Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

Two other big elections going on around the World this weekend. 

 

Winston Peters looks like he'll be the Kingmaker in New Zealand, nationals expected to see off Labour in seats and votes but not enough for a majority.

 

Merkel will hold on in Germany in another grand coalition, probably the best result possible for us given the alternative is Martin Schultz.

 

The AFD are expected to win seats, which will be the first time since 1945 the German far right have held seats in the Bundestag. 

[Sharpe's Fox]

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/government-suppressing-brexit-food-price-report/

 

Unite's question: 

What assessment or estimate has been made of the increase in food prices in the run up to the UK leaving the European Union and the first five years after the UK’s departure?

Government answer:

We recognise that there is a public interest in disclosure of information concerning the increase in food prices in the run up to the UK leaving the European Union and the first five years after the UK’s departure. However, there is a strong public interest in withholding the information, in this instance. At this early stage of the policy process, where the UK is formulating its negotiating position with the EU, a public authority needs a safe space to formulate policy effectively and to ensure the information it is preparing is timely and accurate. Defra’s EU Exit policy development work is ongoing. We consider that premature disclosure of information could seriously mislead the public and is not in the public interest. In the meantime, however, Defra will continue to monitor food prices Therefore, we have concluded that, in all the circumstances of the case, the information should be withheld.

"Needs a safe space"  

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Have you seen our current budget deficit now compared to 2010? We've actually reduced it as a % of GDP more than any other country in the G8 who have all tried various ways.

 

I get you don't like it but the argument that it "didn't work" is falling down the toilet and we didn't have to go anywhere near as far as Ireland or Spain did in how fast they cut and how much they reduced corporation tax by.

 

It's possible by 2021 now we'll even be running a budget surplus providing Hammond doesn't turn into Father Christmas. 

I cannot get my head around why you would think that the deficit is the only important financial indicator.  There are all sorts of warning signs with the economy. Growth predictions have been downgraded closer and closer towards recession, wages are falling, personal debt is being cited as a concern by the BOE and public services are falling apart. How anybody can see these things as the sign of a functioning economy is beyond me. 

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

http://www.unitetheunion.org/news/government-suppressing-brexit-food-price-report/

 

Unite's question: 

 

Government answer:

 

"Needs a safe space"  

"Could seriously mislead the public and is not in the public interest"

 

Seemed to be perfectly okay operating with that as a default up until now

[Kopfkino]

8 hours ago, KingGTF said:

Ahh yes Moody's - let us remember the ratings agencies and the securities they gave top ratings to which ended up not being worth the paper they were written on and then the resulting financial crash.

 

Funnily enough, sterling has hit it's lowest net short position for 2 years so the markets obviously don't seem to mind.

 

The decision seems to be on the back of the fact they were hoping for a Norwegian-style agreement and fair enough that hasn't materialised so they've gone down a notch. But let us also note the heavy reference to the government yielding to pressure to loosen the purse strings. I dare say many who will be crowing at this bit of news will also be the folk that voted for economic illiteracy/further credit downgrades just over 3 months ago.

 

This was an outstanding post for a drunk man at 3am. 

[Guest MattP]

20 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I cannot get my head around why you would think that the deficit is the only important financial indicator.  There are all sorts of warning signs with the economy. Growth predictions have been downgraded closer and closer towards recession, wages are falling, personal debt is being cited as a concern by the BOE and public services are falling apart. How anybody can see these things as the sign of a functioning economy is beyond me. 

We are about due another recession anyway, possible within the next 5 years. There were people on here predicting triple dip recessions after the Tories took power in 2010.

 

The deficit is extremely important, the lower it is the less the debt will be, the less interest we pay and then we have more things to spend on our public services. We should be celebrating how much progress has been made on it.

[Kopfkino]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

The only thing I'm going to point out here is that neoliberal economics is 35 years old. Before 35 years ago it didn't exist to be the economically literate staging post you pretend it is. You'll know that it is economically illiterate to make cuts atca time of financial crisis as osborne did. You'll also know that withdrawing funding from an economy reduces growth. Finally you'll understand that a party that likens monetary policy to household income and expenditure is a party that's lying to it's people. 

I mean you like to call it neoliberal economics (as if its something new rather than a rebranding) and put a timeframe on it for a reason I'm not entirely sure of. But it's principles come largely from a well-known book from 1776. Or you can look further back to the French in the late 1600s for more of its roots. In fact, high government spending is actually the recent phenomenon. Prior to WW1 it was rarely above 15% of GDP. 

However I wasn't aware time created literacy. Does that mean Keynes' theories were illiterate until a certain point. Marx the same? (Don't answer that, no amount of time will help that school of thought). 
 

'A stimulus will only stimulate a deficit' proved to be quite true in the end. If you stimulate with balanced books, you de-stimulate elsewhere. Look at the 70s for a better example, it's no wonder Keynes was thrown out. Actually though, Keynes would have favoured fiscal policy of the last couple of years. In normal times, at trend growth, government should cut the deficit. Exactly what happened between 2013 and 2016. 

 

Anyway, you seem to think it is more important to talk about the debt-gdp ratio so if we do that about government spending, it has remained about flat. Your terms, not mine. 

'You'll also know' government borrowing crowds out private investment. And do we need to go over the parable of the broken window?

 

I don't see that the Conservatives have ever likened monetary policy to household income. Given that monetary policy could not be compared to household finances and is (largely) out of government hands, I will presume you mean government debt and the household fallacy that you love. Except it isn't a fallacy. Just like a household, government can only borrow if creditors continue to supply credit and believe the government will have enough future income to meet its debt obligations. It's the income constraint and absolutely no different to any normal household. Now of course, a government can increase its income as any household can. But as is similar to any household, its income increase is not unconstrained. Government's source of income is tax (confiscation of private individuals' income) and high taxes reduce the output that can be taxed and therefore decrease overall tax take. Some (fools) might argue well government can just print money. A)not true because the BoE is independent of government and B)if creditors thought government didn't have the tax income to meet obligations and would only receive fresh money, they would hike up interest rates and we'd end up in an inflationary spiral. The point is, government has an income constraint just the same as households do.  

[Guest]

11 hours ago, KingGTF said:

I mean you like to call it neoliberal economics (as if its something new rather than a rebranding) and put a timeframe on it for a reason I'm not entirely sure of. But it's principles come largely from a well-known book from 1776. Or you can look further back to the French in the late 1600s for more of its roots. In fact, high government spending is actually the recent phenomenon. Prior to WW1 it was rarely above 15% of GDP. 

However I wasn't aware time created literacy. Does that mean Keynes' theories were illiterate until a certain point. Marx the same? (Don't answer that, no amount of time will help that school of thought). 
 

'A stimulus will only stimulate a deficit' proved to be quite true in the end. If you stimulate with balanced books, you de-stimulate elsewhere. Look at the 70s for a better example, it's no wonder Keynes was thrown out. Actually though, Keynes would have favoured fiscal policy of the last couple of years. In normal times, at trend growth, government should cut the deficit. Exactly what happened between 2013 and 2016. 

 

Anyway, you seem to think it is more important to talk about the debt-gdp ratio so if we do that about government spending, it has remained about flat. Your terms, not mine. 

'You'll also know' government borrowing crowds out private investment. And do we need to go over the parable of the broken window?

 

I don't see that the Conservatives have ever likened monetary policy to household income. Given that monetary policy could not be compared to household finances and is (largely) out of government hands, I will presume you mean government debt and the household fallacy that you love. Except it isn't a fallacy. Just like a household, government can only borrow if creditors continue to supply credit and believe the government will have enough future income to meet its debt obligations. It's the income constraint and absolutely no different to any normal household. Now of course, a government can increase its income as any household can. But as is similar to any household, its income increase is not unconstrained. Government's source of income is tax (confiscation of private individuals' income) and high taxes reduce the output that can be taxed and therefore decrease overall tax take. Some (fools) might argue well government can just print money. A)not true because the BoE is independent of government and B)if creditors thought government didn't have the tax income to meet obligations and would only receive fresh money, they would hike up interest rates and we'd end up in an inflationary spiral. The point is, government has an income constraint just the same as households do.  

Prior to WW1? The inequality in our nation was huge. We had no health service, women had no rights etc. Of course spending was lower. Spending is a sign of civilisation. It offers a way of providing for the nation's people and ridding us of poverty.

 

In terms of income from tax, falling wages and constrained personal spending is significantly impacting upon tax income. The Treasury has noted that a rising number of self employed is also a pressure in tax receipts. Your theory with regard to high tax contraining spending is just merely a political point from somebody who is pushing a tory agenda. Nobody in the uk is suggesting high taxes. Labour are just suggesting higher taxes on the wealthy. Wealth distribution is clearly one of the differences between the two parties.

 

The BoE is supposedly independent. But Gordon Brown decided it would use quantitative easing.

 

Investors are only interested in getting their money back and the returns beforehand. They don't care if it is old or new money as there is no such thing as either. It's just money. The limit on creating new money is inflation which could be caused by too much creation. Inflation at the moment appears to be being driven by the fall in the value of sterling.

 

In the end, I'm more interested in a rebalancing of the economy and redistrubutive policy. The economy should be empowering all our people not embedding inequality. The politics of smaller state undermines efforts to eradicate poverty and give everybody an equal chance. Neoliberal economics requires that there be no safety net for the vulnerable. It has driven the belief in shirkers and strivers. The reality is there is a limit to the number of high paid positions within the economy. Not everybody can reach their potential. The state is needed to even out the disparities between the lucky few - and i use the word luck entirely purposely - and allow everybody to live a decent life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Innovindil]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Prior to WW1? The inequality in our nation was huge. We had no health service, women had no rights etc. Of course spending was lower. Spending is a sign of civilisation. It offers a way of providing for the nation's people and ridding us of poverty.

 

In terms of income from tax, falling wages and constrained personal spending is significantly impacting upon tax income. The Treasury has noted that a rising number of self employed is also a pressure in tax receipts. Your theory with regard to high tax contraining spending is just merely a political point from somebody who is pushing a tory agenda. Nobody in the uk is suggesting high taxes. Labour are just suggesting higher taxes on the wealthy. Wealth distribution is clearly one of the differences between the two parties.

 

The BoE is supposedly independent. But Gordon Brown decided it would use quantitative easing.

 

Investors are only interested in getting their money back and the returns beforehand. They don't care if it is old or new money as there is no such thing as either. It's just money. The limit on creating new money is inflation which could be caused by too much creation. Inflation at the moment appears to be being driven by the fall in the value of sterling.

 

In the end, I'm more interested in a rebalancing of the economy and redistrubutive policy. The economy should be empowering all our people not embedding inequality. The politics of smaller state undermines efforts to eradicate poverty and give everybody an equal chance. Neoliberal economics requires that there be no safety net for the vulnerable. It has driven the belief in shirkers and strivers. The reality is there is a limit to the number of high paid positions within the economy. Not everybody can reach their potential. The state is needed to even out the disparities between the lucky few - and i use the word luck entirely purposely - and allow everybody to live a decent life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just out of mild curiosity, what income do you consider essential to achieve a decent life? 

[Kopfkino]

.

Edited 24 September 2017 by KingGTF
Can't be arsed

[Buce]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

Prior to WW1? The inequality in our nation was huge. We had no health service, women had no rights etc. Of course spending was lower. Spending is a sign of civilisation. It offers a way of providing for the nation's people and ridding us of poverty.

 

In terms of income from tax, falling wages and constrained personal spending is significantly impacting upon tax income. The Treasury has noted that a rising number of self employed is also a pressure in tax receipts. Your theory with regard to high tax contraining spending is just merely a political point from somebody who is pushing a tory agenda. Nobody in the uk is suggesting high taxes. Labour are just suggesting higher taxes on the wealthy. Wealth distribution is clearly one of the differences between the two parties.

 

The BoE is supposedly independent. But Gordon Brown decided it would use quantitative easing.

 

Investors are only interested in getting their money back and the returns beforehand. They don't care if it is old or new money as there is no such thing as either. It's just money. The limit on creating new money is inflation which could be caused by too much creation. Inflation at the moment appears to be being driven by the fall in the value of sterling.

 

In the end, I'm more interested in a rebalancing of the economy and redistrubutive policy. The economy should be empowering all our people not embedding inequality. The politics of smaller state undermines efforts to eradicate poverty and give everybody an equal chance. Neoliberal economics requires that there be no safety net for the vulnerable. It has driven the belief in shirkers and strivers. The reality is there is a limit to the number of high paid positions within the economy. Not everybody can reach their potential. The state is needed to even out the disparities between the lucky few - and i use the word luck entirely purposely - and allow everybody to live a decent life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Just out of mild curiosity, what income do you consider essential to achieve a decent life? 

The minimum wage should be at least equal to the living wage. I'm not really in a position to put a number on that but I'm sure a government could do so. Interestingly both the Tories and Labour seem to agree with me going by their last manifestos (though presumably Tory promises around pay have gone the same way as removal of the fox hunting ban and the rest of that hideous document).

Edited 24 September 2017 by Guest

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Prior to WW1? The inequality in our nation was huge. We had no health service, women had no rights etc. Of course spending was lower. Spending is a sign of civilisation. It offers a way of providing for the nation's people and ridding us of poverty.

 

In terms of income from tax, falling wages and constrained personal spending is significantly impacting upon tax income. The Treasury has noted that a rising number of self employed is also a pressure in tax receipts. Your theory with regard to high tax contraining spending is just merely a political point from somebody who is pushing a tory agenda. Nobody in the uk is suggesting high taxes. Labour are just suggesting higher taxes on the wealthy. Wealth distribution is clearly one of the differences between the two parties.

 

The BoE is supposedly independent. But Gordon Brown decided it would use quantitative easing.

 

Investors are only interested in getting their money back and the returns beforehand. They don't care if it is old or new money as there is no such thing as either. It's just money. The limit on creating new money is inflation which could be caused by too much creation. Inflation at the moment appears to be being driven by the fall in the value of sterling.

 

In the end, I'm more interested in a rebalancing of the economy and redistrubutive policy. The economy should be empowering all our people not embedding inequality. The politics of smaller state undermines efforts to eradicate poverty and give everybody an equal chance. Neoliberal economics requires that there be no safety net for the vulnerable. It has driven the belief in shirkers and strivers. The reality is there is a limit to the number of high paid positions within the economy. Not everybody can reach their potential. The state is needed to even out the disparities between the lucky few - and i use the word luck entirely purposely - and allow everybody to live a decent life. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Its hard to disagree with much of that but its also why i dont understand your obsession with the economy when talking about brexit. You prove it here yourself, the economy isnt working for most of us, it doesnt matter who you vote for, that inequality has been there since money was created. The people you seek to protect and stand up for on a national level, you abandon when it comes to Europe, we have seen stats indicating, it was the lowest paid and to lowest educated that are the ones that backed an exit from the EU. They clearly feel this social vanity project is affecting them as much these internal political situations but why does your compassion only extend so far?

[Izzy]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Not everybody can reach their potential. 

I've ran many, many training courses over the last 20 years and one of the questions I frequently ask the participants is:

 

"What % of your personal potential are you currently delivering in your work?"

 

I've asked this question hundreds of times to fat cats, senior directors, middle managers, people on the shop floor and guys in the warehouse - top to bottom of corporate organisations and SME's, in a variety of sectors.

 

And the average answer on each course ALWAYS comes back the same: 60-65%

 

Even though everyone is working flat out, there's a collective sense that people have more to give. More ideas, more solutions, more creativity etc. 

 

I've not met one person yet who's argued that "not everybody can reach their potential" and I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

[Guest MattP]

Tories sneaking back ahead. 

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+1)
LAB: 40% (-1)
LDEM: 6% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)

(via Opinium Research / 19 - 22 Sep)

[Guest MattP]

Maybe not

 

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 42% (-1)
CON: 38% (-)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via Survation)

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Its hard to disagree with much of that but its also why i dont understand your obsession with the economy when talking about brexit. You prove it here yourself, the economy isnt working for most of us, it doesnt matter who you vote for, that inequality has been there since money was created. The people you seek to protect and stand up for on a national level, you abandon when it comes to Europe, we have seen stats indicating, it was the lowest paid and to lowest educated that are the ones that backed an exit from the EU. They clearly feel this social vanity project is affecting them as much these internal political situations but why does your compassion only extend so far?

The issue with Europe and the poor is that of migration. I do have sympathy with that. I actually do sit closer to the leaver line in terms of immigration than you might imagine but i believe that we will have to encourage significant immigration in particular sectors due to poor government policy - for example getting rid of nursing grants at the same time as nurses from the eu are stopping coming to the uk. I also reserve some doubts that the immigration issues are as simple as made out by farage and the daily mail. 

 

Given what i think of tory dogma, i also have significant concerns that turn away from the ecj and handing over the writing of new laws governing work law coukd be disastrous for ordinary working people.  You only have to look at the way the tories have attacked the unions to see their disregard for the idea of workers rights. 

 

Finally, the economy is important for ordinary people. Personally, i think Labour may need to rein things in a little to show they can be taken seriously. Despite trying to wind mattp up sometimes i do recognise some risks with their approach but believe it is the lesser of two evils given that the alternative is the decimation of public services whilst reducing taxes for the rich. 

 

56 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I've ran many, many training courses over the last 20 years and one of the questions I frequently ask the participants is:

 

"What % of your personal potential are you currently delivering in your work?"

 

I've asked this question hundreds of times to fat cats, senior directors, middle managers, people on the shop floor and guys in the warehouse - top to bottom of corporate organisations and SME's, in a variety of sectors.

 

And the average answer on each course ALWAYS comes back the same: 60-65%

 

Even though everyone is working flat out, there's a collective sense that people have more to give. More ideas, more solutions, more creativity etc. 

 

I've not met one person yet who's argued that "not everybody can reach their potential" and I couldn't disagree more with your statement.

My point isn't that people don't hsve huge potential - quite the opposite - it's that only, say, 100000 jobs exist at the top end (random number but you get the idea) so there will be peoole with the potential to reach the very top who do not simply because there isn't room for then all at the top. I'd actually say the fact everybody believes they have more to offer than they are currently giving agrees with my point. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Tories sneaking back ahead. 

 

Westminster voting intention:

CON: 42% (+1)
LAB: 40% (-1)
LDEM: 6% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-1)

(via Opinium Research / 19 - 22 Sep)

 

Just now, MattP said:

Maybe not

 

Westminster voting intention:

LAB: 42% (-1)
CON: 38% (-)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-)

(via Survation)

Hard not to look at polls but need to remember how entirely inaccurate they've been over practically every vote of the last 5 years.

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The issue with Europe and the poor is that of migration. I do have sympathy with that. I actually do sit closer to the leaver line in terms of immigration than you might imagine but i believe that we will have to encourage significant immigration in particular sectors due to poor government policy - for example getting rid of nursing grants at the same time as nurses from the eu are stopping coming to the uk. I also reserve some doubts that the immigration issues are as simple as made out by farage and the daily mail. 

 

Given what i think of tory dogma, i also have significant concerns that turn away from the ecj and handing over the writing of new laws governing work law coukd be disastrous for ordinary working people.  You only have to look at the way the tories have attacked the unions to see their disregard for the idea of workers rights. 

 

Finally, the economy is important for ordinary people. Personally, i think Labour may need to rein things in a little to show they can be taken seriously. Despite trying to wind mattp up sometimes i do recognise some risks with their approach but believe it is the lesser of two evils given that the alternative is the decimation of public services whilst reducing taxes for the rich. 

 

Fair enough, I just find it amazing that mine and yourselfs core beliefs are not at all dissimilar but our methods and political beliefs of how too achieve it, are worlds apart.

[Guest]

19 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Fair enough, I just find it amazing that mine and yourselfs core beliefs are not at all dissimilar but our methods and political beliefs of how too achieve it, are worlds apart.

In fairness, you only became a true blue tory in the last 3 months 

[Guest]

You might not like the guy or his politics but its hard not to see he's in touch with ordinary people in a way few other politicians are. Cab you imagine the half smile and look of panic on the face of Gordon Brown or Theresa May if they had somebody with Downs syndrome or another disability singing at them!

 

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

You might not like the guy or his politics but its hard not to see he's in touch with ordinary people in a way few other politicians are. Cab you imagine the half smile and look of panic on the face of Gordon Brown or Theresa May if they had somebody with Downs syndrome or another disability singing at them!

 

 

he's approaching Father of the Nation status imo

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

You might not like the guy or his politics but its hard not to see he's in touch with ordinary people in a way few other politicians are. Cab you imagine the half smile and look of panic on the face of Gordon Brown or Theresa May if they had somebody with Downs syndrome or another disability singing at them!

 

 

Fair play to him, everyone else shit themselves.

[Innovindil]

32 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Fair play to him, everyone else shit themselves.

As would I if I saw a labour supporter charging me with a table tennis bat. 

[Guest MattP]

http://news.sky.com/story/labour-conference-delegates-block-meaningful-vote-on-brexit-11051966

 

For the second year on the bounce, quite astounding really they refuse to debate the biggest political decision of our time.

 

P.S The people shouting "scab" at Dennis Skinner The irony of all political irony.