In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note.
Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon.
All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting.
As David Cameron sat down for his second meal containing fungus in two days, having smilingly presented the Chinese premier with a copy of Thatcher's biography, he might have thought he was making a great impression of the UK's global prowess.
Not to the leader writers at the Global Times, a daily Chinese tabloid. Known for its populist headlines, this morning's damning editorial was entitled "China Won't Fall For Cameron's 'Sincerity'."
"The Cameron administration should acknowledge that the UK is not a big power in the eyes of the Chinese. It is just an old European country apt for travel and study," the paper's editors wrote.
"This has gradually become the habitual thought of the Chinese people."
On December 04 2013 03:13 KwarK wrote: And yet the UK is still where the children of the Chinese elites are sent to be educated. Tabloids gonna tabloid, reality begs to differ.
I'm pretty sure they're putting far more money into London than any other European city too.
On December 04 2013 06:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Which is all well and good, as long as those benefits that are primarily London-centric spread out to the rest of the nation.
It's weird that this is fine but that suggesting British resources go to Europe is absurd. It's such an arbitrary distinction to make.
On December 04 2013 06:35 Wombat_NI wrote: Which is all well and good, as long as those benefits that are primarily London-centric spread out to the rest of the nation.
It's weird that this is fine but that suggesting British resources go to Europe is absurd. It's such an arbitrary distinction to make.
In his Autumn Statement today, the Chancellor is claiming vindication for his economic strategy, saying that it has put Britain back on the road to economic recovery. However, while it does appear to be the case that the economy is recovering again, this is in spite of his economic policies, not because of them.
The good news is that the economy is growing again. Real GDP - the total output of the economy - increased by 1.8% in the first three quarters of the year, according to the latest figures from the Office for National Statistics. But this is actually less than the growth rate of 2.0% recorded in the three quarters up to the second quarter of 2010, when the Coalition took office. The growth rate of the economy is not yet back to where it was when George Osborne became Chancellor. In the interim, there has been a two and a half year period when the economy grew by just 1.1%, an annual rate of 0.4%.
This period of weak growth was not wholly attributable to the Chancellor's policies; large increases in global commodity prices were a big factor, as was weak economic activity in the Euro-zone, still our most important trade partner. But the Euro-zone performed so poorly in no small part because it implemented fiscal policies similar to those adopted here. And there is no doubt that the Chancellor's policies - by taking more demand out of the economy when confidence in the private sector was weak and interest rates were already at rock-bottom levels - exacerbated the problem.
At the time of the June 2010 Budget, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) forecast that the economy would grow by 8.2% between 2010 and 2013; the likely outturn, based on the forecasts it published today, is just 2.7% - one-third the expected rate.
The OBR's forecasts tell a similar story. It has today upgraded its forecast for real GDP growth next year from 1.8% to 2.4%, bringing it into line with other forecasters. If the OBR is right, this will be very welcome. But in June 2010 it was expecting growth in 2014 to be 2.7%. For all the recent increased optimism on the economy, the Chancellor is still not back to where he started on the outlook for growth.
Britain's beleaguered high streets are still failing despite the Government's much-vaunted Town Centre First policy, which pledged to protect small independent shopkeepers from out-of-town shopping developments, new research claims.
The study found that more than three-quarters of new retail space approved since the national planning laws came into force last year have been located outside of town centres – exactly the opposite of what the legislation was created for. The study used a sample of 50 planning applications and found that of those approved more than 70 per cent were outside of town centres and 16 per cent were on the edge of towns.
The findings came as ministers and MPs from all parties yesterday took part in Small Business Saturday to mark the UK's first celebration of small firms. The 18-month long independent study was commissioned by a group of local shop organisations, including the Association of Convenience Stores, the Federation of Small Businesses, Town and Country Planning Association and the British Independent Retail Association. They have written to Eric Pickles MP, the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, calling for intervention to ensure that applications are blocked when they fail planning tests.
Liberal Democrat cabinet minister Danny Alexander has accused the Tories of being "ideologically wedded to continuous cuts" as a way to leave a "smaller state".
The chief secretary to the Treasury, who is Chancellor George Osborne's official deputy, launched his attack in an article for the Independent's website.
He wrote: "Some Conservatives are ideologically wedded to continuous cuts as the route to a smaller state - they see endless budget surpluses funded only by ever more spending cuts as the means to that end.
"Indeed they have hinted that they think the remainder of the deficit can be cleared through public spending cuts alone. I do not agree with that at all."
Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system.
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system.
So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives.
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system.
So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives.
I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital.
You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval).
I'm surprised, I thought that the Tories might hitch themselves to the energy price cap as an ode to populist politics, I appear to have misread that one haha
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system.
So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives.
I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital.
You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval).
Then I guess my true question was how tight a grip the coalition has on the commons. How far at this moment can the prime minister and his ministers go one direction not backed by the local representatives without having opposition from the commons and Tory opposition in general? I know they have tremendous power to do so, but if you want to win at the next election when called, it does involve keeping some parties happy. I'm wondering what kind of party unity there is behind Cameron so as not to have a new PM more liberal next round or risk ousting the tories altogether with Labour forming the Her Majesty's government.
On December 13 2013 07:58 Danglars wrote: Autumn statement's a gem. Can we trade this guy to make speeches in US Political scene? I don't know how much I'd pay to hear someone around here say with conviction, "Education underpins opportunity, it is business that provides those opportunities, and the best way to help business is to lower the tax burden" (if I caught the quote right on listen through).
How much of what he's saying can he actually follow through on? I was here believing that this UK government was a little too moderate for this kind of talk.
Basically none of it. The pro business talk is all capitalist soundbites but in practices we still need to get tax revenue from somewhere and a lot of it is just shielding cartels. A few pages ago you can see Cameron explain how the flagrant price hikes by the energy company cartels, coupled with record profits at a time when people have less money to meet their overheads, are not a matter for the government because market forces will create new companies which will undercut the old ones for a slice of the robbery and it'll sort itself out. This isn't ideology, these are soundbites to grant government cover to businesses for kickbacks.
I saw some undercurrent there of soundbites, like you say. How great is his ability to get topics discussed passed, with the current makeup of the parliament, assuming he wanted to act on both the easily passed and difficult-to-pass measures?
If the PM and Chancellor want to act as long as they can get Nick Clegg on board it happens the executive can bassically do what it likes in the current system.
So you're saying the voting block is so unified so as to say that even pro-business measures so opposed by Labour will go by without a scrape? I mean that's remarkable coalition-party unity, particularly considering how vocal the opponents were in both the August statement and PMQ's in the following days. Is it that the backbenchers fear reprisals should they deviate from the party leader's line? It wasn't even 25 years ago when the majority party had enough disunity to doubt the passage of more controversial policy initiatives.
I guess it's strange from an American perspective but parliamentary systems give the executive vast amounts of power, especially when coupled with first past the post. If a party wins a majority (Cameron doesn't have one, he's in coalition) they can pretty much do whatever they want, even randomly invade Iraq after a million people marched in the street of the capital.
You would be astounded at how few checks there are in our system. We don't even have primaries, the leader of the party can kick anyone he wants out, can give anyone he wants permission to be the party candidate for that seat and can overrule the local party members which, given independents basically don't win in first past the post, gives him an iron fist over his party. The commons can declare law with a simple majority and the lords are purely an advisory body now. Furthermore the PM has the power to appoint people to the lords under the devolved powers of royal prerogative. Royal prerogative also lets him simply declare law in the queens name if he wants to, along with declaring war, making treaties and a bunch of other cool things. Some aren't used by convention (ruling in the queen's name), others are modified by convention (some review on lord's appointments) and some are fine (treaties don't need common's approval).
Then I guess my true question was how tight a grip the coalition has on the commons. How far at this moment can the prime minister and his ministers go one direction not backed by the local representatives without having opposition from the commons and Tory opposition in general? I know they have tremendous power to do so, but if you want to win at the next election when called, it does involve keeping some parties happy. I'm wondering what kind of party unity there is behind Cameron so as not to have a new PM more liberal next round or risk ousting the tories altogether with Labour forming the Her Majesty's government.
Serious internal leadership challenges are pretty much unheard of. Sometimes people announce troll ones to make a point about how much they oppose things but leadership contests are pretty much reserved for after a general election loss. Thatcher after 12 years in power was the last one.
Obviously there are some things they couldn't do, like banning socks or repealing the police, but I imagine things like an intervention in Syria could have been pushed through against opposition if both Clegg and Cameron wanted it.
EPT
