Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Sharpe's Fox]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

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

Well that's a start, I suppose. I'd love to know what you think is a reasonable deficit for the UK to have, if you were capable of formulating a response thats more than a sentence. Since you seem to form opinions from Cameron era Tory rhetoric I'd wager you'd say we should be running surpluses every year. That's probably the point where I'd staple my eyes to a cork board in despair.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

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. 

 

 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

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. 

 

That's obviously not true as you want to put it up. We already have respectable growth and low unemployment. What would borrowing and spending more achieve?

4 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Well that's a start, I suppose. I'd love to know what you think is a reasonable deficit for the UK to have, if you were capable of formulating a response thats more than a sentence. Since you seem to form opinions from Cameron era Tory rhetoric I'd wager you'd say we should be running surpluses every year. That's probably the point where I'd staple my eyes to a cork board in despair.

If you're Keynesian, which Labour claim to be, we should have been running a surplus during the boom years, which they weren't and at the minute we should be running a balanced budget. Look it up.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, Webbo said:

That's obviously not true as you want to put it up. We already have respectable growth and low unemployment. What would borrowing and spending more achieve?

If you're Keynesian, which Labour claim to be, we should have been running a surplus during the boom years, which they weren't and at the minute we should be running a balanced budget. Look it up.

Respectable growth? It's shit. Worst in the G7. 

Low unemployment i true. It's miraculous but it is true. It has only occurred, however, because wages have fallen and zero hours contracts have gone up massively as a % of overall employment. 

If you actually look t what Labour proposes it is to balance the books on ordinary spending, the difference is how it goes about doing that. What they also do is propsoe a significant chunk of up front capital expenditure which would be from borrowing.

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Respectable growth? It's shit. Worst in the G7. 

Low unemployment i true. It's miraculous but it is true. It has only occurred, however, because wages have fallen and zero hours contracts have gone up massively as a % of overall employment. 

If you actually look t what Labour proposes it is to balance the books on ordinary spending, the difference is how it goes about doing that. What they also do is propsoe a significant chunk of up front capital expenditure which would be from borrowing.

Based on one quarter, we were with Germany at the top of the G7 for 2016. 

There are plenty of zero hour jobs that are of benefit to many people, they want this flexibility, how many of them are not suitable? The NHS uses them to cope with staff shortages, supply teaching is zero hours, you throw this term around but how many are bad zero hours?

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Based on one quarter, we were with Germany at the top of the G7 for 2016. 

There are plenty of zero hour jobs that are of benefit to many people, they want this flexibility, how many of them are not suitable? The NHS uses them to cope with staff shortages, supply teaching is zero hours, you throw this term around but how many are bad zero hours?

Firstly, let's be clear that zero hours doesn't mean not having fixed shifts - it means not having a fixed number of hours. There is no reason why anybody can't have a fixed minimum number of hours - most bar/shop workers etc did back when I worked bars etc so it's a false argument to say they should be zero hours. In terms of NHS bank staff, most of these are staff tat have full time substantive posts and work additional hours because of the desperate staffing position in the NHS.

Look at the graph below. Isn't it telling WHEN this huge increase occurs? You're telling me this increase is all for good reason and no because desperate people wil take anything to remain in employment?

 

 

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

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? 

I think it's one of the most interesting, I've never heard anyone to try claim before we can increase the tax take by refusing to sell houses to foreigners. If you think stopping a few billionaires buying Mayfair is going to reduce house prices you are in for a shock.

 

I want a tariff free trade deal with the Eu if possible, just not at the expense of being in a political union.

 

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

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

Absolutely amazing

 

Your account has to be a Moosebreath wind up. 

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

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. 

 

 

You are definitely on the wind up. I have no idea where to start with this absolute nonsense. 

[Strokes]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

Firstly, let's be clear that zero hours doesn't mean not having fixed shifts - it means not having a fixed number of hours. There is no reason why anybody can't have a fixed minimum number of hours - most bar/shop workers etc did back when I worked bars etc so it's a false argument to say they should be zero hours. In terms of NHS bank staff, most of these are staff tat have full time substantive posts and work additional hours because of the desperate staffing position in the NHS.

Look at the graph below. Isn't it telling WHEN this huge increase occurs? You're telling me this increase is all for good reason and no because desperate people wil take anything to remain in employment?

 

 

Let's be clear, how many of those jobs are the employees of unhappy with? I really think we need some stats before you can have any credibility on this one.

 

I know of five people on zero hour contracts by choice,(my wife and some of her colleagues) they are very happy with them. They aren't guaranteed any hours, I can show you the contract, it's in the very first paragraph and yes it's a NHS contract. So how many hours would you guarantee them? What if they want to work less one week, or none at short notice? 

[Strokes]

I've just had a quick look @toddybad, and the uk economy, which outperformed most of the G7 for 2016. Had a similar slump in the first quarter, here are the headlines from our favourite tabloid at the time.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/apr/27/uk-gdp-growth-slows-to-04-amid-eu-referendum-uncertainty

[davieG]

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

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. 

 

No need for the aggressive name calling. It does nothing to progress your point of view.

[Buce]

39 minutes ago, davieG said:

No need for the aggressive name calling. It does nothing to progress your point of view.

 

Neither does blatant trolling, but that seems to slip your attention.

 

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Neither does blatant trolling, but that seems to slip your attention.

 

Why is disagreeing with the left trolling?

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Neither does blatant trolling, but that seems to slip your attention.

 

Who's trolling? The topic is over run with people on both sides of the political spectrum repeating the same arguments over and over again.

 

If trolling is what you see from just one side then I suggest it shows your bias.

 

If i was to do something about what seems to be your definition of  trolling I need to close the thread.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Who's trolling? The topic is over run with people on both sides of the political spectrum repeating the same arguments over and over again.

 

If trolling is what you see from just one side then I suggest it shows your bias.

 

If i was to do something about what seems to be your definition of  trolling I need to close the thread.

 

Sounds like a good idea, tbh.

 

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Let's be clear, how many of those jobs are the employees of unhappy with? I really think we need some stats before you can have any credibility on this one.

 

I know of five people on zero hour contracts by choice,(my wife and some of her colleagues) they are very happy with them. They aren't guaranteed any hours, I can show you the contract, it's in the very first paragraph and yes it's a NHS contract. So how many hours would you guarantee them? What if they want to work less one week, or none at short notice? 

Tbf i will concede part of my point that some zero hours work - agency and bank predominently - probably is inevitable. Im the nhs the majority of bank work is conducted by full time staff who have a separate bank contract to do top up shifts as needed. 

 

Having had a quick look it seems that surveys of zero hour workers actually find them to be pretty happy. Fair enough. 

 

The point still remains, though, that the flexibility of the workforce is significant in allowing employers to keep enployment up.

 

 

[David Guiza]

Following accounts like Guido Fawkes etc I do the almost enjoyment that some people have of the situation in Venezuela a little perplexing. Sure it sort of proves a point about extreme socialism, but to practically relish the events is a bit much. A different time of course, but I doubt many were lapping up Neville Chamberlains comments and meetings with/about Hitler when the proverbial hit the fan and pointing out that 'they told you so'. 

 

Extreme politics of left or right never works, the examples of both lead to dire situations as highlighted by numerous instances across the world/time. 

[Charl91]

As someone who has been screwed over by zero-hour jobs before, I can attest that they can be bloody awful. Clearly very useful for some, and I'd never say "get rid of them", but something really should be done to stop them being abused by some managers.

Edited 9 August 2017 by Charl91

[Captain...]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

Let's be clear, how many of those jobs are the employees of unhappy with? I really think we need some stats before you can have any credibility on this one.

 

I know of five people on zero hour contracts by choice,(my wife and some of her colleagues) they are very happy with them. They aren't guaranteed any hours, I can show you the contract, it's in the very first paragraph and yes it's a NHS contract. So how many hours would you guarantee them? What if they want to work less one week, or none at short notice? 

It doesn't matter if they are happy or not,  it doesn't matter if it is the optimal working solution for individual employees, nobody is saying that we shouldn't have a flexible work force.

 

The issue is that classing someone on a zero hours contract as employed is disingenuous and massages the unemployment stats.

 

Claiming we have massively higher employment than 2010 when we have nearly 1,000,000 on zero hours contract an increase of around 600,000 is not accurate.

 

There is a place for Zero hours contracts, but they are not the same as full time employment and shouldn't be classed as equal when looking at employment figures.

Edited 9 August 2017 by Captain...

[davieG]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Sounds like a good idea, tbh.

 

 

Or people accept there will be a degree a repetition, there's enough of it in the football threads to prove that and not get irate at someone disagreeing with them for umpteenth time they've both disagreed on the same point(s).

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

Following accounts like Guido Fawkes etc I do the almost enjoyment that some people have of the situation in Venezuela a little perplexing. Sure it sort of proves a point about extreme socialism, but to practically relish the events is a bit much. A different time of course, but I doubt many were lapping up Neville Chamberlains comments and meetings with/about Hitler when the proverbial hit the fan and pointing out that 'they told you so'. 

 

Extreme politics of left or right never works, the examples of both lead to dire situations as highlighted by numerous instances across the world/time. 

That's politics these days, I'm sure some people would enjoy seeing the UK crash and burn to teach "leavers" a lesson and some who voted out would happily see the Eurozone fall into more distress based on a hatred of the political union of the continent. I don't have too much sympathy for the people of Venezuela as they elected Maduro, I'd rather save my sympathy for people in places like Syria or North Korea, but I think anyone getting should be getting enjoyment out of the suffering of anyone.

 

The last sentence is spot on and the worse these divisions get the further away from the centre people seem to go.

[Strokes]

16 minutes ago, Charl91 said:

As someone who has been screwed over by zero-hour jobs before, I can attest that they can be bloody awful. Clearly very useful for some, and I'd never say "get rid of them", but something really should be done to stop them being abused by some managers.

Absolutely agree, there are some rogue companies out there using horrible employment methods. Uber, deliveroo Virgin media but most of these actually are not the zero hour contracts. They employ the candidates on sub contracts and then remove rights of any employees. This is scandalous and it's a fairly recent phenomenon, so hopefully it's addressed appropriately now it's come to light.

[Strokes]

56 minutes ago, Captain... said:

It doesn't matter if they are happy or not,  it doesn't matter if it is the optimal working solution for individual employees, nobody is saying that we shouldn't have a flexible work force.

 

The issue is that classing someone on a zero hours contract as employed is disingenuous and massages the unemployment stats.

 

Claiming we have higher employment than 2010 when we have nearly 1,000,000 on zero hours contract an increase of around 600,000 is not accurate.

 

There is a place for Zero hours contracts, but they are not the same as full time employment and shouldn't be classed as equal when looking at employment figures.

Well they aren't unemployed, you can file them wherever you like but they are employed.

[Charl91]

Just now, Strokes said:

Absolutely agree, there are some rogue companies out there using horrible employment methods. Uber, deliveroo Virgin media but most of these actually are not the zero hour contracts. They employ the candidates on sub contracts and then remove rights of any employees. This is scandalous and it's a fairly recent phenomenon, so hopefully it's addressed appropriately now it's come to light.

 

Yeah, companies like Uber are shocking to work for, but regular 0 hour contracts can be awful too.

 

For me, it was things like

 

• Being expected to take my mandatory (also unpaid) lunch break for the first hour of my nine-hour shift.
• Arriving on time for my shift and being asked not to "clock in" because it was quite quiet, so I wouldn't be needed just yet.
• Being asked to work one and a half hour shifts (bare in mind that it was minimum wage and I had to travel 25 minutes each way on the bus - so that 90 minute shift took 3 hours of my time, and earned me a net profit of about £5)
• Being told that I'd be needed to stay for a few extra hours, even though the buses didn't run that late, so I'd have to get someone to pick me up or walk.

 

Of course, I could complain, or say no. But then funnily enough, my hours would be cut drastically the next week. I needed the money for rent desperately, so I was over a barrel, pretty much. Luckily, I found a new, much better job a few months later. 0 hour contracts can work, but they are easily open to abuse if your manager is a tosser.

[Captain...]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Well they aren't unemployed, you can file them wherever you like but they are employed.

And they aren't fully employed and some are having to claim benefits.

 

The point about zero hours contracts is that they are skewing the employment figures, not that they are a good or bad thing.