Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Unfortunately I'm not an MP. I'm still waiting for Labour to show it can be done. 

Well they provided costings with their manifesto. If you don't agree with them the onus is now on you to show why. 

I will point out that all of these supposed impossible dreams are things we've had before. Just need to stimulate the econony rather than killing it through austerity. 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well they provided costings with their manifesto. If you don't agree with them the onus is now on you to show why. 

I will point out that all of these supposed impossible dreams are things we've had before. Just need to stimulate the econony rather than killing it through austerity. 

The IFS did said saying it was totally unrealistic.

[Innovindil]

45 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Well they provided costings with their manifesto. If you don't agree with them the onus is now on you to show why. 

I will point out that all of these supposed impossible dreams are things we've had before. Just need to stimulate the econony rather than killing it through austerity. 

So after a quick glance at the actual numbers that were offered it appears the suggested (which "experts" predict would be unlikely to reach) taxes wouldn't cover the cost of the basic things in the manifesto like nhs/schools/tuition fees etc etc. 

 

Let alone the money needed for renationalisation (that I couldn't see costed anywhere). Or the £250bill investment fund (which as far as I can tell would be some weird separate doodar only borrowed for investments). 

 

So yeah. Still seems a bit of a pipe dream to me. It does seem impossible dreams are pretty impossible while trying to aim for a surplus. If you're just borrowing for impossible dreams then of course they aren't impossible, just borrowed. 

Edited 13 September 2017 by Innovindil

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

The IFS did said saying it was totally unrealistic.

 Weren't too complimentary about the tory plans either. 

41 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So after a quick glance at the actual numbers that were offered it appears the suggested (which "experts" predict would be unlikely to reach) taxes wouldn't cover the cost of the basic things in the manifesto like nhs/schools/tuition fees etc etc. 

 

Let alone the money needed for renationalisation (that I couldn't see costed anywhere). Or the £250bill investment fund (which as far as I can tell would be some weird separate doodar only borrowed for investments). 

 

So yeah. Still seems a bit of a pipe dream to me. It does seem impossible dreams are pretty impossible while trying to aim for a surplus. If you're just borrowing for impossible dreams then of course they aren't impossible, just borrowed. 

Nationisation does not cost extra. The state takes control. Currently the privste businesses make profits.

Tuition is pretty low cost. Currently the government pays for the vast majority via loans. It'll has to pay up front in both systems. 

Putting money into wages/construction etc boosts the economy. 

A surplus is economically illiterate. It means pulling more money out of economy than you ate putting in. Why would you be doing that unless the economy was overheating? We're at the opposite end of things at this moment with a wide range of poor financial indicators.

You might have noticed that the tories have been trying to reduce the deficit for 7 years and the end date has been pushed back by a decade - to the mid 2020s - already. It won't happen through cuts - they just starve the economy of investment. Policy needs to move towards investment. We have to change tack.

[Webbo]

4 hours ago, MattP said:

Amazing, it's almost like they don't think any of us across the English channel are paying attention.

 

No I wouldn't, I don't believe in Europe as a political union in any way, shape or form and don't want any part of it, I believe individual countries should have the total right to control the things that they want to.

 

The common market was a good idea, the single market was a good idea - I can't level any criticism at Thatcher and Heath, how were they supposed to know what the project would turn into? It became a bad idea as soon as a central power wanted to start to take control of decisions over single nations. Major, Brown and Blair can take the blame for that if it's anyone from our parliament (and of course Brown the credit for keeping us out the Euro).

 

P.S Big up Ed Argar today for his PMQ contribution, I'm not sure Charnwood does have "the greatest countryside in the World" but I enjoyed him saying it none the less.

Heath definitely knew that the Common Market would eventually become a European superstate, I saw him admit it in interviews more than once. He even said people who didn't realise he was lying when he said it wouldn't were idiots.

[Kopfkino]

54 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

So after a quick glance at the actual numbers that were offered it appears the suggested (which "experts" predict would be unlikely to reach) taxes wouldn't cover the cost of the basic things in the manifesto like nhs/schools/tuition fees etc etc. 

 

Let alone the money needed for renationalisation (that I couldn't see costed anywhere). Or the £250bill investment fund (which as far as I can tell would be some weird separate doodar only borrowed for investments). 

 

So yeah. Still seems a bit of a pipe dream to me. It does seem impossible dreams are pretty impossible while trying to aim for a surplus. If you're just borrowing for impossible dreams then of course they aren't impossible, just borrowed. 

 

The nationalisation costings are brilliant. Tbf it was sensible to wait til franchises expire for the railways, though why anyone wants them nationalised again I don't know, even Europe is turning its back on that slowly but surely. But for water his pledge was to swap shares for government gilts. Or in other words, create more government debt to buy the water companies. Problem is, when Andrew Neil asked him about that he denied it was borrowing suggesting he doesn't actually understand what a government gilt is. Corbyn complained that profits of water companies went to foreign shores or whatever but then he wanted to give those institutions pretty safe government debt, in effect give them taxpayers money without having to work for it. It got better cos then he was asked how he was going to pay for that debt and he said the profits of the water companies would pay for it, having already said he would cut water profits. The market cap of Severn Trent and United Utilities is over £11.5bn and Thames Water is bigger. Plus all the rest and it's just piling on more and more debt. It's absolute carnage.

 

The National Investment Bank is just a repackaging of Tony Benn's failed ideas to provide a front to churn out more government debt for no real gain.

 

 

[davieG]

Brexit: UK will 'soon regret' leaving EU argues Juncker

13 September 2017

 

From the sectionUK Politics

 

comments

Share

Related Topics

Brexit

Media captionBrexit is "a very sad and tragic moment in our history"

The UK will "soon regret" leaving the EU, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker has said.

Mr Juncker told the European Parliament that Brexit would be a "sad, tragic" moment for the EU but that the 27-member union would "move on".

"Brexit is not the future of Europe. It is not the be all and end all."

But, speaking in the same debate, ex-UKIP leader Nigel Farage said the EU had "learnt nothing" from Brexit and was ploughing "full steam ahead".

In his state of the union speech in Strasbourg, Mr Juncker proposed an EU summit on the day after Brexit, 30 March 2019, in the Romanian city of Sibiu to map out the future of the European Union.

He called for closer economic and defence co-operation among member states, including more support for states outside the eurozone to prepare them to join the single currency, and reforms to the single market.

Live: Juncker's state of union speech

Juncker sees reform window of opportunity

Brexit talks delayed 'for consultation'

Reflecting on the economic and political challenges that the continent had faced in recent years, he said the "wind is back in Europe's sails".

While he respected the choice of the British people to go their own way, he said the UK's exit would prove a "very sad, tragic moment in our history" which we "will always regret".

Responding to UKIP MEPs in the chamber, who had cheered the mention of the UK's exit, he added - in an off-the-cuff remark not included in advance copies of the speech - "I think you will regret it as well soon, if I might say."

But he went on to stress that Brexit "was not everything" and an increasingly confident EU would continue to advance, focusing as he put it on the big strategic challenges rather than "the small things".

'More Europe'

Mr Farage, the best known campaigner in the Parliament for the UK's withdrawal from the EU, attacked what he said were "truly worrying" plans to create a single president of the EU, an EU finance minister and a "strong EU army in a militarised Europe".

He said what was being proposed was "more Europe in every single direction... without the consent of the people".

Image captionThe EU would further centralise power after Brexit, Mr Farage said

He also warned the idea of allowing future candidates to the European Parliament to stand on transnational tickets, rather than representing nation states, was anti-democratic and "reminiscent of regimes of old".

"You have learnt nothing from Brexit. If you had offered David Cameron concessions, particularly on immigration, I would have to admit that the Brexit vote would never ever have happened," he said.

Telling MEPs "thank God we are leaving", Mr Farage said the EU was "deluding itself" if it believed the "populist wave" of protests against the established European political order was over.

Responding to Mr Juncker's comments, justice minister Sam Gyimah said his initial reaction was "he would say that, wouldn't he" and he had signalled a future direction for Europe that "Britain was never going to go in".

Rather than "berating Britain", the Conservative MP told the BBC's Daily Politics that the EU's best interests would be served by agreeing a Brexit deal which made the whole of Europe more prosperous and secure.

Negotiations between the UK and EU are continuing although the latest round of talks, due to begin on Monday, have been put back a week to allow "more time for consultation".

Speaking on Tuesday, former Brexit minister Lord Bridges said the UK must be "honest" about the "complexity and scale" of leaving the EU as well as the lack of time to reach agreement with the EU.

And France's economy minister has sounded a warning that it will aggressively target new business as it seeks to make Paris the pre-eminent financial centre on the continent.

Changes to the country's labour laws meant France would become the "place to be" for financial services, Benjamin Griveaux told BBC Radio 4's Today, while acknowledging London would remain a major player.

"We need to have a fair Brexit, but we need to move on and we need probably more clarity and less ambiguity from the British government regarding the target of Brexit," he added.

[davieG]

Well worth the money eh!

 

Theresa May's decision to call June's snap general election cost taxpayers more than £140m, it has been revealed.

More than £98m was spent on returning officers' fees and £42.5m on delivering election literature.

Mrs May lost her Commons majority in the election, which was called three years earlier than required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

The figures, covering England, Scotland and Wales, were published by Cabinet Office Minister Chris Skidmore.

[Guest]

39 minutes ago, davieG said:

Well worth the money eh!

 

Theresa May's decision to call June's snap general election cost taxpayers more than £140m, it has been revealed.

More than £98m was spent on returning officers' fees and £42.5m on delivering election literature.

Mrs May lost her Commons majority in the election, which was called three years earlier than required under the Fixed-term Parliaments Act.

The figures, covering England, Scotland and Wales, were published by Cabinet Office Minister Chris Skidmore.

I wouldn't have expected it to be so but it turns out it was absolutely worth it now we are seeing the end of austerity.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 hours ago, KingGTF said:

 

The nationalisation costings are brilliant. Tbf it was sensible to wait til franchises expire for the railways, though why anyone wants them nationalised again I don't know, even Europe is turning its back on that slowly but surely. But for water his pledge was to swap shares for government gilts. Or in other words, create more government debt to buy the water companies. Problem is, when Andrew Neil asked him about that he denied it was borrowing suggesting he doesn't actually understand what a government gilt is. Corbyn complained that profits of water companies went to foreign shores or whatever but then he wanted to give those institutions pretty safe government debt, in effect give them taxpayers money without having to work for it. It got better cos then he was asked how he was going to pay for that debt and he said the profits of the water companies would pay for it, having already said he would cut water profits. The market cap of Severn Trent and United Utilities is over £11.5bn and Thames Water is bigger. Plus all the rest and it's just piling on more and more debt. It's absolute carnage.

 

The National Investment Bank is just a repackaging of Tony Benn's failed ideas to provide a front to churn out more government debt for no real gain.

 

 

Not to mention when Labour nationalise everything and remove anti strike laws they will allow the Unions to hold us to ransom and turn off our water when they feel they need a pay rise, the costs would probably go up. The problem with nationalised institutions is they are accountable to no-one, the incentive to be cost effective is not there especially if you keep throwing more money at it which Labour would.

 

None of our services are badly funded currently, they are just badly run. They need an independent review to be conducted on the structures and I think billions could be released to the front line. Sadly the management in the public sector are only interested in preserving themselves and their cronies at the cost of people below them, I have seen it first hand in numerous public sector organisations.

[Guest]

Tories accused of operating like 'dysfunctional tinpot dictatorship' after downgrading opposition day debates

Yesterday, after the Conservatives decided to abstain in two votes on Labour motions because they knew that without DUP support they would lose, Tory sources let it be known that they intended to use this tactic in future opposition day debates. Tory MPs will be encouraged not to take part in any votes, effectively rendering any divisions pointless.

Andrea Leadsom, the leader of the Commons, is taking business questions now and opposition MPs have been complaining bitterly about what this means for the House of Commons. Valerie Vaz, the shadow leader of the Commons, said the Tory approach was “jaw dropping”. She said that, after the Labour motions yesterday rejecting the recent tuition fee increase and calling for NHS staff to get a pay rise were passed unanimously, students and nurses had a legitimate expectation that these things would happen. Commenting on the new Tory strategy, she said: “It makes parliament look ridiculous”.

Pete Wishart, the SNP parliamentary business spokesman, was even more critical. He accused the Tories of behaving like “a dysfunctional tinpot dictatorship”. He told MPs:

Mr Speaker, this has been an absolute stinker of a week for the democratic arrangements of this House. First the repeal bill with the grotesque Henry VIII powers. Then the manipulation of standing committees of this House to the government’s favour. And now the degrading of opposition day debates to little more than adjournment debates.

This government is behaving little better than a dysfunctional tinpot dictatorship, and it is doing it so ineptly they’ll probably end up oppressing themselves. This is a government that singularly fails to accepts its minority status and delusionally asserts that it has a majority even when their £1bn friend desert them.

Leadsom brushed aside the criticism. She said the government took the issues raised in the opposition debates yesterday “incredibly seriously”. And she said the government intended to continue fully engaging with opposition day debates.

(That may be partly true. There was never any suggestion that the Tories would not put up ministers and MPs to speak in the debates. The plan is just to stop these debates concluding with meaningful votes.)

[Guest]

Almost as delusional as Maybot.

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative backbencher and, according to at least one survey, Tory members’ preferred next party leader, took part in an LBC phone-in earlier. He was on characteristic form. Here are the main points.

• Rees-Mogg said the existence of food banks was “uplifting” because it showed how charitable people were. Asked about the huge increase in food banks in recent years, he said:

To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow-citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are.

Inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks.

The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn’t tell them.

[Guest MattP]

16 hours ago, toddybad said:

I wouldn't have expected it to be so but it turns out it was absolutely worth it now we are seeing the end of austerity.

There hasn't been any austerity.

 

We are still borrowing about 60billion a year to live beyond our means, it's just a buzzword. 

 

Anyone still believing in this fantasy should take a look at Greece, that's real austerity and that's eventually what we'll have if we keep pretending you can live in severe debt forever.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

There hasn't been any austerity.

 

We are still borrowing about 60billion a year to live beyond our means, it's just a buzzword. 

 

Anyone still believing in this fantasy should take a look at Greece, that's real austerity and that's eventually what we'll have if we keep pretending you can live in severe debt forever.

Relatively, austerity in the UK has been much less austere than in Greece. That doesn't mean it isn't austerity. 

 

Austerity is about cutting back on spending. We clearly have done that very significantly. 

 

The deficit is a different question. You don't have to cut spending to reduce a deficit, as you well know. You can also raise taxes or increase growth. It's a political decision which option you go for. As the Tories tend to believe in a small government and historically have accepted worse public services, they've often to cut at the expense of growth and haven't wanted to raise taxes. Hence we still have a deficit. If growth had continued at the level it was just prior to the tories coming into office our economy would be £300b larger. Instead, austerity immediately reduced growth. Osborne believed the gap could be made up through spending cuts but, as we have seen through the continual pushing back of the date of supposed surplus, you can't cut and expect to raise the required funds to deal with financial difficulties. And whilst this all goes on, and the deficit persists, we are moving closer to recession while our public services fall apart, wages fall, personal debt rises and living standards dive. How anybody can have anything good to say about this shower of shit government is beyond me, honestly.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Relatively, austerity in the UK has been much less austere than in Greece. That doesn't mean it isn't austerity. 

 

Austerity is about cutting back on spending. We clearly have done that very significantly. 

 

The deficit is a different question. You don't have to cut spending to reduce a deficit, as you well know. You can also raise taxes or increase growth. It's a political decision which option you go for. As the Tories tend to believe in a small government and historically have accepted worse public services, they've often to cut at the expense of growth and haven't wanted to raise taxes. Hence we still have a deficit. If growth had continued at the level it was just prior to the tories coming into office our economy would be £300b larger. Instead, austerity immediately reduced growth. Osborne believed the gap could be made up through spending cuts but, as we have seen through the continual pushing back of the date of supposed surplus, you can't cut and expect to raise the required funds to deal with financial difficulties. And whilst this all goes on, and the deficit persists, we are moving closer to recession while our public services fall apart, wages fall, personal debt rises and living standards dive. How anybody can have anything good to say about this shower of shit government is beyond me, honestly.

Come on then, I'll bite.

 

Show us the evidence the economy would be 300billion larger. At least you are finally acknowledging tax increases now, just need to find a way to justify it now to everyone who will have to pay it.

 

It's amazing you still seem to think economic growth is like a tap you can turn on and off when you want, if it was that easy no country would have a deficit.

[Kopfkino]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Come on then, I'll bite.

 

Show us the evidence the economy would be 300billion larger. At least you are finally acknowledging tax increases now, just need to find a way to justify it now to everyone who will have to pay it.

 

It's amazing you still seem to think economic growth is like a tap you can turn on and off when you want, if it was that easy no country would have a deficit.

 

I'm going to hazard a guess that it's taking the 1% gdp growth in 2010 Q2, annualising it and then using that as a growth figure for the last 6 years. Having just done it, it pretty much checks out to be 300bn more

 

Basically it's pure nonsense to anyone with any working brain cells

Edited 14 September 2017 by KingGTF

[ajthefox]

31 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Almost as delusional as Maybot.

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg, the Conservative backbencher and, according to at least one survey, Tory members’ preferred next party leader, took part in an LBC phone-in earlier. He was on characteristic form. Here are the main points.

• Rees-Mogg said the existence of food banks was “uplifting” because it showed how charitable people were. Asked about the huge increase in food banks in recent years, he said:

To have charitable support given by people voluntarily to support their fellow-citizens I think is rather uplifting and shows what a good, compassionate country we are.

Inevitably, the state can’t do everything, so I think that there is good within food banks.

The real reason for the rise in numbers is that people know that they are there and Labour deliberately didn’t tell them.

Clearly just deflection saying the rise is actually just because Labour didn't tell anyone about the foodbanks.

 

I can't help but feel like JRM is quite quickly turning into just another Tory figure for the media to peddle hate towards now everyone seems to be in agreement that May simply won't last and that the Tory's need to be looking for a new leader. 

 

We should call out MPs when necessary but this is just hot air. We should be focusing on more important issues not banging on about yet another stupid thing a Tory MP (who knows fvck all about what it means to use a food bank and happens to hold archaic religious views).

It doesn't help anyone and only serves to drive attention away from the real issues. 

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, MattP said:

Come on then, I'll bite.

 

Show us the evidence the economy would be 300billion larger. At least you are finally acknowledging tax increases now, just need to find a way to justify it now to everyone who will have to pay it.

 

It's amazing you still seem to think economic growth is like a tap you can turn on and off when you want, if it was that easy no country would have a deficit.

I'm not saying its like a tap but its an established economic principle that you don't cut during a downturn. That's exactly what Osborne did.

 

I mean look, you don't want a labour government. Fair enough. Let's take them out of it.

 

Even if you're voting Tory forever i can't see on what basis you'd say they've done a good job.

 

- promised to rid us of deficit in 1 parliament. Now promised for 2025 and constantly moving back. 

- promised immigration in the tens of thousands. Immigration went up.

- wages falling

- personal debt rising

- food bank use spiralled in last 7 years

- public sector performance dropping off a cliff

- 20k less police, 40k nursing vacancies, military cuts etc

 

The only positive is record low unemployment. Ordinarily this would be a huge plus, granted, but all the other figures suggest that more working people are in poverty than ever before.

 

Even if you can't ever be persuaded not to vote for them, they've done a truly horrific job on virtually every level. 

[Innovindil]

30 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Relatively, austerity in the UK has been much less austere than in Greece. That doesn't mean it isn't austerity. 

 

Austerity is about cutting back on spending. We clearly have done that very significantly. 

 

The deficit is a different question. You don't have to cut spending to reduce a deficit, as you well know. You can also raise taxes or increase growth. It's a political decision which option you go for. As the Tories tend to believe in a small government and historically have accepted worse public services, they've often to cut at the expense of growth and haven't wanted to raise taxes. Hence we still have a deficit. If growth had continued at the level it was just prior to the tories coming into office our economy would be £300b larger. Instead, austerity immediately reduced growth. Osborne believed the gap could be made up through spending cuts but, as we have seen through the continual pushing back of the date of supposed surplus, you can't cut and expect to raise the required funds to deal with financial difficulties. And whilst this all goes on, and the deficit persists, we are moving closer to recession while our public services fall apart, wages fall, personal debt rises and living standards dive. How anybody can have anything good to say about this shower of shit government is beyond me, honestly.

Probably because not everyone makes bad life choices. The public services I have used lately have all been excellent. My wages have risen (even above inflation), I have no personal debt and my living standards are improving. 

 

Why risk my job with a labour government. So I can have a warm fuzzy feeling for helping those destitute coppers who get paid more than many but can't afford "essentials"? 

 

Not sodding likely. 

[Guest]

54 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Probably because not everyone makes bad life choices. The public services I have used lately have all been excellent. My wages have risen (even above inflation), I have no personal debt and my living standards are improving. 

 

Why risk my job with a labour government. So I can have a warm fuzzy feeling for helping those destitute coppers who get paid more than many but can't afford "essentials"? 

 

Not sodding likely. 

You definately sound like a Tory voter.

[Guest MattP]

Labour MP's complaining about the cost of the election is beyond belief, have they forgot they voted for it?

Edited 14 September 2017 by MattP

[Innovindil]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

You definately sound like a Tory voter.

Thanks. 

[davieG]

1 hour ago, ajthefox said:

Clearly just deflection saying the rise is actually just because Labour didn't tell anyone about the foodbanks.

 

I can't help but feel like JRM is quite quickly turning into just another Tory figure for the media to peddle hate towards now everyone seems to be in agreement that May simply won't last and that the Tory's need to be looking for a new leader. 

 

We should call out MPs when necessary but this is just hot air. We should be focusing on more important issues not banging on about yet another stupid thing a Tory MP (who knows fvck all about what it means to use a food bank and happens to hold archaic religious views).

It doesn't help anyone and only serves to drive attention away from the real issues. 

I would assume that he's responding to questions, if he'd have said I wont answer that as there are more important issues he'd be slated for avoiding the question.

 

I'm no fan of politicians but a lot of the negative claims about them should be aimed at the media as they're more in control of what is discussed than the politician.

[leicsmac]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Probably because not everyone makes bad life choices. The public services I have used lately have all been excellent. My wages have risen (even above inflation), I have no personal debt and my living standards are improving. 

 

Why risk my job with a labour government. So I can have a warm fuzzy feeling for helping those destitute coppers who get paid more than many but can't afford "essentials"? 

 

Not sodding likely. 

The obvious implication here that personal poverty is entirely down to one's own life choices and other people play no factor is....interesting.

Edited 14 September 2017 by leicsmac

[Innovindil]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

The obvious implication here that personal poverty is entirely down to one's own life choices and other people play no factor is....interesting.

Where does it say that?