The unopposed growth of bureaucracy at the expense of things that actually need doing (funds being neccessarily limited). This does create jobs of a meaningless and nannying variety, mainly in the areas of checking and conforming to various standards. Upside is it should lead to a safer environment for work and production. Downside, we're paying for it in time and taxes and red tape.
We've become a tax haven for the super-rich. The very top tiers of wealth (including income) I feel should be taxed a little more. A solid seven or eight figure income can hardly be sensibly spent, is divisive for society, and contributes to the decline of community. I can see offsets against pensions etc for those that work for a short and intensive time (like sports stars), but I speak of a general principle.
The cost of this stupid Iraq thing is out of hand (as you chaps are finding out). The Afghanistan engagement needs to go on. However, we're all going to be paying for the Iraq thing for some time to come. Nor can we just up and go. Before we leave we've got to put some external checks on the insanity. We certainly can't pull out of Iraq until Iran's internal stuff shifts ever-so-slightly (it won't need much), but our present actions haven't helped our case or cause.
And when it comes to our Tony's replacement we always have the Gordon Brown Pension cock-up:
I'm not a natural Tory, but thus far Cameron's sins are smaller: however that doesn't mean he's fit to govern.
Two years (probably) until a general election, and 'a week is a long time in politics' according to the sage*. My bet is some reptile politician will get in: after all, it's always happened up to now.
I had not heard that the super rich were returning to the UK, can you sight any data? Do you feel things are better or worse in the UK (and inside the UK only, please) because of Tony's leadership? (On the world stage I believe that it will be years before a fair judgment can be made.) And if you feel comfortable with this, would you discuss whom last you voted for, or against?
/OT It is fascinating that in American the word "scheme" always has a negative connotation ie hair-brained scheme, scheming political insider, and criminal ponze scheme.
It's a mixed bag. I mean to say foriegn policy tax drains affect the UK economy, so it's difficult to be entirely UK centric, however ther have been some good things about Blair's Premiership. Ireland is the main one. The prospect of peace after decades of insanity is a very good thing. In this policy he carried on the initial work of John Major, but he carried it through with determination. Blair could have been the greatest politician of his age, and I suppose, that is what disappoints. I left the Labour party over the Iraq war. And have voted tactically against them ever since, excepting in our local elections: as the people standing in them are known to me, and worthy of my respect. But in General Elections I've voted against the party, which in my constituency means the Tories. For me the issue was moral. Not everyone sees it that way, but I do, and must follow my conscience. I'm getting too old for political expediency when it is bought at turning a blind eye to... too much.
The problems during Blair's premiership.
The unopposed growth of bureaucracy at the expense of things that actually need doing (funds being neccessarily limited). This does create jobs of a meaningless and nannying variety, mainly in the areas of checking and conforming to various standards. Upside is it should lead to a safer environment for work and production. Downside, we're paying for it in time and taxes and red tape.
We've become a tax haven for the super-rich. The very top tiers of wealth (including income) I feel should be taxed a little more. A solid seven or eight figure income can hardly be sensibly spent, is divisive for society, and contributes to the decline of community. I can see offsets against pensions etc for those that work for a short and intensive time (like sports stars), but I speak of a general principle.
The cost of this stupid Iraq thing is out of hand (as you chaps are finding out). The Afghanistan engagement needs to go on. However, we're all going to be paying for the Iraq thing for some time to come. Nor can we just up and go. Before we leave we've got to put some external checks on the insanity. We certainly can't pull out of Iraq until Iran's internal stuff shifts ever-so-slightly (it won't need much), but our present actions haven't helped our case or cause.
And when it comes to our Tony's replacement we always have the Gordon Brown Pension cock-up:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advance_corporation_tax
David Cameron once smoked pot at Eton.
I'm not a natural Tory, but thus far Cameron's sins are smaller: however that doesn't mean he's fit to govern.
Two years (probably) until a general election, and 'a week is a long time in politics' according to the sage*.
My bet is some reptile politician will get in: after all, it's always happened up to now.
*Harold Wilson.
Reply
/OT
It is fascinating that in American the word "scheme" always has a negative connotation ie hair-brained scheme, scheming political insider, and criminal ponze scheme.
Reply
Ireland is the main one.
The prospect of peace after decades of insanity is a very good thing.
In this policy he carried on the initial work of John Major, but he carried it through with determination.
Blair could have been the greatest politician of his age, and I suppose, that is what disappoints.
I left the Labour party over the Iraq war. And have voted tactically against them ever since, excepting in our local elections: as the people standing in them are known to me, and worthy of my respect. But in General Elections I've voted against the party, which in my constituency means the Tories.
For me the issue was moral. Not everyone sees it that way, but I do, and must follow my conscience.
I'm getting too old for political expediency when it is bought at turning a blind eye to... too much.
Reply
Leave a comment