EU referendum opinion poll.

[Carl the Llama]

One thing I've been wondering and it's not of much consequence but why are we so determined to avoid using the same terminology for each camp that we used during the Scottish referendum?

 

Instead of in or out there's been a concerted effort to use the words leave and stay/remain. A cynic might say it's a deliberate effort to avoid the drawing of parallels between the two and the self-reflection that would naturally entail for the many people with contradictory views on each issue (ie. thinking Scotland's better off inside a political union but that the UK's worse off in one or vice versa).

[Carl the Llama]

I know it's not a perfect parallel but the change in terminology for essentially the same actions interests me.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

a)The social housing that was sold off is still being lived in so that's nothing to do with a housing shortage. You can't plan how many houses need to be built when you don't know how many people are coming in.

But had the social housing stock remained as social housing stock and instead the government provide assistance for those in those positions to move to privately built homes - you'd have stimulated development in the housing sector and ended up with more housing stock per capita, rather than what is essentially the diminishing situation. It would also have been a much better position for social mobility.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

b) Hospitals were not run down during the 80s and 90s. There were many new hospitals built.

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

My reference material suggest otherwise

[DJ Barry Hammond]

One thing I've been wondering and it's not of much consequence but why are we so determined to avoid using the same terminology for each camp that we used during the Scottish referendum?

 

Instead of in or out there's been a concerted effort to use the words leave and stay/remain. A cynic might say it's a deliberate effort to avoid the drawing of parallels between the two and the self-reflection that would naturally entail for the many people with contradictory views on each issue (ie. thinking Scotland's better off inside a political union but that the UK's worse off in one or vice versa).

Looks like it might be to do with how the referendum question is being put forward;

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-question-assessment

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union

[Bryn]

Who knows mate? That's the job of the government, we've done it it before with things like the Industrial revolution, we did it more recently by introducing a world class services industry.

 

If I had the answer to your question I wouldn't be sat here at 12.30 on a Wednesday afternoon, we are going to soon be the fourth largest economy in the World though, we should set our sights as high as possible though, I'd like us to try and become a haven for International based online companies but with the public perception of the tax they pay I'd probably be chasing an impossible cause.

Why do you want this? What tangible benefit does this have to your life?

[Carl the Llama]

Looks like it might be to do with how the referendum question is being put forward;

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/find-information-by-subject/elections-and-referendums/upcoming-elections-and-referendums/eu-referendum/eu-referendum-question-assessment

Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?

Remain a member of the European Union

Leave the European Union

Worst conspiracy ever.

[Webbo]

But had the social housing stock remained as social housing stock and instead the government provide assistance for those in those positions to move to privately built homes - you'd have stimulated development in the housing sector and ended up with more housing stock per capita, rather than what is essentially the diminishing situation. It would also have been a much better position for social mobility.

They were sold to the people living in them at a discount, if they hadn't been then they probably would have been able to afford to own their own home. That did more for social mobility than anything Labour ever did. Plus, as I said, it has nothing to do with the housing shortage.

 

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/past_spending

My reference material suggest otherwise

 

Health spending declined in the late 1970s,(Labour govt) down to 4.7 percent of GDP in 1979 and increased thereafter, reaching 5.24 percent of GDP in 1981 before beginning a decline to 4.28 percent in 1988. Then spending began increased to 5.35 percent of GDP in 1993 and declined to 4.9 percent of GDP by 1998.

 

That also is  stated as a percentage of GDP so the figures would change with how the economy expanded and contracted. In cash terms the Tories didn't cut the NHS. You could argue that they didn't raise spending enough, but as the NHS will never have enough money, you could say the same about any period in it's history.

 

Anecdotally, I think I'm right in saying that The Royal was extended during the 80s and Glenfield Hospital was built late 80s/early 90s.

[Webbo]

One thing I've been wondering and it's not of much consequence but why are we so determined to avoid using the same terminology for each camp that we used during the Scottish referendum?

 

Instead of in or out there's been a concerted effort to use the words leave and stay/remain. A cynic might say it's a deliberate effort to avoid the drawing of parallels between the two and the self-reflection that would naturally entail for the many people with contradictory views on each issue (ie. thinking Scotland's better off inside a political union but that the UK's worse off in one or vice versa).

Who's avoiding what?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

They were sold to the people living in them at a discount, if they hadn't been then they probably would have been able to afford to own their own home. That did more for social mobility than anything Labour ever did. Plus, as I said, it has nothing to do with the housing shortage.

 

You miss my point again Webbo.

IF the deal was the government providing support / a discount for tenants to fund the purchase of a new privately built property, the overall cost to the government would have been the same, but with the added benefit of stimulating housing development (property developers would be encouraged to build homes within reach of this active market), whilst maintaining the housing stock within the government portfolio.

I agree from a people prospective the ability to buy the house you currently live in is more attractive because you wouldn't have to move, but as I've highlighted their would have been much greater benefits to a responsible government looking at a longer term picture by offering the discount towards new housing as opposed to the existing stock - it's simple economics;

A.) provide a discount towards a new home, but retain property - therefore retain income / stock levels

B.) provide discount to buy the existing council house - therefore the government is receiving a reduced cash price for its asset and reduces its own stock levels at the same time.

If as a person you were able to take advantage of the governments generosity then of course you did fantastically well and would be all for the policy - but that decision has ultimately been to the great cost of further generations given the level of social housing stock just isn't there any more.

[Webbo]

Maybe the people liked living where they did. Any way we're getting off topic.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

That also is stated as a percentage of GDP so the figures would change with how the economy expanded and contracted. In cash terms the Tories didn't cut the NHS. You could argue that they didn't raise spending enough, but as the NHS will never have enough money, you could say the same about any period in it's history.

Anecdotally, I think I'm right in saying that The Royal was extended during the 80s and Glenfield Hospital was built late 80s/early 90s.

Well I've used the GDP figures because those are the recognised ways of comparing a governments priorities in spending. If you consider that GDP over the period rose, that tells you the government of that time deliberately chose to reduce the amount it was spending (in all areas, not just health) - but given it was a Tory government that's not surprising.

The problem that brought about however is that the countries infrastructure didn't keep pace with the time, and with people enjoying increased living standards (the rise in GDP) they expected more from their taxes - hence why labour were able to get in on a ticket of increased public spending for 3 successive elections following that period.

I've looked up Glenfield Hospital - that was built in 1984, with the land it was on sold for housing development, so I wouldn't be suprised if that the development was self funded. Even governments that want to reduce spending can build new stuff.

Ultimately spending is a massive balancing act with no clear answers, you need to spend enough to keep those services relevant and up to date, but be tight enough to ensure those services don't become complacement and waste funds, so it's probably sensible to believe the best position on spending would probably be somewhere between where the two main parties are at the moment.

Finally - I acknowledge this may have gone off topic a little, but I can bring it back to the Soverignity issue, because all of the above shows the UK government of the day has loads of power to make the decisions it needs to, without Europe interfering.

The whole point of EU law is to set out the framework for the mutual trading of goods and services between the nations involved and because people can provide services in their own rights, this includes the free movement of people. Without this, the trading agreement wouldn't work.

EU law is all to do with trade and workers rights, it's trying to create a balanced playing field across competing nations, so as far as I see it the main reason the politicians of the leave side are wanting to return "Soverignity" to the UK would be to undercut the rules as they currently stand - I see it as a regressive move for the general UK population dressed up as something nationalistic so it seems to be in our interests.

And that is why I was questionning, what is the main thing the leave campaigners want to do with our "Soverignity" if it was returned?

[Webbo]

The Glenfield was definitely built after 74 because I got a job painting there while was being built.

[Webbo]

The whole point of EU law is to set out the framework for the mutual trading of goods and services between the nations involved and because people can provide services in their own rights, this includes the free movement of people. Without this, the trading agreement wouldn't work.

EU law is all to do with trade and workers rights, it's trying to create a balanced playing field across competing nations, so as far as I see it the main reason the politicians of the leave side are wanting to return "Soverignity" to the UK would be to undercut the rules as they currently stand - I see it as a regressive move for the general UK population dressed up as something nationalistic so it seems to be in our interests.

And that is why I was questionning, what is the main thing the leave campaigners want to do with our "Soverignity" if it was returned?

The thing is these workers rights don't extend to workers outside the EU, do we really want to be forced to adopt the practices that create the levels of unemployment on the continent? If they want to cut their own throats that's their business but don't drag us down with them.

[bovril]

The Glenfield was definitely built after 74 because I got a job painting there while was being built.

 

1874?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The Glenfield was definitely built after 74 because I got a job painting there while was being built.

84 apologies. Celebrated its 30th birthday in 2014

[Webbo]

84 apologies. Celebrated its 30th birthday in 2014

It was later than that, maybe it was started in 84.

 

1874?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

The thing is these workers rights don't extend to workers outside the EU, do we really want to be forced to adopt the practices that create the levels of unemployment on the continent? If they want to cut their own throats that's their business but don't drag us down with them.

But if you're going to remove the trade restrictions across countries - you need to balance the playing field by stipulating workers rights and other trade rules - and as a general populace that is in our favour not against it, its there to prevent a race to the bottom.

The levels of unemployment in Southern European countries has more to do with the balance of their economies and how those countries have been run... they've been long standing issues, it's not something the EU has necessarily created.

Are you advocating for there to be less workers rights?

[Webbo]

But if you're going to remove the trade restrictions across countries - you need to balance the playing field by stipulating workers rights and other trade rules - and as a general populace that is in our favour not against it, its there to prevent a race to the bottom.

The levels of unemployment in Southern European countries has more to do with the balance of their economies and how those countries have been run... they've been long standing issues, it's not something the EU has necessarily created.

Are you advocating for there to be less workers rights?

Depends which rights you're on about.

[Carl the Llama]

Read back, "my vote makes no difference, sovereignty doesn't matter" etc

 

As for the Euro, there was plenty of discussion across Europe in the run up to it's implementation. The pilot project, The ERM was a disaster. All what has happened was widely predicted. There were no good economic arguments for it but we had exactly the same accusations against the antis. Little Englanders , racism, xenophobia. The whole project was political to push forward a Federal Superstate.

I asked you to quote the comments,  I'm not going to read the whole thread to look for all the posts you think you're paraphrasing.

 

The ERM wasn't a pilot scheme, as I understand it was a separate mechanism entirely designed as a way to loosely tie separate currencies together in order to pave the way for a full monetary union which failed for the UK ironically because we jumped in too eagerly with our exchange rate set too high to conceivably work within the constraints we'd submitted ourselves to and left ourselves at the mercy of speculators.  It also suffered considerably from German reunification and the ensuing inflation of the Deutsche mark and high interest this imposed on other countries already trying to keep their inflation down because of exchange rate limits.  Declining fortunes of the ERM was one of the reasons economists sought to push forward with a common currency which would address the difficulties arising from attempts at incorporating a common exchange rate between the decentralised monetary and fiscal policies of multiple economies.

 

As I understand it anyway, I could be making glaring errors there if any economist wants to pip in to correct me.

 

You still haven't told me who these deliberate destroyers of European economies are btw.

 

 

Who's avoiding what?

Are you being deliberately obtuse or have you simply not noticed Barry's answer a full 40 minutes before you chimed in?

[Webbo]

 

You still haven't told me who these deliberate destroyers of European economies are btw.

 

 

 

 

Are you being obtuse? I said that it was a political project meant to create a united States of Europe. I don't doubt they wanted it to work but they knew it couldn't and went ahead in hope rather than expectation.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

Depends which rights you're on about.

Well you comment suggests you are, in which case I can only ask you which ones - I'm not going to go through the lot of them in hope to stumble across one?

But as I previously pointed out - the EU working time directive has an opt out, so a worker can waive this right if they so wish and work more than 48 hours in a week.

I take it you run a business?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive

Do you have issues with this one Webo?

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=82

A fuller list of employment rights / laws is here

[Webbo]

Well you comment suggests you are, in which case I can only ask you which ones - I'm not going to go through the lot of them in hope to stumble across one?

But as I previously pointed out - the EU working time directive has an opt out, so a worker can waive this right if they so wish and work more than 48 hours in a week.

I take it you run a business?

I'm self employed. If I employed someone and we were painting an outside of a house I wouldn't be allowed to use a ladder unless I could prove that it was impossible to use scaffold. It's that kind of silly rule that creates unnecessary expense. Ladders aren't dangerous if they're used properly. Now I don't know if that a European directive but it's fecking annoying.

 

The working time directive says that under 18s can't do overtime, why? If a 17 year old lad is saving up for a car or a holiday with the lads why shouldn't he be allowed?

[Webbo]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Working_Time_Directive

Do you have issues with this one Webo?

http://ec.europa.eu/social/main.jsp?catId=82

A fuller list of employment rights / laws is here

After the 1993 Council Negotiations, when the Directive was agreed to after an 11-1 vote, UK Employment Secretary David Hunt said "It is a flagrant abuse of Community rules. It has been brought forward as such simply to allow majority voting – a ploy to smuggle through part of the Social Chapter by the back door. The UK strongly opposes any attempt to tell people that they can no longer work the hours they want."^[4]

 

 

Typical.