SNP. Why Are They Thriving?

[BashfulAnthony]

Listened to a speech by Nicola Sturgeon  last week,  and I must say, I was quite impressed by what she had to say, something I never thought I'd be.  She seemed to me to have clear view of the economic situation, with a new idea or two of her own.

I missed that. What were her ideas about how Scotland would cope with the low oil prices tgat are predicted for the next few years and how does she propose to support those areas tgat will be taking huge hits in the current slashing of jobs and projects in the oil and gas sector?

She didn't dwell on the oil prices bit, but I thought her ideas on the austerity programme interesting.  She advocates something like ditching all these cut-backs, as the US has, and relying on taxes, I think she said,  but I may have mis-heard!!  Certainly, the US has done as well, or better, than we have in recovering from the recession.

[Rhiannon]

The U.S. has had more private investment which has boosted its recovery. The reasons for this are various and linked to our lack of competition in the banking sector, our much higher energy costs, and (possibly the biggest whammy) the fact we are seen as high risk because of the links within our banking system to the euro. And whilst the euro continues to lurch from crisis to crisis we will remain unattractive to investors.

Relying on taxation is ridiculous without the private sector creating enough wealth to be taxed. It will simply end up with everyone paying more tax (VAT hikes probably) and taxes on businesses which get passed onto the consumers, resulting in reduced spending and reduced economic activity.

[Rhiannon]

Some other facts on the U.S. economy. Half the population live in poverty and only 12% of workers belong to a union.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

[BashfulAnthony]

Some other facts on the U.S. economy. Half the population live in poverty and only 12% of workers belong to a union.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_United_States

Maybe, but are the cut-backs to welfare, making the poor poorer, and the cutting of tax for the very rich the road you prefer to walk?  We have food banks and poverty here which are resonant of the 30's.  And at the end of it the deficit is as bad as ever.

[Rhiannon]

Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

[BashfulAnthony]

Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

Well our method is certainly doing nothing for the poor, and neither is it working.  I doubt many MP's, bankers, tax evaders/avoiders are wondering what they're going to eat tomorrow.  It is the poor who suffer, and are bearing a huge slice of the discomfort, though it was the Banks who caused the trouble.  So we are in no position to say what this Government is doing is either correct, fair, or effective.

[Rhiannon]

Of course what we have hasn't worked. But the imbalance in the States is worse in spite of them having a better recovery. Regardless, we aren't in apposition to attract the investment necessary to increase our tax take greatly without it squeezing too many ordinary people.

The fact is we aren't an economic superpower in the way that the States is. Quite what would work in the current situation is a mystery though - the euro being a big headache on top of the deficit.

[BashfulAnthony]

Of course what we have hasn't worked. But the imbalance in the States is worse in spite of them having a better recovery. Regardless, we aren't in apposition to attract the investment necessary to increase our tax take greatly without it squeezing too many ordinary people.

The fact is we aren't an economic superpower in the way that the States is. Quite what would work in the current situation is a mystery though - the euro being a big headache on top of the deficit.

The imbalance in the States is as it has always been  -  they don't have a Welfare State and however prosperous they have been, they have always had a hardcore of real poverty.

[ProfessorDavey]

Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

There is no doubt that the USA has recovered much better following the recession than we have. I'm not sure the issue of the income disparity between the rich and poor is entirely relevant, because there has always been a much greater disparity in the US compared to the UK and most european countries.

What I do know is that over the past three or four years we have started to see an entirely new phenomenon in the UK - namely food banks. Their presence really is disgraceful within a civilised and rich society.

[ProfessorDavey]

The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

Where do you get those data from.

The link you provided indicated that the number of people living on two dollars a day has doubled from 1996 to 2011. I don't see how that equates to doubling under the recovery, which presumable is from 2009 (when the USA exited recession) to now.

I'm not saying the numbers aren't shocking (they are) but I can't see anything which justifies your point about the recovering not touching the poor or actually that their situation has got worse during the recovery.

[Rhiannon]

Did you read the stats, BA? The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

There is no doubt that the USA has recovered much better following the recession than we have. I'm not sure the issue of the income disparity between the rich and poor is entirely relevant, because there has always been a much greater disparity in the US compared to the UK and most european countries.

What I do know is that over the past three or four years we have started to see an entirely new phenomenon in the UK - namely food banks. Their presence really is disgraceful within a civilised and rich society.

I agree. What is really frightening is how demand on them has increased so rapidly in just the past year or so. It isn't only those on benefits; rising costs and static wages also contribute, as has the price of many foods going up. I've spoken to,people on Mumsnet who have both parties in work and who have £20/week food budget to feed a family of four.

Something is badly wrong.

[Rhiannon]

The numbers of people living in two dollars a day has doubled in the recovery in the US, and many, many more are living in food scarcity. The recovery isn't touching the poorer - just the opposite.

Where do you get those data from.

The link you provided indicated that the number of people living on two dollars a day has doubled from 1996 to 2011. I don't see how that equates to doubling under the recovery, which presumable is from 2009 (when the USA exited recession) to now.

I'm not saying the numbers aren't shocking (they are) but I can't see anything which justifies your point about the recovering not touching the poor or actually that their situation has got worse during the recovery.

If the U.S. method was one we wanted to emulate wouldn't we be seeing a fall in the numbers in poverty?

[jeremyp]

My intention is to vote SNP. I fully recognise the result of the referendum last year but, and like many other Scots, I would still like to see Scotland become independent.

But not the majority of Scots.

[OH MY WORLD!]

Rhi,
I don't know about your wiki stats.

The ones I've seen tell me that 1 in 5 Brits live in poverty and 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty. That's about 14%. Being in the USA quite a bit and family all over that country, the half the pop in poverty stat you got just isn't what I see down there. And believe me if it was over half the pop, it would be a huge issue down there every 2yrs come elections for the House.

Oh and 1 in 9 live in poverty here in Canada.

[Aruntraveller]

Rhi,
I don't know about your wiki stats.

The ones I've seen tell me that 1 in 5 Brits live in poverty and 1 in 7 Americans live in poverty. That's about 14%. Being in the USA quite a bit and family all over that country, the half the pop in poverty stat you got just isn't what I see down there. And believe me if it was over half the pop, it would be a huge issue down there every 2yrs come elections for the House.

Oh and 1 in 9 live in poverty here in Canada.

Which is all a bit of an irrelevance as we are talking about three countries (USA, Canada and the UK - Oh and before some nit picker says it -  the UK isn't really a country - yawn- you know full well what I mean) which could easily lift its populations out of poverty if they so wished.

That is the real issue and shame of the situation. There just is not the political will.

[Hope]

So we are in no position to say what this Government is doing is either correct, fair, or effective.

But as has already been noted, we are hamstrung by the problems in the Eurozone since something like 45% of our export business is with that area (down from ~51% in 2011/12).  The problems in Ukraine and the embargo on exports to Russia have also caused problems.  Those are both issues that any Government would have had to contend with, and from discussions I've had with Welsh MPs and AMs, the plans that Labour put forward in 2010 would probably have put us into even greater jeopardy than the Coalition's actions have.  That's one of the major differences between the British and the American economies.

[Anchorman]

I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!

[OH MY WORLD!]

Dear Mr. trent,
I can't stand when Brits exaggerate and sometimes lie about my cousin to my south. So back off, I'll correct the facts if I want. (smiley)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html

[Aruntraveller]

Dear Mr. trent,
I can't stand when Brits exaggerate and sometimes lie about my cousin to my south. So back off, I'll correct the facts if I want. (smiley)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/16/poverty-household-income_n_5828974.html

I was just pointing out the stupidity of arguing about who has more "poor" people when we have it within our power to change so many peoples lives if we had the collective will to do so.

I don't really care much about the %'s involved, because that is just a distraction that the politicians are happy to use instead of focussing on the need for real change to our system.

But you carry on playing the "my friends are better than your friends" game if you want to.

[Gonnagle]

I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!

Dear Jim,

And she seemed quite reasonable unlike Heseltine who was telling us that a vote for SNP, Greens, UKIP was a protest vote, of course it is a protest vote ya silly auld duffer, protesting against Labour, Conservative years of F****** it up.

Which tells me only one thing, politicians are so out of touch with the ordinary voter, they can't see what is under their bloody noses.

Gonnagle.

[richie]

I see Nicola Sturgeon's among the panel on Question Time tonight.
Should be worth a watch....especially because of the way she dealt with Keisha Dugdale (Labour Scottish Branch Office cleaner) at FMQs!

Dear Jim,

And she seemed quite reasonable unlike Heseltine who was telling us that a vote for SNP, Greens, UKIP was a protest vote, of course it is a protest vote ya silly auld duffer, protesting against Labour, Conservative years of F****** it up.

Which tells me only one thing, politicians are so out of touch with the ordinary voter, they can't see what is under their bloody noses.

Gonnagle.

Heseltine was completly out of it. Not understanding multi-party democracy, not understanding Russia (they just need a good hug from what he was saying), disagree with him on trident. He was just plain annoying

[Anchorman]

Both the Tories and the Red Tories tell us that a vote for SNP would put the other party in power..
It didn't in 2010, or any other election in recent times....scaremongering tactics to avoid facing up to the reality of a very much more powerful SNP than Salmond ever had.

[richie]

it doesn't help that if you take Heseltines line then if you don't like Labour or the Tories then there is no point in you voting as you should only be voting for them. Its not exactly a way of engaging voters into the process if you are busy telling them that they are wasting their votes by going to a smaller party as votes only count if they are for the big two

[OH MY WORLD!]

Dear Mr. trent,
Is my loving my American kin folk, Americans in general and their nation a problem for you? You write about me going ahead and playing my friends are better than yours thingy. I'm not doing that at all. Just how do you know I think my American kin folk are better than who ever your friends are? Exaggerations and lies should never be left unchallenged. Smart people know that. (smilies) No it's you on you soap box, looking down you nose, that is the game being payed. Your game sucks by the way.

Oh, and what does world poverty got to do with the SNP trent. Too funny

[ProfessorDavey]

Both the Tories and the Red Tories tell us that a vote for SNP would put the other party in power.

Err, what.

Sure there is a credible argument that voting SNP helps the Tories win power (as it makes it less likely that Labour would have the largest number of seats). But I've never heard a credible argument that voting SNP helps Labour get in - how so, given that there is only one Tory seat in Scotland so voting SNP can hardly harm the Tories, nor is it likely to help Labour.