Scotland's new income tax!

[mummyhaschangedhername]

Was this expected? What the general feeling about this?

www.scottishhousingnews.com/4958/social-housing-completions-up-almost-20-per-cent-under-snp/

The short answer to that is no. Because it’s not true.

Thought so Notreallyarsed, thanks

No problem Calyx

NRA... It's amazing how you can twist numbers by changing little things. I just looked at the stats.. By putting it into financial years that article gives the SNP credit for an extra 5000 units when they weren't even in power

Which still means they built 645 more than Labour! So your statement that Labour did more than the SNP still isn’t true!

“Over four long years between 2003 and 2007 the Lab/Lib Dem Coalition built a pitiful SIX council houses in Scotland. Despite coming into office just a few months before the financial crash, under the SNP Government 7,720 new council homes have been built in our first nine and a half years. As construction geared up, this was an average of 348 in the 2007-2011 parliament, 1,102 each year in the 2011-2016 parliament and 817 to December 2017."

The following table shows the most recent quarterly official statistics on local authority new build housing completions to end December 2016, published on 14 March 2017 and available at:

www.gov.scot/Topics/Statistics/Browse/Housing-Regeneration/HSfS/NewBuild.

Number of Council Houses Built (units completed)

2003-04 - 0
2004-05 - 0
2005-06 - 0
2006-07 - 6
2007-08 - 28
2008-09 - 336
2009-10 - 413
2010-11 - 614
2011-12 - 1,114
2012-13 - 963
2013-14 - 1,140
2014-15 - 1,157
2015-16 - 1,138
2016-17 (to Dec) - 817

Source: Scottish Government Housing Statistics for Scotland, quarterly new build housing tables. Data provided by Local Authorities in NB1 Returns.

I’m not saying Holyrood is a pretend parliament. I am saying it can’t attract the same calibre of politician as Westminister. This is not a party political point. It is to do with career structure and ambition and other variables.

There is a tangibly different quality of debate on eg UK wide politics shows and more local ones. On the local ones, politicians tend to resort endlessly to slogans or criticising ‘Tories’ but don’t necessarily engage with the details, particularly the economic details so well.

I’m not alone in thinking this - the viewing figures will bear me out!

Whereas in Westminster you get politicians (Teresa May being dreadful for this) avoiding answering even straight questions and endless filibustering to stifle debates. May's repetition of the phrase of the week rather than any honest discussion or debate.

I disagree totally with your opinion of the quality of WM politicians vs Holyrood.

*There is a tangibly different quality of debate on eg UK wide politics shows and more local ones. On the local ones, politicians tend to resort endlessly to slogans or criticising ‘Tories’ but don’t necessarily engage with the details, particularly the economic details so well

I’m not alone in thinking this - the viewing figures will bear me out!*

Now I’m wondering if you’ve watched many debates in either Parliaments. You should pay a bit more attention to the Scottish Parliament debates and you may notice the very different layout and style of debate that takes place, it’s quite interesting and not really as you describe.

As for talking about viewing figures, You must realise that the number of people interested in Scottish politics is a fraction of those interested in British politics. Also, I’m not sure using viewing figures is the best method of measuring the quality of debate.

Both Parliaments are different with there own separate positives and negatives. I don’t think the Scottish Parliament needs to attract those of a traditional ‘calibare’ you would expect in Westminster as that type of person is not really representative of anyone from Scotland, is it? And that is the point of the Parliament surely? To represent the electorate.

https://weegingerdug.wordpress.com/2017/12/18/the-evils-of-the-net-tex/

I don’t think the Scottish Parliament needs to attract those of a traditional ‘calibare’ you would expect in Westminster as that type of person is not really representative of anyone from Scotland, is it?

Yes, those ‘type of person’ are directly representative of 59 constituencies in Scotland. It’s a representative democracy.

"I’m not saying Holyrood is a pretend parliament. I am saying it can’t attract the same calibre of politician as Westminister. This is not a party political point. It is to do with career structure and ambition and other variables.
There is a tangibly different quality of debate on eg UK wide politics shows and more local ones."

See, you're measuring the calibre of your politicians by their career structure and ambitions. So, what - do you think someone who ends up in the House of Lords as the absolute highest calibre? Or someone who ends up as Prime Minister? Career structure and ambition, bloody hell. I think a good calibre of politician is someone who makes a positive difference in the lives of the people they are elected to represent. So obviously we are looking at this totally differently.

Different quality of debate in uk wide politics shows and local ones? What are you talking about? What politicians have impressed you, and what debates have impressed you? Has there been any actual measurable output? What have Westminster politicians done that has improved the lives of the electorate? Please do tell me. Then I will perhaps find out why the politicians in WM have impressed you so much, as opposed to the Scottish politicians in Holyrood.

But I can see you think they are soooo parochial and honestly, your condescending views on Holyrood vs Westminster are so fecking Daily Mail it hurts. You can't tell me one reason why Theresa May and Boris (ffs) are 'better' politicians than the Scottish ones. Is it because they are not as backstabbing and cutthroat?

I’m talking about Scottish politicians. The Westminister ones tend to be higher calibre than the Holyrood ones.

I know that's what you meant. Higher calibre how, in what way? Don't say 'career path and ambitions' because I asked about that above.

Ah, ok, you seemed to be focussing on Theresa May and Boris in a couple of your posts, rather than, say, Gordon Brown or Pete Wishart.

No, I mentioned them but just to ask if you thought they were high calibre politicians. So answer my question please.

God save us from career politicians.

Sorry, Buttered, that was a bit abrupt. I meant to reiterate my previous post: "What politicians have impressed you, and what debates have impressed you? Has there been any actual measurable output? What have Westminster politicians done that has improved the lives of the electorate? Please do tell me. Then I will perhaps find out why the politicians in WM have impressed you so much, as opposed to the Scottish politicians in Holyrood."

I did answer that question. (At 21:54) You just didn’t like the answer.

Most seasoned observers of politics seem to agree that the best politicians want to make their mark in Westminster. While local politics, or Welsh Assembly or Holyrood are definitely valued roles, the biggest influence on lives - and widest career options - are at Westminster. Unsurprisingly, this has an effect on the kind of talent it can attract. Not all MPs are talented, of course, but they tend to be more talented as a group, than MSPs.

God save us from career politicians.

We do want ambitious people running the country, though?

Oh my god. You're not getting this. Ambitious for themselves, you mean? Personal ambitions? Why do I want someone with career politician aspirations to run the country? They don't give a shit about me. They just want to climb the career ladder. What have your high calibre politicians in Westminster (please do name them?) done for the electorate? I don't know if you've currently noticed the complete fuck-up that is the Brexit farce. Seriously, even if I was a Brexiter I would be embarrassed.

I could live well without the whole privately educated, onto Oxbridge, let’s go into politics sort entirely.
Not that people from that background have never achieved anything good, but it’s far from being a prerequisite or indeed a guarantor of quality.
Ambition is a neutral term and can be used for good or for ill.

i Think free prescriptions is a bad thing. Free unis is good if the standards are being maintained. Money is being poured into nhs in England- a bottomless pit and insane, same as Scotland. Healthcare is struggling- believe the spin but I can see around me that education and healthcare are struggling. And we have major trunk roads through villages in D&G and few trains.

Westminster politicians are better quality or of a higher calibre? That is patently untrue.

Westminster politicians are embarrassing imo.

The Brexit farce.
David Davis and his amazing disappearing impact statements.
The sex scandals and more recently, sexual assaults (www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/westminster-sexual-assault-allegations-harassment-latest-updates-tory-aide-drink-spike-commons-bar-a8031311.html)
The child abuse allegations with child porn on WM computers. The excuse for same being 'oh but everyone has my password including interns (uk.businessinsider.com/ico-making-enquiries-mps-parliament-sharing-email-passwords-staff-2017-12).

I could go on. If we made even a tenth of the Westminster politicians' mistakes we would be out of a job. Even just the lies.

I echo 'save us from career politicians'. They don't work for me. Not just Conservatives either.

There are some SNP politicians and a few Conservatives in Holyrood that I don't rate either but even at that, with any definition of quality or working for and on behalf of constituents I believe they are better than in Westminster.

i Think free prescriptions is a bad thing

Well, the research indicates that it cost more money to administer prescriptions than it raises. Also, and this is something that is rarely reported but there is evidence that giving free prescriptions saves money down the line. Those who struggle to pay don’t pick up their prescription and end up sicker and may require further medical help or a hospital admission which puts a bigger strain on the NHS.