Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How do you mean "support"?

I mean "support" both literally - allowing them to buy british weapons with which they perpetrate war crimes, and figuratively - making them the PM's first foreign stop off suggests tacit approval of their regime.

 

As the Express has previously noted, there are many reasons not to give them the kudos of a friendship with britain and only 1 to allow this - arms sales. What a dirty little relationship this is. 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/629153/Saudi-Arabia-relationship-Britain-human-rights-women-war-crimes-ISIS-terrorism

[Guest MattP]

59 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I mean "support" both literally - allowing them to buy british weapons with which they perpetrate war crimes, and figuratively - making them the PM's first foreign stop off suggests tacit approval of their regime.

 

As the Express has previously noted, there are many reasons not to give them the kudos of a friendship with britain and only 1 to allow this - arms sales. What a dirty little relationship this is. 

 

http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/629153/Saudi-Arabia-relationship-Britain-human-rights-women-war-crimes-ISIS-terrorism

When you cut all ties with Saudi Arabia what cuts will you make to compensate for the loss of cash, jobs, business etc from the country?

 

I want to know as I'm considering voting Labour next time.

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm considering voting Labour next time.

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

When you cut all ties with Saudi Arabia what cuts will you make to compensate for the loss of cash, jobs, business etc from the country?

 

I want to know as I'm considering voting Labour next time.

 

Has it ever occurred to you how much cash/jobs/business was lost when we abolished slavery?

 

Morality has no price.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Not impossible, May already backsliding on a Hard Brexit if the press are to be believed but Corbyn standing firm.

 

If those positions are still the same at the time of the next election with any delay or transitional period then why not?

 

I would probably financially gain from it anyway wanting to go back to Uni before I'm 40.

 

5 minutes ago, Buce said:

Has it ever occurred to you how much cash/jobs/business was lost when we abolished slavery?

 

Morality has no price.

No, but this isn't really comparable to slavery. 

 

How far does your morality go? Would you cut all trade with China as well? Is any financial loss to great? If you were told it would cost you the NHS would you still go for it?

 

I genuinely admire you if you were that firm with your principles you would say yes to that. 

[Guest]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

When you cut all ties with Saudi Arabia what cuts will you make to compensate for the loss of cash, jobs, business etc from the country?

 

I want to know as I'm considering voting Labour next time.

We wouldn't need to make cuts just because arabia can't buy overpriced london property. 

Don't vote labour matt I'm not having you claim responsibility for improvements to public services and the living standards of ordinary people once they win.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, toddybad said:

We wouldn't need to make cuts just because arabia can't buy overpriced london property. 

Don't vote labour matt I'm not having you claim responsibility for improvements to public services and the living standards of ordinary people once they win.

We wouldn't need to make cuts because arabia can't buy London property?

 

Have I missed something here? How on earth have you worked that one out?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, MattP said:

We wouldn't need to make cuts because arabia can't buy London property?

 

Have I missed something here? How on earth have you worked that one out?

Why do you think the answer to everything is cuts? It's just bizarre.

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Why do you think the answer to everything is cuts? It's just bizarre.

If the treasury loses money then you have less to spend on public services, surely that's obvious?

 

There are only three ways you can raise public spending, you can either borrow more, tax more or increase productivity, having policy that stunts business, sales and job creation (even if it's morally the right thing to do) is obviously the opposite of the latter. 

 

Anyway I'm still wondering how stopping wealthy Arabs buying overpriced London property is going to lead to more money for public services..

[Sharpe's Fox]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

before I'm 40.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

If the treasury loses money then you have less to spend on public services, surely that's obvious?

 

There are only three ways you can raise public spending, you can either borrow more, tax more or increase productivity, having policy that stunts business, sales and job creation (even if it's morally the right thing to do) is obviously the opposite of the latter. 

 

Anyway I'm still wondering how stopping wealthy Arabs buying overpriced London property is going to lead to more money for public services..

Precisely why austerity - taking money out of the real economy - is a failed ideology.

 

Saudi Arabia has around £60b of investments in the UK. That isn't per year, that's ever. The annual income from SA into the UK treasury is minute. Without foreign buyers purchasing property in London, prices may fall back and Londoners themselves might stand more chance of actually being able to own their own homes. That would be beneficial - unless you're suggesting house prices should keep rising endlessly no matter the social problems it causes?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Precisely why austerity - taking money out of the real economy - is a failed ideology.

 

Saudi Arabia has around £60b of investments in the UK. That isn't per year, that's ever. The annual income from SA into the UK treasury is minute. Without foreign buyers purchasing property in London, prices may fall back and Londoners themselves might stand more chance of actually being able to own their own homes. That would be beneficial - unless you're suggesting house prices should keep rising endlessly no matter the social problems it causes?

But you are intending to take money out of the economy, that's exactly what you are proposing when you want to cut ties with a nation.

 

But anyway I'm asking you why not allowing Arabs to buy property would mean more money for the treasury, which you still haven't come close to explaining.

 

Shall we ban all foreigners owning homes in Britain so the natives can get them cheaper? If that's what you are looking for why stop at the Saudi's?

 

Although if house prices fall you again lose money as you take less money in stamp duty etc bit I doubt that has even crossed your mind either. 

 

You complain about austerity and lack of public spending yet virtually every policy you propose on here will see a cut in income for the treasury. 

[Webbo]

45 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Precisely why austerity - taking money out of the real economy - is a failed ideology.

 

Saudi Arabia has around £60b of investments in the UK. That isn't per year, that's ever. The annual income from SA into the UK treasury is minute. Without foreign buyers purchasing property in London, prices may fall back and Londoners themselves might stand more chance of actually being able to own their own homes. That would be beneficial - unless you're suggesting house prices should keep rising endlessly no matter the social problems it causes?

Spunking borrowed money up the wall is failed ideology, look at Greece. Socialism is failed ideology, look at Venezuela. We have one of the best living standards in the world, that's not failure.

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

But you are intending to take money out of the economy, that's exactly what you are proposing when you want to cut ties with a nation.

 

But anyway I'm asking you why not allowing Arabs to buy property would mean more money for the treasury, which you still haven't come close to explaining.

 

Shall we ban all foreigners owning homes in Britain so the natives can get them cheaper? If that's what you are looking for why stop at the Saudi's?

 

Although if house prices fall you again lose money as you take less money in stamp duty etc bit I doubt that has even crossed your mind either. 

 

You complain about austerity and lack of public spending yet virtually every policy you propose on here will see a cut in income for the treasury. 

It had crossed my mind yes. A price worth paying for sensible prices. 

We're been having debates about the best way to manage the economy for months. You already know what my answer is. 

Reducing ties with the eu will have a much bigger impact yet you're in favour of that?

Tbh this is one of the more boring debates we've had isn't it? 

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Spunking borrowed money up the wall is failed ideology, look at Greece. Socialism is failed ideology, look at Venezuela. We have one of the best living standards in the world, that's not failure.

Living standards that have been getting progressively worse over the last 7 years. Virtually every tory decision makes things worse. 

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Living standards that have been getting progressively worse over the last 7 years. Virtually every tory decision makes things worse. 

Still a very good standard of living.

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

 

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Spunking borrowed money up the wall is failed ideology, look at Greece. Socialism is failed ideology, look at Venezuela. We have one of the best living standards in the world, that's not failure.

"Look at this South American completely corrupt, perienially failed state. Now look at this Southern European state which is also corrupt, only industrialised in the 80's and has no control of its currency. Now look at us, the first industrial nation and a modern economy with a top five world GDP where it's awesome. You think that doesn't provide context? Well **** you you commie bastard I'm old, I'm dumb and I'm tired of you and your coherent arguments about increasing poverty and declining living standards."

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

 

 

"Look at this South American completely corrupt, perienially failed state. Now look at this Southern European state which is also corrupt, only industrialised in the 80's and has no control of its currency. Now look at us, the first industrial nation and a modern economy with a top five world GDP where it's awesome. You think that doesn't provide context? Well **** you you commie bastard I'm old, I'm dumb and I'm tired of you and your coherent arguments about increasing poverty and declining living standards."

 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Still a very good standard of living.

But getting progressively worse every year since the Tories came to power. 

Every. Single. Year.

 

 

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

But getting progressively worse every year since the Tories came to power. 

Every. Single. Year.

 

 

It's called living within your means.

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

It's called living within your means.

 you're becoming a parody!

It is only called that if you don't understand how economics works.

[Sharpe's Fox]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's called living within your means.

Don't take a mortgage or buy a car on finance or get educated or get a credit card or anything else involving debt lads because Webbo obviously hasn't. I reckon he's a squatter leeching off someone's Wifi on a stolen phone because he obviously "lives within his means" and takes a strict approach to money where every pound he gets he spends and that's it. It doesn't matter that in any modern situation you require debt to accomplish it because we should all "live within our means" and live in the woods with the critters and the fairies.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Don't take a mortgage or buy a car on finance or get educated or get a credit card or anything else involving debt lads because Webbo obviously hasn't. I reckon he's a squatter leeching off someone's Wifi on a stolen phone because he obviously "lives within his means" and takes a strict approach to money where every pound he gets he spends and that's it. It doesn't matter that in any modern situation you require debt to accomplish it because we should all "live within our means" and live in the woods with the critters and the fairies.

You can borrow money as long as you can afford to pay it back.

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 you're becoming a parody!

It is only called that if you don't understand how economics works.

So how come Greece isn't more successful?

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

So how come Greece isn't more successful?

FFS you bloody halfwit - Greece does not control its own currency. It doesn't have the same levers available to it to deal with financial issues. You cannot compare the UK and Greece. The fact you even try shows your complete lack of understanding. 

I have schooled you time and time again regarding national debt and the fact it isn't an evil. Yes we would both prefer to reduce the deficit but growth always the best method to achieve this as relatively small increases in growth add up to huge economic changes over time. If the economy had continued with anticipated growth before austerity began then the economy would be £300b larger than it is now. The deficit is less than 20% of this amount so could spend far more without being in deficit. Instead, we cut the money entering the economy just as the country was looking to recover from the financial crisis. This DIRECTLY led to the deficit persisting despite the government taking money out of the economy and causing all manor of public sector and social problems. 

 

Edited 8 August 2017 by Guest