Was David Cameron the worst UK Prime Minister in living memory?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

ErrrorWayz:
This is nonsense too, in the last decade more low paid people have been taken out of taxation than ever before.

The poor have not been taken out of taxation. They've been removed from income tax. They are still paying plenty of tax: VAT, NI, fuel, alcohol and tobacco duties, council tax, etc. And they pay a much higher proportion of their income in such taxes than the rich.

The government has figures for this:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/datasets/theeffectsoftaxesandbenefitsonhouseholdincomehistoricaldatasets

So we can see that, for instance, 2015/2016 the bottom 10% of the country had an average gross income of #11k a year (6.5k in earnings, 4.5 in benefits). On that, the average tax paid about #1.3k in direct taxes and #3.3 in indirect taxes; or #4.6k total. That's a total tax burden over 40%.

The second-poorest decile had #18.5k in gross income and #5.7 in taxes. ~30% tax burden.
5th decile, that's #30.5k gross income, #9.8k in taxes, ~30% tax burden.
9th decile, that's #64.6k gross income, #23.8k in taxes, ~30-35% tax burden.
Top decile, that's #111k gross income, #37.8k in taxes, <35% tax burden.

Therefore, in fact, in terms of total tax burden as a proportion of gross income, on average the poor, middle and rich pay pretty much the same, about 30-35% (albeit with considerable variability by individual). Except, amazingly, the lowest decile which are paying the highest proportion of their income in tax!

And this is the problem with reading right-wing newspapers. They either dwell on income taxes (where the rich obviously do pay a lot more) despite it only being something like 30% of the national tax burden, or they muddy the waters by including benefits in such a way as to conceal the actual tax burden.

ErrrorWayz:
Yawn, straight from the heart of the entitled public sector. The public sector aren't special because they chose a particular job, they don't deserve guarantee pay rises, tax payer funded index linked pensions, effective tenure or umpteen days off with "stress". Public sector wages soared out of control under Brown and this is a correction. They don't deserve more than the 37% of my salary they get every month. I have a right to bring up my family just as much as you do and I am sick of Labour coming back to me and telling me I don't pay enough in a sneering, sanctimonious fashion.

The public sector deserve to be paid what their jobs merit, irrespective of anything at all.

If someone is providing the country with ?30k worth of value, they deserve to be paid just shy of ?30k (because, in our capitalist world, obviously something has to constitute value added for the profits of capitalists). It doesn't matter whether they are public or private sector. And perhaps you haven't noticed, but when someone decides a group of public sector workers need to be paid more (be they teachers, nurses, civil servants, etc.), we public sector workers get taxed too.

Although public sector jobs are on average paid higher than private sector, this actually reflects the fact that the public sector employs a higher proportion of professionals than the private sector - major employment in public sector you need to think like the NHS, education, civil service, etc. The public sector does not really have minimum wage "McJobs" (it used to, but they've been outsourced to the private sector these days). When comparing like with like jobs for similar qualifications and experience, at the professional level where I am, the public sector is estimated underpaid relative to the private to the tune of ~13% (2015/16). Again, that's government statistics.

Tenure disappeared decades ago. Sick leave, etc. are in my experience little different between public and private sector; it's more a matter of your organisation and your boss than your sector: some are generous, some are not. From my anecdotal knowledge, local councils tend to be generous whereas the NHS is harsh. In the private sector, likewise I've heard very mixed stories depending on company.

* * *

Mostly, who the heck do you think you are? You don't know me, how hard I have to work, the stresses of my job, nor countless other public sector workers. I don't stereotype private sector workers pejoratively just because they happen to be private sector, so why the hell should right-wing prejudice be allowed to freely traduce me?

It has got very little to do with whether public sector workers really are lazy, overprivileged and overpaid. It's because people - especially right-wingers - don't want to pay taxes. Withholding taxes to pay public sector workers becomes much more psychologically comfortable when there is a moral as well as rational case to do so. Thus a drive to portray public sector workers as morally undeserving. And that's what the right-wing press hate machine is all about.

You can talk about Momentum all you like (and you've got a point, there's plenty of poison there), but you're a right winger and I put it to you, you just don't recognise a lot of the right wing toxicity because you're not its target.

He gambles the well-being of the UK based on staying in power. For example Scotland, and Brexit. He is the exact opposite of what a leader is supposed to be. You're supposed to serve your country, not serve yourself at the expense of your country.

And the austerity during a recession is not helpful at all.

If I was the US president, and my chief of staff told me, Gergar12 you have two choices stay in power and let X state have a referendum in which cases the union risk breaking apart, or lose an election in which case the union stays together. I would pick the second choice, and that is what we need in a leader.

I know the UK has a troubled foreign policy history, but we are heading towards a world that is more interconnected. Nationalism is any kind is tribalist unless you are oppressed like the Kurds or the Rohingya.

Gergar12:
He gambles the well-being of the UK based on staying in power. For example Scotland, and Brexit. He is the exact opposite of what a leader is supposed to be. You're supposed to serve your country, not serve yourself at the expense of your country.

And the austerity during a recession is not helpful at all.

If I was the US president, and my chief of staff told me, Gergar12 you have two choices stay in power and let X state have a referendum in which cases the union risk breaking apart, or lose an election in which case the union stays together. I would pick the second choice, and that is what we need in a leader.

So what you are suggesting is that, in the face of mounting demand for a referendum, he should have gone the Spanish approach and sent in the riot police?

We live in a democratic world. If the Scots are foolish enough to want independence, let them have it. I mean, most Scots realise that they have a pretty sweet deal devolution-wise as it is, so it's unlikely they'd actually go for it, but still.

Losing an election would not have decreased the demand for a referendum. If anything, it would have increased it. In both cases.

Catnip1024:

Gergar12:
He gambles the well-being of the UK based on staying in power. For example Scotland, and Brexit. He is the exact opposite of what a leader is supposed to be. You're supposed to serve your country, not serve yourself at the expense of your country.

And the austerity during a recession is not helpful at all.

If I was the US president, and my chief of staff told me, Gergar12 you have two choices stay in power and let X state have a referendum in which cases the union risk breaking apart, or lose an election in which case the union stays together. I would pick the second choice, and that is what we need in a leader.

So what you are suggesting is that, in the face of mounting demand for a referendum, he should have gone the Spanish approach and sent in the riot police?

We live in a democratic world. If the Scots are foolish enough to want independence, let them have it. I mean, most Scots realise that they have a pretty sweet deal devolution-wise as it is, so it's unlikely they'd actually go for it, but still.

Losing an election would not have decreased the demand for a referendum. If anything, it would have increased it. In both cases.

That's debatable whether the EU referendum should have happened at all - like it hasn't happened in ANY other EU country who the press report have 'demanded' it. Half the country - probably a lot more - (and even the most educated ones) didn't properly understand the EU so it's not really a decision we were qualified to make.

BUT also the way he did it was ridiculous.. Cameron should have consulted more with EU leaders and discussed the eventuality of a leave vote so he had an idea of what we were getting into and so we'd actually be more prepared than we are now. It also should not have been a simple yes/no binary choice because leaving meant different things to different people (especially if you didn't know how the EU worked). It's obviously not that simple. It should have given more options on the ballet paper as to what else was potentially on the table post EU. If that was impossible because he didn't know, he OBVIOUSLY didn't prepare properly.

The Scottish Independence thing I agree might have been inevitable with the SNP in (the rise of the SNP you could argue was Labour's fault for neglecting Scotland). But austerity was VERY unpopular in Scotland (and it wasn't even a necessary policy) so it was much easier for the leave campaign to argue the case for independence in that situation. That helped split the country even more.

Catnip1024:
So what you are suggesting is that, in the face of mounting demand for a referendum, he should have gone the Spanish approach and sent in the riot police?

To where?

The "mounting demand for a referendum" was basically UKIP going "we should have a referendum", "we should totally have a referendum", "let's have a referendum" while not enough people voted for them to let them actually have any political power. The Scottish independence referendum happened because the SNP are the dominant party in Scottish politics and have a huge influence. If UKIP was actually getting a government majority or more than a handful of seats in government, I'd be more sympathetic to your point, but they weren't.

The referendum was a huge interruption of normal democracy to satisfy government fears of a fringe party splitting the vote. No riot police needed.

Also, if devolution isn't bad for the UK, why would Scottish independence necessarily be bad for the UK? I mean, Gibraltar is far, far, far more economically interdependent on Spain than Scotland is on the rest of the UK, and yet Gibraltar is economically booming, or was.. Brexit will probably see to that.

Again, I don't think David Cameron is the worst prime minister in living memory, but his governmente made a massive gamble to curry favour with the right wing press and UKIP voters, and in doing so we all got fucked. That decision is on him.

evilthecat:
To where?

I was talking about Scotland.

Also, if devolution isn't bad for the UK, why would Scottish independence necessarily be bad for the UK? I mean, Gibraltar is far, far, far more economically interdependent on Spain than Scotland is on the rest of the UK, and yet Gibraltar is economically booming, or was.. Brexit will probably see to that.

Who said independence would be bad for the UK? I was talking about Scotland.

Again, I don't think David Cameron is the worst prime minister in living memory, but his governmente made a massive gamble to curry favour with the right wing press and UKIP voters, and in doing so we all got fucked. That decision is on him.

Well, you don't know the long term consequences of what would have happened if he didn't. Crystal clear hindsight and all that.

Catnip1024:
Well, you don't know the long term consequences of what would have happened if he didn't. Crystal clear hindsight and all that.

Why would anything much have happened at all?

Silvanus:

Catnip1024:
Well, you don't know the long term consequences of what would have happened if he didn't. Crystal clear hindsight and all that.

Why would anything much have happened at all?

Support for a single-issue party was rising to the point where they were threatening to become the third party. A large proportion of the elected representatives of the UK in Europe were voted in on the basis of not wanting to be in Europe.

Clearly, there was a problem. That problem would not have magically vanished if Cameron had ignored it.

Likewise with Scotland - the referendum brought the issue into the open and gave an answer. I would expect that the majority of Scots would have wanted the referendum, even if not wanting independence. Like the polls suggest is the case in Catalonia.

Catnip1024:
I was talking about Scotland.

Okay, I can see the comparison with Catalonia much more clearly in the case of Scotland.

Catnip1024:
Who said independence would be bad for the UK? I was talking about Scotland.

Okay, so if devolution has not been bad for Scotland, why would independence have been bad for Scotland? Again, see Gibraltar..

Catnip1024:
Well, you don't know the long term consequences of what would have happened if he didn't. Crystal clear hindsight and all that.

Look, people don't like referendums. That's why, no matter what happens, we're not going to have another one on EU membership and why, despite Scottish independence being far more reasonable today than a few years ago there is less support for an independence referendum in Scotland. Referendums are hugely divisive, they force an immense national debate which people find exhausting. People fall out with friends and family members over them.

The vast, vast majority of the general public, even Euroskeptics, would have been perfectly happy to leave the issue of EU membership to Parliament. The EU referendum was a deliberate concession by the government to UKIP and to euroskeptic elements within the Tory party. It ended up being a disaster which has effectively split the Tory party, ruined the reputations of several of its most promising politicians and left the future of the country immensely uncertain. It was an absolutely terrible idea, and you didn't need hindsight to see that.

evilthecat:
Okay, so if devolution has not been bad for Scotland, why would independence have been bad for Scotland? Again, see Gibraltar..

Because the Scots currently get a sweet ass deal compared to the English. They have more powers, they get a better financial contribution per capita, and stand to gain pretty much nothing from independence. Independence would give them less ability compared to where they are now.

The only reason for independence would be to do with the direction of the country and matters of principle, not economics. The same way that leaving the EU is less economics and more principles.

Look, people don't like referendums. That's why, no matter what happens, we're not going to have another one on EU membership

No, we aren't going to have another EU referendum because we had one and we haven't finished enacting it yet. I think you are misreading the situation here.

People do like referendums. People don't like pointless ones there is little demand for, like the bodged concession to the Lib Dems AV scheme, but for major issues where public opinion is hard to clearly gauge, people like them.

What people don't like is the repeating of referendums until a politically acceptable answer is given. Because that smacks of bullshit and foul play.

Catnip1024:
Support for a single-issue party was rising to the point where they were threatening to become the third party.

No, there was no realistic chance of that happening. UKIP have not a single member of Parliament. Even a gutted and toothless Liberal Democrat party has many, many times the political clout of UKIP in the Parliamentary system.

A large proportion of the elected representatives of the UK in Europe were voted in on the basis of not wanting to be in Europe.

19 / 73 is a respectable proportion, yes, but far from enough to command national policy utterly at odds with the others.

Clearly, there was a problem. That problem would not have magically vanished if Cameron had ignored it.

Has the issue vanished now, then? We're now in a period of far greater division, recrimination and discontent.

The referendum gave an answer, but not the answer the Conservative Party is taking from it.

Silvanus:
No, there was no realistic chance of that happening. UKIP have not a single member of Parliament. Even a gutted and toothless Liberal Democrat party has many, many times the political clout of UKIP in the Parliamentary system.

They had over 10% of the vote. It wouldn't take much more support for that to turn into seats. And the sheer fact that they had 10% of the votes indicates that the one issue they represented was clearly important to a lot of people.

Has the issue vanished now, then? We're now in a period of far greater division, recrimination and discontent.

The referendum gave an answer, but not the answer the Conservative Party is taking from it.

The referendum gave an answer to a question that needed answering. Debate what follows as you will.

I'm not a fan of the Conservatives, and I'm not going to sit here and defend what they do.

Catnip1024:
They had over 10% of the vote. It wouldn't take much more support for that to turn into seats. And the sheer fact that they had 10% of the votes indicates that the one issue they represented was clearly important to a lot of people.

10% of the vote is so far from becoming the "third party" it's nigh impossible. It wouldn't take much to end up giving them 1 or 2 seats, no... at which point, they would have become about half as powerful as Plaid, or maybe as powerful as the Greens. To translate it into enough seats to become the third party, though, would require an enormous shift.

Silvanus:

Catnip1024:
Support for a single-issue party was rising to the point where they were threatening to become the third party.

No, there was no realistic chance of that happening. UKIP have not a single member of Parliament. Even a gutted and toothless Liberal Democrat party has many, many times the political clout of UKIP in the Parliamentary system.

A large proportion of the elected representatives of the UK in Europe were voted in on the basis of not wanting to be in Europe.

19 / 73 is a respectable proportion, yes, but far from enough to command national policy utterly at odds with the others.

Clearly, there was a problem. That problem would not have magically vanished if Cameron had ignored it.

Has the issue vanished now, then? We're now in a period of far greater division, recrimination and discontent.

The referendum gave an answer, but not the answer the Conservative Party is taking from it.

But isn't Ukip's low amount of seats due to how weird the British electoral system is rather then how many votes they got? I believe they got about 13% of the votes and got....pretty much no seats for it. If they got that amount of votes in the Netherlands for instance they would have gotten a sizable amount of seats.

Catnip1024:
They had over 10% of the vote. It wouldn't take much more support for that to turn into seats. And the sheer fact that they had 10% of the votes indicates that the one issue they represented was clearly important to a lot of people.

Actually, it can take a great deal more to turn into seats.

The only reason the LDs hold any seats is because of a) traditions of local support (e.g. SW England) or b) places where one of Lab/Con is so toxic to the local populace that the LDs are the only palatable alternative. UKIP had neither of those benefits. Not only that, but it generally requires about 40%+ of the vote in any one constituency to take the seat. That's a big hill to climb.

Nor can we assume that the issue was so important to those voters. It turns out about 5% of the nation's voters switched from LD to UKIP between 2010 and 2015. They went from the most ardently pro-European party to the most anti-European party, and I don't think they suddenly learned to hate the EU in that time - they were protest voters.

Silvanus:
10% of the vote is so far from becoming the "third party" it's nigh impossible.

You are missing the whole long-termism aspects of this.

This is a hypothetical scenario where on the one hand you have the marmite of politicians Jeremy Corbyn, and on the other you have either David Cameron of the pig fame, or potentially Boris fricking Johnson. And a Lib Dem party lead by the reincarnated vampire that is Vince Cable.

There are enough reasons not to vote for any of those that the situation could easily have changed.

And again, 10% of the electorate voted on a one issue party. It's an indicator that the issue is significant.

Catnip1024:
You are missing the whole long-termism aspects of this.

This is a hypothetical scenario where on the one hand you have the marmite of politicians Jeremy Corbyn, and on the other you have either David Cameron of the pig fame, or potentially Boris fricking Johnson. And a Lib Dem party lead by the reincarnated vampire that is Vince Cable.

There are enough reasons not to vote for any of those that the situation could easily have changed.

Methinks you're vastly underestimating how difficult it is for a party to gain enough ground to emerge as a likely competitor to the main two parties under the British electoral system. There's a reason every election has been won by one of the main two parties since 1923.

This issue is big. It is not big enough. Not even nearly.

Catnip1024:

And again, 10% of the electorate voted on a one issue party. It's an indicator that the issue is significant.

What matters-- the numbers, or just how committed those 10% are?

It cannot be the numbers. Vastly more people than 10% support the nationalisation of the railways, after all, and that isn't even in the public discourse at all.

And we do not weight how much somebody's opinion matters on how strongly they believe in something, so it cannot be the latter.

The truth is, the Conservative Party was worried that UKIP's popularity would split their vote and maybe cost them a few seats. Not enough to empower UKIP significantly-- definitely not, no chance in hell-- but enough to give the Conservatives a harder time in their battle against Labour, which was the only battle that mattered in 2015 (and 2017, and will be in the next election).

Agema:

ErrrorWayz:
Yawn, straight from the heart of the entitled public sector. The public sector aren't special because they chose a particular job, they don't deserve guarantee pay rises, tax payer funded index linked pensions, effective tenure or umpteen days off with "stress". Public sector wages soared out of control under Brown and this is a correction. They don't deserve more than the 37% of my salary they get every month. I have a right to bring up my family just as much as you do and I am sick of Labour coming back to me and telling me I don't pay enough in a sneering, sanctimonious fashion.

The public sector deserve to be paid what their jobs merit, irrespective of anything at all.

If someone is providing the country with ?30k worth of value, they deserve to be paid just shy of ?30k (because, in our capitalist world, obviously something has to constitute value added for the profits of capitalists). It doesn't matter whether they are public or private sector. And perhaps you haven't noticed, but when someone decides a group of public sector workers need to be paid more (be they teachers, nurses, civil servants, etc.), we public sector workers get taxed too.

Although public sector jobs are on average paid higher than private sector, this actually reflects the fact that the public sector employs a higher proportion of professionals than the private sector - major employment in public sector you need to think like the NHS, education, civil service, etc. The public sector does not really have minimum wage "McJobs" (it used to, but they've been outsourced to the private sector these days). When comparing like with like jobs for similar qualifications and experience, at the professional level where I am, the public sector is estimated underpaid relative to the private to the tune of ~13% (2015/16). Again, that's government statistics.

Tenure disappeared decades ago. Sick leave, etc. are in my experience little different between public and private sector; it's more a matter of your organisation and your boss than your sector: some are generous, some are not. From my anecdotal knowledge, local councils tend to be generous whereas the NHS is harsh. In the private sector, likewise I've heard very mixed stories depending on company.

* * *

Mostly, who the heck do you think you are? You don't know me, how hard I have to work, the stresses of my job, nor countless other public sector workers. I don't stereotype private sector workers pejoratively just because they happen to be private sector, so why the hell should right-wing prejudice be allowed to freely traduce me?

It has got very little to do with whether public sector workers really are lazy, overprivileged and overpaid. It's because people - especially right-wingers - don't want to pay taxes. Withholding taxes to pay public sector workers becomes much more psychologically comfortable when there is a moral as well as rational case to do so. Thus a drive to portray public sector workers as morally undeserving. And that's what the right-wing press hate machine is all about.

You can talk about Momentum all you like (and you've got a point, there's plenty of poison there), but you're a right winger and I put it to you, you just don't recognise a lot of the right wing toxicity because you're not its target.

I don't stereotype private sector workers pejoratively just because they happen to be private sector, so why the hell should right-wing prejudice be allowed to freely traduce me?

Come on, you've never sat around on here having a little back slap over all bankers being evil? :)

Maybe you are right... maybe I don't notice much of the right wing vitriol but I can assure you there's plenty of divisive behaviour, hypocritical and biased reporting and plain nastiness from the left too.

I've notice a marked increase in the nastiness too, a sort of seething militancy founded on an absolute belief in the "rightness" of the creed. It's very worrying.

ErrrorWayz:

Maybe you are right... maybe I don't notice much of the right wing vitriol but I can assure you there's plenty of divisive behaviour, hypocritical and biased reporting and plain nastiness from the left too.

I've notice a marked increase in the nastiness too, a sort of seething militancy founded on an absolute belief in the "rightness" of the creed. It's very worrying.

The left more broadly can, and will, win the battle of ideas - they have done so all through history. But you cannot win if you're not prepared to have the argument in the first place, and that is the precedent 'some' of the left (who seem to shouting loudly at the moment) are currently setting.

Unfortunately, some of the left's current rhetoric incentivises the socially open-minded (centre left) to retreat in to obscurity. It's this exact culture that has led to social liberals losing the argument - they've become victims of a culture that discourages debate, and incentivises retreat and denial of alternative views.

I have no doubt that the element of the left you are referring to believe their purpose is to stave of the right's clap-trap but their backward logic does the opposite. At the moment, the 'centre left' (which still makes up the majority of the people) desperately need to debate back against the vitriol of the right.

ErrrorWayz:

I've notice a marked increase in the nastiness too, a sort of seething militancy founded on an absolute belief in the "rightness" of the creed. It's very worrying.

This, after you yourself posted one of the most dismissive, sneering, belittling comments in the thread so far?

Do you have any sense of self-awareness at all?

dscross:

The left more broadly can, and will, win the battle of ideas - they have done so all through history.

Given the UK's rightward drifting since the 60's, I'll have to dispute that one.

Ninjamedic:

dscross:

The left more broadly can, and will, win the battle of ideas - they have done so all through history.

Given the UK's rightward drifting since the 60's, I'll have to dispute that one.

I meant over a much longer timespan than that. There are always peaks and troughs but slowly slowly, it happens. The zeitgeist changes - in socially liberal ways anyway. Maybe not economically, but certainly socially.

dscross:

I meant over a much longer timespan than that. There are always peaks and troughs but slowly slowly, it happens. The zeitgeist changes - in socially liberal ways anyway. Maybe not economically, but certainly socially.

There was a period in the late 1910s and 20s when a lot of people thought much the same thing. Never take anything for granted, least of all tolerance and kindness.

Silvanus:

dscross:

I meant over a much longer timespan than that. There are always peaks and troughs but slowly slowly, it happens. The zeitgeist changes - in socially liberal ways anyway. Maybe not economically, but certainly socially.

There was a period in the late 1910s and 20s when a lot of people thought much the same thing. Never take anything for granted, least of all tolerance and kindness.

I wasn't saying it happens automatically or anything - people still need to work for it. I was just saying it tends to happen eventually. It's just a shame it happens so slowly.

dscross:
Maybe not economically, but certainly socially.

You're not going to be able to create the the latter without the former.

Ninjamedic:

dscross:
Maybe not economically, but certainly socially.

You're not going to be able to create the the latter without the former.

Either I've not been clear, you don't get what I mean or you are playing devil's advocate - but either way I'm going to leave it there. I'm not writing an essay on the history of social/liberal reforms just to prove a point because it's completely off topic.

dscross:
I wasn't saying it happens automatically or anything - people still need to work for it. I was just saying it tends to happen eventually. It's just a shame it happens so slowly.

We've seen a meander roughly leftwards over the last hundred years or so. I'd not say that that's enough to prove a general trend.

Thaluikhain:

dscross:
I wasn't saying it happens automatically or anything - people still need to work for it. I was just saying it tends to happen eventually. It's just a shame it happens so slowly.

We've seen a meander roughly leftwards over the last hundred years or so. I'd not say that that's enough to prove a general trend.

We've seen a very gradual socially leftward trend since the end of feudalism and the start of democracy and the enlightenment, I'd argue. It's VERY gradual, but things get better for people if you look at the generations that have passed since then.

Around this time, progressive opinions started to emerge, in contrast with conservational opinion. The social conservationists were skeptical about panaceas for social ills. According to conservatives, attempts to radically remake society normally make things worse. Edmund Burke was the leading exponent of this, although later-day liberals like Hayek have espoused similar views. They argue that society changes organically and naturally, and that grand plans for the remaking of society, like the French Revolution, National Socialism and Communism hurt society by removing the traditional constraints on the exercise of power.

There's a lot to say on this, but we are going off topic and it's turning into a historical essay, so I'd rather end it here if you don't mind.

He is the perfect politician, but a bad world leader who gambles with the power of his nation. He gambles the prosperity of the UK, and the future of the EU so he can get reelected, and then fails to do so anyway. I am no fan of Bill Clinton due to a few mandatory-minimums bills he signed, Bush II with Iraq, and those deficits-causing tax-cuts, and somewhat with Obama over not invoking cloture for a public option to bring down costs for "Obamacare"/ACA to appease the Republicans, and many of the media. But I consider all of them, and their faults do not come close to gambling with a nation's economic power, and the progression of the world to international blocs that will reduce the amount of wars being fought. That is why we have the EU, and organizations like it.

Scotland I have evolved to believe is a different country compared to the UK, they seem to be more like the Swedes so that referendum could be argued to be inevitable but that Brexit Referendum was incredibility short-sighted.

The EU is not totally innocent in this either. Why did they even allow countries to leave anyway? It's like putting a reactor meltdown button in a nuclear power plant. That is why the US, China, and Russia don't allow for secession. If you want to secede, you have to fight for it, and brings up the costs of seceding to a high enough level to where if you are forced to secede it's for a good, and rational reason like oppression.

So help me if the UN allows a leave option.

Rant over.

Gergar12:
Why did they even allow countries to leave anyway?

If you don't allow nations to leave, you're an empire, of the sort the Daily Mail pretends the EU is.

Gergar12:
Scotland I have evolved to believe is a different country compared to the UK, they seem to be more like the Swedes so that referendum could be argued to be inevitable but that Brexit Referendum was incredibility short-sighted.

I think he could have handled it a lot better. They HATE the tories in Scotland because of what Thatcher did and his domestic policy of constant austerity after the crash made them drift even further away. I mean, they voted to stay but there would have been far fewer without austerity, in my opinion. Now the country is divided over the issue. It has been stirred up by the SNP anyway, but there was no attempts to make concessions to what Scotland (and the North of England) wanted - less unnecessary austerity.

I mean, we have had hundreds of years of economic stability with each other. Scotland have been been joined for a very long time, and most of the bad feelings the independence supporters have (who were in a relative minority until recently) come from the unconscious cultural history from the wars before that. They were fully joined in 1707, but even 100 years before that England and Scotland were ruled by the same monarch (since James I - who was was a Scottish king initially) and they were basically one country. There was another Union Act in 1603 I believe.

Gergar12:
The EU is not totally innocent in this either. Why did they even allow countries to leave anyway? It's like putting a reactor meltdown button in a nuclear power plant. That is why the US, China, and Russia don't allow for secession. If you want to secede, you have to fight for it, and brings up the costs of seceding to a high enough level to where if you are forced to secede it's for a good, and rational reason like oppression.

The EU is an economic bloc and a group of similarish states cooperating on various issues. The states remain sovereign though. This is reflected in an ability to leave and an ability to veto major decisions. With all the different languages and sensibilities it's probably better that way. The EU is not in the business of taking away the local democracy of its member states. On the contrary. That also means if a country doesn't want to be in the EU, that's their choice. Not only that but not allowing countries to leave would be impractical and dangerous. It isn't our job to (potentially violently) babysit Britain (a nuclear power) or other members and we could very well fail if we tried. If there was no opt-out a lot of countries might not have joined in the first place too. Lastly, the EU should set higher standards for itself than the US, let alone Russia and China.

Agema:

dscross:
snip

Anthony Eden would almost certainly be judged the worst British Prime Minister in living memory - albeit the living memory of OAPs.

I'd actually argue that Cameron was worse than Anthony Eden. He was also only Prime Minister for a year, compared to Cameron's 7. Not a massively fair comparison. Despite the fact that he is most recalled for his controversial handling of the Suez crisis, Anthony Eden was undoubtedly a very able and committed politician - he carved out a career in the Foreign Office during important periods in the Second World War and the Cold War, and played a key role in regulating foreign policies to face the rise of the fascist powers.

And ok, in the aftermath of the Suez Crisis, Britain and France found their influence as world powers weakened, but that arguably would have happened anyway as it was a remnant of a dying empire.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here