Half of Global Wealth Owned By The 1% Oxfam Report Finds
May 05, 2015 10:00 am
"The Nineteenth century saw a great Springtime of Nations as the revolutions of 1848 saw new countries created the length and breadth of Europe. In our world today we are now seeing our own Spring Awakening with people and cultures that have long been dormant and subdued asserting their right to exist, their right to dream." Adam Price MP
Tuesday, 5 May 2015
Sunday, 3 May 2015
A Shame on "Red" Ed
Furthermore, he said that he would rather the Tories formed the next government than do a deal with the SNP.
Saturday, 2 May 2015
Friday, 1 May 2015
Wednesday, 29 April 2015
In the event of a British exit Scotland will stay in Europe
A British exit from the European Union could cost the UK billions of
pounds, a report published by two German institutes predicts.
The study by Bertelsmann Stiftung and Ifo Institute calculates if the UK leaves the EU the country could lose 14 percent of its GDP – equivalent to £215 billion.
Germany and other EU member states would also lose out financially, although not as much as Britain.
Even if Britain was successful in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU, the studies found the cost of a ‘Brexit’ would outweigh the benefits.
The report analyzed three scenarios and looked at the effect an EU exit would have on Britain in 2030, the year it believes negative effects will begin to materialize.
In the report’s most positive case, Britain would negotiate a trade deal with the EU similar to Switzerland’s.
Under such a deal, the UK’s GDP per head would be £157 lower than if Britain stayed in the EU.
In its most negative scenario, Britain would lose all trade privileges arising from EU membership and its free trade agreements.
Losses could run up to £3,471 per head in such a case, which factors in trade isolation and the dent to innovation in the UK and London’s position as a financial center.
“A Brexit is a losing game for everyone in Europe from an economic perspective alone – particularly for the UK,” said Aart De Geus, chairman and chief executive of the Bertelsmann Stiftung.
“But aside from the economic consequences, it would be an especially bitter setback for European integration as well as Europe’s role in the world. Setting the course for a Brexit in the House of Commons elections would weaken the EU.”
Europe’s economic powerhouse Germany would also suffer in the event of a British exit.
The report calculates Germany could see GDP per capita losses ranging from €30 (£21) to €700 (£500).
The study by Bertelsmann Stiftung and Ifo Institute calculates if the UK leaves the EU the country could lose 14 percent of its GDP – equivalent to £215 billion.
Germany and other EU member states would also lose out financially, although not as much as Britain.
Even if Britain was successful in negotiating a trade agreement with the EU, the studies found the cost of a ‘Brexit’ would outweigh the benefits.
The report analyzed three scenarios and looked at the effect an EU exit would have on Britain in 2030, the year it believes negative effects will begin to materialize.
In the report’s most positive case, Britain would negotiate a trade deal with the EU similar to Switzerland’s.
Under such a deal, the UK’s GDP per head would be £157 lower than if Britain stayed in the EU.
In its most negative scenario, Britain would lose all trade privileges arising from EU membership and its free trade agreements.
Losses could run up to £3,471 per head in such a case, which factors in trade isolation and the dent to innovation in the UK and London’s position as a financial center.
“A Brexit is a losing game for everyone in Europe from an economic perspective alone – particularly for the UK,” said Aart De Geus, chairman and chief executive of the Bertelsmann Stiftung.
“But aside from the economic consequences, it would be an especially bitter setback for European integration as well as Europe’s role in the world. Setting the course for a Brexit in the House of Commons elections would weaken the EU.”
Europe’s economic powerhouse Germany would also suffer in the event of a British exit.
The report calculates Germany could see GDP per capita losses ranging from €30 (£21) to €700 (£500).
Reasons Never to Vote Labour Ever Again
#ReasonsNotToVoteLabourUK #ReasonsNotToVoteLabour #LabourUK #Labour
Labour and child abuse
http://labour25.com/
Labour and islam Labour want the whole party to be muslims
https://youtu.be/1prA3W1tk2I
Labour want age of consent lowered to 10
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
Remember is 2010 now it is ten times worse look at Rotherham, Leicester, Birmingham, Tower Hammlets http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html
Forward to 2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11427370/Islamic-radicals-at-the-heart-of-Whitehall.html
Remember Labours computer blunders costing us £26 Billion back in 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-computer-blunders-cost-16326bn-1871967.html
Do you remember Labour sold the state run TOTE
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/13/alantravis.lisabuckingham
Labour sold all the gold at rock bottom prices
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4162054/Gordon-Browns-decision-to-sell-half-of-the-UKs-gold-reserves-cost-UK-5billion.html
Labour and child abuse
http://labour25.com/
Labour and islam Labour want the whole party to be muslims
https://youtu.be/1prA3W1tk2I
Labour want age of consent lowered to 10
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/10666875/Patricia-Hewitt-called-for-age-of-consent-to-be-lowered-to-ten.html
Remember is 2010 now it is ten times worse look at Rotherham, Leicester, Birmingham, Tower Hammlets http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/7333420/Islamic-radicals-infiltrate-the-Labour-Party.html
Forward to 2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/11427370/Islamic-radicals-at-the-heart-of-Whitehall.html
Remember Labours computer blunders costing us £26 Billion back in 2010 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labours-computer-blunders-cost-16326bn-1871967.html
Do you remember Labour sold the state run TOTE
http://www.theguardian.com/uk/1999/may/13/alantravis.lisabuckingham
Labour sold all the gold at rock bottom prices
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/4162054/Gordon-Browns-decision-to-sell-half-of-the-UKs-gold-reserves-cost-UK-5billion.html
The Goal: 59 Scottish seats for the SNP in
Westminster on May 8th
Remember him?
A voice in the wilderness.
Remember him?
Scotland has been sold out by such people.
Yes, we know why Nicola Sturgeon is "evading" talk of another Scottish referendum on independence. If she were to admit it she would face the possibility of losing potential votes for the SNP from those who voted No in the referendum, yet who wish to secure a big Scottish representation in parliament in order to advance devolution of powers to Scotland.
Thursday, 23 April 2015
Paving the Way to Independence
A new poll out today points to a truth not many in Westminster are
prepared to admit right now: this year's election is only going to pave
the way for another referendum in the future.
The University of Edinburgh survey found 69% of people believe Scotland will eventually leave the UK. That's only marginally higher than the 59% who live in England who think the same thing.
"We shouldn't mistake this as support for independence itself," Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh tells Politics.co.uk.
"What it means is people in Scotland and every other part of the UK are not thinking the issue is going away. Some of those people might want it to go away, but they do think that this issue matters."
His analysis makes sense. The referendum dominated last year and has triggered a constitutional upheaval which goes well beyond who runs Holyrood. It has created a wave of momentum which a majority of people now accept is not going to be halted easily.
The nationalists sensed this before the rest of us did. That was why, in George Square in Glasgow on referendum night, they were so euphoric. They knew they had started something which would not simply fade away and be forgotten about.
Back then their predictions that the Scots would vote for the SNP in Westminster seemed implausible. Now the expectation is that they could win as many as 56 of Scotland's 59 seats. That possibility will skew the 2015 election result and make the SNP key players in deciding who becomes our next prime minister. It's a fascinating prospect and not at all surprising that we want to examine its implications. But it distracts us from the bigger picture - that the independence issue remains as significant as ever.
What flooding Westminster with MPs will do is help propagate the nationalists' permanent presence on the scene. They are adopting one of the most tried and tested strategies of war: the envelopment of the enemy. Cutting off escape routes, shutting down your opponent's flexibility, triggering a psychological collapse long before the actual practical options for resistance are exhausted. What the SNP is doing to the rest of Britain is imposing an unrelenting pressure which creates its own conclusion.
But it is a steady incremental process, not a quick one. After the referendum the SNP's initial strategy was to complain about broken promises. That ultimately led to Sturgeon raising the possibility of a second referendum if Britain is set to leave the EU. But the University of Edinburgh's polling has found only 45% of Scots back her on that and the numbers are even lower elsewhere in the UK.
So instead the nationalists should look to a longer-term goal of achieving independence in the next few decades, not the next few years.
They should be encouraged because today's research also finds that the Scottish independence really has motivated political views north of the border. The 85% turnout figure in the independence referendum itself wasn't ever going to be repeated in a Westminster election, but Eichhorn says people in Scotland nevertheless do now have a higher likelihood of voting in a normal election because of it. Around three-quarters north of the border say they are certain to vote, compared to around 60% elsewhere. And many of them want to talk about how Britain is governed. "Some of that political engagement is moving beyond just the simple proposition that people engaged with the referendum because that was an easy issue," Eichhorn adds. "We see something lasting here."
So, it seems, do British voters. They understand that this increased engagement is a direct response to Scottish nationalism. Those seeking independence have mobilised the debate and may sooner or later win it.
Today's speech from Sturgeon fits that long-term plan. Dominating the attention of the Westminster enemy is the first step towards a successful psychological envelopment. By making themselves impossible to ignore, with choices narrowing and alternative futures fading away, the SNP's strategy might be closer to fulfilment than any of us think.
The University of Edinburgh survey found 69% of people believe Scotland will eventually leave the UK. That's only marginally higher than the 59% who live in England who think the same thing.
"We shouldn't mistake this as support for independence itself," Dr Jan Eichhorn of the University of Edinburgh tells Politics.co.uk.
"What it means is people in Scotland and every other part of the UK are not thinking the issue is going away. Some of those people might want it to go away, but they do think that this issue matters."
His analysis makes sense. The referendum dominated last year and has triggered a constitutional upheaval which goes well beyond who runs Holyrood. It has created a wave of momentum which a majority of people now accept is not going to be halted easily.
The nationalists sensed this before the rest of us did. That was why, in George Square in Glasgow on referendum night, they were so euphoric. They knew they had started something which would not simply fade away and be forgotten about.
Back then their predictions that the Scots would vote for the SNP in Westminster seemed implausible. Now the expectation is that they could win as many as 56 of Scotland's 59 seats. That possibility will skew the 2015 election result and make the SNP key players in deciding who becomes our next prime minister. It's a fascinating prospect and not at all surprising that we want to examine its implications. But it distracts us from the bigger picture - that the independence issue remains as significant as ever.
What flooding Westminster with MPs will do is help propagate the nationalists' permanent presence on the scene. They are adopting one of the most tried and tested strategies of war: the envelopment of the enemy. Cutting off escape routes, shutting down your opponent's flexibility, triggering a psychological collapse long before the actual practical options for resistance are exhausted. What the SNP is doing to the rest of Britain is imposing an unrelenting pressure which creates its own conclusion.
But it is a steady incremental process, not a quick one. After the referendum the SNP's initial strategy was to complain about broken promises. That ultimately led to Sturgeon raising the possibility of a second referendum if Britain is set to leave the EU. But the University of Edinburgh's polling has found only 45% of Scots back her on that and the numbers are even lower elsewhere in the UK.
So instead the nationalists should look to a longer-term goal of achieving independence in the next few decades, not the next few years.
They should be encouraged because today's research also finds that the Scottish independence really has motivated political views north of the border. The 85% turnout figure in the independence referendum itself wasn't ever going to be repeated in a Westminster election, but Eichhorn says people in Scotland nevertheless do now have a higher likelihood of voting in a normal election because of it. Around three-quarters north of the border say they are certain to vote, compared to around 60% elsewhere. And many of them want to talk about how Britain is governed. "Some of that political engagement is moving beyond just the simple proposition that people engaged with the referendum because that was an easy issue," Eichhorn adds. "We see something lasting here."
So, it seems, do British voters. They understand that this increased engagement is a direct response to Scottish nationalism. Those seeking independence have mobilised the debate and may sooner or later win it.
Today's speech from Sturgeon fits that long-term plan. Dominating the attention of the Westminster enemy is the first step towards a successful psychological envelopment. By making themselves impossible to ignore, with choices narrowing and alternative futures fading away, the SNP's strategy might be closer to fulfilment than any of us think.
Comments
Lunchtime. Your inbox. It's a date.
A Dangerous Game
So now we know the last Tory trick in their book. They’ve tried all
the standard pre-election routines. We’ve had promises of tax cuts,
naturally. They’ve offered a discounted right to buy on housing association homes
they don’t own. The party of austerity has sprayed around spending
pledges, while ridiculing Labour as incompetent spendthrifts. A cabal of
City-funded multimillionaires has tried to paint them as the “party of
working people”. They’ve claimed to be presiding over a great economic
revival.
But the numbers won’t budge. They dismissed Ed Miliband as hopeless, but his ratings are climbing.
So now they’ve fallen back on a brazen attempt to inflame English nationalism and turn Britain’s peoples against one another. Cheerled by a Conservative press largely owned by tax-dodging overseas plutocrats, the Tories claim the English would be held to ransom under a Miliband government dependent on SNP support. The Scots, who were begged to stay in the union during last year’s referendum, are now portrayed as some kind of foreign menace.
The former prime minister John Major, who was himself held to ransom by Ulster Unionists and Eurosceptic MPs, has claimed an SNP-backed Labour government would face “blackmail”. The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, is denounced as “the most dangerous woman in Britain”. There’s even talk of an SNP “coup” and “fascist intimidation”.
This is all fantastical and anti-democratic nonsense. Some of it is no doubt rubbing off south of the border, where the Tory tactic is specifically aimed at winning back English nationalist Ukip voters. But those who claim to treasure a united Britain can’t have it both ways. Either Scotland is part of the union or it isn’t. If it is, whoever Scottish voters elect has the same right to play a part in Westminster politics as any other party.
No wonder the Tories themselves have fallen out over the issue, with genuine unionists such as the former Scottish secretary Lord Forsyth accusing the prime minister of playing a dangerous game. If the game is successful, and the Tories are returned to Downing Street, that will provide by far the most fertile ground for a new referendum on Scottish independence to be held and won.
The reality is that, on current polling, either Miliband will become prime minister with SNP support – or there will be five more years of Cameron. That’s a bitter pill for Labour in Scotland to swallow, and if the party can pull back a few seats from the expected SNP landslide, it will strengthen Miliband’s hand. But the rise of the SNP, which has determinedly positioned itself to Labour’s left, is the product of 20 years of New Labour politics and an anti-establishment tide across Europe that has swelled since the 2008 crash. The Sun’s claim that the SNP is “hard left” is crazed. Sturgeon has understandably been taken to task over privatisations and spending squeezes in Scotland.
But the SNP ship has sailed. And the idea that nationalist support would make a minority Labour government “illegitimate” – let alone that this would be the first time such a thing has happened, as Cameron claimed at the weekend – is ridiculous. Minority and coalition governments dominated the first half of 20th-century Britain. Governments dependent on Irish nationalist support were common in the years leading up to the first world war. And Labour governments have regularly relied on the Irish nationalist SDLP, even though the party wants to “break up the UK”.
You’d never know from the anti-Scottish fearmongers that Sturgeon is now the most popular party leader in Britain – when English and Welsh voters were exposed to her in the leadership debates, many liked what they heard. Nor would the SNP’s negotiating hand in a hung parliament be as strong as claimed, given the party’s commitment to vote down a Tory administration in any circumstances. And Cameron’s Conservatives would themselves very probably have to rely on Ukip and Northern Irish DUP votes, as well as his own right wing, if their scaremongering were to take them over the line on 7 May.
But all this is a diversion from the fundamental choice at the election. That is between a Cameron-led government, which has presided over the deepest cuts in the living standards of the poorest for over a century while slashing taxes for the rich, and which now wants, in his own words, to make small-state austerity “permanent”. The only alternative is a government led by Miliband, committed to ditching the bedroom tax, clamping down on zero-hours contracts and non-dom tax status, abolishing the House of Lords, introducing mansion and bankers’ bonus taxes, and raising the top rate to 50%.
For all Miliband’s compromises over austerity, the distance between the main parties is wider than is often understood. That’s partly Labour’s own doing. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies points out, there is little difference between the SNP’s “anti-austerity” spending pledges and Labour’s “triple lock budget responsibility” plans, which in fact would allow Miliband to avoid almost all cuts.
But Labour leaders give the opposite impression, to appease the City and potential swing voters fed years of economic mumbo-jumbo by politicians and the media. The danger is, that message alienates Green voters and others Labour needs to win back to be able to form a government – just as Cameron is fighting to deflate Ukip support. On the doorstep in Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency on Friday, no one raised the Caledonian menace with me. But police employees who a generation ago would have been solid Tory voters were enthusiastically backing the Labour challenger.
Which underlines Cameron’s problem: however much he trumpets recovery, the reality of cuts, job insecurity and years of falling living standards have taken their toll. Against that background, the prospect of a minority government dependent on other parties committed to change is hardly so terrifying, let alone illegitimate.
There are plenty of downsides, including the risk of spatchcocked policies and endless haggling. But multiparty alliances, informal or otherwise, also offer the prospect of opening up politics to pressure from those who have been locked out of the system – inside and outside parliament. In any case, some such arrangement now looks almost certain. The only question is which party and prime minister will be at the centre of it.
But the numbers won’t budge. They dismissed Ed Miliband as hopeless, but his ratings are climbing.
So now they’ve fallen back on a brazen attempt to inflame English nationalism and turn Britain’s peoples against one another. Cheerled by a Conservative press largely owned by tax-dodging overseas plutocrats, the Tories claim the English would be held to ransom under a Miliband government dependent on SNP support. The Scots, who were begged to stay in the union during last year’s referendum, are now portrayed as some kind of foreign menace.
The former prime minister John Major, who was himself held to ransom by Ulster Unionists and Eurosceptic MPs, has claimed an SNP-backed Labour government would face “blackmail”. The SNP leader, Nicola Sturgeon, is denounced as “the most dangerous woman in Britain”. There’s even talk of an SNP “coup” and “fascist intimidation”.
This is all fantastical and anti-democratic nonsense. Some of it is no doubt rubbing off south of the border, where the Tory tactic is specifically aimed at winning back English nationalist Ukip voters. But those who claim to treasure a united Britain can’t have it both ways. Either Scotland is part of the union or it isn’t. If it is, whoever Scottish voters elect has the same right to play a part in Westminster politics as any other party.
No wonder the Tories themselves have fallen out over the issue, with genuine unionists such as the former Scottish secretary Lord Forsyth accusing the prime minister of playing a dangerous game. If the game is successful, and the Tories are returned to Downing Street, that will provide by far the most fertile ground for a new referendum on Scottish independence to be held and won.
The reality is that, on current polling, either Miliband will become prime minister with SNP support – or there will be five more years of Cameron. That’s a bitter pill for Labour in Scotland to swallow, and if the party can pull back a few seats from the expected SNP landslide, it will strengthen Miliband’s hand. But the rise of the SNP, which has determinedly positioned itself to Labour’s left, is the product of 20 years of New Labour politics and an anti-establishment tide across Europe that has swelled since the 2008 crash. The Sun’s claim that the SNP is “hard left” is crazed. Sturgeon has understandably been taken to task over privatisations and spending squeezes in Scotland.
But the SNP ship has sailed. And the idea that nationalist support would make a minority Labour government “illegitimate” – let alone that this would be the first time such a thing has happened, as Cameron claimed at the weekend – is ridiculous. Minority and coalition governments dominated the first half of 20th-century Britain. Governments dependent on Irish nationalist support were common in the years leading up to the first world war. And Labour governments have regularly relied on the Irish nationalist SDLP, even though the party wants to “break up the UK”.
You’d never know from the anti-Scottish fearmongers that Sturgeon is now the most popular party leader in Britain – when English and Welsh voters were exposed to her in the leadership debates, many liked what they heard. Nor would the SNP’s negotiating hand in a hung parliament be as strong as claimed, given the party’s commitment to vote down a Tory administration in any circumstances. And Cameron’s Conservatives would themselves very probably have to rely on Ukip and Northern Irish DUP votes, as well as his own right wing, if their scaremongering were to take them over the line on 7 May.
But all this is a diversion from the fundamental choice at the election. That is between a Cameron-led government, which has presided over the deepest cuts in the living standards of the poorest for over a century while slashing taxes for the rich, and which now wants, in his own words, to make small-state austerity “permanent”. The only alternative is a government led by Miliband, committed to ditching the bedroom tax, clamping down on zero-hours contracts and non-dom tax status, abolishing the House of Lords, introducing mansion and bankers’ bonus taxes, and raising the top rate to 50%.
For all Miliband’s compromises over austerity, the distance between the main parties is wider than is often understood. That’s partly Labour’s own doing. As the Institute of Fiscal Studies points out, there is little difference between the SNP’s “anti-austerity” spending pledges and Labour’s “triple lock budget responsibility” plans, which in fact would allow Miliband to avoid almost all cuts.
But Labour leaders give the opposite impression, to appease the City and potential swing voters fed years of economic mumbo-jumbo by politicians and the media. The danger is, that message alienates Green voters and others Labour needs to win back to be able to form a government – just as Cameron is fighting to deflate Ukip support. On the doorstep in Nick Clegg’s Sheffield Hallam constituency on Friday, no one raised the Caledonian menace with me. But police employees who a generation ago would have been solid Tory voters were enthusiastically backing the Labour challenger.
Which underlines Cameron’s problem: however much he trumpets recovery, the reality of cuts, job insecurity and years of falling living standards have taken their toll. Against that background, the prospect of a minority government dependent on other parties committed to change is hardly so terrifying, let alone illegitimate.
There are plenty of downsides, including the risk of spatchcocked policies and endless haggling. But multiparty alliances, informal or otherwise, also offer the prospect of opening up politics to pressure from those who have been locked out of the system – inside and outside parliament. In any case, some such arrangement now looks almost certain. The only question is which party and prime minister will be at the centre of it.
Wednesday, 22 April 2015
Running scared!
We have had Labour scaremongering and Tory scaremongering, where the two major parties, in league with the right wing media, the banks and the big corporations, united in attempting to ensure the defeat of the Yes vote in the Scottish referendum.
Now we are witnessing scaremongering tactics from the Tories, themselves running scared of the prospect of a Labour government supported by the SNP. Recent comments by John Major, Sarah Vine and Michael Fallon are aimed at instilling fear into the minds of the British public, yet are being combated by the directness and honesty of the smaller parties, and particularly by that feisty Scotswoman, Nicola Sturgeon.
General Election 2015: Britain would become a 'communist dictatorship' under Ed Miliband and Nicola Sturgeon, claims wife of Michael Gove.
How absurd is this statement?
alanindyfed
Friday, 17 April 2015
Thursday, 16 April 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)