Jump to content

UK Politics: rooting for the vegetables


mormont

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

Mr. Dyson of vaccuum cleaner fame seems to have gone a bit quiet. He was quite the keen Brexiteer IIRC.

Hasn't he moved operations to East Asia? i think I vaguely recall something like that (bangladesh, or something?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Hasn't he moved operations to East Asia? i think I vaguely recall something like that (bangladesh, or something?)

Dyson's headquarters are now in Singapore, with Malaysia the main manufacturing location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess that means what Dyson wanted from Brexit was cheaper import access into the UK for his products that are being manufactured outside the EU? Or who knows what economic logic these people were using in their decision. Or were they not using any economic logic at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/10/2022 at 10:44 AM, Which Tyler said:

“Boo hoo, my zombie company can only survive if I have enough cheap labour I can exploit by paying them a pittance!
Don’t make me raise my wages to reasonable levels so that people can live on them without sleeping in rooms of 11 people in dodgy bedsits whilst doing shit work! I sure as hell am not going to be investing in automation or find a ways to attract workers from this country!”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

“Boo hoo, my zombie company can only survive if I have enough cheap labour I can exploit by paying them a pittance!

What would you like to see Britain do to help the countries these migrants come from?

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Don’t make me raise my wages to reasonable levels so that people can live on them without sleeping in rooms of 11 people in dodgy bedsits whilst doing shit work!

Is there anything else government should do to pressure companies to raise wages besides kicking out/blocking the entry of poor hard working migrants?

Also why do you hate capitalism?

24 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I sure as hell am not going to be investing in automation or find a ways to attract workers from this country!”

You do get automation would mean less jobs for Native brits altogether right?

Sadly plenty people’s lifestyle makes taking these jobs much more difficult outside the low-pay.

Also immigration helps raise the pay of most workers so it balances out.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

https://westenglandbylines.co.uk/could-regional-governments-for-england-save-the-union/

Quote

Could regional governments for England save the Union?

..

ARTICLE CONTINUES

 

Something I've written before, but not here, so here's a copy/paste...

As we're talking about overhauls - I have my ideas; though absolutely not fully thought through...

I'd Federalise England into 4 regions, with their own devolved parliaments, in Wessex (Bristol / Winchester), Mercia + E.Anglia (Birmingham / Tamworth), Northumbria (Manchester / Durham) and London (bound by M25).
Those 4 plus the 3 Celtic parliaments all to have the same powers as each other (notably more than Hollyrood currently has).

NZ-style compromise of constituent and PR voting for the devolved parliaments.

Those devolved parliaments nominate from within themselves (proportionately) to Westminster and a smaller, national HoC; government explicitly not made up from 1 party.
Revamp the HoL to be the elite / sinecure for the highest representatives of their trade - to serve 1 lengthy term. HoL acts as advisors, as well as check and balance on the government of the day. For tradition's sake, I'm happy enough to call them all Lords and Ladies (and to keep the title after their term is up - but no longer sit there, and not to hand it down to their kids). So yes, HoL will still have the odd politician, bishop and celebrity, but an equal number of top barristers, accountants, generals, teachers and medics etc.
The explicit purpose of the HoL would be their collection of expertise covering every field, and they should mostly be there to advise the HoC; and only to shoot down unconstitutional* legislation.

 

*Yes, I'd have a written constitution; explicitly to be revised every 100 years or so; and explicitly requiring national referenda on any changes - dealt with much more like the Good Friday Agreement, than the Brexit "debate".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer is 'no'.

To begin with, Scots, Welsh and Irish folk aren't going to change their views because of what happens within England. That's trying to crowbar your preferred answer into the question, instead of taking the question on its own merits.

It's also a classic example of a 'clean sheet' solution, one that works nicely on paper and ignores the fact that you never, ever have a clean sheet when dealing with real people. Tellling people in the NW, NE, and Yorkshire that they're all Northumbrian now will absolutely not work, because they don't have a shared common identity as such. They won't feel any attachment to that idea. It's giving them something you think they should want, not something they do want. By contrast, Scottish devolution was a relatively easy sell because people could understand it in emotional, personal terms. Devolution for English regions lacks that.

And is, again, not relevant to whether the other countries in the UK are going to leave. What, are the Irish nationalist parties going to reconsider their century-old dream because people in the Midlands can now run their own care service?

ETA - for clarity, the 'yous' in this post are generic and not aimed specifically at Which!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said in the past that partisan democracy is shit, and I will keep saying it. Tinkering with other bits and pieces of democracy while not addressing the fundamental failing of its current form won't solve anything. But if you are going to persist with partisan democracy at least make sure that representation in parliament best reflects the voting choices of the people (FPTP absolutely fails on that score, with an extremely high % of wasted votes), and that the system maximises the number of people voting, which means minimising the barriers to voting, like putting in place voter ID requirements and not automatically providing every eligible voter with a qualifying ID free of charge.

It's not going to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, but maybe it'll make a decent chew toy out of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is some nasty, spiteful, dangerous nonsense:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63651934
 

Quote

Some Tory MPs have vowed not to be "silenced", after a refugee charity called for politicians to stop naming hotels housing people seeking asylum.

The Refugee Council has written to the Commons Speaker urging him to ask MPs not to identify hotels to protect the safety of those staying there.

But several Tories said they would still "name and shame" hotels getting taxpayer money to house migrants.

Even if, for some reason, you are the sort of useless mollusc that thinks there is something to be ashamed of in housing asylum seekers, there is no - absolutely no - good purpose served by naming these places. What's the aim? Stop hotels from housing them, and then what? Force the government to house them in tents? I can't imagine these brain-dead bigots want more dedicated asylum centres built. Are they myopic enough to think that this will have even a microscopic deterrent effect on people traveling to the UK, and divert them elsewhere? Just be shitty enough to people that they decide there's no point fleeing from persecution into persecution? Apart from being disgusting and an absolute abdication of morality, they've been doing it for a decade and there's no evidence it has any effect whatsoever, except to inflict pointless misery on vulnerable people. Which seems to be the sole underpinning philosophy of the right of the Tory party these days.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dropping the threshold for top rate taxpayers (as has been predicted) is distinctly non tory.

It should be lower and there should be a further higher rate for those on insane salaries. But it could be worse. At least its not a tax cut for the rich like the previous twats. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have my doubts about playing around with tax thresholds. The people who are super rich use all sorts of loopholes to avoid tax and so end up paying way less than what one would normally expect. Sure the people who are earning straight salaries above the top threshold will mostly have to pay the taxes which is all well and good. But getting rid of loopholes and tax breaks might do more to increase the amount of tax the insanely rich are paying than shifting the threshold a bit. You might even get more tax out of them by raising the threshold and eliminating some of the ways these people can legally dodge paying tax. Give them a pound with one hand, but take 3 from them with the other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...