Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[The Doctor]

18 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If you look at this graph;

 

https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/personalandhouseholdfinances/incomeandwealth/bulletins/householddisposableincomeandinequality/financialyearending2016

There has been a massive increase in living standards since the early 80s.

 

As for equality, who cares? As long as everyone is better off why does it matter if someone is even better off than you. Labours policies in the 70s drove talent out of the country and suppressed enterprise, keeping everyone equally poor isn't an improvement.

And as I said, increase in living standards doesn't really say much over such a long time period with the tech revolution happening entirely in that.

 

Except of course excessive wealth inequality is generally regarded to impair growth:https://www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains-11; so, who cares? People who can see beyond the end of their nose.

Edited 2 October 2017 by The Doctor

[Webbo]

10 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

And as I said, increase in living standards doesn't really say much over such a long time period with the tech revolution happening entirely in that.

 

Except of course excessive wealth inequality is generally regarded to impair growth: www.economist.com/blogs/economist-explains/2015/06/economist-explains-11; so, who cares? People who can see beyond the end of their nose.

But if you look at the graph, GDP per person has doubled. 

 

The tech revolution wouldn't have happened, at least not in this country, if we'd have continued with the inefficient , union dominated, nationalised industries. Their restrictive practices wouldn't have allowed it and the fact that they were all loss making meant there was no money for investment.

[The Doctor]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But if you look at the graph, GDP per person has doubled. 

 

The tech revolution wouldn't have happened, at least not in this country, if we'd have continued with the inefficient , union dominated, nationalised industries. Their restrictive practices wouldn't have allowed it and the fact that they were all loss making meant their was no money for investment.

That is entirely irrelevant - growth in living standards is an inevitability of time, it doesn't say much as to whether it would have been better (it would have) without the nonsense of trickle down economics.

 

except Britains biggest contribution to the tech revolution was Tim Berners-Lee helping to develop the Internet as we know it - which was done at CERN, a European institution, not by the private sector.

[Webbo]

4 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That is entirely irrelevant - growth in living standards is an inevitability of time, it doesn't say much as to whether it would have been better (it would have) without the nonsense of trickle down economics.

 

except Britains biggest contribution to the tech revolution was Tim Berners-Lee helping to develop the Internet as we know it - which was done at CERN, a European institution, not by the private sector.

Tim Berners Lee was a freelance contractor, so technically self employed, it wasn't the only advance though and again looking at the graph, the huge increases in living standards started before the internet became commonplace. 

The telecoms industry has come on leaps and bounds. I can remember when you had to wait 6 weeks before you could have a telephone installed and then you had to rent the handset from BT, or the post office as it was then. As soon as it was privatised it could be installed the same week and with less employees.

 

Anyway if you look at this graph;

 

Trickle down economics doesn't seem so bad compared with what came before.

 

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?chart=&year=1950_2010&title=UK_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History&meta=uk_gdp_history

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

That is entirely irrelevant - growth in living standards is an inevitability of time, it doesn't say much as to whether it would have been better (it would have) without the nonsense of trickle down economics.

 

except Britains biggest contribution to the tech revolution was Tim Berners-Lee helping to develop the Internet as we know it - which was done at CERN, a European institution, not by the private sector.

KingGTF was right - the growth in quality of life post-war has been by far and away the greatest in history but we've somehow become complacent and I don't get it!

 

There are plenty of countries where the growth in living standards has not been anywhere near that of the capitalist West! Hundreds of state controlled and state intervening regimes over several decades all have one thing in common - growth was either not as great as in the Capitalist West or else managed it on the back of brutal dictators and the blood of its own people.

 

The internet may have been originally a public sector invention, but that is not what sold it to the masses! That is not what created the tens of millions of jobs that have been created both indirectly and directly as a result of the internet - that has come from competition and the allowing of the majority of businesses to fail but some of them to make profit making the risk worth taking (which no state can afford to do as it cannot predict what will take off and won't) and the lack of regulation on the start up of internet business.

 

Please explain how the public sector would've expected to create all the tens of millions of jobs and the endless wealth it created and how it would've raised the money to try all these businesses.

 

Please explain to me how more Socialist and state controlled countries like India, Russia or South America have not experienced anywhere near this same boom.

 

Please explain why the internet has been a far bigger success in the allowed freedom and lack of intervention in the Capitalist West.

 

Putting the Economic success of the internet down to the public sector because some guy invented it in the public sector is frankly bizarre.

 

The tech revolution has benefited the Capitalist West (including the Capitalist countries like Australia, New Zealand, Japan, South Korea and Singapore in that) far more than it countries with state control and regulation because software and the internet are very free and unregulated markets because they're such quickly evolving and rapidly innovating industries it would be impossible for states to predict what is happening in then to intervene.

 

In fact, Japan post-WWII is the absolute model of how the free-market has allowed it's incredible tech industry and the numerous innovations they've given the world to lead its country's Economic boom and pull it up from the boot strings after the war - in comparison to the numerous South East Asian countries around it that fell to the tyranny of government meddling and Socialist ideas.

 

Growth of GDP is an inevitibly over time if you give the people and businesses freedom and liberty to make a living and take risks, yes. Not if you take most of a supermarket's earnings from them and expect them to still pay the farmers, supplier and employees and it still be a worthwhile venture it isn't.

Edited 2 October 2017 by Sampson

[The Doctor]

10 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Tim Berners Lee was a freelance contractor, so technically self employed, it wasn't the only advance though and again looking at the graph, the huge increases in living standards started before the internet became commonplace. 

The telecoms industry has come on leaps and bounds. I can remember when you had to wait 6 weeks before you could have a telephone installed and then you had to rent the handset from BT, or the post office as it was then. As soon as it was privatised it could be installed the same week and with less employees.

 

Anyway if you look at this graph;

 

Trickle down economics doesn't seem so bad compared with what came before.

 

https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?chart=&year=1950_2010&title=UK_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History&meta=uk_gdp_history

Actually when Berners-Lee was working on developing hypertext with internet nodes he was a fellow with CERN, not self-employed. Didn't say it was the only advance, I said it was Britains biggest contribution. The other major development was the development of the CPU and silicon chips, done in America under LBJ and the start of the Nixon administration. 

 

Trickle-down economics doesn't work - it's a complete misnomer, wealth in it doesn't trickle-down, it gets sucked up: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/it-s-time-to-demolish-the-myth-of-trickle-down-economics/, and the IMF also concluded that a growth in the income share of the top leads to a decreased rate of growth, 

(https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf). That combines to mean that trickle-down economics just inhibits growth.

 

3 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Jesus! KingGTF was right - the growth in quality of life post-war has been by far and away the greatest in history but we've somehow become complacent and I don't get it!

 

Growth of GDP is an inevitibly over time if you give the people freedom and liberty, yes. Not if you take most of a supermarket's earnings from them and expect them to still pay the farmers, supplier and employees and it still be a worthwhile venture it isn't.

Tell that to the experts who have come to the conclusion that high wealth inequality impairs growth, and that as a result growth would have been quicker with a different system that didn't promote accumulation of any wealth generated at the top. It's not about whether growth in quality of life has been good, it's whether it's been good in spite of the system it's occurred in and whether it could have been better, and the answer is yes, it could have been.

 

Who is talking about taking most of a supermarkets earnings? I've not mentioned increasing taxes at all, I've talked about measures to ensure proper wages are paid and the state doesn't have to subsidise businesses. You're reading what you want to and ignoring what's actually said.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Actually when Berners-Lee was working on developing hypertext with internet nodes he was a fellow with CERN, not self-employed. Didn't say it was the only advance, I said it was Britains biggest contribution. The other major development was the development of the CPU and silicon chips, done in America under LBJ and the start of the Nixon administration. 

 

Trickle-down economics doesn't work - it's a complete misnomer, wealth in it doesn't trickle-down, it gets sucked up: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/it-s-time-to-demolish-the-myth-of-trickle-down-economics/, and the IMF also concluded that a growth in the income share of the top leads to a decreased rate of growth, 

(https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf). That combines to mean that trickle-down economics just inhibits growth.

 

Tell that to the experts who have come to the conclusion that high wealth inequality impairs growth, and that as a result growth would have been quicker with a different system that didn't promote accumulation of any wealth generated at the top. It's not about whether growth in quality of life has been good, it's whether it's been good in spite of the system it's occurred in and whether it could have been better, and the answer is yes, it could have been.

 

Who is talking about taking most of a supermarkets earnings? I've not mentioned increasing taxes at all, I've talked about measures to ensure proper wages are paid and the state doesn't have to subsidise businesses. You're reading what you want to and ignoring what's actually said.

Quote

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and not the World Economic Forum.

If it doesn't work, how do you explain the fact that growth has rocketted?

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

Actually when Berners-Lee was working on developing hypertext with internet nodes he was a fellow with CERN, not self-employed. Didn't say it was the only advance, I said it was Britains biggest contribution. The other major development was the development of the CPU and silicon chips, done in America under LBJ and the start of the Nixon administration. 

 

Trickle-down economics doesn't work - it's a complete misnomer, wealth in it doesn't trickle-down, it gets sucked up: https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/07/it-s-time-to-demolish-the-myth-of-trickle-down-economics/, and the IMF also concluded that a growth in the income share of the top leads to a decreased rate of growth, 

(https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2015/sdn1513.pdf). That combines to mean that trickle-down economics just inhibits growth.

 

Tell that to the experts who have come to the conclusion that high wealth inequality impairs growth, and that as a result growth would have been quicker with a different system that didn't promote accumulation of any wealth generated at the top. It's not about whether growth in quality of life has been good, it's whether it's been good in spite of the system it's occurred in and whether it could have been better, and the answer is yes, it could have been.

 

Who is talking about taking most of a supermarkets earnings? I've not mentioned increasing taxes at all, I've talked about measures to ensure proper wages are paid and the state doesn't have to subsidise businesses. You're reading what you want to and ignoring what's actually said.

So the models that failed previously would have worked better and this model only works in spite of itself. Sure

[The Doctor]

7 minutes ago, Webbo said:

If it doesn't work, how do you explain the fact that growth has rocketted?

You don't seem to get it, growth is slower than it could have been with a model that didn't exacerbate wealth inequality. It doesn't mean growth doesn't happen, it means it doesn't happen as rapidly as it could have. 

[Webbo]

Just now, The Doctor said:

You don't seem to get it, growth is slower than it could have been with a model that didn't exacerbate wealth inequality. It doesn't mean growth doesn't happen, it means it doesn't happen as rapidly as it could have. 

Not according to the graph.

[Guest]

.

Edited 2 October 2017 by Guest

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

Prices have more than doubled since 1977. Your graph appears to indicate spare cash having doubled.

That's a good thing.

[Guest Kopfkino]

On 01/10/2017 at 14:21, leicsmac said:

That is a very interesting analogy, and I can see where you're coming from. You might posit that that medicine is a study of the human body at a fundamental level, while economics is a study of a facet - just one facet, however - of human behaviour and social interaction. Both have effects that, I believe, while well understood and known about, involve a heavy element of luck - and we don't really know how much of a factor that is because as you say it is very difficult to source long-term reliable empirical data. There do seem to be some similarities.

 

I had this discussion with Sampson earlier in the thread about this, and I don't remember if I'd discussed it before with you, so if you'd humour me because you're very knowledgable on the topic - what do you make of the assertion that economics doesn't look long-term enough because it covers human behaviour and that is naturally geared to short-term (within a lifetime) results? Do you think that lassiez-faire is the way to go for humanity in perpetuity? I think we discussed how free-market economics was a microcosm for evolutionary principle (and I think we ended up disagreeing on how closely they mirrored) but I'm not sure we covered this stuff.

 

Apologies I didn't get back to this sooner, have been rather busy.

 

Of course economics doesn't look long-term enough and that ultimately makes sense for what economics is. In simple terms, as most people know, economics is about the (efficient) allocation of scarce resources and within that we assume rationality whereby people have preferences and act to maximise those preferences, thus maximising their utility. Naturally, for an individual, that is limited to a lifetime. There's elements of that you can argue; such as your utility being determined by maximising that of your children (not really something economics would look at and family economics is relatively recent thought) but even within that you would look to maximise your child's current utility. I suspect you understand what I'm saying and this is stripping it back to bare bones of the fundamentals of microeconomics. Similarly, the whole point of debt/saving is to smooth consumption over a lifetime (Friedman and some italian bloke(?) won Nobel prizes for similar theories on this). People will have different incomes in different time periods but they plan consumption based on life-time income and we assume they want the same level of consumption in each. It's talking lifetime and it's talking about the individual, nothing further than that. There is also the fact that economics doesn't encapsulate timeframes. Time in economics is the short-run and the long-run. The short-run being a period of time where at least one factor of input is fixed(essentially capacity is fixed), the long-run being when all are variable(essentially capacity is increased). Or economists talk about periods of time, most likely present and future; or young, middle-aged, and old. 

 

Now, as I sort of eluded too earlier, economics don't really grasp family or relationships. The idea of smoothing consumption over time ignores the idea of inheritance. And we know this matters to people because inheritance tax is a divisive issue. With the theories of consumption I mentioned earlier, you would expect the individual to consume all of their life-time income (maybe you can argue this is factored into an individual's consumption). This doesn't happen and everyone wants to leave their children something to help. And this is where, as I said to toddy, the academic economics or the theoretical framework of economics is quite different from that we experience at the intersection of politics, philosophy, psychology etc, basically the point where it becomes part of the real world. But even then, it's not a given that it will look beyond a lifetime. In politics, political actors are seeking to gain and maintain a position in office. To do that, it's not much use doing anything outside of a near term time-frame. In both politics and economics, we assume self-interest because it makes sense. Surely evolution tells us that. Of course, modern reality allows us to look beyond lifetimes because we have awareness of morality, or more accurately, we have created a moral framework which pushes us to be less selfish. The reason I say 'modern' is because its a recent phenomenon for people to be able to think more about the future. Well I believe it is because it's very easy to think beyond an individual's lifetime when you don't have to worry about surviving the present (if you think about, the short-termism of thinking about survival has been overtaken by a host of other short-termism). Of course the philosophy of morality has been around since before christ and has been close to the majority through religion. But if you think about religion, a lot of it is about what happens to you, the individual, when you die. In essence, my waffle is saying that it's a correct assertion about economics but if its a criticism it is unfair. You have to apply a moral framework to look further in my opinion because even when you begin doing more applied economics, models are still quite abstract and require human interaction to give it the morality it needs to go beyond a lifetime. Also, we're just wired to think about the tangible present rather than the distant future, however much we try to push against that.

 

Actually before, I move on, just picking up on that and using something that probably interests you because it's climate change related. I was reading an article, probably last week, which questioned the idea that we should be trying to correct climate change from an economics point of view. I might have it a little wrong, certainly the figures, as I can't actually remember where to find the article. The exacts don't quite matter that much. Basically the argument was, should we actually care about limiting the damage of climate change because in 2100, it is anticipated (probably world average) GDP per capita is forecast to be 9x higher than it is today and the cost of climate change would be £2000 to each person. The question that was then posed, should we potentially put a cost upon ourselves today to save people in the future £2000 when they will be 9x richer than us anyway. Any economist reading that with solely an economists hat on would say no and actually framing it like that would most likely turn more people against doing our bit (assuming economic forecasts are correct, highly unlikely you'd say). But once you introduce the moral framework and the fact it's not just the economic loss then opinions are obviously different. If I find the article, I will link it. 

 

I think I'm understanding your second question, but if not do alert me because for some reason it took a couple of reads to wrap my head around what you actually said. The short answer would be to say yes. But I have no idea of what the future might hold for humanity in the same way the world looks completely different to the time when Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle thought about the 'State'. I could not even begin to predict what form society might take in x years because it is a completely unprecedented journey. That being said, unless peace/security is threatened, I don't see a time where the state will be need to be as imposing as we have witnessed in the last 100 years. It, I believe, will certainly have a role in ensuring transfers from robots to people takes place but the people will still have the freedom, it will the robots that are suppressed in that sense but humanity itself should be freer. Humanity will be allowed to be more free from the state because, with 'laissez-faire' and globalisation, I see that we will be a more homogenous world and homogeneity removes a lot of social issues which require the state currently (as I've spoken about Scandinavian countries before). Ultimately, I don't really see a situation where it is not better for people to be free (away from problems with peace/security/AI) and I can only see humanity wishing to embrace freedoms ( a turning against the state in the same way as the move away from religion) further so I don't see how economic transactions will be any different. The problem I find with answering that question is society's framework is set for some serious change (you can see that in the last 200 years) that it's quite impossible to contemplate perpetuity in my opinion. Climate change could well be a massive shock to the system that takes freedoms away from us and changes the world that much things would be unimaginable. Forced co-operation outside of a market system may well occur.  I do actually think there is and will be an even bigger problem of wealth concentration but I anticipate robots will be part of the solution to that.  Maybe, in a more homogenous world, there would be a global effort to recalibrate things and distribute more. 

 

I think the conclusion is, the future is a difficult thing to ponder

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

@MattP Far too kind. I'm not really one to talk about politics so much. Short conversations and in passing yes but not in depth. In truth, I have not the interest in partisan politics(people involved in parties are often nutjobs) and you often find irl that people do not actually want to listen to what is said as you showed with the JRM transcript. I only ever used this place to keep up with LCFC news but GC was always interesting to read and I particularly enjoyed Alf's politics contributions. Here, you don't have to fight to be heard because if someone doesn't want to listen then they don't read it or respond. Sometimes there is some great debates. It's also great to discuss these things with some 'normal' ish people. Anyway, I don't anticipate I will be around so much in the coming weeks.

 

@Line-X couldn't agree more with your post. McDonnell is a dangerous man leading a dangerous movement. We also have Seamus Milne who thinks it a shame that the Berlin Wall came down. Corbyn is the cuddly front for it. The abolition of property quote reminds me actually. These are people who suggested requisitioning houses after Grenfell. Now not much was made of it because of the emotion from Grenfell and the outward intention of it was great. But it is saying that theft of property is acceptable if done by the state. We have some on here saying this isn't full blown Marxism but yet these people are suggesting your body is the property of the NHS when you die, your property can be taken at the whim of the state, we are going to control prices, and parliament, not the market, is going to decide what shareholders/PFI holders receive. 

 

@Sampson Great post(s). I've not seen you around before and when I saw your first post I almost had to check I didn't have another account.  The avid retainer bit led me to realise otherwise. Eruditely is a word I had to look up though. 

 

 

 

Not paid any attention to Hammond's speech to day but I did read about Ruth Davidson's. I know it's fashionable to see her as the Conservative future at the moment and hail her because Scotland but I just don't get it, I don't see what it would achieve. I'm imagining her leading an opposition to Corbyn, be almost as bad as Labour's opposition in the last 2 years.

[katieakita]

19 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Actually on the contrary. I will except when I am wrong unlike most left wingers. I probably don't know enough about the Post Office to comment further obviously the person above has done some serious groundwork into it and knows far more than I could ever know.

 

Personally I think as a general rule state run monopolies are bad, but obviously there are significant issues the government have failed on.

 

Certainly I question that a Corbyn run Post Office would be any better, they would want 4 day weeks and £15 an hour for delivering our post, if we disagreed the unions would be 'marching the streets' in protest at their ridiculous conditions. Look at the tube drivers, paid over 40k a year and can not be bothered to work 5 day weeks, I have no sympathy.

Thanks for the compliments however you are still wrong and clearly unaware that Royal Mail and the Post Office are 2 very separate companies at best you could say the state owned Post Office is Royal Mails biggest customer allowing them high street access to customers at far below true market costs. Something the EU may want to look at with regards to the separation of the Royal Mail group and state aid given to the Post Office this decade. Royal Mail was sold far below its value with little consideration to the value of its property holdings and this so called monopoly they held. Can understand competition but all that has happened is that firms have come in and cherry picked certain clients and areas and left the places that are unviable leaving Royal Mail delivering to extremities of the nation at a loss. The regulator forces them for the time being to play by rules that the "competition" using the term lightly does not. As mentioned any fool can make them more profitable by cutting service levels and increasing prices but forgetting Royal Mail the problem the current government faces is with the Post Office the Front Office of government as claimed by the Tories. Over £2.3 billion wasted this decade on yet another modernisation program that has failed miserably managed by the same failures who have failed on previous occasions and overseen by the same Whitehall Civil servants who have failed to control these serial failures. A failed cost cutting exercise that has failed just like people told them it would. 

 

The problem the Tories face though is they have allowed the Post Office to be transformed into an organisation not fit for purpose with the government unwilling or unable to do anything about it. Though that is now coming to a head, for a number of years there has been concerns raised about issues with the Post Office computer system Horizon run on a computer system well out of date. There has been numerous shortfalls in accounts and hundreds of prosecutions regarding missing monies with many individuals receiving jail sentences, bankruptcy and ruin driving some to suicide and untimely deaths. All this against a backdrop of continued accusations being made that there were no losses but issues with the computer system. After years of cross party complaints and concerns and numerous meetings in parliament David Cameron when PM promised to the house that he would get to the bottom of these claims. Despite many reservations from those involved it was agreed the Post Office would bring in independent Forensic accountants to examine the computer systems and business practices and finally absolve the Post Office of any wrong doing. However despite handpicking the Forensic accountants who the Post Office stated were the best in the business to investigate it became clear at the interim report that the independent accountants 2nd Sight were a little bit too much independent when stating that had found a number of concerns and more worryingly was the fact the Post Office were not co operating and were refusing to release information to them. Having already been ordered to comply with the investigation and ignoring this they were ordered again to comply. The day before the overdue report into the Post Office Computer system was to be published  the Post Office sacked 2nd sight ordering them to destroy all documentation and placed a gagging order on them regarding the release of the report. Thankfully MP's mainly Conservatives blocked this and the BBC published the 2nd sight report at the same time the Post Office released its own report clearing them of any wrong doing but stated they would deal with any complaints of wrong doing on an individual basis. 

 

Totally unsatisfied with the failure to resolve the matter, those affected sought legal advice regarding pursuing civil action against the government owned Post Office assisted and supported by a number of MP's most notably by the Tory James Arbuthnot who described the Post Office as the most duplicitous organisation he had ever dealt with in over 30 years of politics, Andrew Bridgen called the senior management unfit for purpose and called for their sackings. Due to the Post Office having access to taxpayer funded legal representation and the principal of we have more money than you and you wont be able to afford to take us to court financial backing was required. City investors looked at the claims and funding the class action on a no win no fee basis and decided to support the claim. So you have Tory financial backers underwriting a legal claim against a business owned by the Tory government. 

 

The backdrop to this is that you have around 30 appeals to the Criminal case review committee pending though many are being delayed as justice is sought. On the day the group litigation order was granted against them the Post Office disclosed that despite numerous denials in numerous Government hearings and criminal and civil courts over the years of any chance of outside access to the robust computer system there was actually 3rd party access where others could remotely access the computer system, something that was completely denied during numerous court cases that was a major part of their prosecution cases. Having personally seen some of the documentation the Post Office was nowhere to hide and having set aside nothing for any awards against them will rely once again on the taxpayer to bail them out. So this Tory run business has been allowed to waste millions of pounds a week run on a grand scale of corruption and incompetence without ever being held to account. The standard response from Conservative HQ is that they will write to the Post Office, funnily enough the reply back tells a different picture. The Government wants this to go away that have not got a plan and seem unable to deal with corruption and incompetence in house constantly trying to avoid any responsibility. You now have Postmasters taking the government owned Post Office to tribunal to get them to comply with the law of the land and government policy. So you have the "party for Business" own business breaking government policy and guidelines on how business's should be run. Being hard on tax avoidance and sham contracts then paying bonuses to those who have avoided paying taxes and don't comply with the law. Do as we say not as we do I believe the saying is. At best the governments running of the Post Office is shabby but we are talking of billions here being wasted at a time when we apparently have not got money spare yet money can be found to cover up failings and you have to ask yourself how much more is being wasted across government and who is actually in control?

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, KingGTF said:

Not paid any attention to Hammond's speech to day but I did read about Ruth Davidson's. I know it's fashionable to see her as the Conservative future at the moment and hail her because Scotland but I just don't get it, I don't see what it would achieve. I'm imagining her leading an opposition to Corbyn, be almost as bad as Labour's opposition in the last 2 years.

It was a different speech, almost exclusively attacking the opposition which shows how rattled they are, good thing they now seem to realise they have to take apart the policies of Corbyn and McDonnell and as I've stated before if they seriously can't raise an argument to defeat these old, failed policies then they don't deserve to be in government.

 

Being a shit opposition doesn't seem to even matter anymore when it comes to votes but I can't see Ruth Davidson as a Tory leader either, the more I read about her the less I think she's actually a Conservative, she's so out of touch with the most of the members and the only reason she seems to be considered is because she's done a good job in Scotland, no point winning 13 seats up there if you lose 50 down here.

[davieG]

So much for democracy?

 

Quote

 

Leicester's deputy mayor Rory Palmer leaves city council and becomes an MEP

"It's felt a bit like transfer deadline day"

 

Leicester’s deputy mayor Rory Palmer has today officially resigned from the post so he can become a Labour MEP for East Midlands.

Councillor Palmer is leaving the city council after a decade for the European Parliament - at least until Brexit in 18 months' time.

He will be officially confirmed as an MEP from tomorrow.

 

Mr Palmer, 35, has been clearing his small office in recent days, packing boxes and throwing out stacks of old accumulated paper work.

He told the Mercury: “It’s felt a bit like transfer deadline day. Everyone’s known I’ll be going for a while but the paperwork hasn’t been signed.

“Now it’s all done. It’s official.”

One of Mr Palmer’s first tasks will be to set up a new office - one in Nottingham vacated by retiring Labour MEP Glenis Willmott.

Under EU rules he automatically succeeds her in Brussels as he tops Labour's regional candidates list.

 

 

I guess it saves money on having an election, like we expect from a financially prudent EU with it's slim line administration.

[Voll Blau]

1 hour ago, davieG said:

So much for democracy?

 

 

I guess it saves money on having an election, like we expect from a financially prudent EU with it's slim line administration.

Think the issue there is because it's run under a proportional representation system rather than first past the post. Having the whole East Midlands voting for just one candidate would be a bit daft.

[Guest MattP]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41478755/jacob-rees-mogg-takes-on-protesters-you-re-a-despicable-person

 

What a contrast from Theresa May, Jacob Rees-Mogg actually wants to get in front of a camera and debate policy with his opponents, rather than hiding away.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, MattP said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-41478755/jacob-rees-mogg-takes-on-protesters-you-re-a-despicable-person

 

What a contrast from Theresa May, Jacob Rees-Mogg actually wants to get in front of a camera and debate policy with his opponents, rather than hiding away.

He is a walking talking parody though isn't he?

I half think if he ever leads the party he'll whip off the round specs and proclaim himself a socialist in a broad Yorkshire accent. It's really quite funny that he's become so popular amongst the few tory members that exist. He's precisely the opposite of the type of leader that the Tories need to bring them back into the centre and to reduce Labour's popularity. 

[Guest MattP]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

He is a walking talking parody though isn't he?

I half think if he ever leads the party he'll whip off the round specs and proclaim himself a socialist in a broad Yorkshire accent. It's really quite funny that he's become so popular amongst the few tory members that exist. He's precisely the opposite of the type of leader that the Tories need to bring them back into the centre and to reduce Labour's popularity. 

We'll see, if someone as ridiculous as Corbyn can grab 40% of the vote it's not beyond Rees-Mogg to do so, he actually has the advantage of being intelligent as well though I'm not sure how much that counts for in politics these days.

 

I think he wants to be speaker rather than Prime Minister anyway, but it was great to someone actually confronting arguments rather than running away from them, that's been happening for far too long already.

[Guest]

Just now, MattP said:

We'll see, if someone as ridiculous as Corbyn can grab 40% of the vote it's not beyond Rees-Mogg to do so, he actually has the advantage of being intelligent as well though I'm not sure how much that counts for in politics these days.

 

I think he wants to be speaker rather than Prime Minister anyway, but it was great to someone actually confronting arguments rather than running away from them, that's been happening for far too long already.

I'm all for using rationale arguments so won't criticise that at all. And as you say, amazing to see a Tory prepared to do what your spineless leader won't and invite questions.

[Guest MattP]

The picture

 

 

[Guest]

Nail. Head.

 

The problem is not capitalism. It’s that the Tories aren’t much cop at it

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/oct/03/problem-not-capitalism-tories-thatcher-treasury-cupboard-bare?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[The Doctor]

56 minutes ago, toddybad said:

He is a walking talking parody though isn't he?

He is, but Corbyn is a parody of old Labour-  like a dropped character from the young ones - and he's managed to get back to 40% of the vote off being different to the normal options and being good for memes (Still disappointed Flash Corbyn hasn't got off the ground as a parody). Biggest threat to Rees-Mogg would be his views on LGBT equality - Farrons attempts to dodge round that helped kill the lib dems in an election they really should have made a killing in with the state of both main parties this summer.