The Dirty Independence Question

[eFestivals]

If they've made progress, that's good.

But just think how much better progress could be made by the poorest if the money being given to the rich went the direction of the poor.

The progress is good, but better the chances of progress has been given away free to the rich.

If the poor are so important, why the freebie for the rich, LJS??? Or is giving the rich freebies just as important? The facts of SNP policy says that it is, and the Scottish public's support for that SNP policy lays bare the lie that Scotland is different. It's only as different as Blair was different to the tories.

As the snippers narrative gets louder, I get to read more and more praise in favour of Blairisms from snippers - because defending what they'd condemn from Labour is what they now have to do in light of the facts of SNP policy.

 

 

 

 

 

[LJS]

If they've made progress, that's good.

But just think how much better progress could be made by the poorest if the money being given to the rich went the direction of the poor.

The progress is good, but better the chances of progress has been given away free to the rich.

If the poor are so important, why the freebie for the rich, LJS??? Or is giving the rich freebies just as important? The facts of SNP policy says that it is, and the Scottish public's support for that SNP policy lays bare the lie that Scotland is different. It's only as different as Blair was different to the tories.

As the snippers narrative gets louder, I get to read more and more praise in favour of Blairisms from snippers - because defending what they'd condemn from Labour is what they now have to do in light of the facts of SNP policy.

 

 

 

 

 

No idea what you're on about as usual Neil. Which particular alleged freebie for the rich are you on about today?

 

& what Blairisms are us Snippers in favour of?

[eFestivals]

No idea what you're on about as usual Neil. Which particular alleged freebie for the rich are you on about today?

 

& what Blairisms are us Snippers in favour of?

The list is long, and if you don't know already it only gets to reveal the free pass, again.

 

[LJS]

The list is long, and if you don't know already it only gets to reveal the free pass, again.

 

Fair enough. As you are well aware, I don't play guessing games.

[eFestivals]

Fair enough. As you are well aware, I don't play guessing games.

You don't play intelligence games, either.

You know the list already, but pretending it's all new to you only shows that you prefer bullshit to addressing the facts.

[Comfy Bean]

 

 

 

 

 

So, Neil, you have been banging on for ages about how the SNP are robbing the poor to protect the rich's privileged access to education.

Your claims have been based on comparisons which are imperfect as they do not reflect the differences in our respective education systems & different measures of poverty.So I'm sure like me, I'm sure you'll welcome a more objective assessment of how successful the Scottish government has been in this area.

 

 

https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-news/scotlands-record-sending-poorer-teenagers-university-improving

 

So in other words, when the SNP took over they inherited a dreadful record of getting the poorest into University. they have made massive strides to catch up - not there yet - but I'm sure you will want to congratulate them on the impressive progress they have mad.

" More than doubled " Good news 

Think the guy who carried out the survey is an efester ?

Mr Forth, founder of Leeds-based company Imactivate, finds that the chances of pupils from Scotland’s more deprived areas going to university have more than doubled in the past 10 years.

He concludes that “current criticism of [Scotland’s] higher education system is unfounded”.

[Comfy Bean]

except of course the only one in any position to do anything is the party in power, and the party in power has done fuck all of anything much for nearly a decade.

 

[LJS]

Replying to Neil's point here in recognition of Tyman's point in the general news thread...

Neil said...

"Pointless jobs are pointless jobs. You might as well have people polishing blades of grass if the only purpose is stop them being idle.

Prestwick passengers - you know, rich people (the poor can't afford airline travel, in case you're confused) - are subsidised by up-to £1000 each time they get on a plane, often many times the cost of the flight they've using.

Perhaps a thousand quid each might be better spent actually doing something useful for poor people, rather than ensuring the rich have the most convenient services it's possible for them to have?

Is it robbing the poor for the benefit of the rich? Yes, beyond all doubt."

Yet again, for Neil it's all about the market.

The jobs are worth saving if the cost of keeping them is less than the cost of losing them and there I is realist prospect of them become viable in time.

I don't know the answer to the first point and I am somewhat sceptical about the second but unlike you, I don't dismiss it out of hand.

[eFestivals]

    Yet again, for Neil it's all about the market.

The jobs are worth saving if the cost of keeping them is less than the cost of losing them and there I is realist prospect of them become viable in time.

I don't know the answer to the first point and I am somewhat sceptical about the second but unlike you, I don't dismiss it out of hand.

Simple conclusions from simple minds...?

It's about purpose, LJS. Pointless is always pointless. The point of an airport without the passengers for that airport makes that airport what exactly?

The only way things will change for that airport is if Scotland can steal passengers - and so also jobs - from another part of the country. As an insular Scot you might think that worthwhile, but as someone who cares about everyone in the country and wishes to improve things, I go with the point that there's very clearly no improvement to anything via that, unless you enter selfish-Scot mode.

Given that Prestwick costs £40M a  year of your money, it would be cheaper to give those employees a wedge for doing nothing each month than to keep the airport open.

An even better thing would be to invest that £40m a year in something sustainable. Which isn't Preswick Airport.

At £3000 per month - £36000 per year (about 50% above average wage) -  £40M per year will support 1,100 people. Prestwick employs 300 people.

Do the fucking maths.

[LJS]

Simple conclusions from simple minds...?

It's about purpose, LJS. Pointless is always pointless. The point of an airport without the passengers for that airport makes that airport what exactly?

The only way things will change for that airport is if Scotland can steal passengers - and so also jobs - from another part of the country. As an insular Scot you might think that worthwhile, but as someone who cares about everyone in the country and wishes to improve things, I go with the point that there's very clearly no improvement to anything via that, unless you enter selfish-Scot mode.

Given that Prestwick costs £40M a  year of your money, it would be cheaper to give those employees a wedge for doing nothing each month than to keep the airport open.

An even better thing would be to invest that £40m a year in something sustainable. Which isn't Preswick Airport.

At £3000 per month - £36000 per year (about 50% above average wage) -  £40M per year will support 1,100 people. Prestwick employs 300 people.

Do the fucking maths.

maybe you should do the fucking maths. The £40million is not the annual cost. It's the projected total cost until 2022.

[eFestivals]

maybe you should do the fucking maths. The £40million is not the annual cost. It's the projected total cost until 2022.

as it happens, I'd just done a bit more reading since I made that post, and discovered my error.

But what I also read was that losses were £2M a year before St Savour Nicola took it over, so that's a pretty good huge increase in losses she's guilty of - from £2M a year to £5M a year.

Meanwhile it's salvation will only come from stealing jobs from another location, so it's still money for zero benefit to anyone. You know, the 'pointless' I said in the first place.

(And let's not forget the up-to £1000 per-passenger subsidy for the rich, dependent on which flight!)

If sustainable job creation is the point, it has no point.

If giving people pointless tasks is the point, have them polish blades of grass instead.

It's a Scottish vanity project, and nothing more. If I say "do something constructive and useful instead with the money", that's an awful thing for me to say, right, and makes me a tory.

[Comfy Bean]

 

 

Given that Prestwick costs £40M a  year of your money, it would be cheaper to give those employees a wedge for doing nothing each month than to keep the airport open.

An even better thing would be to invest that £40m a year in something sustainable. Which isn't Preswick Airport.

At £3000 per month - £36000 per year (about 50% above average wage) -  £40M per year will support 1,100 people. Prestwick employs 300 people.

Do the fucking maths.

It`s not £40million a year of your money. The BBC reported the losses last year at £4.1million 

The Scottish Govt are not investing £40miliion a year, nothing anywhere near it.

You claim the airport employs 300 people. Try 3200 jobs secured and an infrastructure asset that secures £60million annually to the Scottish economy.

Add to that Audit Scotlands report that " The Scottish Government could reasonably expect a positive return " and lets consider the millions generated ( mostly for golf ) to the Ayrshire economy. Ayrshire has one of the worst youth unemployment figures in the UK.

I`m not going to bother factoring in the costs of actually paying all these folk to do nothing as you suggest above as you seem happy with your " do the maths " nonsense.

In the current financial climate the cargo side of things seems to be doing ok. The passenger numbers are down but that is mostly due to Ryanair pulling out as I mentioned the other day.

The other airports that I mentioned yesterday also don`t make alot of money but they are vital to the local ( remote ) communities. The Scottish Govt continue to support them and the Scottish voters seem happy with that.

You clearly would shut down these " vanity projects " but at what cost.

Plus........... the Elvis factor  

[eFestivals]

You claim the airport employs 300 people. Try 3200 jobs secured and an infrastructure asset that secures £60million annually to the Scottish economy.

If those related jobs are viable, they'd be as viable at another location if necessary. Even the majority of direct jobs at Prestwick wouldn't be lost overall as there'd be need for more staff in the other places which benefited from its closure.

There's some merit in funding jobs in that particular location, of course, but that doesn't mean they have to be those particular jobs on what is clearly going to be a very difficult project to make of commercial benefit, as the best it might do is steal business from elsewhere. That's no benefit to the economy overall.

I've not looked into it, but I suspect it might be that it's the passenger stuff (and not the related stuff) which makes that an uneconomic airport to operate with such a low footfall. Making sure joe public has his expectations met has big overheads, that need to be spread far and wide ... so the airport itself and other jobs might be able to remain if the passenger stuff were given up. </just speculating>

 

Add to that Audit Scotlands report that " The Scottish Government could reasonably expect a positive return " and lets consider the millions generated ( mostly for golf ) to the Ayrshire economy. Ayrshire has one of the worst youth unemployment figures in the UK.

I`m not going to bother factoring in the costs of actually paying all these folk to do nothing as you suggest above as you seem happy with your " do the maths " nonsense.

In the current financial climate the cargo side of things seems to be doing ok. The passenger numbers are down but that is mostly due to Ryanair pulling out as I mentioned the other day.

The other airports that I mentioned yesterday also don`t make alot of money but they are vital to the local ( remote ) communities. The Scottish Govt continue to support them and the Scottish voters seem happy with that.

You clearly would shut down these " vanity projects " but at what cost.

Plus........... the Elvis factor  

As I keep pointing out, the best that can happen with Prestwick is that it can steal profit (and everything else) from other locations. It's existence doesn't increase passenger numbers or cargo traffic. So Audit Scotland is either run by numpties or it's taking no account of overall effect and doing a 'fuck everyone else, only Scotland is important' thing.

I'm sure the locals like thinking that it's bring them jobs. People are less quick to appreciate them being taken from elsewhere.

I've no problem with any govt investing in industry/commerce, but it's objective should always be to exit at a profit.  Other investments are available.

Meanwhile, the SNP are planning tax cuts for the rich just like tories.... or are you saying that the poor are literally being forced to starve but they're still taking foreign holidays?

Edited November 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

as it happens, I'd just done a bit more reading since I made that post, and discovered my error.

But what I also read was that losses were £2M a year before St Savour Nicola took it over, so that's a pretty good huge increase in losses she's guilty of - from £2M a year to £5M a year.

Meanwhile it's salvation will only come from stealing jobs from another location, so it's still money for zero benefit to anyone. You know, the 'pointless' I said in the first place.

(And let's not forget the up-to £1000 per-passenger subsidy for the rich, dependent on which flight!)

If sustainable job creation is the point, it has no point.

If giving people pointless tasks is the point, have them polish blades of grass instead.

It's a Scottish vanity project, and nothing more. If I say "do something constructive and useful instead with the money", that's an awful thing for me to say, right, and makes me a tory.

Comfy has made the case for Prestwick much more eloquently than I could. The jury is certainly out on whether this investment will turn round the fortunes of the Airport.  I would certainly rather have a government that is at least prepared to consider intervention when jobs are at risk rather than the Tories (and you) who are happy to trust the market to sort these things out...except when its banks.

Meanwhile, Prestwick has its eyes on higher things..

http://www.scotsman.com/news/sci-tech/could-prestwick-become-scotland-s-first-spaceport-1-3902036

And yesterday while flights were cancelled left right & centre...

As for your argument that they are stealing jobs from elsewhere, this is only true in the sense that pretty much any job creating incentive does so. If I open a cafe, it is possible someone else's cafe will close or employ less staff.  Anyway, I think I'm right in saying that air passenger numbers are rising & expected to continue to rise so there is clearly scope for Prestwick to increase its numbers without anywhere else losing out.

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by LJS

[eFestivals]

Comfy has made the case for Prestwick much more eloquently than I could. The jury is certainly out on whether this investment will turn round the fortunes of the Airport.  I would certainly rather have a government that is at least prepared to consider intervention when jobs are at risk rather than the Tories (and you) who are happy to trust the market to sort these things out...except when its banks.

Oh, back to the lying thing again, I see.

Not all 'investments' are investments. Some of us realise that, and others believe there's a bottomless pit of other people's money.

For example .... I'm all for a strategic steel industry but that doesn't mean I'd have necessarily been behind keeping Redcar open. From what I've read (which may not be correct, but it works for this hypothetical example whatever), there were a number of issues around it that meant it would struggle to be profitable even in the most advantageous conditions, and it (together with other steel works) created a capacity beyond the UK's own needs.

Evaluations should be on best outcomes, not just a job-preservation basis. I'd have thought the history of Prestwick would be enough to see it's unlikely to ever be a success as a passenger terminal, even before getting onto the fact that it's success can only ever be robbed from elsewhere.

[eFestivals]

As for your argument that they are stealing jobs from elsewhere, this is only true in the sense that pretty much any job creating incentive does so. If I open a cafe, it is possible someone else's cafe will close or employ less staff.  Anyway, I think I'm right in saying that air passenger numbers are rising & expected to continue to rise so there is clearly scope for Prestwick to increase its numbers without anywhere else losing out.

 

Nope, it's not true.

Some new jobs are created in growing markets, and so do not steal jobs fro elsewhere - and your cafe example is one of those as long as Scotland has seen similar cafe growth to down south in the last 20-ish years.

Air travel in developed economies is pretty static. There was a boom around the budget airlines, but that's reached it's natural limit now (it over-reached it a while back, which is why budget operations have been shrinking again)..

And it's certainly not the case that a tax cut for the rich as planned by the SNP will give it that growth.

Edited November 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 

And it's certainly not the case that a tax cut for the rich as planned by the SNP will give it that growth.

What is certainly the case is that you cannot know this for certain. Struggling with the old fact v. opinion thing again Neil?

[eFestivals]

What is certainly the case is that you cannot know this for certain. Struggling with the old fact v. opinion thing again Neil?

I know it's a tax cut. I know the rich will benefit most by it, and that the poorest will be paying.

If it looks like a tory policy and walks like a tory policy it is a tory policy.

[LJS]

I know it's a tax cut. I know the rich will benefit most by it, and that the poorest will be paying.

If it looks like a tory policy and walks like a tory policy it is a tory policy.

which is not what you said.

 

You said the tax cut would not give Prestwick the growth it needs.

 

 

[eFestivals]

which is not what you said.

 

You said the tax cut would not give Prestwick the growth it needs.

It won't.

It'll give the already rich a bit more growth on their bank accounts, tho.

[eFestivals]

PS: you could just condemn that tax cut for the rich, rather than look for ways to defend the indefensible...?

There must be a massive conflict going on in there right now, should I or shouldn't I, and if I do do you think anyone will notice? It's almost against the law.

[LJS]

PS: you could just condemn that tax cut for the rich, rather than look for ways to defend the indefensible...?

There must be a massive conflict going on in there right now, should I or shouldn't I, and if I do do you think anyone will notice? It's almost against the law.

...or I could be a bit more intelligent instead of oversimplifying everything. The only tax cut that can even vaguely accurately described as a tax cut for the rich is a cut to the top rate of income tax. Pretty much every other change to tax will have a variety of impacts. If a measure seems to have a greater positive impact for society as a whole & has a real possibility of creating more jobs (which help the poor more than any sloganeering on your part) then I can live with the fact a few wealthy people may benefit from it. I don't think means testing APD is practical although knowing your love of means-testing, you'd probably be in favour.

 

Life politics & taxation are a bit more complex than you make it sound & your constant dumbing down of them does you no favours & just make you look stupid.

 

[eFestivals]

...or I could be a bit more intelligent instead of oversimplifying everything. The only tax cut that can even vaguely accurately described as a tax cut for the rich is a cut to the top rate of income tax. Pretty much every other change to tax will have a variety of impacts. If a measure seems to have a greater positive impact for society as a whole & has a real possibility of creating more jobs (which help the poor more than any sloganeering on your part) then I can live with the fact a few wealthy people may benefit from it. I don't think means testing APD is practical although knowing your love of means-testing, you'd probably be in favour.

 

Life politics & taxation are a bit more complex than you make it sound & your constant dumbing down of them does you no favours & just make you look stupid.

 

Yep, you can tweak taxes to try to create growth. But any way you look at APD cuts, it's stupid. It can only be about stealing business from elsewhere in the UK rather than any meaningful growth.

It's certainly not an 'everyone benefits' thing, cos the poor are excluded - so they're 100% definitely picking up the cost, and a disproportional amount of it.

How does the mantra go when it's a tory doing this? Making tax cuts for the rich at a time when cuts are being made to the poor are inexcusable?

It quacks, it's a duck.

Edited November 3, 2015 by eFestivals

[LJS]

 

How does the manta go ? 

Like this?

 

Edited November 3, 2015 by LJS

[Stash]

 Anyway, I think I'm right in saying that air passenger numbers are rising & expected to continue to rise so there is clearly scope for Prestwick to increase its numbers without anywhere else losing out.

 

I'm not sure that is true. The most recent CAA figures (September) show an annual passenger numbers dropping by nearly 37% and number of flights dropping by around 40%. It seems the relocation of some Ryanair flights from Prestwick to Gatwick are really biting. 

 

AIRPORT	NO_FLTS_THIS_M	PERC_FLTS_MNTH	NO_FLTS_THIS_Y	PERC_FLTS_YEAR	TRM_PAX_THIS_M	PERC_PAX_MNTH	TRM_PAX_THIS_Y	PERC_PAX_YEAR
PRESTWICK	469	-34.2	4436	-40.1	73123	-30.7	636114	-36.9