant – even if you do not always appreciate our sense of humour
Re the water thing – check out Saudi Arabia and California..
And re Solar Power – if it worked as well as the Bullshit…Why ain’t California and Saudi Arabia irrigating their land with desalinated sea water – now they have almost completely exhausted their very deep underground aquifers which take several thousand years to refil?
The UK might be dysfunctional – but I do not know of a better place to live.
And that is why Millions of people want to move here.
Tony
[racist comment deleted]
“Why is that, Tony?”
As someone who emigrated and then came back, I have to agree with Tony. Like he says it rains a lot and rarely gets too hot or too cold and although our politicians and their controllers are horrible, they don’t get in our face. And like I said before, my wife chose to come live here, and remained until her death, because the UK is, after all, “GREAT Britain”. [Personal. Deleted]
And even dysfunctional as we are, we haven’t yet got an upcoming election where the choice is between Killary Klinton and The Donald
To be specific, I used the adjective “tosser” with reference to immigrants because Tony Op_Moc used the term “tosser” with respect to people from southern England, you know white tossers. Tony was obviously not using the term as a form of racist abuse, and neither was I, but I knew if I applied it to immigrants it would be scrubbed by a moronic moderator incapable of seeing anything wrong with using the term with reference to the indigenous white inhabitants of Britain. How pathetic. And how quickly will this be scrubbed?
Except solar powered desalination plants are built and being built in the Gulf, North Africa and elsewhere. The setup costs are not trivial, there are more costs than just energy (the semipermeable membranes don’t last forever and need cleaning). The technology works but it is still in its infancy. Conservative places like Saudi will look to see how it works, the costs and downsides. For one thing you have to do something with the hyper saline solutions you are left with. You can make salt of course but the world is not short of salt. If you dump it back in the sea you kill things and make your inputs saltier which makes desalination difficult.
It is not a simple technology where you put up some solar panels, plug them into some kit and fresh water bubbles out the other end.
Hmm, that is a problem, but there is a need for salt to keep the haline conveyor belt going in the North Atlantic,. Salt drives the subduction and the Gulf stream, it has slowed down and will further slow down with more and more freshwater melt from Glaciers in Greenland and elsewhere.
If the slow down rate accelerates, and the gulf stream stops altogether, we can expect colder winter and wetter wether in summer.
oops its already happening….
According to Wikipedia, the cost of desalinated seawater is around 83 cents a cubic meter, which sounds cheap unless you’re a farmer and know that it takes one to two cubic meters of water to produce a kilogram of rice or wheat, which means that desalination will not work for grain farmers unless the the cost can be cut by more than 90%.
The Saudis did in fact try growing grain with desalinated water, flash distilled using cheap oil to drive the process, but gave it up as a bad job.
78% of Tory voters gave their vote to Labour to edege out a SNP candidate in Irvine. They say that, down South there’s no discernable difference between the Blairites of the Labour party, and Theresa May’s Tory party.
In Scotland the Tories and Labour go hand in hand along with the insignificant LibDems.
http://wingsoverscotland.com/tories-together/
So it could be fourth time lucky as professor Alexis Jay heads up the Child Sex Abuse inquiry, which has already cost the taxpayer a whopping £18 million quid.
The life-long social worker is expected to be paid less than Dame Lowell, who was handed a package worth £500,000 including relocation from New Zealand and a £360,000 annual salary, when the terms of her appointment are finalised.
I don’t know about you but I think this inquiry is turning into a money spinner, it won’t be long until the public expenditures, reach Chilcot proportions.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3734782/Alexis-Jay-announced-new-chair-child-sex-abuse-inquiry-following-shock-resignation-Lowell-Goddard.html
I think that most decent people will hope it’s a case of “fourth time lucky”.
I certainly do and I hope that goes for you as well.
There are, however, no doubt some who hope the opposite for a number of very opposing reasons,
Martinned
But development and self-determination are two very different things, and with regard to the latter, Scotland has already had a referendum and doesn’t seem to want another one any time soon.
So you were incorrect with your first assertion. With regards to your latter assertion, did you miss the national breakdown of the Brexit result? Time will tell as to whether Scots want another referendum.
The independence referendum showed that the majority of Scots want to remain part of the UK and the Brexit referendum showed that the majority of Scots wish to remain part of Europe.
The Brexit referendum did not show that the majority of Scots wish to leave the UK. That isn’t what the referendum was about.
FUD
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND SHELTER: A HUMAN RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE
Today, however, there does exist a body of international law on development (ILD) comprising the UN Charter; the Universal Declaration on Human Rights; the 1986 General Assembly Declaration on the Right to Development, the Covenants on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and on Civil and Political Rights; a variety of international human rights and environmental treaties, and the Declarations and Programs of Action of a round of UN World Conferences from Rio to Beijing. It is vital that development (indeed, all development activity) be brought under a regime of “rule of law”. It is vital that all development activities conform fully to the principles of the international law on development. For such a premise (indeed mandate) one need not look beyond the Charter of the United Nations. In his Foreword to a Harvard Law School….
4. Development must be participatory. Governments and international development agencies must recognize the rights of all persons to participate in, and contribute to, economic, social and cultural development, promotion of these rights, which are guaranteed by international law, is an essential element of the human right to development, and governments and international development agencies must adopt appropriate measures to enable and empower people to:
5. Development must promote the right of peoples to self-determination, notably their right to exercise full sovereignty over their country’s natural wealth and resources.* This sovereignty must be realized:
https://core.ac.uk/download/files/153/6248903.pdf
* My emphasis.
But the right to development is to protect undeveloped countries, Britain is 14th out of 148 countries. If we develop more we just widen the gap between us and the genuinely undeveloped countries. We also have self determination which the people of Scotland showed when we determined not to leave the UK.
Sorry Fred, I doubt you would understand a fuller explanation of development as the basic concept of “democratic deficit” appears to be beyond you. Do you not appreciate how profoundly undemocratic it would be for England to drag Scotland out of the EU? Britain is not a country!
Would it hurt to acknowledge that Scots have been denied control over their nations’ natural resources?
Every one who voted to remain in the EU is being taken out of it against their will.
That is called democracy, that is how democracy works, the minority defer to the majority. When opinions are divided there will always be some people who are disappointed.
Correct Fred, and it is clear we can’t remain in both the UK and the EU. The only democratic way we can resolve this dilemma is to have another referendum on independence. The question and the choice is clear:
Do we choose world’s richest single market or a debt-ridden, isolated, xenophobic, little England?
Tough call
It turns out that one of the most No places in Scotland, Edinburgh, was the most Remain place in Scotland. 60% vs over 70% respectively.
Those two results are no longer compatible. The Union people in Edinburgh voted to stay part of in 2014 no longer exists in the same form. Staying in means compromising on membership of the union they are most enthusiastic about. Something has to give.
My eldest in Edinburgh voted No and Remain. She is now minded to at least consider voting Yes if things turn out badly. We need lots of messages from Europe that we are wanted. We have had some but the MSM have been silent on them so No voters who do not read the Yes media do not know about them. The SNP, Greens, RIC etc need to get moving and put leaflets out targeting No voting areas that might be Yes-curious.
After Brexit, a Scottish independence vote would have even more serious consequences than it would have had before. So I don’t see the Scottish electorate changing its mind except out of anti-English resentment. (Which I would recommend to the SNP as a campaign strategy.)
Cameron B Brodie, Scots may well want another Referendum – cos they were cheated with the Result of the Last One. Personally, I would rather that Scotland remained a part of the UK – but I believe in Democracy – and I do not like the Democratic will of any People and Country being abused by Powerful Evil Forces
Matined’s reply to me
Martinned
August 12, 2016 at 17:17
well i thought it was like a child in class, asking me a question, and illustrating herself rather well.
She is obviously far more intelligent than her response indicates – but doesn’t yet seem to have a clue about what’s really going on…
Maybe she is happy and doesn’t want to change it for the better.
or Maybe Martined is an Authoritarian wannabbe controller who also posts under other handles…………
I don’t know. I do not moderate this website. It’s got to be the worst job in the world especially if done for free.
It’s bound to do your head in unless you are a Saint.
Don’t worry – I’m already booked and sorted and won’t be down your Scottish Rabbit Hole…
We and loads of our Friends are Going Here…Some of the best bands are Scottish (if history is anything to go by)
When we first went 9 years ago – there were about 10 tents and one of them was ours.
http://www.weyfest.co.uk/
Have a Nice Festival. It’s good to live like a Refugee.
Tony
Loony
August 12, 2016 at 14:00
Let us look at some facts. Facts that are undisputed.
In 1980 corn production in Zimbabwe was recorded at 2,767 million tonnes. In 2015 corn production was 742 million tonnes
In 1980 wheat production was 162 million tonnes and in 2015 it was 20 million tonnes.
In 1980 sorghum production was 105 million tonnes and in 2015 it was 40 million tonnes.
…………………………………………………………………………………….
Lies, dammed lies and statistics.
There are a multitude of possible explanations for the above statistics but you choose not to offer any analysis; rather than, white man good; black man bad.
Hi Doug – I guess invective is easier than reading.
I was responding to a comment made by the blog host that agricultural production had risen as a consequence of land reform. Agricultural production has in fact done the opposite of that claimed by Craig Murray. I have offered no reasons for why this might be, and neither I note have you.
I guess it depends what you mean by “white man good, black man bad”
Congo, Mozambique, Zambia and 19 other African countries all seem to see some value in white SA farmers – so much value in fact that they are prepared to offer them vast swathes of land as an inducement to their moving north. This constitutes land reform, but perhaps not the type of land reform that educated western liberals have in mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/may/01/boers-moving-north-african-governments
The problem these liberals have is that it is black governments that are initiating and developing these land reforms.
Meanwhile upward of 3,000 South African farmers have been murdered in post apartheid South Africa – something which remains of zero interest to western liberals.
Over 5 million people in Zimbabwe are facing food shortages due to the collapse of their agricultural base. This will likely be less of a problem than would otherwise be the case due to agricultural surpluses created by South African farmers.
If only the South African agricultural base could be made to go the way of Zimbabwe then millions of people could starve – but starve safe in the knowledge that their slow and agonizing death is all worth it provided that there is no racist element to their death.
Excellent post, Loony.
@Glenn,
It would seem that old man Benn knew better than to allow the state to piss away his fortune.
BTW, what is it with the far-left? You spend your whole lives whining on about how the state abuses its power, whilst at the same time demanding more state.
i ask again of Anon1 & Co to define exactly what they mean by ‘far-left’?
And as for the ‘state’, it’s simply a modern term for how humans have organised their societies for the last ten thousand years or so.
The state is society, and should be organised by people who put the benefit of the whole before the benefit of the individual, as opposed to the bunch of total ponces and criminals who presently run western countries.
More estate would be fine. Keep the State. 😉
Ukraine Crimea: Russia sends new air defence missiles
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-37062036
The S-400 Triumph missile systems were earmarked for troops in Crimea last month, Russian media said at the time.
Moscow also announced exercises in Crimea next week to simulate an attack by weapons of mass destruction (WMD).
Russia, which annexed Crimea from Ukraine in 2014, said this week it had foiled a Ukrainian sabotage mission.
Hmmn, I am not sure what this is about.
Is it sticking two fingers up to OBOMA?
Russia did not annex Crimea, as you claim.
There was a referendum in Crimea, deemed free and fair by UN observers, in which the people of Crimea voted by a very large percentage to become part of Russia.
They did this because of the CIA coup in Ukraine, which put a bunch of neo-nazi lunatics into power.
I can’t be bothered giving links. It’s all well documented. Do your own research if you’re interested.
And please, stop swallowing the childish/clumsy propaganda.
Rob you are correct in most of your post.
I do believe that the people in Crimea were give a clear choice, which essentially was a no-brainer, either re-join with Russia, a functioning state or be part of Ukraine an almost non-functioning state but also be consumed in war between Russia and Ukraine.
They made the only rational choice.
I expect there are quite a few in Ukraine who wished they were still part of Russia.
Yeah it’s gone quiet on the Panama Papers as well. The Evening Standard & Independent owners are definitely not found in them otherwise they would be all over the news…surely…
https://talesfromthesouthbank.wordpress.com/2016/07/31/alexander-evgeny-lebedev-panama-papers/
Well, if I’m not wrong, nearly a 1,000 people have contributed some additional Pds 20k or so since I last posted a couple of hours or so ago through crowd-justice towards the legal wrangle within the Labour Party:
https://www.crowdjustice.co.uk/case/labour-party-membership/
We’re on the second page, so hopefully this slightly O/T post will get past the censors…
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/08/ecuador-to-let-sweden-interview-wikileaks-founder-assange-about-rape-allegations/
Seems like the Swedes are finally going to interview Assange in the UK, at the Ecuadorian embassy. I wonder if a statute of limitations deadline is looming.
“… agricultural production had risen as a consequence of land reform. Agricultural production has in fact done the opposite of that claimed by Craig Murray…”
Are you sure? The figures that you cite probably refer to commodities delivered to market. The ‘settler’ agriculture in Rhodesia was designed to produce commodities for export and sale. In Zimbabwe, one presumes, the interest of the peasants is to feed themselves and their families and to send surpluses either to neighbours, in gifts/barters or to market to raise money for taxes, etc.
It is as well to remember that while millions were starving in Ireland, during the potato famines, the barges and ships taking food to England were full. The Anglo Irish landlords were, like the Rhodesians, producing commodities for the market.
The likelihood is that, under settler market agriculture, much of the land was diverted from food production to producing tobacco and other exportable commodities. After land reform this land will have been diverted to food production for subsistence and local markets. From the point of view of the African, particularly the child or the old person, this would be a good thing. Though it would register negatively in your statistics: food eaten by Africans being less profitable than tobacco or corn dumped onto the international commodity exchanges.
Generally speaking peasant agriculture delivers very little surplus food to the market, the bulk of the produce being consumed by the producers. Is that such a bad thing? Would it be better if the producer, as is often the case under capitalism, starved (or lived off brose 21 times a week) while truckloads of food were shipped off to the markets?
Well, Bevin, most states produce to export in order to be able to import other things.
The fact is that in Southern Rhodesia – now known as “Zimbabwe” – agricultural production was enough both to feed the population (black and white) and to produce a surplus for export.
That is, unfortunately, not the case any longer.
Far from exporting basic foodstuffs, “Zimbabwe” imports them these days.
Prediction: South Africa will go the way of “Zimbabwe” in due course. Wait and see.
Far from exporting basic foodstuffs, “Zimbabwe” imports them these days.
So do we. That’s globalisation for ya.
Of course.
But the UK has been importing basic foodstuffs for a couple of centuries; it is nothing new. You will have heard of the Corn Laws (abolition of) issue.
The point here, surely, is that Southern Rhodesia exported foodstuffs before independence (and nobody in the country, including the black majority, went hungry) whereas since independence Zimbabwe has tended to need to import them and there are hungry people there (almost exclusively black people, I should imagine).
“Prediction: South Africa will go the way of “Zimbabwe” in due course. Wait and see.”
Do you think Mr Oppenheimer will allow that?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicky_Oppenheimer#/media/File:Vladimir_Putin_in_South_Africa_5-6_September_2006-16.jpg
Nice picture of Mr Oppenheimer, Hab, with his mate Vlad, wheels within wheels and all that 😉
Alan
It have no idea of what Mr Oppenheimer would “allow” or not but I think it’s fairly safe to say that the way South Africa will go is not in his hands.
Do not forget that when Zimbabwe was created, and for a couple of decades afterwards, all was light and optimism.
The underlying reality is that the land was taken from the native people and given to settler/farmers, most of whom knew nothing about farming but had enough money to hire managers who could produce commodities for the international market. They had the great advantage of very low labour costs, with military terror being employed to prevent the proletariat (instantly created by stealing the land) from earning more than wages commensurate with living standards on plantations. Which is to say minimal living standards and appalling working conditions.
About one thing you are right: South Africa will go the way of Zimbabwe. And so will that other colonial project Israel.
Zimbabwe’s current difficulties are all consequent on its recent history, including long years of sanctions and the British betrayal to finance Land Reform, as promised, to restore the status quo ante and return the country to its rightful proprietors, the various communities.
The underlying reality is that the land was taken from the native people and given to settler/farmers
Bevin – the total population of the entire continent of Africa in 1900 was approximately 120 million of whom,at the highest estimate, no more than 1.5 million lived in what is now Zimbabwe. Zimbabwean territory totals just over 150,000 square miles (the UK is approximately 94,000 square miles), ergo, it can be surmised that great swathes of the lands granted to white settlers in the early 1900s were hitherto uncultivated waste.
” ergo, it can be surmised that great swathes of the lands granted to white settlers in the early 1900s were hitherto uncultivated waste.”
Yes, that’s the standard argument used by people who steal land – “it wasn’t being used”. It’s a central motif of Israeli narrative creation. “A land without a people for a people without a land”. Of course it wasn’t true, but who cares? Nobody in the West knew what the real situation was, So any lie could be told.
I’m sure there are a thousand examples which are not so well known.
Laguerre – Speaking of standard arguments I note your ready resort to one when facts conflict with your worldview.
The situation regarding the creation of Israel is completely disconnected from the history of southern Africa and as such is totally irrelevant.
Just to help you out there is one comparison that can be made.
Since 2000 it is estimated by the Israeli Center for Human Rights in the Occupied Territories that 9,410 Palestinians have been killed by Israeli forces.
Since 1991 in excess of 70,000 white South Africans have been murdered.
Why is it that the situation with regard to Israeli aggression can consume entire academic disciplines, fill entire newspapers and provoke demonstrations and boycotts and yet the situation in South Africa is of no interest to anyone. Is all human life equal? Or are some lives worth more than others?
Loony (10h23)
Thank you for nailing that standard (and irrelevant and fallacious, as you have shown) argument from Laguerre.
If that is the sort of stuff (and method) doled out to French students in higher education then I weep for the future of France…..
Bevin
“Zimbabwe’s current difficulties are all consequent on its recent history, including long years of sanctions and the British betrayal to finance Land Reform, as promised, to restore the status quo ante”
___________________
That, I think, calls for two comments:
1/. So the “long years of sanctions” – designed, in case you’ve forgotten, to bring the white minority govt to heel and to lead to black majority rule – are (partly ) responsible for Zimbabwe’s current plight??
Now I’ve heard it all.
To be noted that the economy of Southern Rhodesia as in much better shape under sanctions than the economy of Zimbabwe today not under any sort of sanctions and the beneficiary until recently of considerable foreign aid (from various sources)
2/. Re financing Land Reform, I think you’s do well to read up on the subject and come back to us when you’ve done so (I suspect you will and you won’t). The object of Land Reform, by the way, was never to “restore the status quo ante” – whatever that is supposed to mean (cf in this connection the instructive post from Old Mark at 00h09).
Yes I am sure. The figures quoted relate to annual production – and not annual exports. You can check them yourself via this link
http://www.indexmundi.com/agriculture/?country=zw&commodity=corn&graph=production
So far as agricultural potential is concerned Zimbabwe is naturally rich and should be able to produce huge surpluses. Unsurprisingly its agricultural base was developed on the basis of exports. Just like the agricultural harvest of the Steppe or the Great Plains is produced for export. It is just common sense and has nothing to do with “settler agriculture”
Zimbabwe did not have peasant agriculture – it had a highly sophisticated agricultural base providing enough food for everyone and earning foreign exchange for its surplus, the benefits of which were shared (albeit unequally) by the population.
Today in Zimbabwe over 5 million people are facing near term food shortages. Even under the most extreme set of assumptions there is enough productive land and enough residual technology (irrigation, tractors etc) remaining in Zimbabwe for the country to at least feed itself. So what explains the current situation?
We have yet to see how these current food shortages will ultimately play out – but if recent history is any guide the most extreme effects will be alleviated via food imports from South Africa – a country that has resisted going down the same land reform route as Zimbabwe.
The Irish potato famine, whilst a tragedy, is entirely unconnected to current events in Zimbabwe.
If you look at Zimbabwe with an open mind you may realize that neither Marxism nor racism are sufficient to explain the tragedy of this country.
“…South Africa – a country that has resisted going down the same land reform route as Zimbabwe…”
The land there remains in the hands of the descendants of the white settlers, but is worked by the descendants of the people from whom the land was stolen. This is not an arrangement which is going to last, merely a way station on the road out of Apartheid to freedom.
“..Zimbabwe did not have peasant agriculture – it had a highly sophisticated agricultural base providing enough food for everyone and earning foreign exchange for its surplus, the benefits of which were shared (albeit unequally) by the population.”
Earning Foreign Exchange by exporting agricultural surpluses is clearly not something that preceded colonialism. And those surpluses, which earned foreign exchange, did not reflect an economy in which everyone received enough food but an economy in which only those who had enough money could buy food.
The relevance of the Irish famine is that, there too there was plenty of food but it was unavailable because the producers of the food did not have money enough to buy it.
You are right about one thing though: neither racism nor marxism explain the tragedy, which is wholly the product of colonialism and the distortions in society produced by imperial rule. Before Rhodes et al, the people in what we call Zimbabwe did not produce food for export but for their own consumption. The prevalent mode of production was, roughly speaking, peasant subsistence and foreign exchange was a complete mystery to all. Pretty well the same was true of South Africa, as it is now called.
The past did not begin in the 1890s. There was life before capitalism, just as there will be after it.
bevin -There were no settled indigenous communities in South Africa in 1652 (the time of arrival of the first white settlers). Therefore the land could not have been stolen from anyone as there was no-one on the land to steal it from.
The local population was largely comprised of a san aboriginal population. There was discord as between the san and the Khoi – a more aggressive people moving south. There is no more reason to assert that white people stole the land than there is to assert that the Khoi were in the process of stealing the land when they were frustrated by more technologically advanced white settlers.
The first settlers elected not to enslave local aboriginal populations and instead imported slaves from elsewhere to work the land. Thus it is likely that many of the people working the land today are the descendants of slaves. While many crimes were committed against slaves one of them could not have been stealing their land in South Africa when they themselves were forcibly imported into South Africa.
Like South Africa there were no settled farming communities in Zimbabwe prior to colonization. Therefore the entire agricultural industry was developed in conjunction with, and as a consequence of, colonization. British colonial policy caused periodic famines in India (and as you so relentlessly remind people) Ireland. It did not do so in Southern Africa. It therefore follows that during the colonial period all people both colonizers and colonized had access to food on a regular basis. This fact demonstrates that neither the Irish famine or the periodic Indian famines have any relevance to the situation in southern Africa.
Imperial rule did distort society – and distort it in complex ways, and in ways that cannot be unwound. Simplistic and factually inaccurate slogans about stolen land are unlikely to lead to a viable long term solution.
Colonialism was not all bad – it lifted many people out of subsistence living, provided increased literacy, and provided food for all. Food shortages in Zimbabwe is a post colonial phenomena. If you speak to many ordinary people throughout Southern Africa they will quite happily tell you that in comparison to the Chinese the British were quite benign. An intelligent person would listen more to these people and less to the people that are trying to sell all encompassing theories to explain everything – and hey if the facts don’t fit the theory just change the facts.
“bevin -There were no settled indigenous communities in South Africa in 1652 (the time of arrival of the first white settlers). Therefore the land could not have been stolen from anyone as there was no-one on the land to steal it from.”
Hey, Loony tells it lke it is Bevin. Sorry to rain on your parade.
Why don’t we talk about that Welsh Tosser? All those years protesting about “Pass Laws” only to back Big Brother Blunkett in his plans for an Identity pass for us??? Now that is really ironic.
Fred
You have a very strange idea of what democracy is if you think it appropriate that one nation dominate another, simply as a result of having a larger population and being bound in a political union that predates Britain’s attempt at democracy by three centuries. A political union intended solely to ensure a Hanoverian ascendancy to a shared Crown. How very imperialistic/cringing of you.
You are aware that most moral philosophers and theologians reject utilitarianism as being deficient?
I know what democracy is, democracy is when people agree to abide by the wishes of the majority.
In the case of the independence referendum the rules were agreed beforehand and one of the rules, stated by the Nationalists in advance, was that it was to be a once in a lifetime event.
In the case of the Brexit referendum the rules were agreed in advance, that Britain would abide by the wishes of the majority, all of Britain would do what the majority of people in Britain voted for.
BTW After the independence referendum these pages were littered by people claiming that the vote had been fixed, all sorts of claims and links to videos on youtube of supposed underhand practices, talks of postal votes being fixed and ballot boxes going missing. The Brexit vote was administered by the same people, the same councils, the ballot papers counted by the same people yet the claims of fraud are somewhat conspicuous by their absence. Can we conclude from this that the Brexit result was the result the Nationalists wanted?
The “once in a lifetime event” bollocks really is piss poor clutching at straws. Got a link to back up your assertion?
Even more desperate is claiming “the rules were agreed in advance,” Again, have you got a link which backs up your assertion that the people of Scottish agreed to forfeit their sovereignty so that England could leave the EU without upsetting the sensibilities of too many English closet-colonialists ?
I have never stated an opinion that a believe the indy ref to have been fixed, though it was a travesty of democracy. You wouldn’t be trying to change the subject?
If I were to change the subject I would ask you whether you acknowledge Britain is not a country, that it comprises both Scotland and England? Also, do you accept the concept of human rights?
“I have never stated an opinion that a believe the indy ref to have been fixed”
I didn’t say you had, I said there were plenty of Nationalists who did on these very pages. I was just wondering when all else is equal how come there weren’t the accusations of fraud this time.
There were also Scots Nationalists on these pages arguing for Brexit.
Seems to me the Brexit referendum result was the result the Nationalists had been praying for.
Oh you poor mite Fred, still when talking about democracy you fail to see that you never had one. You and the rest of the UK have been bamboozled with an unfair winner takes all flexible arrangements, a cheating, fraudulent democracy, still you seem to think that a minority elected can lord it over the majority.
what is a safe seat in a democracy? there is no such thing! here it is normal and accepted, I rest my case. Every seat should be contested and not just on paper.
Face it, your unfair disproportional system of elections is ancient, open to fraud, abused and manipulated by the Main political parties. It is so handy for them to be able to cheat voters that they only grudgingly agreed to grant us an ultimatum on AVplus. ( any news of the cheating in 29 constituencies, has the police found an accountant yet?)
Thats the 21st century reality for wearing your ring through the nose, Fred, when will you see it?
To be fair, isn’t any system of elections open to manipulation? I’m wondering if it isn’t the party sytem that needs ovehaul…well…abolition. Under a party system, we have to vote for or against two or three stated positions, which are compromises between vestigial principles and what the parties believe the electorate will swallow. The system evolves naturally to the point where only minor differences exist between the parties’ positions. The party apparatus then needs to obtain conditional funding for its ever-increasing campaigning costs from wealthy vested interests in order to promote its not-very-different ideas to an increasingly apathetic electorate. It is at this point that additional, populist parties, brandishing policies which don’t need the hard sell, emerge – only to find themselves a couple of cycles later, in the mainstream, where they usually sink.
Solution: candidates stand as independents. All of them. Funding is simply and solely from a Treasury allocation, equal for all candidates, and rigorously accountable. A further wrinkle might be to have frivolous candidates screened out first at a public constituency meeting – no more than four, say, to go forward from this.
Having been elected, the successful candidate is free to make what alliances he can with other Members. However, there is no Party whip, and the alliances can shift from issue to issue without penalty to the MP. The offices of State are allocated by secret ballot of all the Members, including that of Prime Minister.
Without a Party basis two main advantages are apparent. First, the economies of scale which make the funding of national media and PR campaigns possible for a Party, are not available to an individual. Nor are they in any case permitted. Second, the constituencies have a much greater say in who they want to represent them. Parachuting placemen into safe seats ends. Whether the seat is safe or not depends only on the competence of its MP in keeping his constituency behind him.
I offer this without charge, and free of copyright.
“To be fair, isn’t any system of elections open to manipulation?”
Yes and the ones doing the manipulating are the ones who try to undermine the system when it doesn’t give the result they wanted.
Ba’al
That was an interesting post. Rather than gong into individuals details, though, I will limit myself to one question.
Politics in the UK in the early (and perhaps even mid) C19th, while not corresponding entirely to your model, as characterised by loose party discipline and therefore it could reasonably be claimed that many MPs were, in Parliament, acting as independents in the sense you suggest.
With that in mind, to what do you ascribe the development of a more rather than less rigid party system since that time? Is the organisation of political life around political parties in all countries perhaps a reflection of the greater complexity of the State as regards its organisation and the tasks which it is felt fall to the State?
I’m certainly not suggesting a return to the 19th century, but I’ll suggest that the complexity of running a global empire then was at least comparable with to that of running a noncolonial state now.
Government appointments (as, say Viceroy of Rockall) depend only on a coherent government, which doesn’t have to be party-based, and a trained and more-or-less impartial civil service can be restored to its former task of doing the heavy lifting involved in carrying out the wishes of Parliament.
Other major changes since c19 are (1) the adoption of the universal franchise. The system was certainly not comparable with my daydream, in that respect. (2) replacement of the patronage of MP’s by large landowners with the patronage of MP’s by City financiers; I propose that all patronage is as far as possible squeezed out of the system. Yes, unions too. (3) The Civil Service no longer has an exclusive advisory and executive role. IMO the government of the day needs informed advice and execution of policy from a trained, experienced and continuity – focussed body. Decisions are nowadays taken on the spur of the moment, in reponse to media panics and, often enough at the urging of wholly unqualified PR people close to the regime but a very long way from the original problem. I accept that the FCO will need to be inverted and shaken out before this works: fine, do it.
What we need is a (consistent) chain of command. Harrumph. And there I am with my ancestor Major-General Sir Floreat Omnes Komodo*, for sure.
* whom Queen Victoria honoured forever in her Diary with the words ‘Ugh! Does it bite?’
So how come, all else being equal, one referendum result is declared fraudulent by several of the Nationalists here and elsewhere on social media while the other is accepted without question?
Only asking and I don’t make ad hominem remarks while doing it, Did you think it furthered your argument calling someone a “poor mite” or saying they wear a ring through their nose? It doesn’t.
The SNP leadership want to run Thatchlerism from Edinburgh, just like the pro-treaty IRA wanted to run the Ascendancy from Dublin. You really have to stamp on the SNP’s neck if you don’t want them to usurp you.
For those banging on about Zimbabwe, here’s the World Bank View…
http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/zimbabwe/overview
I’m no great expert on Africa, and offer the above link for information only.
Although as someone on the left, nay the ‘far left’, the ‘hard left’, the granite left, the diamond left, the harder than Grant Mitchell left (feck the spelling: I don’t watch garbage on tv), I should point out that both the US and the UK are completely, totally and utterly bankrupt. This is entirely due to neo-con policies over the last 3 decades.
That’s why we have the endless wars, folks: to steal resources from other lands, and who cares how many of our fellow humans get butchered in the process.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
Here are a couple of links on the effect of the IMFs structural adjustment program on Zimbabwe beginning from the early 1990s.
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/debt_1999_04.htm
https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/1999/08/zimb-a18.html
Anecdotally (i.e. no link), I heard that as part of the deal, Zimbabwe were told to sell off their grain reserves. Of course, when a drought came along and they had to buy grain on the world market, they had to pay top dollar, thus increasing their endebtedness.
Saved me a bit of digging, this did.
http://evolvepolitics.com/labour-appeal-fury-as-high-court-judge-philip-sales-intimate-links-to-tony-blair-revealed/
The other two were both appointed QC’s in 1998….
Tony is holidaying in Tuscany with his QC wife and spawn.
“Sir Philip Sales QC has charged the taxpayer £3.3million over the past six years as First Treasury Counsel – a full- time position he has held since 1997.”
“Sir Philip, 47, who is also known as the “Treasury Devil”, is effectively the Government’s chief advocate, advising all departments. He was appointed to the job aged only 35 and has been involved in high-profile cases including defending in the High Court the Government’s decision not to hold a public inquiry into the Iraq war in 2005.”
Article from 2009:
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/treasury-qc-gets-3m-in-fees-and-we-foot-the-bill-6746388.html
1997, was of course the very year that other money buckets scamp, Blair, ascended to dominion in the realm.
Should have recused himself, given his connections to the Blair regime.
http://evolvepolitics.com/labour-appeal-fury-as-high-court-judge-philip-sales-intimate-links-to-tony-blair-revealed/
Excusing yourself requires an insight that you’re not impartial, and then the integrity to act upon it. That’s a lot to expect from a Blair crony…
“The 1997 appointment of the 35-year-old barrister caused astonishment among senior lawyers because he was ‘exceptionally young’ for a high-profile job regarded as a near-certain route to becoming a High Court judge.
Sales had been on the panel of government lawyers for only a few months, and had much less experience in public law than three front-runners who were passed over.
The appointment means the old chambers of Irvine and Blair have profited more than any other legal chambers from doing work for the Government”
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/1999/jun/06/uk.politicalnews1
Anyway.
Is it possible to plot a who’s in/who’s out kinda thing from Blair regime dinner guests, 1997 – 2005.
Interesting too to plot to events of the day.
Some seatings seem more substantial than others.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-352804/The-list-The-Blairs-dinner-guests.html
Nice one, Herbie. If I had time enough, a parallel “Where are they now” excercise would be even more revealing. Aside from the frequent attendance of Labour Party financiers at those incessant dinners, the penetration of Blair’s army of spads, media spinners and peripheral faces into the current elite is frightening. One of those dinners is the earliest reference I have yet found to the Italian connection:
Saturday 13 March 1999
Ms Deborah Bull
His Excellency the Ambassador of the Italian Republic
Senora Galli
Prince Girolamo Strozzi Guicciardini
Principessa Strozzi Guicciardini
Signorina Irina Strozzi Guicciardini
Signorina Natalia Strozzi Guicciardini
The Rt Hon The Lord Irvine of Lairg
Lady Irvine of Lairg
The Rt Hon Peter Mandelson MP
Mrs Karin Pena
Sir Charles Powell KCMG
Mr Wladimir Reine
Lord Rothschild
Lady Rothschild
Mr Reinaldo Avila da Silva
Blair is currently holidaying with the Strozzi- Guicciardini crew at their Tuscan estate: the other guests are also fairly well-connected*! It makes me proud to feel that the humble taxpayers of this septic isle contributed, no matter how slightly, to promoting the Ex-Leader’s grandiose ambitions.
*Deborah Bull is an enigma, though. Protegee of Lord Gowrie, originally ballet dancer, member of Arts Council at the time, got CBE the following year.
Karin Pena is another obscure one. But the connection was close:
http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/tone-deaf-not-according-to-his-teacher-1166127.html
Important business of State – guitar lessons for the Dear Leader.
I noticed the presence of the excellent Simon Rattle at one of those early dinners.
This clearly demonstrates that Mr Blair was subsequently sneaked into the orchestra at a concert where Mr Rattle was the conductor. Playing the guitar, I believe.
+++++++++++++++++
Seriously, though, I feel that it would be more interesting to know with whom Mr Blair met at occasions which have not been reported on in The Daily Mail….?
So do I. Unfortunately the Mail hates him as much as I do, and has much better contacts. The dinner party list contains many more interesting objects than Rattle, though. Who would have been the token arty/media type of the night. Jimmy Savile was another. And, the month before Mandelson was outed by Parris, Mandy’s boyfriend. (So what was to out? Parris’ explanation that everyone knew anyway was entirely true, and Mandy still made a song and dance about it)
What does stand out, though, is the prominence, if not ubiquity, of NuLabour donors – remember it isn’t the Labour Party who’s funding the banquets. The Strozzis’ capo di tutti capi, to whose Tuscan residence the Mail has not penetrated this year, is somewhere between Berlusconi and Mussolini, politically. Blair’s been schmoozing with him and his for at least 17 years. Further details on this association will be welcomed, but it looks as if the famiglia Strozzi’s appearance, at taxpayers’ expense, at more than one dinner, was by way of repayment for Tony’s entirely private holidays on the Strozzi premises. And this via the Mail, and the Independent, before Tony’s mate Lebedev bought it.
The public domain has its uses.
“Recently an Angus mother of three infant children was separated from them and jailed for ten months for over-claiming £10,000 per year in benefits.”
A bit of what aboutery I’m afraid, but didn’t the Chief Secretary to the Treasury David Laws overclaim £40,000 of parliamentary expenses.
A parliamentary ” ….Committee concluded that Laws was guilty of breaking six rules with regard to MPs’ expenses. The Commissioner reported that none of Laws’s claims for the London properties was acceptable under the rules.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Laws
Was he put into prison, or did he return to government as Minister of State for Schools, where doubtless he participated fully in the further privatization of schools via turning state schools into academies?
I guarantee there’ll be no twerrorist attacks during the Olympics in Brazil, because there’s big money involved.
It’s perhaps strange how the twerrorists pop up on emotive western dates and in emotive western places.
Hmm, strange, but since most seem to have had a frontal labotomy no questions are asked.
I was just reading an article by The Saker on that very topic RobG.
http://thesaker.is/false-flags-fluttering-in-the-empires-hot-air/
So that means it’s not just the UK, but the whole American Empire that is dysfunctional.
The UN warns…..someone, it isn’t clear who, about civilian deaths in Yemen.
They didn’t of course criticise the US for selling Saudi lots of replacement tanks for the ones the Houthis have destroyed.
It’s those values again, the ones the pretzel-scoffing cowboy told us about.
And then we read this:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/699449/Humiliation-for-Sturgeon-as-her-dad-loses-by-election-seat-in-council-where-mum-is-mayor
The SNP leader’s father Robin, an electrician, stood for a seat in North Ayrshire Council but lost to a mum-of-four.
It is the same area where Nicola’s mother Jean Sturgeon is provost, a ceremonial role similar to mayor which is given to elected politicians.
Joan Sturgeon was first elected to North Ayrshire Council in 2007 – the year the SNP won control over the Scottish Parliament.
The by-election was caused by the resignation of SNP councillor Ruth Maguire, who was elected to Holyrood in May as the MSP for Cunninghame South.
Now SNP insiders say Ms Sturgeon, 46, is braced for a major backlash across the country after she lost the SNP’s majority in Holyrood just three months ago.
Yes! Like you said Craig, The UK sure is dysfunctional…
Missed your earlier reply to myself, sorry wasn’t intentionally being ignorant. It come natural like. 😉
Anyway, as a resident of the city of Edinburgh, home to many things, some of them strange though none of them stranger than “Red Morningside” (Scottish joke, sorry), my favourite time of the year is actually the calm after the Festival and before the students return. I must be getting old….maturing, that’s it.
oops, that meant for Tony_0pmoc
Well said
It has obviously become too boring for the moderation that one points out the undemocratic state of affairs, voting systems, indeed the whole electoral process.
@Fred above somewhere. You have no democracy! Society is what it is because it has been manipulated by party politics via the electoral process and the sheeple do not even want to see it anymore.
The system is what the people want. It could be made fairer, we could have proportional representation but we had a referendum and that wasn’t what the people wanted.
STV is a fairer system, unless it means that daddy doesn’t get to be a councillor that is, then FPTP is the fairest system again.
If you can come up with a better system and persuade the majority to back it and push for a referendum for Britain to adopt it then all well and good but undermining the system we have in place is just campaigning for anarchy.
A referendum on one grudgingly granted option chosen by the main political establishment, you mean to say.
I call that an ultimatum, not a choice on what is best for us, Fred, but justkeep chewing the cud.
But if the result had gone the other way would you still have called it an ultimatum?
Does the fairness of the system depend on if it gives the result you were wanting?
yes, I would have, because AV plus is not an improvement whatsoever, its the worst possible option they granted you five second of powers on.
Some have commented on Dutch inheritance tax laws. In Germany this is handled totally different,
‘German inheritance law, including inheritance tax law, works very differently from the UK system (for German probate see here and here). While in the UK the estate as such is taxed (with one single nil-rate band of currently 325k GBP being available as tax relief) you find a completely different inheritance tax concept in Germany:
German tax authorities do not look at the estate but at the individual beneficiaries. Their respective personal gain is taxed (for details, what circumstances trigger German Inheritance Taxes see here).
http://www.crosschannellawyers.co.uk/german-inheritance-tax-rates-and-personal-tax-exempt-amounts/
Yes we all know everything is better in Germany.
This is the case in some other European countries as well (Greece, for example).
Wonder if the Duke’s Remain supporters have complained about how his Brexit supporters have treated them or the reverse.
And how did the fire start on the Duke’s plane, causing the evacuation of his pallbearers?
Was it started deliberately, and if so, by whom.
Loved Charles Moore claiming that the Duke’s wealth is a sign of a free society, though he must have forgot the bit about its holder dying in WWII, though I have been unable to see it as I don’t subscribe to The Telegraph..
Any ideas about what’s causing the pool to turn green in Rio?
How about all the swimmers pissing in it?
I imagine it’s some chemical reaction, triggered by the sunlight. It’s surely unlikely that algae would grow that suddenly, to only a certain concentration and that maintain numbers from then on – despite chlorine and so on. Surprising it’s taking this long to make a proper determination.
Only foolish comments like this can express the idiotic system you defend, because you have no argument. I doubt you looked at the link, but its irrelevant, because you are defending a vegetative state the sheepish/you have become accustomed to.
I thank the British allies who proposed the AMS system for Germany, but the establishment Anon so defends here in his poor responses, has never granted UK voters a fair proportional system.
Now carry on with identifying algae growth, maybe up it with some tub thumping.