Non aviation content. Play nice – No religion, no politics and no axe grinding please.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9
User avatar
By Propwash
#1518888
Bill Haddow wrote:
'Cos of the Barnett Formula, PW.

Well quite, which is why that would go in the bin. Funding on a population basis. The current funding system is one of the causes of inequality in the UK

Nobody likes it much, but unless we go to either a completely federal or entirely unified nation we are stuck with it, since for the past 40 years no-one has come up with a better system.


Which is why I now advocate a federal system, given that we are where we are post devolution.

And it wasn't Enoch it was Tam Dalyell who posed the West Lothian Question. A fellow Scot. :wink:

PW
User avatar
By kanga
#1518891
Bill Haddow wrote:..what Enoch named "The West Lothian Question"...


er, Tam Dalyell ?

The Times online is behind a paywall, so I cannot post a link to last Saturday's (11 Feb) Matthew Parris column, which (as usual) I commend. Obviously, it would be gross breach of Copyright for me to scan it in and post the result here or even PM such a scan it to other Forumites who asked me to .. :roll:

Anyway, without commenting retrospectively on the merits of the Referendum, he uses his political experience at Westminster and from knowledge of European politics and politicians to foresee 3 possible general outcomes in ~2 years' time: 'Oven-ready, Deadlock, Total Smash-Up'. My gist of his much better prose, which I hope some Forumites will be able to read in full for themselves:

Oven-ready: draft deal looks fine both to UK and to EU partners. UK MPs lack further stomach for a fight. PM scores an easy win in any HoC vote.

Deadlock: Commission and other 27 EU Governments agree a deal to offer to UK between themselves, but deal clearly unacceptable to UK Govt. PM has to decide whether to leave EU with no deal. Two possible UK wider electorate moods then possible, which PM would have to gauge:

a. panic: 'what have we done ?' . This just might lead to PM to put out feelers for 'deal to rejoin (or not actually leave)', which Commission might just be able to make acceptable. No mood in HoC to fight on. Probably massive internal rows in PM's Party

b. defiance,like 1940's "very well, alone". PM would win any HoC vote

Total Smash-Up: EU Commission and 27 cannot agree a clear common position. UK Govt does not know with whom it is negotiating about what. MPs' mood is frustration and anxiety. Cabinet is divided. HoC would have to choose between 'crash out now' and 'ask for extra time'; latter more likely. Future of PM (and effectiveness of Whips) unclear. Parris thinks is more possible/likely than has yet been recognised. I assume based on his (good) knowledge of EU (Brussels and national) politics, as well as imminent elections in the 27.

Note that in these (all, to me, credible) scenarios I do not speculate on who will then be PM, nor which Party will be in effective control of HoC (although Parris assumes present PM, present Party). Even without an early GE, I can foresee MPs (of all Parties) going 'independent in place' or even changing Parties; especially any who were anyway not planning to stand again, or not expecting re-election. The imminent by-elections will be 'interesting'.

Obviously, each of the above possibilities, and all others, will then have their own aftermath on which we may all speculate (here or elsewhere) if we choose.
User avatar
By Propwash
#1518893
With all due respect, Kanga, a lot of people don't take too much notice of Parris. As for his option: panic, what have we done? Well good luck to any PM who runs with that. If anything I sense that support for leaving the EU has hardened since the referendum.

One day that message will get through to the Metropolitan commentariate like Parris and Toynbee.

PW
By johnm
#1518894
Propwash wrote:With all due respect, Kanga, a lot of people don't take too much notice of Parris. As for his option: panic, what have we done? Well good luck to any PM who runs with that. If anything I sense that support for leaving the EU has hardened since the referendum.

One day that message will get through to the Metropolitan commentariate like Parris and Toynbee.

PW

Those people who simply write off Parris and others are probably covering their ears and singing la la la :roll: anybody who doesn't think some sensible scenario planning is needed, simply doesn't have a clue what is about to unfold.
By johnm
#1518896
Well quite, which is why that would go in the bin. Funding on a population basis. The current funding system is one of the causes of inequality in the UK


That assumes that all of the population have similar needs in similar circumstances which is just not the case. Funding needs to consider a population in its context and desired outcome of expenditure . That is a complex and difficult problem like it or not.
JoeC, Flyin'Dutch', leiafee liked this
User avatar
By Propwash
#1518907
johnm wrote:
That assumes that all of the population have similar needs in similar circumstances which is just not the case. Funding needs to consider a population in its context and desired outcome of expenditure . That is a complex and difficult problem like it or not.


Well of course it's complicated. Funding on a population basis would, however, mean that, for example, the SNP would have to make some difficult choices rather than populist ones. A bit like England really. As things stand they are getting a free ride and buying popularity at the expense of others.
Those people who simply write off Parris and others are probably covering their ears and singing la la la :roll: anybody who doesn't think some sensible scenario planning is needed, simply doesn't have a clue what is about to unfold.

And that, to quote someone else, is just plain rude. Parris, just like Toynbee, for all his experience is nothing like an impartial commentator on European issues. His opinion is worth no more than mine (or yours)

PW
User avatar
By GolfHotel
#1518908
Paul_Sengupta wrote:As I said on another thread, someone German recently said that the basic rate of income tax in Germany was 35%. If we changed ours to 35% then we could probably have a surplus reasonably quickly and start paying off our debts.

Not sure it would go down well with people though.

I believe we should add a few percent on (temporarily, y'know, for the duration of the war and all that) to get the Government finances in line without having to cut services to quickly. Didn't it used to be 25% not that long ago? Now 20%? Of course you need to add NI on to that.



+ Employee NI and Employer NI so that all adds up to well over 40% on taxable earnings.

I have no idea if Germany has an equivalent of NI

And of course there is VAT on most things you purchase.

I'm really glad our finances are in the hands of such a capable bunch of principled chaps and chappesses.
By johnm
#1518910
And that, to quote someone else, is just plain rude. Parris, just like Toynbee, for all his experience is nothing like an impartial commentator on European issues. His opinion is worth no more than mine (or yours)


I'd say blunt rather than rude :D

No-one is impartial in these discussions but that doesn't invalidate sensibly described scenarios.
User avatar
By Propwash
#1518920
johnm wrote:
No-one is impartial in these discussions but that doesn't invalidate sensibly described scenarios.

And yet, on the "other" and overly long EU thread you dismissed out of hand my suggestion that you at least have a look at the arguments in "The great Deception" because you disliked its author. And you claim to have been consistent? :lol:

PW
By Bill Haddow
#1518921
Propwash wrote:And it wasn't Enoch it was Tam Dalyell who posed the West Lothian Question. A fellow Scot. :wink:

PW


Dear, dear. Please read what I actually wrote:

"what Enoch named "The West Lothian Question".

Tam raised the point, but it was Enoch who coined the phrase.

[toggle pedant mode OFF]

Bill H :wink:
By johnm
#1518922
And yet, on the "other" and overly long EU thread you dismissed out of hand my suggestion that you at least have a look at the arguments in "The great Deception" because you disliked its author. And you claim to have been consistent? :lol:


That is because I look at authors and their track record and credibility, Parris is not impartial but he is credible and rational. The other individual is neither. Whether I like either or not is wholly irrelevant, but as it happens I don't actually like either of 'em.
By johnm
#1518933
Propwash wrote:A convenient but not credible response, John. You would fit in well within the EU structures.

:roll:

Sorry, Bill. I should have known better. :lol:

PW


So how do you assess credibility then?
By johnm
#1518974
SAMIconsulting are the world's leading Scenario Planning operation and the run Blogs from time to time.

I thought this one particularly interesting as it highlights some of the stresses PW has been pointing out.
User avatar
By kanga
#1518997
Propwash wrote:With all due respect, Kanga, a lot of people don't take too much notice of Parris. As for his option: panic, what have we done? Well good luck to any PM who runs with that. If anything I sense that support for leaving the EU has hardened since the referendum.

One day that message will get through to the Metropolitan commentariate like Parris and Toynbee.

PW


er, I am genuinely puzzled by this response. To gist my above even more briefly:

Parris postulated plausible scenarios of the 'negotiating outcome' and implications thereof for an incumbent UK PM:

1. Coherent deal offered by EUC/EU27, acceptable to UKG and UK population, PM wins in HoC
2. Coherent deal, unacceptable to UKG and/or population:
2a: panic in UKG and/or popular mood; outcome for PM uncertain
2b: defiance, led by PM, PM wins
3. No coherent deal because EUC/EU27 cannot agree: outcome for PM uncertain

It was only of #3 that Parris suggested the plausibility was at the moment being underestimated. He was not actually forecasting any of the others, let alone that any PM should 'run with' 2a (whatever that means); rather perhaps, that if 2a were to happen, it might 'run with' a somewhat hapless PM (through Ministerial dissent, Party indiscipline, change in and/or media popular sentiment). Is 2a utterly implausible ? Is anything, these days ? :roll:

In any case, I am not sure that the (im)partiality or (un)likeability of Parris for 'a lot of people' has any bearing on whether his judgement of the absolute or relative plausibility of any of the above should be more or less credible.

Also, I'm a bit puzzled why someone who AIUI still lives in the rural Derbyshire area which he used to represent in HoC is part of a 'metropolitan' anything, nor why he should be judged so out of touch that some already to others self-evident truth will eventually 'get through' to him. Or is the fact that a national newspaper commissions a weekly political column from him sufficient proof of his ignorance in this context ?

[Nor, indeed, of the relevance, in this context, of Toynbee.]

As ever, genuinely interested in any elucidation available. I freely admit that I am not competent to judge the plausibility of any of the above.
johnm liked this
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 9