Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I obviously dont don't know you, but if you'd like to get involved then I'd encourage you to do so.

 

Me and many others gave up on politicians many years ago and struggle to trust any of them on either side of the house.

 

The way you and MattP debate on this thread, I'd rather see you two going at it across the dispatch box than May and Corbyn tbh 

I'd tear him a new one 

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Up the money abit Dirkster and i might apply - what do you do?

Logistics Recruitment.  Literally places popping up everywhere.  Industry booming mate.

 

Jobs everywhere. 

 

 

 

[Guest]

14 minutes ago, Filberts lovechild said:

@toddybad really interesting posts and find myself agreeing somewhat with your points, I see the problems of today but I really don't see socialism as being the answer at all. I feel the current Lab strategy is actually very well aligned with Trump in the US, both targeting 'the forgotten many' and seem to unfortunately offer a false hope (tho ok different ends of the spectrum)

 

In reflection the Blair years were pretty good bar some fundamental errors that were made on which you hit the top 3 for sure.

 

The person that wins elections in my view is usually the one that offers more hope. Unfortunately for us that prospect is very scary right now. Tories must do more, much more to resonate with the youth vote, but in a sensible way.

I just can't see how the tories can redeem themselves. That doesn't mean i don't think they cab win another election.  I just think thatcher became such an icon to the party that they can't leave that politics in the past and find a modern, hopeful conservatism. It is a party of old people, in the end.

 

I really would like to see labour focus on those numbers and finding a way to convince business that it is in its interest to see strong public services. Labour actually put together a really interesting industrial strategy prior to the election which didn't really get talked about enough. 

[Innovindil]

34 minutes ago, Lionator said:

Well for us young people the Tories offer nothing, they don't care about us, they flaunt and flog us. I'm paying back a student loan with crazy amounts of interest and with no chance of ever paying it off, 9-5 graduate jobs are impossible to come by, the housing market is totally against us and that is just the start. It's serious stuff keeping the Tories in power. Personally I don't think Corbyn will ever be prime-minister however the next government will 100% be a Labour one, a little more towards the centre but still to the less radical left (ie lead by Starmer).

Just out of curiosity, would you mind telling us what city do you live in/plan to live in and what did you graduate in? 

[Sampson]

I feel in such a difficult place in British politics atm. I hate labels or aligning yourselves with parties or left, right or centrist positions because too many people get stuck in one particular place and then end up spending the rest of their lives just doing confirmation biases (especially given that research showing that most people decide their left, right or centrist by age 20 (before their brain has even fully formed) and then spend the rest of their lives just going into arguments knowing that bias and then automatically hating everything one person does and automatically agreeing with something because it's a left or right or centrist or Labour, LibDem or Conservative idea has shown).

 

Like the way the Left have somehow managed to convince some of their followers that things like gay marriage and abortion are somehow Left/Right issues when they have very little to with being left or right and they seem to never acknowledge Cameron's Centre-Right government with introducing gay marriage (and the fact the majority of countries who have introduced gay marriage have done so by Centrist and Right wing governments).

 

And the fact that parties evolve over the years and change positions constantly and new policies come into bigger importance or relvance and every election is different. I've never understood people who only vote Labour or Tory regardless of their leader and current policy when, say, Blair and Cameron are far more aligned and similar to each other than Blair is to Corbyn or Cameron is to May. I've always been of the opinion you should vote for which party and leader best represents your viewpoint at that particular election and that party loyalty can be a very dangerous thing in politics where you become too tied to a subject and quickly end up in areas of confirmation bias.

 

Anyways, that said, I have more often than not agreed with the LibDems more than other major parties and voted for them mostly throughout my life (though I have voted Labour and Tory when I liked their current state too (under Blair and Cameron respectively) and I'm at a quandary because I've always been a big fan of Vince Cable and wanted him to be LibDem leader for years and I cannot remember a time where I disliked the 2 leaders or the direction of the main 2 parties more than I do now. So normally, it would be a pretty easy decision to back the LibDems right now, but I feel like I'm almost obligated to vote Tory because I know it's the only realistic option to stop Corbyn, who scares the absolute bejesus out of me, from getting into power.

 

The problem is, May is just a horrible, uninspired, robotic leader, where you can just hear the 50 PR people behind everything she says and Corbyn is a genuinely charismatic person that it just scares me that he could actually get into power and I'd feel bad voting for her, but I kind feel obligated to because she's the lesser of two evils.

Coincidentally, it's the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution in a couple of weeks and the fact that people can still believe in Socialism a century on is something I don't think I'll ever understand. To me, Socialists are the climate change deniers of Economics, they ignore all the absolutely overwhelming mainstream Economic theory and historic evidence because they've become a stuckist Ideologue.

 

The thought of post-Brexit, us leaving the biggest single-market in the world and then electing a free-spending Socialist government who want to raise taxes on business sounds to me like a disaster waiting to happen and I cannot see any result other than seeing business running as fast as they can to get out of the UK and running straight into other countries.

 

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

They're saying that the markets might well get flighty at the moment a socialist government get in. And they might.  A bit like the brexit vote. But they're planning for that. The markets worry about anything that doesn't involve giving ever more money to the rich.

 

One or two generations have seen their living standards increase beyond anything seen before but they've done it at the expense of their children and grandchildren. It's absolutely time for change and for the next generation to take ownership of this country. 

 

 

The markets worry about being restricted and becoming inefficient, it's nothing to do with them worrying about not being able to give ever more money to the rich!

Socialism restricts markets, it restricts innovation, it restricts wealth creation, it restricts people being able to pull themselves out of poverty. Capitalism and free markets may lead to more wealth inequality and it's natural for people to get annoyed by comparing their lot to others who have more, but it creates cheaper food, cheaper amenities, more innovation and creates a lot more wealth.- of course we'd all love a way for that wealth to be shared out more equally but humans have been trying to find systems to do that for centuries and all pretty much all mainstream Economic theory and Historic evidence shows it doesn't seem possible for them to work without reducing the creation of wealth to the point where it becomes retrogressive.

 

2 hours ago, leicsmac said:

To be honest, in the list of things to worry about in the future, economics is pretty low on the list.

Economics is everything! It's what puts food on your table, it's what gets you jobs, it's what stops or creates wars, it's what facilitates or puts barriers up to innovation. it's how you solve huge global problems, it's what provides individual freedom or not, it's what resources are used and what comes into this country, it's the way the world works, it's what's made the world what it is today. Economics is not just how much tax you or you don't pay or whether you can buy a house or not, it should be the first thing anyone interested in politics reads and learns about. Economics is the study of the human-made world in the same way Physics is a study of the natural world.

 

I think John Maynard Keynes (probably one of the top 5 most important  and influential British people in history (as is Adam Smith)) put it best: “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

Edited 27 September 2017 by Sampson

[Stadt]

I agree about the confirmation biases

[Finnegan]

I love how everyone makes out that if Labour got in we'd all be on a minimum wage state salaries, eating rationed state food parcels and surrendering our assets to the state bank. 

 

Corbyn might be left of New Labour but he's not Josef Stalin and they'd still need to get any policy through parliament. 

[Fox Ulike]

8 hours ago, Sampson said:

I feel in such a difficult place in British politics atm. I hate labels or aligning yourselves with parties or left, right or centrist positions because too many people get stuck in one particular place and then end up spending the rest of their lives just doing confirmation biases (especially given that research showing that most people decide their left, right or centrist by age 20 (before their brain has even fully formed) and then spend the rest of their lives just going into arguments knowing that bias and then automatically hating everything one person does and automatically agreeing with something because it's a left or right or centrist or Labour, LibDem or Conservative idea has shown).

 

Like the way the Left have somehow managed to convince some of their followers that things like gay marriage and abortion are somehow Left/Right issues when they have very little to with being left or right and they seem to never acknowledge Cameron's Centre-Right government with introducing gay marriage (and the fact the majority of countries who have introduced gay marriage have done so by Centrist and Right wing governments).

 

And the fact that parties evolve over the years and change positions constantly and new policies come into bigger importance or relvance and every election is different. I've never understood people who only vote Labour or Tory regardless of their leader and current policy when, say, Blair and Cameron are far more aligned and similar to each other than Blair is to Corbyn or Cameron is to May. I've always been of the opinion you should vote for which party and leader best represents your viewpoint at that particular election and that party loyalty can be a very dangerous thing in politics where you become too tied to a subject and quickly end up in areas of confirmation bias.

 

Anyways, that said, I have more often than not agreed with the LibDems more than other major parties and voted for them mostly throughout my life (though I have voted Labour and Tory when I liked their current state too (under Blair and Cameron respectively) and I'm at a quandary because I've always been a big fan of Vince Cable and wanted him to be LibDem leader for years and I cannot remember a time where I disliked the 2 leaders or the direction of the main 2 parties more than I do now. So normally, it would be a pretty easy decision to back the LibDems right now, but I feel like I'm almost obligated to vote Tory because I know it's the only realistic option to stop Corbyn, who scares the absolute bejesus out of me, from getting into power.

 

The problem is, May is just a horrible, uninspired, robotic leader, where you can just hear the 50 PR people behind everything she says and Corbyn is a genuinely charismatic person that it just scares me that he could actually get into power and I'd feel bad voting for her, but I kind feel obligated to because she's the lesser of two evils.

Coincidentally, it's the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution in a couple of weeks and the fact that people can still believe in Socialism a century on is something I don't think I'll ever understand. To me, Socialists are the climate change deniers of Economics, they ignore all the absolutely overwhelming mainstream Economic theory and historic evidence because they've become a stuckist Ideologue.

 

The thought of post-Brexit, us leaving the biggest single-market in the world and then electing a free-spending Socialist government who want to raise taxes on business sounds to me like a disaster waiting to happen and I cannot see any result other than seeing business running as fast as they can to get out of the UK and running straight into other countries.

 

The markets worry about being restricted and becoming inefficient, it's nothing to do with them worrying about not being able to give ever more money to the rich!

Socialism restricts markets, it restricts innovation, it restricts wealth creation, it restricts people being able to pull themselves out of poverty. Capitalism and free markets may lead to more wealth inequality and it's natural for people to get annoyed by comparing their lot to others who have more, but it creates cheaper food, cheaper amenities, more innovation and creates a lot more wealth.- of course we'd all love a way for that wealth to be shared out more equally but humans have been trying to find systems to do that for centuries and all pretty much all mainstream Economic theory and Historic evidence shows it doesn't seem possible for them to work without reducing the creation of wealth to the point where it becomes retrogressive.

 

Economics is everything! It's what puts food on your table, it's what gets you jobs, it's what stops or creates wars, it's what facilitates or puts barriers up to innovation. it's how you solve huge global problems, it's what provides individual freedom or not, it's what resources are used and what comes into this country, it's the way the world works, it's what's made the world what it is today. Economics is not just how much tax you or you don't pay or whether you can buy a house or not, it should be the first thing anyone interested in politics reads and learns about. Economics is the study of the human-made world in the same way Physics is a study of the natural world.

 

I think John Maynard Keynes (probably one of the top 5 most important  and influential British people in history (as is Adam Smith)) put it best: “The ideas of economists and political philosophers, both when they are right and when they are wrong are more powerful than is commonly understood. Indeed, the world is ruled by little else. Practical men, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influences, are usually slaves of some defunct economist.”

This is interesting.

 

You're clearly an intelligent person with a good understanding of politics - certainly much better than mine.

 

But why do you believe that Corbyn would be leading a 'Socialist Government'?? What is your source of information for this?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Corbyn and McDonnell are both self confessed raving socialists, surely the whole point of them is to run a socialist government! Through momentum they are currently brainwashing or bullying others into following their path. Nasty Party.

[Fox Ulike]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Corbyn and McDonnell are both self confessed raving socialists, surely the whole point of them is to run a socialist government! Through momentum they are currently brainwashing or bullying others into following their path. Nasty Party.

Doesn't really answer the question.

 

Also interesting: why do you say he is a 'raving socialist'? What's wrong with just saying he's a self-confessed Socialist. Is anyone who believes in Socialism raving mad?

 

Which of Labour's manifesto policies would you define as Socialist (raving or otherwise)? Public ownership of railways and utilities? Possibly. But what others?

[Guest MattP]

11 hours ago, toddybad said:

Look matt, were on opposite sides of the divide but on a number of occasions now I've been honest about either labour, tory, brexit or freedom if speech. It's time we got the same from you instead of this ridiculous dance of taking positions for the sake of it (on a football forum no less!) that we both do. You know as well as i do they're wargaming bad scenarios because if they got in there COULD be an immediate backlash. That is not the same thing as their policies being a disaster. Far from it. I would liken it to the aftermath of the brexit vote- which you voted for.

 

Re the 70s - it was the tories in the first half of that decade who pushed us into tge mess and who oversaw electricity rationing etc. It wasn't socialism and I'm really rather sick of the over simplificatiin which has been used for 40 years by the tories to bolster their new ideology.

Always socialism until it goes wrong isnt it? As for the Brexit vote, the government didn't plan for a leave vote, which was irresponsibile.

 

You know why the last few chancellors of the nation didn't have to war game for a run on the pound? because they ensured they had policy in place that wouldn't mean we had a run on the pound, they made the country open to investment which is what every country who has ever became wealthy in the World (bar a few oil rich states) has done. That's good economics, insular markets and protectionism only hurts a nation. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what his plan is for a run on the pound, we'd probably end up down a road of currency manipulation knowing this lot.

 

I watched the video of the McDonnell fringe speech and he hinted at annulment without compensation when renationalising, this is the fcuking shadow chancellor standing on a stage effectively telling the World hell reduce the UK's credit rating to little more than a junk bond status and you are going on like it's normal, 

 

Is there actually a single person on the opposition bench with a serious background in business or economics? It's hard to believe there is when you watch it unfold. This is absolutely insane.

 

11 hours ago, leicsmac said:

To be honest, in the list of things to worry about in the future, economics is pretty low on the list.

Only a person in a wealthy country could say this, FWP's personified.

 

As Sampson said, a good economy policy delivering wealth to a country is one of the things that keeps a nation happy, you wouldn't be so blaise about economics if you had to stand in line for 3 hours a day to be given your ration of turnips as they do in some countries.

 

59 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

I love how everyone makes out that if Labour got in we'd all be on a minimum wage state salaries, eating rationed state food parcels and surrendering our assets to the state bank. 

 

Corbyn might be left of New Labour but he's not Josef Stalin and they'd still need to get any policy through parliament. 

Yesterday you accused me, Buce and Ozleicester of hyperbole when we debating politics and less than 24 hours later you come on here and claim everybody has said we'd all be on a minimum wage state salaries, eating rationed state food parcels and surrendering our assets to the state bank if Labour got in, nobody has said that.

 

I hae no interest in exaggerating how bad the Corbyn government would be as it would be making the same mistake as the "remain" campaign did in the EU referendum, you predict such a scenario of catastrophe even if the opposition do do a terrible job it probably won't be anywhere near as bad as you predicted and it eventually helps those who you were campaigning against - it would be the worst economic model we have ever followed, but just to make it clear, we won't be all be on minimum wage or eating state rationed food parcels if it does.

Edited 27 September 2017 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, Sampson said:

Coincidentally, it's the hundredth anniversary of the October Revolution in a couple of weeks and the fact that people can still believe in Socialism a century on is something I don't think I'll ever understand. To me, Socialists are the climate change deniers of Economics, they ignore all the absolutely overwhelming mainstream Economic theory and historic evidence because they've become a stuckist Ideologue.

Easily my favourite quote, probably of the whole thread.

[Fox Ulike]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

I hae no interest in exaggerating how bad the Corbyn government would be as it would be making the same mistake as the "remain" campaign did in the EU referendum, you predict such a scenario of catastrophe even if the opposition do do a terrible job it probably won't be anywhere near as bad as you predicted and it eventually helps those who you were campaigning against - it would be the worst economic model we have ever followed, but just to make it clear, we won't be all be on minimum wage or eating state rationed food parcels if it does.

Which economic model are you referring to?

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Always socialism until it goes wrong isnt it? As for the Brexit vote, the government didn't plan for a leave vote, which was irresponsibile.

 

You know why the last few chancellors of the nation didn't have to war game for a run on the pound? because they ensured they had policy in place that wouldn't mean we had a run on the pound, they made the country open to investment which is what every country who has ever became wealthy in the World (bar a few oil rich states) has done. That's good economics, insular markets and protectionism only hurts a nation. I'm actually looking forward to seeing what his plan is for a run on the pound, we'd probably end up down a road of currency manipulation knowing this lot.

 

I watched the video of the McDonnell fringe speech and he hinted at annulment without compensation when renationalising, this is the fcuking shadow chancellor standing on a stage effectively telling the World hell reduce the UK's credit rating to little more than a junk bond status and you are going on like it's normal, 

 

Is there actually a single person on the opposition bench with a serious background in business or economics? It's hard to believe there is when you watch it unfold. This is absolutely insane.

 

Only a person in a wealthy country could say this, FWP's personified.

 

As Sampson said, a good economy policy delivering wealth to a country is one of the things that keeps a nation happy, you wouldn't be so blaise about economics if you had to stand in line for 3 hours a day to be given your ration of turnips as they do in some countries.

 

Yesterday you accused me, Buce and Ozleicester of hyperbole when we debating politics and less than 24 hours later you come on here and claim everybody has said we'd all be on a minimum wage state salaries, eating rationed state food parcels and surrendering our assets to the state bank if Labour got in, nobody has said that.

 

I hae no interest in exaggerating how bad the Corbyn government would be as it would be making the same mistake as the "remain" campaign did in the EU referendum, you predict such a scenario of catastrophe even if the opposition do do a terrible job it probably won't be anywhere near as bad as you predicted and it eventually helps those who you were campaigning against - it would be the worst economic model we have ever followed, but just to make it clear, we won't be all be on minimum wage or eating state rationed food parcels if it does.

Look, i want to see labour fleshing out the numbers they're proposing. There clearly does need to be sweeteners for business as well as for ordinary folk. I'd love them to talk more about their industrial strategy and what it is they've been discussing with business.

 

Although I'd like to see renationalisation of key sectors i would also like to see them set out a coherent plan for putting it into practice.

 

With PFI, i think we can all agree they are terrible and both parties used them in government to the detriment of the country. It's good to hear labour would end PFI going forward. What was in the press release was rather more nauanced than what McDonnell said on stage. There needs to be a way to end the PFI nightmare one way or other.

 

As I've said before, they have work to do on communicating about the money and convincing the 60% that didnt vote for them that it can be done.

 

Just turning away from labour for a moment, i commented yesterday that i can't see where the tories go from here. Labour policy appears more popular - there does seem to be a feeling that the country needs to be more equal and that public services need to be supported. Whilst you might argue that labour is stuck in the 70s, i would argue that the tories are stuck in the 80s and haven't moved on from thatcherism. How do you see the tories changing into a more modern party that can speak to the younger generations? What would this look like in policy form - from the point of view of that generation?

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Which economic model are you referring to?

I'm busy but just off the top of my head.

 

An economic model of protectionism, state control and higher tax and spend, these are things the rest of the World are trying to get away from and we have people cheering for it, he's set to say today he wants to overturn thirty years of liberal free market economics, he wants to overturn everything that has made goods cheaper and increased growth, why any working person would want that I have no idea.

 

Re-nationailsation on the scale they are talking about isn't affordable and as I said in the earlier post, if you seriously decide to try and do that with anullment then you reduce the value on gilt bonds to nothing and investment into the country becomes obselete which will have a huge knock on towards pensions etc. They even touted at the last election government being in control of share price on those privitised industries, you might as well throw money down the drain in a street.

 

The impingement on business is asinine, maximum pay laws - It's hard to describe just how stupid this actually is, companies will either do two things, leave ot just pay themselves in other ways i.e shares, or leave - government can't stop, best scenario is a loss for the treasury, worst more unemployment. At the same time demanding paid internships - outcome of that - no internships, forcing higher wages for apprentices - outcome is no apprenticeships, the words "collective bargaining" when it comes to wages are being mentioned, no better way to completely drive any small business to ruin, nly big companies will be able to afford to wage, Tescos everywhere, great.

 

They are either wilfully ignoring the debt and deficit of the nation (unlikely behind closed doors) or they just simply don't care as they are driven by ideology (likely). Every single thing they are proposing is a tried and tested failure yet they are still pushing it, it's bizarre.

[Guest MattP]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Just turning away from labour for a moment, i commented yesterday that i can't see where the tories go from here. Labour policy appears more popular - there does seem to be a feeling that the country needs to be more equal and that public services need to be supported. Whilst you might argue that labour is stuck in the 70s, i would argue that the tories are stuck in the 80s and haven't moved on from thatcherism. How do you see the tories changing into a more modern party that can speak to the younger generations? What would this look like in policy form - from the point of view of that generation?

I'm busy today but I will come back to this.

 

To be honest I don't there is much we can do, we can offer students free tuition and Corbyn will offer them free tuition and a house ( playing the political game if Labour are way ahead in the polls I'd start to do this in the same way you force a person to bid higher in an auction if they are desperate for something) we could offer 16 year olds the vote and Corbyn would offer it 14 year olds, it's an endless game the party shouldn't get involved in,

 

If you have ever watched a Simpsons episode where Homer runs for sanitation commissioner the other guy just says **** it and tells people to vote for him if they seriously believe it he can achieve all these promises, in private that's probably the line I'd take.

 

So we'll just have to let Labour win, watch the car crash and then return to clean it up, only good thing will be we might be in such financial peril we can come back in and oversee the most radical privitisation of services any government in history has done and reduce the state to it's smallest level yet.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm busy today but I will come back to this.

 

To be honest I don't there is much we can do, we can offer students free tuition and Corbyn will offer them free tuition and a house ( playing the political game if Labour are way ahead in the polls I'd start to do this in the same way you force a person to bid higher in an auction if they are desperate for something) we could offer 16 year olds the vote and Corbyn would offer it 14 year olds, it's an endless game the party shouldn't get involved in,

 

If you have ever watched a Simpsons episode where Homer runs for sanitation commissioner the other guy just says **** it and tells people to vote for him if they seriously believe it he can achieve all these promises, in private that's probably the line I'd take.

 

So we'll just have to let Labour win, watch the car crash and then return to clean it up, only good thing will be we might be in such financial peril we can come back in and oversee the most radical privitisation of services any government in history has done and reduce the state to it's smallest level yet.

Which then takes me to the position of saying that privatisation and a small state has been testedcand failed society badly. That would be in no way a good thing. Taking publically owned resources or services and handing them over for rich individuals to profit off should be treasonous.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, toddybad said:

Which then takes me to the position of saying that privatisation and a small state has been testedcand failed society badly. That would be in no way a good thing. Taking publically owned resources or services and handing them over for rich individuals to profit off should be treasonous.

What do you think you are doing when you sell gilts to borrow?

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

What do you think you are doing when you sell gilts to borrow?

But the underlying services remain in public control. They're not given away and lost forever. I see the sale of transport, energy, education and the nhs - core public services and infrastructure - as an appalling abuse of national assets. I've seen a few right wingers on here complain about Gordon Brown's sale of our gold but I genuinally believe that sale of publically owned services is worse in that it forces the public to pay for services they previously owned in order for others to turn a profit.

 

I'd also add that when privitisation is said to bring efficiencies this generally involves reducing staff, pay, pensions and workers rights. All of these things end up costing society in myriad other ways. Between higher at the point of use charges for users and knock on costs of low wage and low staff employment,  I would argue that the claimed savings are never, ever made. 

[Fox Ulike]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

I'm busy but just off the top of my head.

 

An economic model of protectionism, state control and higher tax and spend, these are things the rest of the World are trying to get away from and we have people cheering for it, he's set to say today he wants to overturn thirty years of liberal free market economics, he wants to overturn everything that has made goods cheaper and increased growth, why any working person would want that I have no idea.

 

Re-nationailsation on the scale they are talking about isn't affordable and as I said in the earlier post, if you seriously decide to try and do that with anullment then you reduce the value on gilt bonds to nothing and investment into the country becomes obselete which will have a huge knock on towards pensions etc. They even touted at the last election government being in control of share price on those privitised industries, you might as well throw money down the drain in a street.

 

The impingement on business is asinine, maximum pay laws - It's hard to describe just how stupid this actually is, companies will either do two things, leave ot just pay themselves in other ways i.e shares, or leave - government can't stop, best scenario is a loss for the treasury, worst more unemployment. At the same time demanding paid internships - outcome of that - no internships, forcing higher wages for apprentices - outcome is no apprenticeships, the words "collective bargaining" when it comes to wages are being mentioned, no better way to completely drive any small business to ruin, nly big companies will be able to afford to wage, Tescos everywhere, great.

 

They are either wilfully ignoring the debt and deficit of the nation (unlikely behind closed doors) or they just simply don't care as they are driven by ideology (likely). Every single thing they are proposing is a tried and tested failure yet they are still pushing it, it's bizarre.

Germany, France and Holland have state-owned rail companies. (I'm sure they are part of the "rest of the World"). We all know about this, because they make millions from their ownership of  the companies that administer Britain's transport network. As a Brexiteer I thought you would have been dead against these foreigners taking millions out of the British economy? No?

 

The vast majority of water companies in Germany are publically-owned. It's not an economic model. Its a principle of protecting people from companies profiteering out of their primary needs.

 

Personally I would like to see people earning millions of pounds a year taxed a bit more, and small pay rises for public sector workers. If some millionaires and billionaires choose to leave the country because of this then that's just a hardship i'm willing to risk. The idea that the economy will come crumbling down if nurses are paid a bit more is a little bit too "daily-mail" for me.

 

Since there are relatively so few millionaires and billionaires in this country (around what, one per cent?), I've never understood why the entire economy seems to be set up solely for their benefit.  However, what's even more bizarre is the amount of people prepared to speak out on behalf of billionaires!!

[Innovindil]

24 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Germany, France and Holland have state-owned rail companies. (I'm sure they are part of the "rest of the World"). We all know about this, because they make millions from their ownership of  the companies that administer Britain's transport network. As a Brexiteer I thought you would have been dead against these foreigners taking millions out of the British economy? No?

 

The vast majority of water companies in Germany are publically-owned. It's not an economic model. Its a principle of protecting people from companies profiteering out of their primary needs.

 

Personally I would like to see people earning millions of pounds a year taxed a bit more, and small pay rises for public sector workers. If some millionaires and billionaires choose to leave the country because of this then that's just a hardship i'm willing to risk. The idea that the economy will come crumbling down if nurses are paid a bit more is a little bit too "daily-mail" for me.

 

Since there are relatively so few millionaires and billionaires in this country (around what, one per cent?), I've never understood why the entire economy seems to be set up solely for their benefit.  However, what's even more bizarre is the amount of people prepared to speak out on behalf of billionaires!!

A millionaire pays my wages. Without him, and his investment in engineering in Leicester, I'd be ****ed. His benefit is my benefit. He has no connection to this country beyond his business, make it unviable, or at the very least less profitable, he has no reason to stay. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Look, i want to see labour fleshing out the numbers they're proposing. There clearly does need to be sweeteners for business as well as for ordinary folk. I'd love them to talk more about their industrial strategy and what it is they've been discussing with business.

 

Although I'd like to see renationalisation of key sectors i would also like to see them set out a coherent plan for putting it into practice.

 

With PFI, i think we can all agree they are terrible and both parties used them in government to the detriment of the country. It's good to hear labour would end PFI going forward. What was in the press release was rather more nauanced than what McDonnell said on stage. There needs to be a way to end the PFI nightmare one way or other.

 

As I've said before, they have work to do on communicating about the money and convincing the 60% that didnt vote for them that it can be done.

 

Just turning away from labour for a moment, i commented yesterday that i can't see where the tories go from here. Labour policy appears more popular - there does seem to be a feeling that the country needs to be more equal and that public services need to be supported. Whilst you might argue that labour is stuck in the 70s, i would argue that the tories are stuck in the 80s and haven't moved on from thatcherism. How do you see the tories changing into a more modern party that can speak to the younger generations? What would this look like in policy form - from the point of view of that generation?

I don't think all PFIs are bad, just ones that are for NHS or schools. These can't increase revenue to pay for it. PFI could be useful if we did nationalise rail, power, water etc for improving infrastructure, so I'm surprised he has pledged that tbh.

Profit seems to be a dirty word for the newest face of the Labour Party and for me that's a big turn off.

[Fox Ulike]

9 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

A millionaire pays my wages. Without him, and his investment in engineering in Leicester, I'd be ****ed. His benefit is my benefit. He has no connection to this country beyond his business, make it unviable, or at the very least less profitable, he has no reason to stay. 

And would he take you, your co-workers, and all the company's clients and business assets with him?

 

Maybe. Or maybe he'd sell up and somebody else would take over the business and you'd notice no difference?

 

Or maybe he'd just realise he has a successful business, and that paying a bit more corporation and income tax was worth accepting?

 

I don't know. Millionaires are important to the economy and people shouldn't be discouraged from being rich. There's nothing wrong with being rich. There is something wrong though with allowing such personal wealth to accrue when the country has such a massive deficit and working people are using food banks.

 

it's just about balance. The balance is totally wrong at the moment in favour of the super-rich. All I want is to see a shift in the distribution of wealth towards working people like me and you.

 

 

Edited 27 September 2017 by Fox Ulike

[Guest MattP]

44 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

Germany, France and Holland have state-owned rail companies. (I'm sure they are part of the "rest of the World"). We all know about this, because they make millions from their ownership of  the companies that administer Britain's transport network. As a Brexiteer I thought you would have been dead against these foreigners taking millions out of the British economy? No?

 

The vast majority of water companies in Germany are publically-owned. It's not an economic model. Its a principle of protecting people from companies profiteering out of their primary needs.

 

Personally I would like to see people earning millions of pounds a year taxed a bit more, and small pay rises for public sector workers. If some millionaires and billionaires choose to leave the country because of this then that's just a hardship i'm willing to risk. The idea that the economy will come crumbling down if nurses are paid a bit more is a little bit too "daily-mail" for me.

 

Since there are relatively so few millionaires and billionaires in this country (around what, one per cent?), I've never understood why the entire economy seems to be set up solely for their benefit.  However, what's even more bizarre is the amount of people prepared to speak out on behalf of billionaires!!

Germany is moving away from state ownership and that's a country running a budget surplus.

 

On the bolded bit, I appreciate your honesty, some would certainly leave the country, but it's far more likely anyone who earns millions of pounds would just divert money away, it's not hard to do, Corbyn and his government are never going to be in aposition where they can access a bank account and they aren't going to invade Switzerland, instead of paying the extra tax you'll just see them divert - what would the plan B be though? If this does result in a shortfall to the treasury then who does the tax fall out for things like the public sector payrise?

 

P.S The last Daily Mail I read (about 6 months ago) they were campaigning for a nurses pay rise.

 

9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

And would he take you, your co-workers, and all the company's clients and business assets with him?

 

Maybe. Or maybe he'd sell up and somebody else would take over the business and you'd notice no difference?

What's more likely is he bases his business elsewhere and instead of getting an amount to the treasury we get nothing, even more so in this day and age where a lot of people can run a business from a laptop in any country they want.

 

Corporation tax receipts have increased the more we have dropped it.

[Guest]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I don't think all PFIs are bad, just ones that are for NHS or schools. These can't increase revenue to pay for it. PFI could be useful if we did nationalise rail, power, water etc for improving infrastructure, so I'm surprised he has pledged that tbh.

Profit seems to be a dirty word for the newest face of the Labour Party and for me that's a big turn off.

PFI is more expensive than normal borrowing. Significantly so. If you need to borrow to invest just do it don't create PFI vehicles which actually cost more!