Events in history that makes no economic sense

Yep, apparently when the Tories suggested it to focus groups before the 1987 GE the response was overwhelmingly negative, sadly I think the Great White She-Elephant had started to believe in her own aura after seeing off the Argentines and the Miners and no one had the guts to stand up and tell her it was a clusterfuck in the making. The political calculation was that people would compare high poll tax Labour councils against low poll tax Tory ones and vote accordingly, in reality the voters just hated the thing with a passion.

I have no problem believing that. Her tone became somewhat bonkers during her final years in Downing Street. Referring to herself in plural and stuff like that. As much as I believed that all in all she was very good for Britain, I must admit: Thank the Gods they got her out when she did, and a shame they didn't manage a year or so earlier. Thatcher's 11 years demonstrate exactly why I so firmly believe in term limits. Being in power fucks with your mind.

By the way, never heard the term Great White She-Elephant before. I like it. I'm gonna start using it. Cheers. ;)
 
I'm not following your argument here. If you were from Birmingham, you could point to the Warwickshire MP and say "that is the MP covering my area, and representing the interests of this area." Which MP could someone from Boston point to? The Warwickshire one?

Pardon me for sounding rude, but what part of "each member represented the whole of the body politic" does not answer that question?

Birmingham isn't represented. Warwickshire representing it is the virtual representation where the "bluff gentlemen from the country" represent both the areas they were actually voted for in and other areas.

I think they really are two very different cases. A policy that would harm the economic interests of Birmingham would be very strongly opposed by the MP from Warwickshire, and his views would be sought and listened carefully to on the matter if there were particular complaints. That simply isn't the case for the Americans.

But let's say you're right. Does the fact another party has been wronged in the same manner excuse the fact the colonists have? Would it have been equally understandable if the disenfranchised from Birmingham start civil disobedience in protest?

No, it was not. The idea of what representation meant in this day and age was that each community had one or more MPs representing it, as chosen by the best members of that society (defined by a property limit). People in unrepresented communities could not be expected to give taxes, as they had no-one signing off on it, as the Welsh example shows. This idea of "virtual representation" did not exist before the American squabbles.
The idea of "virtual representation": http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/H/1994/ch3_p3.htm

I can find other things, but it'll do. This might be worth a read (unfortunately, you have to pay to read it): http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3291084 , as it seems to suggest it may have mainly come up in actual debate because of the American issue, but the practice was there.

As for it being right: There's a huge difference between "the system was rotten" and "the Americans, in particular, were being gyped by the British", in some sort of imperialist anti-colonial way. And my problem is the argument that Americans were taxed without representation as if the British system was the second. The first being true is not grounds for American rebellion any more (or less) than English rebellion.

Because it was a revenue raising measure, rather than a regulatory measure. i.e. It's the purpose that mattered most, in this view.
My pocket is picked just as much for one as the other.

You'd need to change his long-held plans and intentions. He saw how the power of the Old Whigs under Walpole was from their patronage, and figured the King could come back into power if the considerable royal resources were used to this effect. This way he could become a European-style enlightened monarch rather than a figurehead, which was the way the degenerate (to this view) British system was going. He never achieved it, mainly because Bute and other favourites were horribly unpopular with the public and parliament, but you're not going to stop him interfering to stamp his authority further - let alone give more power away to his subjects!
Being a European style enlightened monarch (so far as that works in Britain) and working with parliament are not mutually exclusive concepts for a big enough head.

I'm not looking to make him not interfere, I'm looking for him to be solving things rather than simply causing problems.

The intelligence of the king doesn't matter as much as his willingness to intervene in parliament. Before George III came to the throne, it was the Old Whig aristocrats that had a powerful patronage network and controlled parliament far more than the monarchy did. This was on course to continue under the Duke of Newcastle (a sympathiser with the colonists). The main groups outside this were the "friends of Mr. Pitt" (whose views we know!), the Rockingham Whigs (also strong sympathisers), the Bedfordites (hardliners on America, but there's disagreement over whether that was to curry favour with the King or not, as they were known to be the Mitt Romneys of the time), the Grenvillites (also sympathisers, although one of the two brothers that led them didn't have a strong opinion), and the tiny rump of Tories (hardliners, but discredited after the Jacobite risings - they'd have probably gone extinct without George III).
If I'm following you, you're saying that George wanting to intervene in parliament inherently made him incapable of being reasoned with or working with the system (meaning parliament, not the Old Whigs necessarily).
 
Last edited:
Speaking as a person who isn't even a lowlander, I have this image of the average Scots peasant being more a wry smartass than a Simple and Pious Man.

Sort of Sancho Panza with a thicker accent. :D

Maybe that's just because that's a lot more appealing, but it sounds like something you'd have an easier time hunting down in Scotland (as distinct from Scottland).

Not really: we were statistically more pious (less bastard children for instance), and our reputation for humourlessness doesn't seem to have been undeserved.

That's the peasants, of course, not the sophisticated and debonaire people in the Edinburgh Mob, of course. :D

I don't know if we can really hold Scott's muddle against him personally, but the more I learn about actual Scottish history, the more I think he should have stuck to novels, where Scottland the Brave at least makes good reading.

I confess I rather like him. All nationality, after all, is invented, and he invented a nationality which - once you strip it of all the Toryism, which has been very easily done - has proved rather positive and inclusive and has made us a great deal of money.

Were there any good Stuart kings?

Exaggerating to make a point there. But Charles (I) seems to have been at best bound to get in trouble with an assertive parliament.

James VI and I was good at doing what he did. Lately people have tended to play up his failings by arguing, quite rightly, that he to an extent set up the fall for his son; but the fact of it is that a man who was able to abolish the General Assembly from London was clearly a pretty smooth operator.

Charles II, for all that he was a complete bastard, was good at what he did. If James II had been his brother but Catholic, he'd probably never have lost the throne.

And then you get into the Scottish Stewarts. James IV and V were certainly magnificent and effective, even if they do seem to have believed that it wasn't over until you'd been killed by the English in an avoidable war and left the country in crisis.

I have to admit to a bit of a soft spot for James II. I'm not sure exactly why, but he seems to have been on the receiving end of a lot of hostility rather than a really bad king.

I get what you mean - he was, when you strip away the Whig history, overthrown for pressing for religious freedom and equality for Ireland. But, here's the thing, he could have gone some way towards getting them if he was any good at making friends and influencing people. Not to mention that he was a sincere believer in Catholic absolutism: the projected alliance with the non-comformists was all stuff. It's harder to sympathise with someone who wants toleration for his religion and will grit his teeth and put up with the others.

What I was trying to say: "The idea that Great Britain and England are two names for the same place." and it having to conveniently overlook how its nothing like that, anglicized elites or no.

The English do habitually use England when they should say Britain, but they never think of Scotland as part of England; when we heave into view, we generally get acknowledged. Americans... *small intake of breath*

Personally, to join the dots a bit, I think we'd all have been the better off for an English Scott, pardon the pun. If Englishness had been given a definite space and aesthetic, the English might be less inclined to confuse what they do with what Britain does.
 
Not really: we were statistically more pious (less bastard children for instance), and our reputation for humourlessness doesn't seem to have been undeserved.

That's the peasants, of course, not the sophisticated and debonaire people in the Edinburgh Mob, of course. :D

Fair enough. But Simple and Pious tends to be a nice, simple image, rather than a complicated person.

I confess I rather like him. All nationality, after all, is invented, and he invented a nationality which - once you strip it of all the Toryism, which has been very easily done - has proved rather positive and inclusive and has made us a great deal of money.

Can't ask for much more than that from a nationality.

James VI and I was good at doing what he did. Lately people have tended to play up his failings by arguing, quite rightly, that he to an extent set up the fall for his son; but the fact of it is that a man who was able to abolish the General Assembly from London was clearly a pretty smooth operator.

Charles II, for all that he was a complete bastard, was good at what he did. If James II had been his brother but Catholic, he'd probably never have lost the throne.

How so (on James II)?

And then you get into the Scottish Stewarts. James IV and V were certainly magnificent and effective, even if they do seem to have believed that it wasn't over until you'd been killed by the English in an avoidable war and left the country in crisis.

What's a country without a few overmighty magnates and maybe a civil war or two?

I get what you mean - he was, when you strip away the Whig history, overthrown for pressing for religious freedom and equality for Ireland. But, here's the thing, he could have gone some way towards getting them if he was any good at making friends and influencing people. Not to mention that he was a sincere believer in Catholic absolutism: the projected alliance with the non-comformists was all stuff. It's harder to sympathise with someone who wants toleration for his religion and will grit his teeth and put up with the others.

Yeah. Its better than what his enemies said, but its not exactly likable.

The English do habitually use England when they should say Britain, but they never think of Scotland as part of England; when we heave into view, we generally get acknowledged. Americans... *small intake of breath*

My countrymen range from ignorant to...what's the antithesis of knowledgeable?

Personally, to join the dots a bit, I think we'd all have been the better off for an English Scott, pardon the pun. If Englishness had been given a definite space and aesthetic, the English might be less inclined to confuse what they do with what Britain does.

That would make sense.
 
It made no sense of Margaret Thatcher to introduce the Poll Tax whatsoever.

Whatsoever.

It was ridiculous, as it basically just manage to infuriate and alienate working class Tories (most of her electorate) and give her opponents massive fuel for their cause.

I mean honestly, how could any serious politician look at any kind of poll tax whatsoever and go "now this idea I like!"?

But the problem wasn't that it didn't make economic sense, which is the thread title: the poll tax raised enough money to pay for local services. It was a political blunder, no question, because it hit the poorest people hardest and people thought that was unfair.
 
How so (on James II)?

The big crisis had already happened: the Tories, that faction that believed a Catholic monarch who was pledged to uphold the Establishment was better than the risk of a second civil war that they saw in any parliamentary tampering with succession, had won thanks to Charles' deft management and plenty of genuine support, and when the radical Whigs mounted an armed challenge under Monmouth and Argyll in 1685, they were brushed aside.

But James went on to prove that this particular Catholic monarch was indeed the worse option, and created a Tory-Whig coalition to get rid of him. Marlborough, who took much of the army over to William in 1688, had shot up Monmouth in 1685.
 
Pardon me for sounding rude, but what part of "each member represented the whole of the body politic" does not answer that question?

Ah, fair enough, I did not pick up your argument properly. But if this is was truly the ideological underpinnings of the situation, why did they not tax Wales until incorporation? Why did they then give Wales MPs when they later went on to tax them?

Birmingham isn't represented. Warwickshire representing it is the virtual representation where the "bluff gentlemen from the country" represent both the areas they were actually voted for in and other areas.
Yes, but this was a matter of the constituencies not being updated. The original ideological underpinnings would have said Birmingham was part of the Warwickshire community. (Even if it wasn't in practice)

it seems to suggest it may have mainly come up in actual debate because of the American issue, but the practice was there.
I haven't read your second link because of the paywall, but this was a new ideological justification which angered the colonists. There's a difference between the practice not matching a rightful ideology, and a new ideology being created to justify something unfair.

As for it being right: There's a huge difference between "the system was rotten" and "the Americans, in particular, were being gyped by the British", in some sort of imperialist anti-colonial way. And my problem is the argument that Americans were taxed without representation as if the British system was the second. The first being true is not grounds for American rebellion any more (or less) than English rebellion.
Ah, indeed. But the colonists did not plan on doing this as one nation screwing the other: the criticism was always targeted on a corrupt governing elite they wanted reformed.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/product-description/0684825031

"Even so, Anglo-American leaders did not immediately envision independence as the result of their resistance to imperial innovation. Well after hostilities had begun, many Americans hoped that opponents of the regime in Britain, such as the radical Whigs, would bring about another Glorious Revolution throughout the empire, restoring local privileges in Ireland as in Massachusetts, and ending monarchical "corruption" of the London parliament... When an empire-wide revolution, replacing centralism with some form of federalism, failed to occur, the colonists opted for secession as a second-best measure."


My pocket is picked just as much for one as the other.
Indeed, and I think Pitt is being a bit too clever in trying to frame his argument. But ultimately, what he wanted was to get rid of the new taxes without getting consent.

Being a European style enlightened monarch (so far as that works in Britain) and working with parliament are not mutually exclusive concepts for a big enough head.

I'm not looking to make him not interfere, I'm looking for him to be solving things rather than simply causing problems.

If I'm following you, you're saying that George wanting to intervene in parliament inherently made him incapable of being reasoned with or working with the system (meaning parliament, not the Old Whigs necessarily).
Fair enough - it's clearly possible - but I think the general problem was the clash between a King wanted to be able to enact his own will, and businessmen expecting a parliament representing their interests to stay off their backs. That problem can be resolved in the manner you wish, but it's easier for it not to happen in the first place. I think its particularly hard for it to happen with the stubborn George III - perhaps you could get him to learn heavily from some earlier mistake to make him less stubborn?
 
Ah, fair enough, I did not pick up your argument properly. But if this is was truly the ideological underpinnings of the situation, why did they not tax Wales until incorporation? Why did they then give Wales MPs when they later went on to tax them?

Presumably for the reason London has representatives from (for being the wrong word is my point) at all, which is to say that what areas got them was...decided for various reasons.

Yes, but this was a matter of the constituencies not being updated. The original ideological underpinnings would have said Birmingham was part of the Warwickshire community. (Even if it wasn't in practice)

I haven't read your second link because of the paywall, but this was a new ideological justification which angered the colonists. There's a difference between the practice not matching a rightful ideology, and a new ideology being created to justify something unfair.

I'm not sure if its new, but I can't find any references to it coming up earlier. That doesn't mean it was crafted specifically for this however.

Ah, indeed. But the colonists did not plan on doing this as one nation screwing the other: the criticism was always targeted on a corrupt governing elite they wanted reformed.

But a corrupt elite they saw as persecuting them rather than as just being a corrupt, entrenched system which found the entire principle of democracy (defined for purposes of this discussion as "government of/for/by the people", as opposed to this practically oligarchical situation, that work for you or do you have a better term?) distasteful.

See:

http://www.amazon.com/NEXT-AMERICAN-NATION-Nationalism-Revolution/dp/product-description/0684825031

"Even so, Anglo-American leaders did not immediately envision independence as the result of their resistance to imperial innovation. Well after hostilities had begun, many Americans hoped that opponents of the regime in Britain, such as the radical Whigs, would bring about another Glorious Revolution throughout the empire, restoring local privileges in Ireland as in Massachusetts, and ending monarchical "corruption" of the London parliament... When an empire-wide revolution, replacing centralism with some form of federalism, failed to occur, the colonists opted for secession as a second-best measure."

True as far as this goes.

Indeed, and I think Pitt is being a bit too clever in trying to frame his argument. But ultimately, what he wanted was to get rid of the new taxes without getting consent.

Yeah. What he would put in place...this is where we get into what if, but I'm not sure it would have addressed colonial gripes as well as he thought it would.

It would, at least, be a step towards actually looking at how to solve the issue instead of how to bludgeon the colonists into submission, but...

Fair enough - it's clearly possible - but I think the general problem was the clash between a King wanted to be able to enact his own will, and businessmen expecting a parliament representing their interests to stay off their backs. That problem can be resolved in the manner you wish, but it's easier for it not to happen in the first place. I think its particularly hard for it to happen with the stubborn George III - perhaps you could get him to learn heavily from some earlier mistake to make him less stubborn?

Agreed. And the worst aspect of George III's stubbornness is that as best as I can tell, he was well meaning as he understood that. Small minds and delusions of righteousness are a terrible combination.

Get a wiser (and humbler) king, more capable ministers in general, and a genuine attempt by all parties to come together instead of it being increasingly Sons of Liberty vs. Entrenched British Gentry and you can go somewhere.

Assuming, that is, that American sentiment doesn't work out to decide it really doesn't want its local liberties "infringed" in any way shape or form, no matter what that means.

Admiral Matt said:
Well it kind of is.

Ignoring all arguments of capitalism vs. communism, is it more capitalist than industry?
 

Thande

Donor
I have no problem believing that. Her tone became somewhat bonkers during her final years in Downing Street. Referring to herself in plural and stuff like that. As much as I believed that all in all she was very good for Britain, I must admit: Thank the Gods they got her out when she did, and a shame they didn't manage a year or so earlier. Thatcher's 11 years demonstrate exactly why I so firmly believe in term limits. Being in power fucks with your mind.

By the way, never heard the term Great White She-Elephant before. I like it. I'm gonna start using it. Cheers. ;)

With regards to the poll tax, I've read Thatcher's own account and as far as I can tell the logic was like this:

1) She didn't call it a poll tax, that was a label given to it by its opponents. It was officially called the community charge.

2) It was intended to try and provide accountability for what she regarded as overspending councils run by Labour, and force the councils to own up to the fact that they were spending other people's money due to the national tax system, people living under low-spending Tory councils were having to finance the vanity projects of Labour councils hundreds of miles away. (Debatable whether there is any truth to this or just Thatcher's opposition to 'socialism', but you get the idea). In other words, make the councils unpopular and force them to rein in their spending rather than have the national government take the blame for the taxes. Needless to say, it didn't work out like that.

3) It was not intended to fall equally on everyone; the idea is that everyone was set the same basic charge, but then people in lower income brackets would get a proportionate rebate so the tax ended up being reasonably progressive. Now, this was bloody stupid, and really I think Thatcher got everything she deserved over the community charge for this. It's exactly the same mistake Gordon Brown made with his tax credits, the current coalition government made with tuition fees, and I've seen it elsewhere too. Never think you're being fair by saying "everyone pays the same basic charge but then we'll provide rebates to those less well off so it all works out". If we were all Vulcans people would accept that, but we're not. People only hear the first part of your sentence. And furthermore to get the rebate you often have to go through a complicated procedure which often bewilders the very people who are supposed to get it (poor often = limited literacy and a fear of government bureaucracy). Meanwhile the middle classes interpret this as you deliberately trying to con the poor out of their fair settlement by making it hard for them to get their rebate, whether that's true or not. Just make the charge progressive in the first place and you could have avoided all this nonsense.
 

Thande

Donor
Think I just pulled off the forum curse of the "write long detailed response and watch thread sink without a trace" ;)
 
Top