Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Realist Guy In The Room]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

You have a very short memory.

 

Labour treated him as a joke in the London mayoral contest and he won a Labour city twice. (He wouldn't now after the EU ref, but across the nation who knows)

 

Any political prediction should be made with humility.  

He'd deffo be better than May but the party has several better options.

 

Either Davis or Rudd would be excellent in my view.

[Guest]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're not too far off. You've just gotta realise that underlying most arguments ideologically obsessed with the free market is a lack of belief in humanity itself.

 

Might one really argue that a lack of freedom explains why the Duke of Westminster and a person brought up in poverty have grossly unequal wealth and opportunity? Surely other factors are at play - such as inherited wealth or lack thereof?

 

No, I wouldn't want Messi to give his salary to Cov players. But slightly more redistribution of wealth within football would be a good thing. Complete freedom whereby the richest clubs get to exercise their freedom to demand all the money and give none to the smaller clubs doesn't seem a good idea....but that is the logic of the unregulated free market. Who wants to see Scunthorpe v. Rochdale? Let them go bust.....or Pompey or Cov.....or maybe Leicester in a few years? There will always be inequality of income based on inequality of ability - or effort. But it's not good for society (football society or wider society) for it to be given free rein so that some end up bathing in champagne while others lie in the gutter.

 

In Scandinavia, the wise hand of the state ensured not equality but greater equality than here - less disparity between the richest and the poorest. Yet living standards there are higher than here, despite our greater worship of the free market.

A few years back, a survey showed that the happiest societies were not those that were the richest. They were the societies with decent living standards AND comparatively low levels of inequality. There is a great deal of unhappiness in the USA, Brazil and Mexico - and increasingly in the UK. Is that because those countries have less free market than Germany or Scandinavia? Is the greater inequality in the USA, Brazil and Mexico due to excessive state intervention in those nations, compared to much greater freedom of the market in Germany and Scandinavia......I think not. 

 Great post

[Guest MattP]

3 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

He'd deffo be better than May but the party has several better options.

 

Either Davis or Rudd would be excellent in my view.

Davis would be my preferred choice, I think Rudd would be unable to stand now because of how close her seat is.

 

Imagine the Prime Minister having a "Portillo moment" 

[Sharpe's Fox]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 Great post

Yup our Alf is sound as a pound 

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're not too far off. You've just gotta realise that underlying most arguments ideologically obsessed with the free market is a lack of belief in humanity itself.

 

Might one really argue that a lack of freedom explains why the Duke of Westminster and a person brought up in poverty have grossly unequal wealth and opportunity? Surely other factors are at play - such as inherited wealth or lack thereof?

 

No, I wouldn't want Messi to give his salary to Cov players. But slightly more redistribution of wealth within football would be a good thing. Complete freedom whereby the richest clubs get to exercise their freedom to demand all the money and give none to the smaller clubs doesn't seem a good idea....but that is the logic of the unregulated free market. Who wants to see Scunthorpe v. Rochdale? Let them go bust.....or Pompey or Cov.....or maybe Leicester in a few years? There will always be inequality of income based on inequality of ability - or effort. But it's not good for society (football society or wider society) for it to be given free rein so that some end up bathing in champagne while others lie in the gutter.

 

In Scandinavia, the wise hand of the state ensured not equality but greater equality than here - less disparity between the richest and the poorest. Yet living standards there are higher than here, despite our greater worship of the free market. A few years back, a survey showed that the happiest societies were not those that were the richest. They were the societies with decent living standards AND comparatively low levels of inequality. There is a great deal of unhappiness in the USA, Brazil and Mexico - and increasingly in the UK. Is that because those countries have less free market than Germany or Scandinavia? Is the greater inequality in the USA, Brazil and Mexico due to excessive state intervention in those nations, compared to much greater freedom of the market in Germany and Scandinavia......I think not. 

 

This is interesting.

 

I actually think the opposite - that those who espouse an entirely free market have a massive belief in humanity that, if left to their own devices at the individual level in terms of business, that humans will be decent to one another and be able to be held accountable by an individual alone if not.

 

Of course, if there is anything history has told us...this isn't necessarily the case. I'd like it to be...but it isn't. Not, at least, until we prize mutual gain over competition at a fundamental level.

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

You have a very short memory.

 

Labour treated him as a joke in the London mayoral contest and he won a Labour city twice. (He wouldn't now after the EU ref, but across the nation who knows)

 

Any political prediction should be made with humility.  

 

Labour would be unwise to complacently think that the next election is theirs for the taking. They still have a fair bit of ground to make up even to be the biggest party in parliament.

 

Although the Tories are in a predicament at the moment and facing a confluence of problems, it's not beyond them to bounce back with the right leader - whether that involves another hung parliament or even outright victory.

Certainly, it is impossible that they could ever produce such a bad election campaign again.

 

I can't see May being leader at the next election - but I can't see the Tories succeeding under Boris in the foreseeable future. I suspect he may have missed his chance when Gove knifed him last year.

An "entertainer" like him is surely a leader for good times, or fairly steady times, at least. He's not a leader for troubled times when the nation is getting serious and angry - something that's likely to continue for several years, I reckon.

 

I don't see a stand-out replacement for May, though someone might come to the fore. Davis probably looks the best Tory option at the moment. He's not exactly charismatic or inspiring but comes across as fairly calm and authoritative. I imagine that he could relate better to the person in the street or struggling to get by than most other Tories, coming from a less privileged background - and having a backstory they could make something of (single mother, grew up on a council estate, grammar school boy made good, military service, business background etc.) 

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Labour would be unwise to complacently think that the next election is theirs for the taking. They still have a fair bit of ground to make up even to be the biggest party in parliament.

 

Although the Tories are in a predicament at the moment and facing a confluence of problems, it's not beyond them to bounce back with the right leader - whether that involves another hung parliament or even outright victory.

Certainly, it is impossible that they could ever produce such a bad election campaign again.

 

I can't see May being leader at the next election - but I can't see the Tories succeeding under Boris in the foreseeable future. I suspect he may have missed his chance when Gove knifed him last year.

An "entertainer" like him is surely a leader for good times, or fairly steady times, at least. He's not a leader for troubled times when the nation is getting serious and angry - something that's likely to continue for several years, I reckon.

 

I don't see a stand-out replacement for May, though someone might come to the fore. Davis probably looks the best Tory option at the moment. He's not exactly charismatic or inspiring but comes across as fairly calm and authoritative. I imagine that he could relate better to the person in the street or struggling to get by than most other Tories, coming from a less privileged background - and having a backstory they could make something of (single mother, grew up on a council estate, grammar school boy made good, military service, business background etc.) 

I'm surprised at how many Labour supporters seems to think the next election is in the bag given they are still 60+ seats off forming a majority. Some of the ones they'll need for an overall majority are quite rural. 

 

It certainly isn't going to May, maybe the next one IS the one to throw Boris at? The joker card in an election where a majority looks extremely unlikely.

 

That said though, the next one night just be a good one to lose anyway if Brexit is going be as bad as some claim.

[Kopfkino]

49 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're not too far off. You've just gotta realise that underlying most arguments ideologically obsessed with the free market is a lack of belief in humanity itself.

 

Might one really argue that a lack of freedom explains why the Duke of Westminster and a person brought up in poverty have grossly unequal wealth and opportunity? Surely other factors are at play - such as inherited wealth or lack thereof?

 

No, I wouldn't want Messi to give his salary to Cov players. But slightly more redistribution of wealth within football would be a good thing. Complete freedom whereby the richest clubs get to exercise their freedom to demand all the money and give none to the smaller clubs doesn't seem a good idea....but that is the logic of the unregulated free market. Who wants to see Scunthorpe v. Rochdale? Let them go bust.....or Pompey or Cov.....or maybe Leicester in a few years? There will always be inequality of income based on inequality of ability - or effort. But it's not good for society (football society or wider society) for it to be given free rein so that some end up bathing in champagne while others lie in the gutter.

 

In Scandinavia, the wise hand of the state ensured not equality but greater equality than here - less disparity between the richest and the poorest. Yet living standards there are higher than here, despite our greater worship of the free market. A few years back, a survey showed that the happiest societies were not those that were the richest. They were the societies with decent living standards AND comparatively low levels of inequality. There is a great deal of unhappiness in the USA, Brazil and Mexico - and increasingly in the UK. Is that because those countries have less free market than Germany or Scandinavia? Is the greater inequality in the USA, Brazil and Mexico due to excessive state intervention in those nations, compared to much greater freedom of the market in Germany and Scandinavia......I think not. 

 

Fair enough Alf, it's an interesting discussion and it merits a reply and I will do so in the morning. I have a boozy night to get through first.

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

This is interesting.

 

I actually think the opposite - that those who espouse an entirely free market have a massive belief in humanity that, if left to their own devices at the individual level in terms of business, that humans will be decent to one another and be able to be held accountable by an individual alone if not.

 

Of course, if there is anything history has told us...this isn't necessarily the case. I'd like it to be...but it isn't. Not, at least, until we prize mutual gain over competition at a fundamental level.

 

I didn't think ultra-free market ideology was based on an expectation of humans being decent to one another or individuals holding others accountable. I thought the theory was that proper free market competition (unrestrained by state intervention or monopolizing corporations) is ultimately the most efficient system. That it would produce greater efficiency, growth and wealth, which would be distributed by merit - those gaining the most would have earned it, responding well to material incentives, and those gaining the least would have deserved their poverty through their idleness, inability to compete or whatever.

 

There's a belief that pure free markets establish a socially-beneficial meritocracy, isn't there? So, if you believe that the outcome will be based on merit, you've no reason to care too much about those elements of humanity who fail under this system - though there are people who obtain great wealth through business success and who give a great deal back (e.g. Bill Gates).

 

I also think the people who advocate unrestrained free markets tend to be those who think they're personally well-equipped (through wealth, education, skills or connections) to do well out of them. I'm not sure how many people with no capital and no skills are demanding more unrestrained free markets.

[Alf Bentley]

39 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'm surprised at how many Labour supporters seems to think the next election is in the bag given they are still 60+ seats off forming a majority. Some of the ones they'll need for an overall majority are quite rural. 

 

It certainly isn't going to May, maybe the next one IS the one to throw Boris at? The joker card in an election where a majority looks extremely unlikely.

 

That said though, the next one night just be a good one to lose anyway if Brexit is going be as bad as some claim.

 

Labour might not have to win too many rural seats if they can engineer a proper comeback in Scotland - but that's a big IF.

 

There are a lot of marginals now, plus a few English working-class seats that Labour lost (or need to hold) - again, that's no given, and something Labour will need to work on to avoid problems.

 

On your last point, I'm one of those who expects the Brexit negotiations and the economy to go very badly (I might be wrong, though I see that Mark Carney was issuing more warnings today).

That's why I think, from a party political perspective, Labour should be hoping that the Tories manage to avoid another election for at least 6-12 months.....more time for the public to get disillusioned with where they're taking the nation and to become more prepared to switch to Labour.

 

It's all very unpredictable, though. I'd have thought that things turning out very badly would make the DUP more inclined to jump ship, whereas if things go better than I'm expecting then the DUP could have every reason to prop the Tories up for the duration - and the main risk to the government then might be internal Tory party divisions over Brexit. 

 

There's also the boundary changes to consider (to be implemented in 2018, I think). That is still likely to benefit the Tories, unless there's another election very soon. 

Edited 27 June 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Labour might not have to win too many rural seats if they can engineer a proper comeback in Scotland - but that's a big IF.

 

There are a lot of marginals now, plus a few English working-class seats that Labour lost (or need to hold) - again, that's no given, and something Labour will need to work on to avoid problems.

 

On your last point, I'm one of those who expects the Brexit negotiations and the economy to go very badly (I might be wrong, though I see that Mark Carney was issuing more warnings today).

That's why I think, from a party political perspective, Labour should be hoping that the Tories manage to avoid another election for at least 6-12 months.....more time for the public to get disillusioned with where they're taking the nation and to become more prepared to switch to Labour.

 

It's all very unpredictable, though. I'd have thought that things turning out very badly would make the DUP more inclined to jump ship, whereas if things go better than I'm expecting then the DUP could have every reason to prop the Tories up for the duration - and the main risk to the government then might be internal Tory party divisions over Brexit. 

 

There's also the boundary changes to consider (to be implemented in 2018, I think). That is still likely to benefit the Tories, unless there's another election very soon. 

Are the boundary changes set in stone?

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yup our Alf is sound as a pound 

 

You mean he's been devalued by 20% since Brexit?

[davieG]

Britain's hottest new baby name revealed - and it may surprise you

By DanielJBird  |  Posted: June 27, 2017

 

Experts are predicting that Corbyn could become the hottest name for newborns this year, after a surge of popularity for the Labour leader.

More than half of parents said they would consider Corbyn as a name for their baby, according to a survey by parenting forum ChannelMum.com.

The moniker has already rocketed by 50% in the name stakes between 2014 and 2015.

However, it is expected to see an even sharper increase following Jeremy Corbyn's surge in popularity since the start of the year.

 

His stellar rise with the rank and file has also brought the name Jeremy back into fashion with 15% of parents saying they would name a son after him.

By contrast only 4% would use Theresa for a newborn girl, although 38% plumped for May.

Despite the flamboyance of Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson only 5% of parents would put Boris on their baby names shortlist, along with Diane after Shadow Home Secretary Diane Abbott and Donald in honour of the US President Donald Trump.

Overall, election-led names are one of the fastest-growing baby trends with a quarter of mums and dads seeing more politically inspired monikers in their area, the research revealed.

 

So-called "unicorn names" like Rainbow, Twinkle and Sparkle have seen a 10% increase in popularity while Scandi names such as Magnus, Freya and Astrid are up 13%.

 

One of the unexpected trends is a 6% rise in the use of Muslim names by non-Muslim families with Zane, Zahra, Farah and Omar gaining ground.

 

The research revealed two thirds of parents are using surnames as first names with Cooper, Parker, Jones, Carter, Mason and Hunter popular for boys.

 

Traditional English names like Sarah, Emma, Penelope and Lucy are fashionable with 61% of parents for girls.

 

ChannelMum founder Siobhan Freegard said: "Names reflect both changing fashions and our changing society, such as the rise in use of many beautiful Muslim names.

"Corbyn is the stand-out naming trend this year, and we expect to see lots of babies conceived at Glastonbury or over the election period named after the Labour leader.

"But remember a week is a long time in politics and your child will have that name for a lifetime, so do consider the effects of naming a child after any politician."

 

Read more at http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/britain-s-hottest-new-baby-name-revealed-and-it-may-surprise-you/story-30412183-detail/story.html#k3QyRYy3IrQFMBPt.99

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

You mean he's been devalued by 20% since Brexit?

We brexiteers like to call that the global currency crash, nothing to do with brexit, it just didn't help.

[Guest]

Leicester's schools knocking about with the idea of finishing at 1pm on Fridays. This is because they can't afford the teaching staff. This is what the Tories are doing to our education system. It's simply not good enough talking about magic money trees. 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Are the boundary changes set in stone?

 

You've encouraged me to look it up: http://boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/statement-on-the-general-election-updated-9-june-2017/

 

This seems to be the latest update:

"9 June, 2017

In accordance with our duty under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 we are continuing with work on the 2018 Boundary Review. We have recently completed the second consultation of the 2018 Review and are currently analysing the 25,000 public comments that we have received on them. If we decide to revise our proposals, we will publish the revised constituencies and consult on them for eight weeks. This consultation is likely to occur towards the end of this year or early in 2018. The 1986 Act requires us to report our recommendations to Parliament in September 2018 and we are on track to do so".

 

So, presumably if there was an election before September 2018, it would be on the existing boundaries.

Edited 27 June 2017 by Alf Bentley

[Realist Guy In The Room]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm surprised at how many Labour supporters seems to think the next election is in the bag given they are still 60+ seats off forming a majority. Some of the ones they'll need for an overall majority are quite rural. 

 

It certainly isn't going to May, maybe the next one IS the one to throw Boris at? The joker card in an election where a majority looks extremely unlikely.

 

That said though, the next one night just be a good one to lose anyway if Brexit is going be as bad as some claim.

In 5 years Brexit will look like a disaster.  5 years is fook all to expect conditions to have adjusted.

 

15-20 years will see the true reflection.

 

Thats if we get to that point without bottling it.

[Buce]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

We brexiteers like to call that the global currency crash, nothing to do with brexit, it just didn't help.

 

A rose by any other name would smell as sweet..

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Yup our Alf is sound as a pound 

 

1 hour ago, Buce said:

 

You mean he's been devalued by 20% since Brexit?

 

There are many pound notes in this forum.....none of them devalued:

 

 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Davis would be my preferred choice, I think Rudd would be unable to stand now because of how close her seat is.

 

Imagine the Prime Minister having a "Portillo moment" 

 

I think the Conservatives might be planning to run with May at the helm for 2+ years (i.e. The end of Brexit). There's no real logic for someone to take over before then, they'd had a lot to lose and not much to gain... but by that point May's position could suddenly look a lot better.

 

The only way this changes is if she resigns... but she didn't resign under immense pressure recently, so this seems unlikely too.

 

Then thinking on the Labour side... they could do with Corbyn passing the baton on whilst remaining on the front bench. Use his popularity with the new core, but place someone front and centre that could attract votes from the centre (sad to say this, but this is easily done on looks and presentation). Maybe Clive Lewis, although he seems a bit hot headed - but again, this only happens if Corbyn buggers up (unlikely) or he does it voluntary.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

20 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

In 5 years Brexit will look like a disaster.  5 years is fook all to expect conditions to have adjusted.

 

15-20 years will see the true reflection.

 

Thats if we get to that point without bottling it.

Not if we're under a 4 year transitional deal.

[Sharpe's Fox]

5 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

There are many pound notes in this forum....

 

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

We brexiteers like to call that the global currency crash, nothing to do with brexit, it just didn't help.

 

 

 

Known in other countries as the global appreciation of the Euro, US Dollar, Swedish Krona, Swiss Franc, Polish Zloty, Israeli Shekel, Australian Dag, Peruvian Llama's Bollock & Mongolian Yak's Anus against the Brexit Pound.

[Izzy]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

I'm surprised at how many Labour supporters seems to think the next election is in the bag given they are still 60+ seats off forming a majority. Some of the ones they'll need for an overall majority are quite rural. 

 

It certainly isn't going to May, maybe the next one IS the one to throw Boris at? The joker card in an election where a majority looks extremely unlikely.

 

That said though, the next one night just be a good one to lose anyway if Brexit is going be as bad as some claim.

I know he's hated by many and seen as a bumbling buffoon, but I wouldn't be surprised to see him get the top job one day.

 

I appreciate he's an acquired taste and not everybody'd cup of tea, but beneath the clumsy exterior is an extremely intelligent and bright man.

 

He was definitely the main man at Oxford and very highly thought of there. 

 

I quite like him actually and would like to see him as Tory leader. Politics is far too serious and at least Boris would bring a bit of humour to proceedings... 

[Strokes]

10 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

 

Known in other countries as the global appreciation of the Euro, US Dollar, Swedish Krona, Swiss Franc, Polish Zloty, Israeli Shekel, Australian Dag, Peruvian Llama's Bollock & Mongolian Yak's Anus against the Brexit Pound.

The pound didn't go down, they all went up