Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

57 minutes ago, MattP said:

No, because if Blair was leading Labour now they would be committed to overturning the referendum result. What the Tories need to do is quite simple, find a front bench that can expose the insanity of the economics Labour are proposing, if they can't do that when even the shadow chancellor is deciding to help by exposing it himself then they don't deserve to be in government anyway.

 

It's 2017 and instead of flying cars we are still having to explain why socialism doesn't work and never has, that can only be put down to complacency.

Whether or not socialism works maybe we'll get to find out again but tory politics doesn't work.

 

The financial crisis was a direct result of deregulation and inequality and the fact that 10 years later people are actually worse off financially shows that neo-liberalism has also failed. It worked for a good while but has ultimately led to its own downfall. Raising living standards for 1 or 2 generations has led to all that follow being screwed. 

 

This is why i say the tories need to find a tory alternative. If you think socialism isn't the answer to the failure of neoliberalism, fine. But then find a solution rather than burying your head in the sand and claiming that neo liberalism itself is the answer to problems caused by neo liberalism.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

So you would rather see a run on the pound the cost of borrowing rising and around 40% of people losing their jobs instantly. Which part of that is working? or worth the risk into an unknown that even they don't know/can be confident about? They know they are ****ing insane but they don't care, Corbyn and McDonnell hate Britain and they hate everyone in it, they are only interested in themselves. I cant believe people fall for it, look at the man/men, he has a massive ego he stands on the stage lording it like some despot dictator in some 3rd world South American country. His plebs are singing his name and his ego grows.

 

There certainly wont be any public sector left once Corbyn has finished. The only ones with lined pockets will be Corbyn and his cronies in the Unions despicable ***** like McCluskey, the rest of us wild be fighting over a food. Like every other failed socialist experiment it will take us back to the dark ages before the industrial revolution. It is absolute terrifying seeing it happen and the brainwashing, I just hope people wake up before its too late.

 

The majority of people now have jobs and can live a reasonable life (with TVs and iPhones etc), there are problems that need to be addressed yes but with Corbyn we really are taking everything we have got and gambling it on black, the likelihood it will make anything better is very slim.

 

You say Corbyn offers hope based on what?

 

Knowing he will tax business and wealth creators so they leave the country?

Knowing he will renationalise energy, gas, water, rail at huge cost with no funding?

Knowing he will increase borrowing 3 fold?

Knowing there will be a run on the pound but think its a joke?

Knowing our pensions will be trashed by him paying what he likes for companies he wants to nationalise?

 

I cant see much hope in that? So Corbyn want s to pay for some stuff we cant afford with money we don't have, based on a fallacy of raising money from people he cant stand! how will that one work?

Edited 29 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Buce]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

 

 

A lot can happen in five years as well and McDonnell's comments about Labour preparing for it's own economic problems could really come back to haunt him.

 

I think that what McDonnell was saying has been wilfully misinterpreted by the Tory press (surprise, surprise). He is preparing to react to the inevitable Establishment attempts to sabotage a Corbyn govt (hence the references to Sir Humphreys) in the same way that it was recently alleged they planned to do before in the sixties/seventies (there was even talk of the military taking control). 

 

It makes perfect sense to do so.

 

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

If you believe that then you've lost the plot. 

 

You're an intelligent guy, Toddy - how have you not worked out that he's a troll?

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

So you would rather see a run on the pound the cost of borrowing rising and around 40% of people losing their jobs instantly. Which part of that is working? or worth the risk into an unknown that even they don't know/can be confident about? They know they are ****ing insane but they don't care, Corbyn and McDonnell hate Britain and they hate everyone in it, they are only interested in themselves. I cant believe people fall for it, look at the man/men, he has a massive ego he stands on the stage lording it like some despot dictator in some 3rd world South American country. His plebs are singing his name and his ego grows.

 

There certainly wont be any public sector left once Corbyn has finished. The only ones with lined pockets will be Corbyn and his cronies in the Unions despicable ***** like McCluskey, the rest of us wild be fighting over a food. Like every other failed socialist experiment it will take us back to the dark ages before the industrial revolution. It is absolute terrifying seeing it happen and the brainwashing, I just hope people wake up before its too late.

 

The majority of people now have jobs and can live a reasonable life (with TVs and iPhones etc), there are problems that need to be addressed yes but with Corbyn we really are taking everything we have got and gambling it on black, the likelihood it will make anything better is very slim.

And if you believe that it is precisely why you should be looking for a tory alternative to stop it.

I'm trying to get you guys to start thinking constructively but all you can do is deny there's an alternative and snipe about labour.

[Lionator]

I feel like this thread is just going around in circles now. Left leaning people think Corbyn is a risk worth taking given the current situation, right leaning people think a Corbyn government is too much of a risk in 2017. Pretty simple.

 

I tried watching Question Time last night but it was awful from all sides, you know it's bad when Peter Hitchens is about the only sane, composed person on the panel.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

I think that what McDonnell was saying has been wilfully misinterpreted by the Tory press (surprise, surprise). He is preparing to react to the inevitable Establishment attempts to sabotage a Corbyn govt (hence the references to Sir Humphreys) in the same way that it was recently alleged they planned to do before in the sixties/seventies (there was even talk of the military taking control). 

 

It makes perfect sense to do 

What has the establishment got to do with a run on the pound? 

 

Investors won't be put off by people with a vendetta, they'll be put off by government who make an economy less attractive. This is just more of the baseless rhetoric of us v the establishment victimhood they are shouting to appeal to the core.

 

And as I said, how can you plan for it anyway? Capital controls and interest rate rises aren't an option.

 

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

And if you believe that it is precisely why you should be looking for a tory alternative to stop it.

I'm trying to get you guys to start thinking constructively but all you can do is deny there's an alternative and snipe about labour.

I'll point out again, we won more votes than you at the last election. 

 

Worry about what you need to do to win votes because if you couldn't get close a majority against that Tory campaign it might be Labour that needs change. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I feel like this thread is just going around in circles now. Left leaning people think Corbyn is a risk worth taking given the current situation, right leaning people think a Corbyn government is too much of a risk in 2017. Pretty simple.

 

I tried watching Question Time last night but it was awful from all sides, you know it's bad when Peter Hitchens is about the only sane, composed person on the panel.

But what i don't get is that neither side says that everything is hunky dory but, whilst the left offers an alternative, the right can't get themselves together to even try. It's like they want to win an election based on their opponents being bad rather than them having anything to offer themselves. The best they can hope for is that voters will see two bad optiins and they get marginally more votes (as just happened). If they continue to offer no change or hope and labour pick up trust then they're in trouble. Yet the right continues to bury its head in the sand and fails to seek an alternative model that it can get behind. 

Edited 29 September 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

I feel like this thread is just going around in circles now. Left leaning people think Corbyn is a risk worth taking given the current situation, right leaning people think a Corbyn government is too much of a risk in 2017. Pretty simple.

 

I tried watching Question Time last night but it was awful from all sides, you know it's bad when Peter Hitchens is about the only sane, composed person on the panel.

Hitchens is superb, his speeches at the Oxford Union are always worth a watch. 

 

Although for the first time yesterday he appeared to have his facts wrong when talking about trade freedoms with the Norwegian model.

[leicsmac]

14 hours ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Ok read it. That's some deep thoughts you've got. I'm not going to say you're wrong as it's your opinion and I am by a million miles away an expert on economics.

 

My take on it is rather more simple compared to yours:

 

Lots of jobs now compared to both the 90's, early 2000's and more recently 2008-12. Record employment currently. Interest rates still low (just), stock market very high, government net borrowing is still going down (slowly, but still down), private sector pensions showing strong growth, house prices slightly Plateauing at last, council tax levelled out and so on. Overall economically we're doing pretty good considering the rest of the EU is struggling (Germany aside).

 

Yes, numerous things economically aren't right or perfect and redistribution of wealth can be achieved better with different agendas, but my point from the other day is if "this" opposition party are having to openly talk about a "run on the pound", you can bet they know their plans are revolutionary, you can forget all the points above and any wealth creation as it WILL leave.

 

In my simpleton world, if they get in power we'd go fast down the f@@king plug hole....

 

Thanks for taking the time to read it. Likewise, I'm not going to say you're wrong with your opinion here as I believe it to be at least possible, and someone has to think about the short term economic future.

 

My issue is that too many people are looking short-term and not enough are looking long-term about what world economics should- no, needs to develop into in order to guarantee the future.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

What has the establishment got to do with a run on the pound? 

 

Investors won't be put off by people with a vendetta, they'll be put off by government who make an economy less attractive. This is just more of the baseless rhetoric of us v the establishment victimhood they are shouting to appeal to the core.

 

And as I said, how can you plan for it anyway? Capital controls and interest rate rises aren't an option.

 

I'll point out again, we won more votes than you at the last election. 

 

Worry about what you need to do to win votes because if you couldn't get close a majority against that Tory campaign it might be Labour that needs change. 

The labour vote went up 10% and you lost your majority. Momentum is against you (both literally and figuratively).

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The labour vote went up 10% and you lost your majority. Momentum is against you (both literally and figuratively).

You lost. The worst Tory campaign ever and you lost.

 

Now you've got to somehow pretend these fantasy economics are still possible for five years and next time you'll actually be questioned properly about it.

 

Corbyn might not even be alive then and the cult could fall with him. 

[Fox Ulike]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

And if you believe that it is precisely why you should be looking for a tory alternative to stop it.

I'm trying to get you guys to start thinking constructively but all you can do is deny there's an alternative and snipe about labour.

 

I think that the problems with Tories is that they are going to be hamstrung by Brexit for the next five years at least (if they stay in power).

 

It seems bizarre that Labour would choose to embark on a lengthy and expensive renationalisation programme, at the same time as we’re leaving the EU, but that is what they have committed to doing. Have they even costed any of this out?

[Guest Kopfkino]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

How do you even plan for a run on the pound? There are only two ways you can really do it and both look impossible given what they have committed to, you can either introduce more capital controls (extremely unlikely in an first World country and virtually impossible inside the single market which the position is now to stay in) or you can raise interest rates (controlled by the BoE not the government) which would be absolutely absurd given they have spent the last few years talking about a squeeze on people's incomes.

 

 

We'd probably end up pegged against the Euro. The only real way to do it (that wouldn't destroy the economy even more than is already intended) would be to sell foreign currency reserves and buy pounds. No idea how McDonnell plans to build up those reserves outside of government. 

 

I have neither the time nor the desire to contribute to this thread much anymore. But I am astounded that 43% of people are willing to vote away some of their freedoms and blindly follow two men who are self-confessed, unapologetic followers of a scrounging, angry old man whose every word has been proved to be wrong. Daniel Hannan summed it up well yesterday: "How apt, a hundred years after his followers seized power, that Marx should have become the thing he most loathed: the founder of a false religion. And how disturbing that a group of his cultists, led by another  bearded prophet, should have captured a major British party". 

 

I think Dirkster mentioned wanting a Labour Party in the mould of John Smith with a genuine interest in the working classes. I wouldn't necessarily agree with its position(though I could actually support some of it) but it would at least enhance national politics, add maturity to the debate, and it winning would not be ruinous. I was slightly amused seeing that 13% of 'sensible' Germany, the country everybody is supposed to be looking to, had gone mad and voted for mindless extremists. Then this morning I see 43% of the UK wants to vote for mindless extremists.

 

The solution is simple. If the Marxists can infiltrate the Labour Party to the extent it is now only Labour in name, it must be possible to infiltrate the Conservatives with some competence. 

[Fox Ulike]

7 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

We'd probably end up pegged against the Euro. The only real way to do it (that wouldn't destroy the economy even more than is already intended) would be to sell foreign currency reserves and buy pounds. No idea how McDonnell plans to build up those reserves outside of government. 

 

I have neither the time nor the desire to contribute to this thread much anymore. But I am astounded that 43% of people are willing to vote away some of their freedoms and blindly follow two men who are self-confessed, unapologetic followers of a scrounging, angry old man whose every word has been proved to be wrong. Daniel Hannan summed it up well yesterday: "How apt, a hundred years after his followers seized power, that Marx should have become the thing he most loathed: the founder of a false religion. And how disturbing that a group of his cultists, led by another  bearded prophet, should have captured a major British party". 

 

I think Dirkster mentioned wanting a Labour Party in the mould of John Smith with a genuine interest in the working classes. I wouldn't necessarily agree with its position(though I could actually support some of it) but it would at least enhance national politics, add maturity to the debate, and it winning would not be ruinous. I was slightly amused seeing that 13% of 'sensible' Germany, the country everybody is supposed to be looking to, had gone mad and voted for mindless extremists. Then this morning I see 43% of the UK wants to vote for mindless extremists.

 

The solution is simple. If the Marxists can infiltrate the Labour Party to the extent it is now only Labour in name, it must be possible to infiltrate the Conservatives with some competence. 

I'm not sure that renationalising the Post Office really counts as rampant Marxism.

 

These are worrying times admittedly, but  Hannon's comments aren't helpful; rather just another nobody have to shout something even more shocking than what appears in the mainstream media to get himself some attention.

 

It seems it's going to be impossible to have a reasoned debate about Labour's policies.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

I'm not sure that renationalising the Post Office really counts as rampant Marxism.

 

These are worrying times admittedly, but  Hannon's comments aren't helpful; rather just another nobody have to shout something even more shocking than what appears in the mainstream media to get himself some attention.

 

It seems it's going to be impossible to have a reasoned debate about Labour's policies.

To be fair, if the Labour party can't manage a reasoned debate on it's policies, then expecting us to is probably a little ambitious

[Lionator]

21 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But what i don't get is that neither side says that everything is hunky dory but, whilst the left offers an alternative, the right can't get themselves together to even try. It's like they want to win an election based on their opponents being bad rather than them having anything to offer themselves. The best they can hope for is that voters will see two bad optiins and they get marginally more votes (as just happened). If they continue to offer no change or hope and labour pick up trust then they're in trouble. Yet the right continues to bury its head in the sand and fails to seek an alternative model that it can get behind. 

The current Tory lot are a complete shambles, they miss Cameron's statesmanship badly, almost as if he was the glue holding their party together for ten years. Because of the current social crisis and my personal situation then Labour appeals to me more at the moment, however I'm not sure I fully trust them. I've been reading recently about Blair's social impact as I was too young to pay any attention and it actually appeared to be very succesful, it's just a shame for the country that he completely wrecked his legacy with Iraq. I don't think Labour has to be that radical to be able to change things greatly.

[Fox Ulike]

14 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

To be fair, if the Labour party can't manage a reasoned debate on it's policies, then expecting us to is probably a little ambitious

 

OK but how do I do that?

 

Yes, Labour promote their own policies and will tell me they're great - but they’re not going to point out the flaws in them too, are they?!

 

Would the Post Office be more cost-effective in public ownership? Do you know? Labour think it’s a good idea, but I don’t know.

 

The mainstream political landscape is so skewed towards the extremes that it’s impossible to  go online or find anybody who can intelligently and objectively explain basic issues such as this.

 

This is what’s pushing a lot of people towards Labour, because screaming “It’s Marxism” or “It’s insanity” just makes the opposition to Labour appear unhinged and uninformed.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

And if you believe that it is precisely why you should be looking for a tory alternative to stop it.

I'm trying to get you guys to start thinking constructively but all you can do is deny there's an alternative and snipe about labour.

There is an alternative its called the centre ground. Unfortunately there is no party there at present. The Lib Dems are it but for some reason struggle to gain a decent percentage of the vote.

 

The problem with Labour is that is all baseless lies to win votes to put very dangerous men into power, most people it seems despite claiming they are intelligent because they are left leaning as apparently all lefties are intelligent actually are not intelligent at all as they can not see through the lies and deceit and power grabiing from Corbyn and McDonnell, they are not interested in anything other than themselves. At least the Tories are looking after someone, Corbyn is looking after himself and his ego, and his union pals.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

OK but how do I do that?

 

Yes, Labour promote their own policies and will tell me they're great - but they’re not going to point out the flaws in them too, are they?!

 

Would the Post Office be more cost-effective in public ownership? Do you know? Labour think it’s a good idea, but I don’t know.

 

The mainstream political landscape is so skewed towards the extremes that it’s impossible to  go online or find anybody who can intelligently and objectively explain basic issues such as this.

 

This is what’s pushing a lot of people towards Labour, because screaming “It’s Marxism” or “It’s insanity” just makes the opposition to Labour appear unhinged and uninformed.

No it would not be more cost effective. Currently it is run to make a profit. Under Labour it would be run at the whim of the Unions, when a pay rise is demanded there would be strikes, if an employee was sacked there would be strikes, if they thought conditions were unfair there would be strikes. Post would never be delivered and the costs of keeping up with constant demands for pay rises would cost billions.

 

Its not unhinged and uninformed, Corbyn and McDonnell have both admitted that they are socialists and that they believe the teaching of Marx. This is their own admission, I think its those leaning to Labour that seem to be misinformed!!

 

https://www.politicshome.com/news/uk/political-parties/labour-party/jeremy-corbyn/news/85762/jeremy-corbyn-backs-john-mcdonnell

 

Edited 29 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

There is an alternative its called the centre ground. Unfortunately there is no party there at present. The Lib Dems are it but for some reason struggle to gain a decent percentage of the vote.

 

The problem with Labour is that is all baseless lies to win votes to put very dangerous men into power, most people it seems despite claiming they are intelligent because they are left leaning as apparently all lefties are intelligent actually are not intelligent at all as they can not see through the lies and deceit and power grabiing from Corbyn and McDonnell, they are not interested in anything other than themselves. At least the Tories are looking after someone, Corbyn is looking after himself and his ego, and his union pals.

Your first paragraph reveals you can actually think laterally.

 

The second is just the usual anti labour bile you always preach.

 

If you could stick with the reasoned debate more people would take you seriously (as i myself have been told in the past).

[Fox Ulike]

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

No it would not be more cost effective. Currently it is run to make a profit. Under Labour it would be run at the whim of the Unions, when a pay rise is demanded there would be strikes, if an employee was sacked there would be strikes, if they thought conditions were unfair there would be strikes. Post would never be delivered and the costs of keeping up with constant demands for pay rises would cost billions.

But why couldn't the Government run it to make a profit too?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

But why couldn't the Government run it to make a profit too?

Why do they need to and why would they if they are trying to keep their vote winners the union barrons happy?

 

Its like asking why is the NHS and other public sector organisations currently so wasteful? because they are not accountable to anyone.

Edited 29 September 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

But why couldn't the Government run it to make a profit too?

Or not make a profit and cost less at the point of use. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Your first paragraph reveals you can actually think laterally.

 

The second is just the usual anti labour bile you always preach.

 

If you could stick with the reasoned debate more people would take you seriously (as i myself have been told in the past).

Which part of Labour policy is based on actually truthful figures that are likely to happen? its all fantasy and they know it. Its not bile its just the truth, they can not sustain their economics. Its complete and utter dream world policies.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Or not make a profit and cost less at the point of use. 

Or cost more, because the unions have everyone over a barrel and competition is banned!