Public versus private debt. Where Brown DID go wrong

Sir_Humphrey

Conrad wrote: »

Humphrey

I'm reading Oliver James' latest book.

His sentiment minds me of yours here.
I agree, I'm all for taxing the rich;

Sting
Ben Elton
Hugh Fernly whatsisface
McCartney
Bono
T Ben (£3m house)
Geldof
Toignbe
Bremner
Fry
Paxman
K Wark
J Snow
G Mombia


Instead of merely breaching re - distribution, they can actually have a try at it!

So called 'champagne socialists' still voted for parties that would tax them more when such a party existed in the mainsteam, so I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Except for Bono with his tax arrangements.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

So called 'champagne socialists' still voted for parties that would tax them more when such a party existed in the mainsteam, so I don't see where the hypocrisy is. Except for Bono with his tax arrangements.

My mother (socialist) reckoned Benn had all his cash stashed away in Switzerland. No idea what she based this on.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

My mother (socialist) reckoned Benn had all his cash stashed away in Switzerland. No idea what she based this on.

The old right Labourites (such as Healey or Hattersley) always disliked Benn. Healey amusingly points out in his autobiography that Benn's contribution to Socialism in Government was authorising Concorde in order to allow rich people to crioss the Atlantic quickly.

Although he is from a rich family (Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn was formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate), that peerage was only created in 1942 and had been expected to be passed to his elder brother who died in WW2. To be fair, at least he renounced his peerage to enter politics unlike a certain ex-CBI man who recently decided he couldn't hack politics.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

The old right Labourites (such as Healey or Hattersley) always disliked Benn. Healey amusingly points out in his autobiography that Benn's contribution to Socialism in Government was authorising Concorde in order to allow rich people to crioss the Atlantic quickly.

Although he is from a rich family (Anthony Neil Wedgwood Benn was formerly 2nd Viscount Stansgate), that peerage was only created in 1942 and had been expected to be passed to his elder brother who died in WW2. To be fair, at least he renounced his peerage to enter politics unlike a certain ex-CBI man who recently decided he couldn't hack politics.

Wasn't the law stating you could renounce a peerage only put through a few months before he got his? I believe it was and believe it was so he could remain in the Commons rather than going to the Lords.

Edit: I was sort of right. According to our friends at Wikipedia he was elected to Parliament in a by-election in 1950......

In November 1960, Benn's father died, and as a result Benn became a peer and was thus prevented from sitting in the House of Commons. Still insisting on his right to abandon his unwelcome peerage, Benn fought to retain his seat in a by-election on 4 May 1961 caused by his succession. Although he was disqualified from taking his seat, the people of Bristol South-East re-elected him. An election court found that the voters were fully aware that Benn was disqualified, and gave the seat to the Conservative runner up in the by-election, Malcolm St Clair, also the son of a peer.[13]
Outside Parliament Benn continued his campaign, and eventually the Conservative government accepted the need for a change in the law.[14] The Peerage Act 1963, allowing renunciation of peerages, was given the Royal Assent and became law shortly after 6pm on 31 July 1963. Benn was the first peer to renounce his title, at 6.22pm that day. St. Clair had already given an undertaking that he would respect the wishes of the people of Bristol if Benn became eligible to take his seat again, and resigned his seat immediately. Benn returned to the Commons after winning a by-election on 20 August.

I think all sides come out of that pretty well. Tory Government passed a law to allow him to become an MP and the 'winner' of the seat stood down. The people of Bristol got who they voted for and Labour got back someone their leaders clearly felt was a good politician.

I doubt it would work like that today.

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

Wasn't the law stating you could renounce a peerage only put through a few months before he got his? I believe it was and believe it was so he could remain in the Commons rather than going to the Lords.

Edit: I was sort of right. According to our friends at Wikipedia he was elected to Parliament in a by-election in 1950......

Yeah, that is right, but he could quite easily have been a minister from the Lords.

Alec Douglas-Home made the same move in 1963 to become PM, as convention rules out a PM being in the Lords, (he was previously Foreign Secretary in the Lords).

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Yeah, that is right, but he could quite easily have been a minister from the Lords. Alec Douglas Home made the same move in 1963 to become PM, as convention rules out a PM being in the Lords.

When I studied constitution a long time ago I seem to recall that it is accepted as being 'correct' that a couple of cabinet members come from the Lords.