Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

People with 'nowhere else to turn' fuel rise in food bank use – study

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/24/food-bank-use-trussell-trust-universal-credit-figures?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

People with 'nowhere else to turn' fuel rise in food bank use – study

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/apr/24/food-bank-use-trussell-trust-universal-credit-figures?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Something doesnt seem right in those numbers, 1.3 mil food parcels a year, 666,000 people. An average of 2 per person per year.

Unless these food packages are bigger than i am imagining, it's actually a smaller problem than i had already assumed.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Something doesnt seem right in those numbers, 1.3 mil food parcels a year, 666,000 people. An average of 2 per person per year.

Unless these food packages are bigger than i am imagining, it's actually a smaller problem than i had already assumed.

Yeah I sort of see what you mean though I guess what these figures don't say are how many are longer term users. I'm not sure about the rules of use but I think people get referred there don't they? So presumably whilst they wait half starving for universal credit payments to start. That's a bit ridiculous. Why would you create a welfare system that purposely creates hardship for the first 8 weeks or whatever it is? It's as if the Tories like the nasty party moniker.

[Buce]

31 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Something doesnt seem right in those numbers, 1.3 mil food parcels a year, 666,000 people. An average of 2 per person per year.

Unless these food packages are bigger than i am imagining, it's actually a smaller problem than i had already assumed.

 

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Yeah I sort of see what you mean though I guess what these figures don't say are how many are longer term users. I'm not sure about the rules of use but I think people get referred there don't they? So presumably whilst they wait half starving for universal credit payments to start. That's a bit ridiculous. Why would you create a welfare system that purposely creates hardship for the first 8 weeks or whatever it is? It's as if the Tories like the nasty party moniker.

 

It's not that the problem is smaller, Strokes, it's because Food Bank use is rationed - it isn't a long-term solution. The figures are made up of people who are experiencing built-in delays in UC payments.

 

And there is no administrative reason for the delays being built-in - it is a spiteful and arbitrary rule based on ideology. 

[Guest MattP]

EU seemingly just as incompetent on this issue as our own government it seems.

 

Unfortunately will give more ammunition for those who see the Irish border as a weapon to keep us in the customs union. 

 

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/4bce02e0-4736-11e8-bf76-d5da08923eed

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

EU seemingly just as incompetent on this issue as our own government it seems.

 

Unfortunately will give more ammunition for those who see the Irish border as a weapon to keep us in the customs union. 

 

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/4bce02e0-4736-11e8-bf76-d5da08923eed

 

It's behind a paywall, Matt.

 

Anyway, what would your solution to the Irish border issue be?

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

EU seemingly just as incompetent on this issue as our own government it seems.

 

Unfortunately will give more ammunition for those who see the Irish border as a weapon to keep us in the customs union. 

 

http://thetimes.co.uk/article/4bce02e0-4736-11e8-bf76-d5da08923eed

It is an issue that nobody on the leave campaign appears to have really thought through though.

 

When I hear some leavers talking about the Good Friday Agreement as if it's an optional extra I do worry that they've taken leave of their senses. I don't see how anybody on the Tory side can rail against Corbyn as a threat to the nation's security whilst also trying to dismiss the GFA.

 

To be honest I don't know why we don't just take the obvious EFTA type path to leaving. This issue is potentially insurmountable given the issues over the Irish border. The Brexit question has - like much of politics - become so divided that nobody on the leave side appears to want to accept anything other than the most contentious exit, with whatever pain that brings, rather than just taking the easier route out.

 

 

Edited 24 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

 I don't see how anybody on the Tory side can rail against Corbyn as a threat to the nation's security whilst also trying to dismiss the GFA.

 

 

 

I equally don't see how anyone on the moderate/centre left can support a far left extremist Corbyn government who would decimate the countries economy, whilst not supporting Brexit as it could decimate the countries economy. Bearing in mind Corbyn and McDonnell are staunch Brexiteers even if the rest of the party isn't. The difference is Corbyn and co under the guidance of the despicable Milne will happily manipulate and lie in an attempt to win whatever populate vote is going. I will give the campaign team something they are very clever. 

 

Politics in this country is seriously screwed, and often the viewpoints taken by many don't seem entirely logical. 

 

I personally don't see why we don't try to negotiate something like Switzerland, I am not sure how their plans are going but am sure they voted to end Freedom of movement. Surely if they strike a deal so can we?

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

I equally don't see how anyone on the moderate/centre left can support a far left extremist Corbyn government who would decimate the countries economy, whilst not supporting Brexit as it could decimate the countries economy. Bearing in mind Corbyn and McDonnell are staunch Brexiteers even if the rest of the party isn't. The difference is Corbyn and co under the guidance of the despicable Milne will happily manipulate and lie in an attempt to win whatever populate vote is going. I will give the campaign team something they are very clever. 

 

Politics in this country is seriously screwed, and often the viewpoints taken by many don't seem entirely logical. 

 

I personally don't see why we don't try to negotiate something like Switzerland, I am not sure how their plans are going but am sure they voted to end Freedom of movement. Surely if they strike a deal so can we?

Because the bit in bold is pure speculation. 

 

The equation for me is that I believe Brexit will have negative consequences whilst I see more positives than negatives in the labour manifesto promises.

 

You live in a parallel universe to me though. For you a private sector worker earning £100,000 selling pin cushions should be highly regarded whilst a public sector worker earning £100,000 to plan and manage the delivery of acute healthcare services to several million people are riding the gravy train.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

I personally don't see why we don't try to negotiate something like Switzerland, I am not sure how their plans are going but am sure they voted to end Freedom of movement. Surely if they strike a deal so can we?

 

They didn't vote to end free movement, they are currently in the process of getting a vote on free movement. They just voted before to limit immigration and they got round it with some nonsense about not recruiting from outside of Switzerland in high unemployment areas.

 

And if they do vote to end it, I don't see that there will be a 'deal', the EU won't compromise on it.

[Salisbury Fox]

46 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Because the bit in bold is pure speculation. 

I don't think it is exactly 'pure' speculation given Raynor's admission that Labour's economic plans are 'shit or bust'.  It could work one way or the other, with the other being just as unpalatable as some of the possible consequences of brexit being bounded about is to me.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

52 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 

 

Because the bit in bold is pure speculation. 

 

The equation for me is that I believe Brexit will have negative consequences whilst I see more positives than negatives in the labour manifesto promises.

 

You live in a parallel universe to me though. For you a private sector worker earning £100,000 selling pin cushions should be highly regarded whilst a public sector worker earning £100,000 to plan and manage the delivery of acute healthcare services to several million people are riding the gravy train.

Its no more pure speculation that the belief that Brexit will have negative consequences. Those that believe Brexit will destroy the economy should also have similar reservations over a far left extremist taking over the country. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11864953/Why-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-his-team-would-ruin-the-economy.html

 

Even Labour MPs admit it.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-economic-policy-angela-rayner-s-word-bust-strategy-jeremy-corbyn-high-risk-a8140961.html

 

Not strictly linked but an interesting article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/9484414/A-message-from-the-1970s-on-state-spending.html

 

A private sector working for a business earning £100k is determined by the market, for example if the pin cushion is successful they can afford to pay those wages.

 

There are particular roles in the public sector that do demand a good salary, I have never ever denied that. What I a saying is that we do not need an executive director on community relationships at an NHS Hospital to be on £100k, we don't need them, we got on perfectly without them in the past. There are some non jobs in the public sector which is why I think a fully independent review should be carried out into whether roles add significant value to an organisation, especially where these services were delivered perfectly well, if not better in the past without these roles. 

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its no more pure speculation that the belief that Brexit will have negative consequences. Those that believe Brexit will destroy the economy should also have similar reservations over a far left extremist taking over the country. 

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/11864953/Why-Jeremy-Corbyn-and-his-team-would-ruin-the-economy.html

 

Even Labour MPs admit it.

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-economic-policy-angela-rayner-s-word-bust-strategy-jeremy-corbyn-high-risk-a8140961.html

 

Not strictly linked but an interesting article:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/liamhalligan/9484414/A-message-from-the-1970s-on-state-spending.html

 

A private sector working for a business earning £100k is determined by the market, for example if the pin cushion is successful they can afford to pay those wages.

 

There are particular roles in the public sector that do demand a good salary, I have never ever denied that. What I a saying is that we do not need an executive director on community relationships at an NHS Hospital to be on £100k, we don't need them, we got on perfectly without them in the past. There are some non jobs in the public sector which is why I think a fully independent review should be carried out into whether roles add significant value to an organisation, especially where these services were delivered perfectly well, if not better in the past without these roles. 

From a city based commentator:

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was to the right of any Labour platform in the 1970s and 1980s. Tony Blair’s 1997 manifesto and government, with its minimum wage, increased trade union rights, massive state investment in public services, as well as hikes in national insurance, stamp duty, and other stealth taxes was arguably more radical than Corbyn’s two decades later, but such was Blair’s charm and pro-market patter no one noticed.

GDP per capita doubled under Labour from 1974 to 1979, and the biggest ever increases in the FTSE happened under Blair and Brown. Whether a Corbyn-McDonnell team is electable in 2022 is an open question, but once Labour becomes seriously hungry for power, it gets real about the economy – and business (to its surprise) does well under a Labour government.

[Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

From a city based commentator:

 

Jeremy Corbyn’s 2017 manifesto was to the right of any Labour platform in the 1970s and 1980s. Tony Blair’s 1997 manifesto and government, with its minimum wage, increased trade union rights, massive state investment in public services, as well as hikes in national insurance, stamp duty, and other stealth taxes was arguably more radical than Corbyn’s two decades later, but such was Blair’s charm and pro-market patter no one noticed.

GDP per capita doubled under Labour from 1974 to 1979, and the biggest ever increases in the FTSE happened under Blair and Brown. Whether a Corbyn-McDonnell team is electable in 2022 is an open question, but once Labour becomes seriously hungry for power, it gets real about the economy – and business (to its surprise) does well under a Labour government.

 

Your definition of city commentator differs vastly from mine. Former Labour MP Denis MacShane writing for City AM does not constitute a city commentator. So either you didn't realise or you said that in a desperate attempt for legitimacy. 

 

Meanwhile, do you really believe the content? Seriously, a man that has no respect for property rights is not all that radical or left. I really find it bizarre that those who support Corbyn are always so desperate to window dress his positions. You either support it or you want it to be something else so you don't support it.

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your definition of city commentator differs vastly from mine. Former Labour MP Denis MacShane writing for City AM does not constitute a city commentator. So either you didn't realise or you said that in a desperate attempt for legitimacy. 

 

Meanwhile, do you really believe the content? Seriously, a man that has no respect for property rights is not all that radical or left. I really find it bizarre that those who support Corbyn are always so desperate to window dress his positions. You either support it or you want it to be something else so you don't support it.

Yeah tbf I didn't realise who the writer was....?

The figures given are interesting though.

 

I've said a few times that I'd probably prefer a more centrist position but we have what we have. 

 

I think the property rights point is rather premature given we know how many reactionary things get said in politics these days without being policy. Let's see what the actual policies are before denouncing them. 

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, Buce said:

Anyway, what would your solution to the Irish border issue be?

No idea, if the best minds in the European Union and Britain can't come up with something what chance a nobody on the internet having a clue?

 

I just hope given here is a will from all sides not to have this border they can find some way of working through it, I think the British government needs to still remain clear that we will not in anyway be erecting a border though whatsoever happens, even if we crash out the EU. Bertie Ahern has also said it won't happen as the people would pull it down.

 

If I was a Remainer though desperate to stay in the customs union I'd be using this as a weapon, it's now up to our government so make sure they can produce such an argument and solution that they can defeat that, I'm not hopeful. I do feel the Irish, Brexit is probably going to effect them more than us giving the amount of trade they do.

 

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

It is an issue that nobody on the leave campaign appears to have really thought through though.

 

When I hear some leavers talking about the Good Friday Agreement as if it's an optional extra I do worry that they've taken leave of their senses. I don't see how anybody on the Tory side can rail against Corbyn as a threat to the nation's security whilst also trying to dismiss the GFA.

 

To be honest I don't know why we don't just take the obvious EFTA type path to leaving. This issue is potentially insurmountable given the issues over the Irish border. The Brexit question has - like much of politics - become so divided that nobody on the leave side appears to want to accept anything other than the most contentious exit, with whatever pain that brings, rather than just taking the easier route out.

Whilst I don't want to downplay the importance of the GFA I still don't think that the erection of a border should mean or justify that all these people are automatically going to start blowing things up and start killing each other again, the Irish aren't a bunch of savages from the 16th century only now at peace because of an open border, it's far more complex than that.

 

I don't think you should claim too much highground here though about caring about the GFA etc - a Corbyn supporter can't care too much about the peace on that side of the Irish Sea, how do you think the Unionist side of the community there would react to his election given his history? Not to mention his potential chancellor who has convicted IRA murderers on his office wall. Don't be surprised if it starts kicking off over there again as soon as you have elected them.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

No idea, if the best minds in the European Union and Britain can't come up with something what chance a nobody on the internet having a clue?

 

I just hope given here is a will from all sides not to have this border they can find some way of working through it, I think the British government needs to still remain clear that we will not in anyway be erecting a border though whatsoever happens, even if we crash out the EU. Bertie Ahern has also said it won't happen as the people would pull it down.

 

If I was a Remainer though desperate to stay in the customs union I'd be using this as a weapon, it's now up to our government so make sure they can produce such an argument and solution that they can defeat that, I'm not hopeful. I do feel the Irish, Brexit is probably going to effect them more than us giving the amount of trade they do.

 

Whilst I don't want to downplay the importance of the GFA I still don't think that the erection of a border should mean or justify that all these people are automatically going to start blowing things up and start killing each other again, the Irish aren't a bunch of savages from the 16th century only now at peace because of an open border, it's far more complex than that.

 

I don't think you should claim too much highground here though about caring about the GFA etc - a Corbyn supporter can't care too much about the peace on that side of the Irish Sea, how do you think the Unionist side of the community there would react to his election given his history? Not to mention his potential chancellor who has convicted IRA murderers on his office wall. Don't be surprised if it starts kicking off over there again as soon as you have elected them.

That's a bit of a silly argument.

I'd prefer Keir Starmer but I've got Jeremy Corbyn, what's a guy to do?

[Sharpe's Fox]

"property rights" aka forced requisition of assets away from the working class via capital

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's a bit of a silly argument.

I'd prefer Keir Starmer but I've got Jeremy Corbyn, what's a guy to do?

Admit you've got Jeremy Corbyn and then deal with it rather than trying to pass off him aims as socially democratic.

 

Trust me, if I get Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan you won't catch me on here trying to spin their policies into what I want them to be.

[Sharpe's Fox]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's a bit of a silly argument.

I'd prefer Keir Starmer but I've got Jeremy Corbyn, what's a guy to do?

i'd like George Galloway

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

i'd like George Galloway

Fully expect him to be back in the cabinet by the next election.

[Sharpe's Fox]

13 minutes ago, MattP said:

Fully expect him to be back in the cabinet by the next election.

Cabinet? You mean the Politburo?

Edited 24 April 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Admit you've got Jeremy Corbyn and then deal with it rather than trying to pass off him aims as socially democratic.

 

Trust me, if I get Anna Soubry or Nicky Morgan you won't catch me on here trying to spin their policies into what I want them to be.

But you'd have better policies if they were.

The policies within the labour party manifesto were laudable and have my broad support. Where Corbyn falls down for me is his inability to escape his own history, some of the appointments in the shadow cabinet and sometimes I'm not on song with labour messaging. They're the reasons I think a new leader could increase the labour vote significantly. The policies under Corbyn are the best bit.

[Rogstanley]

3 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your definition of city commentator differs vastly from mine. Former Labour MP Denis MacShane writing for City AM does not constitute a city commentator. So either you didn't realise or you said that in a desperate attempt for legitimacy. 

 

Meanwhile, do you really believe the content? Seriously, a man that has no respect for property rights is not all that radical or left. I really find it bizarre that those who support Corbyn are always so desperate to window dress his positions. You either support it or you want it to be something else so you don't support it.

Where has this idea of Corbyn having no respect for property rights come from? I've seen you mention it a couple of times now.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Where has this idea of Corbyn having no respect for property rights come from? I've seen you mention it a couple of times now.

I think it's simply an off hand McDonnell quote which continually gets picked up on despite not being serious or policy.