Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You’ve mentioned this endless amounts of times Toddy.

 

First of all, I’m sure there would still be a Black economy if Labour were in charge. 

 

Secondly, I’m sure the vast majority don’t ‘lie’ about it and that’s why they employ professional accountants to make sure their books are above board.

 

Not sure why you keep banging on about it tbh

It’s like he thinks it’s only Tory voters that are self employed and using accountants.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

6 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not saying I should pay nothing, just less.

So answer the question, would you pay less, if you could legally?

 

Stupid question, eveyryone would. 

 

But your argument for paying less pointed to universal government items that you don’t use as to reasons why you should pay less and my rebuff is that is a difficult case to merit, because for example even if you / your kids don’t use a state school, your postman / Doctor / policeman / electrician / plumber / co-workers / friends / wider family will have done - and you benefit from those terms.

Edited 17 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

You’ve mentioned this endless amounts of times Toddy.

 

First of all, I’m sure there would still be a Black economy if Labour were in charge. 

 

Secondly, I’m sure the vast majority don’t ‘lie’ about it and that’s why they employ professional accountants to make sure their books are above board.

 

Not sure why you keep banging on about it tbh

It annoys me that I know lots of self employed purple ergo earn well, pay less in than I do yet complain about their tax bill and the country not being able to afford the things we used to have.

Edited 17 December 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s like he thinks it’s only Tory voters that are self employed and using accountants.

I haven't mentioned Tories.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m not saying I should pay nothing, just less.

So answer the question, would you pay less, if you could legally?

Again, if you think you should pay less you presumably have calculated exactly what you should pay and what it would go towards? Otherwise how do you know?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

 

Stupid question, eveyryone would. 

 

But your argument for paying less pointed to universal government items that you don’t use as to reasons why you should pay less and my rebuff is that is a difficult case to merit, because for example even if you / your kids don’t use a state school, your postman / Doctor / policeman / electrician / plumber / co-workers / friends / wider family will have done - and you benefit from those terms.

I acknowledge that but still feel it’s not justified in the amount I pay. Let’s not forget that they pay tax too, ffs.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Again, if you think you should pay less you presumably have calculated exactly what you should pay and what it would go towards? Otherwise how do you know?

This discussion is going in circles and that might hint towards the amount I would pay if I could.

[Izzy]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It annoys me that I know lots of self employed purple ergo earn well, pay less in than I do yet complain about their tax bill and the country not being able to afford the things we used to have.

Funny that because I don’t know any that complain about those things.

 

Guess you and I must move in different circles...

[DJ Barry Hammond]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I acknowledge that but still feel it’s not justified in the amount I pay. Let’s not forget that they pay tax too, ffs.

 

Ok, consider this...

 

What the government provides in return for your tax is comprehensive life event coverage - at a cost well below any private insurance provider would quote.

 

It provides so many essential services for some of life’s most challenging scenarios should you need it - if you have a child, if you have an illness, if you lose your job. It aims to provide for you at retirement.

 

Furthermore the government provides you with the ability to travel, it protects you, both from threats abroad in terms of military defence and also internally in terms of legislation. It provides the rule of law and forces to enforce it. It provides the fire service. It provides mechanisms so you can have a say in your countries future at both local and national level.

 

And it does so much more than that, for each and everyone of us...

 

...so how much as a % of your income com you wish to pay for all of that? 

Edited 17 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[Rogstanley]

The government’s IR35 crackdown is coming to the private sector soon. I expect that’ll clip a fair few feathers. They’ve done bits in the public sector, people have been begging to be taken back on as employees. 

 

It’s dumb to do the same to the private sector, because the private sector does actually need a flexible workforce, but this is the Tories, even when they’re doing the right things they still manage to get it wrong.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Ok, consider this...

 

What the government provides in return for your tax is comprehensive life event coverage - at a cost well below any private insurance provider would quote.

 

It provides so many essential services for some of life’s most challenging scenarios should you need it - if you have a child, if you have an illness, if you lose your job. It aims to provide for you at retirement.

 

Furthermore the government provides you with the ability to travel, it protects you, both from threats abroad in terms of military defence and also internally in terms of legislation. It provides the rule of law and forces to inforce it. It provides the fire service. It provides mechanisms so you can have a say in your countries future at both local and national level.

 

And it does so much more than that, for each and everyone of us...

 

...so how much as a % of your income com you wish to pay for all of that? 

Well it would depend on the quality of that service. 

[lifted*fox]

 

christmas pigeon says hi

 

and he also says get da **** outta this thread over xmas and enjoy your ****in' lives for once. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well it would depend on the quality of that service. 

 

And yet the government puts in place safeguards to maintain a quality of service between certain threasholds and takes action where it is found to fall short - hence care commissions, ofsted.

 

If the quality is below and acceptable standard for you, given we are currently running a deficit, does that mean you’d advocate paying more as a % in order to find improvement? 

 

I acknowledge there is an argument of efficiency and ‘better use of money’ that can be aimed towards government and it’s not always sensible to implying more money means better service, but equally you can’t expect great quality if you’re only prepared to pay relative peanuts.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

And yet the government puts in place safeguards to maintain a quality of service between certain threasholds and takes action where it is found to fall short - hence care commissions, ofsted.

 

If the quality is below and acceptable standard for you, given we are currently running a deficit, does that mean you’d advocate paying more as a % in order to find improvement? 

 

I acknowledge there is an argument of efficiency and ‘better use of money’ that can be aimed towards government and it’s not always sensible to implying more money means better service, but equally you can’t expect great quality if you’re only prepared to pay relative peanuts.

Absolutely, I’ve said on here numerous times I would. The things that you mentioned earlier that benefit us in a indirect way, that are basically professionals that have benefited from further/higher education, should be doing so without fees imo. We are importing so many people to fill top jobs in this country because education is sub standard from the ground up and we struggle to produce enough quality people. There are holes in the roads which probably costs each taxpayer more in repair bills than it would cost to repair them properly and you try getting the NHS to deal with a minor complaint in an efficient manner.

All governments have been shit in my lifetime and none of them have offered more than platitudes to the problems. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Now we could look at an example of the differing costs of public and private provision in schooling to gain some perspective in the area of costs vs quality.

 

https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/8937

 

So, the IFS has provided a nice graph in the above link, which shows the average per pupil funding per year is just over £6,000 and is a figure that’s been largely static recently.

 

If we then look a thing private school, the average cost is more than double than that (quoted at over £13,500 in the article below) with there having been a marked increase in the price over recent years.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-school-fees-soar-to-160000-per-child-research-finds-a7212886.html

 

Edited 17 December 2017 by DJ Barry Hammond

[DJ Barry Hammond]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Absolutely, I’ve said on here numerous times I would. The things that you mentioned earlier that benefit us in a indirect way, that are basically professionals that have benefited from further/higher education, should be doing so without fees imo. We are importing so many people to fill top jobs in this country because education is sub standard from the ground up and we struggle to produce enough quality people. There are holes in the roads which probably costs each taxpayer more in repair bills than it would cost to repair them properly and you try getting the NHS to deal with a minor complaint in an efficient manner.

All governments have been shit in my lifetime and none of them have offered more than platitudes to the problems. 

 

You make it sound like running the country is easy.

 

Now there is a reason why all governments offer platitudes - and that’s because people dislike the truth even more. 

 

The basic problem the country has at the moment is there are not enough people doing work and paying tax compared to those that don’t and take out of the system - with the big drain on money coming out being pensioners.

 

So that leaves us a few options to change things;

• Spend less
• Raise taxes
• Import more people who pay taxes (i.e. immigrant labour)
• Kill lots of old people (a little drastic)
• A mixture of the first 3

Labours plan is of course to borrow, to invest; with the plan to grow the economy to make up the deficit... which is an interesting plan and could work, but I’ve assumed you’re not buying that one so not included that one. 

 

The other thing thing to say is don’t think you’re alone in thinking governments have been shit throughout your lifetime, I imagine the majority will feel the same... but then so long as you lie below the top 1% no government is going to do something personally for you are they?

 

 

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

You make it sound like running the country is easy.

I think we all do that on here, whilst we tend to look at single issues.

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Now there is a reason why all governments offer platitudes - and that’s because people dislike the truth even more. 

 

The basic problem the country has at the moment is there are not enough people doing work and paying tax compared to those that don’t and take out of the system - with the big drain on money coming out being pensioners.

 

So that leaves us a few options to change things;

• Spend less
• Raise taxes
• Import more people who pay taxes (i.e. immigrant labour)
• Kill lots of old people (a little drastic)
• A mixture of the first 3

Labours plan is of course to borrow, to invest; with the plan to grow the economy to make up the deficit... which is an interesting plan and could work, but I’ve assumed you’re not buying that one so not included that one. 

You shouldn’t assume that, I was closer to voting Labour than I was Tory in the last election but I’ve not seen enough to believe that the plans are solid yet.

3 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

The other thing thing to say is don’t think you’re alone in thinking governments have been shit throughout your lifetime, I imagine the majority will feel the same... but then so long as you lie below the top 1% no government is going to do something personally for you are they?

I don’t expect personal treatment, I expect a bit more value for my hard earned cash, I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand. I do however take on board your explanation on schools value and what they provide per funding, although I still feel the end result is sub standard. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Again, lots of people would like better public services... and if they got better they’d still want better ones. But that does ostensibly require money and in the present scenario, services aren’t being provided enough cash to standstill let alone improve.

 

So unless government thinking (or the government itself) is changed, you’re unlikely to see massive improvements.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I think we all do that on here, whilst we tend to look at single issues.

You shouldn’t assume that, I was closer to voting Labour than I was Tory in the last election but I’ve not seen enough to believe that the plans are solid yet.

I don’t expect personal treatment, I expect a bit more value for my hard earned cash, I don’t know why that’s so hard for you to understand. I do however take on board your explanation on schools value and what they provide per funding, although I still feel the end result is sub standard. 

The bit I don't understand is why you think public services are substandard. I don't buy this idea that the private sector provides better value. As I've said before, I know for a fact that private healthcare providers cannot provide hospital services at the same cost as the NHS. 

Honestly, you'll struggle to convince me about the value of the private sector in providing services - they exist to make money and provide worse services to do so - look at the east coast line, academies that have failed, continuously increasing utility bills etc etc.

 

Also, if you were closer to voting Labour how have you managed to align yourself so closely with the right wing fundamentalists on here?

[lifted*fox]

[Buce]

 

The turkeys that voted for Xmas:

 

 

Parts of the UK that voted for Brexit are most exposed to its effects, report finds:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/brexit-vote-exposure-trade-effects-report-uk-regions

 

 

The UK regions that voted to leave the EU are more economically exposed to the effects of Brexit than anywhere else in Europe, research suggests.

A University of Birmingham study examined the degree to which EU regions were exposed to the possible negative trade-related consequences of Britain’s departure and found areas in the Midlands and north of England, many of which voted for Brexit, had the greatest exposure.

This appeared to contradict claims during the EU referendum campaign in 2016 that London benefited the most from membership.

Researchers from the university’s City Region Economic and Development Institute looked at regional variations in the share of labour income and GDP reliant on the EU.

The UK was found to be 4.6 times more exposed than the rest of the EU, with the majority of member states facing almost no exposure. An estimated 2.64% of EU GDP was at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, the report found, whereas 12% of UK GDP was at risk.

The report’s authors concluded that this left Britain in a very weak bargaining position in economic terms.

Parts of Ireland had levels of exposure similar to those in London and northern areas of Scotland, the regions of the UK with the lowest levels. The next most affected regions after Ireland were in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, while regions in southern and eastern Europe were barely affected.

“Mercantilist arguments popular in the UK media, which posit that the UK trade deficit with the rest of Europe implies that on economic grounds, other EU member states will be eager to agree a free trade deal with the UK, are not correct,” the report said.

 

“When we consider the real trade-demand impacts on the EU member states and their regions ... the emerging picture is very different.”

Prof Raquel Ortega-Argilés from the University of Birmingham said: “London is genuinely the most globalised part of the UK and as such less dependent on European markets for its prosperity.

“In contrast, many parts of the UK, especially in the Midlands and in the north of England, are heavily dependent on European markets for their trade and prosperity, but in fact these are the regions that voted for Brexit.”

The economic readjustments following Brexit, she said, “are expected to be more challenging and difficult for the UK’s weaker regions, in part because they are more dependent on European markets, but also because they are less resilient”.

[Fox Ulike]

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

The turkeys that voted for Xmas:

 

 

Parts of the UK that voted for Brexit are most exposed to its effects, report finds:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/brexit-vote-exposure-trade-effects-report-uk-regions

 

 

The UK regions that voted to leave the EU are more economically exposed to the effects of Brexit than anywhere else in Europe, research suggests.

A University of Birmingham study examined the degree to which EU regions were exposed to the possible negative trade-related consequences of Britain’s departure and found areas in the Midlands and north of England, many of which voted for Brexit, had the greatest exposure.

This appeared to contradict claims during the EU referendum campaign in 2016 that London benefited the most from membership.

Researchers from the university’s City Region Economic and Development Institute looked at regional variations in the share of labour income and GDP reliant on the EU.

The UK was found to be 4.6 times more exposed than the rest of the EU, with the majority of member states facing almost no exposure. An estimated 2.64% of EU GDP was at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, the report found, whereas 12% of UK GDP was at risk.

The report’s authors concluded that this left Britain in a very weak bargaining position in economic terms.

Parts of Ireland had levels of exposure similar to those in London and northern areas of Scotland, the regions of the UK with the lowest levels. The next most affected regions after Ireland were in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, while regions in southern and eastern Europe were barely affected.

“Mercantilist arguments popular in the UK media, which posit that the UK trade deficit with the rest of Europe implies that on economic grounds, other EU member states will be eager to agree a free trade deal with the UK, are not correct,” the report said.

 

“When we consider the real trade-demand impacts on the EU member states and their regions ... the emerging picture is very different.”

Prof Raquel Ortega-Argilés from the University of Birmingham said: “London is genuinely the most globalised part of the UK and as such less dependent on European markets for its prosperity.

“In contrast, many parts of the UK, especially in the Midlands and in the north of England, are heavily dependent on European markets for their trade and prosperity, but in fact these are the regions that voted for Brexit.”

The economic readjustments following Brexit, she said, “are expected to be more challenging and difficult for the UK’s weaker regions, in part because they are more dependent on European markets, but also because they are less resilient”.

Prof Raquel Ortega-Argilés

 

Foreigner. 

[Buce]

10 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Prof Raquel Ortega-Argilés

 

Foreigner. 

 

Relevance?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Relevance?

He's pre-empting Strokes, webbo and fox.

 

Surprised he missed the fact she is also a dreaded expert.

Edited 20 December 2017 by Guest

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

He's pre-empting Strokes, webbo and fox.

 

Surprised he missed the fact she is also a dreaded expert.

 

It was a study compiled by six academics who work for the University of Birmingham, not just the one quoted.