Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

17 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It wasn’t that long ago, you were talking about a higher inflation being a positive thing.

I don't recall that. When?

[Strokes]

12 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I don't recall that. When?

And I'll add that the debt is relatively immaterial. The government can create money at any time of its choosing as we are masters of our own currency. Whilst creating large sums does risk inflation, if it had been done two or three years ago they could have cleared half the nation's debt with the money given to the banks with the same zero impact on inflation. 

In terms of deficit, governments historically have borrowed as inflation means that the amount aid back is worth less than the amount borrowed, and with interest costs on top it is still relatively low cost. This is why governments across the globe have run deficits for decades. It isn't one fixed amount which has to be paid back on date x, it's a series of tiny loans each paid back in series. The problem is that deficits got used to cover normal expenditure rather than capital projects. 

If we want to reduce the deficit we need to increase growth. The only way to do this is to inject finance into the real economy. Cutting means that less money is being put into the real economy - people's wages, business profits etc - and so tax takes will keep going down as spending power is reduced. 

 

 

In this post you point out inflation is reducing the National debt and that it’s a positive thing.

[Guest Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, Strokes said:

And I'll add that the debt is relatively immaterial. The government can create money at any time of its choosing as we are masters of our own currency. Whilst creating large sums does risk inflation, if it had been done two or three years ago they could have cleared half the nation's debt with the money given to the banks with the same zero impact on inflation. 

In terms of deficit, governments historically have borrowed as inflation means that the amount aid back is worth less than the amount borrowed, and with interest costs on top it is still relatively low cost. This is why governments across the globe have run deficits for decades. It isn't one fixed amount which has to be paid back on date x, it's a series of tiny loans each paid back in series. The problem is that deficits got used to cover normal expenditure rather than capital projects. 

If we want to reduce the deficit we need to increase growth. The only way to do this is to inject finance into the real economy. Cutting means that less money is being put into the real economy - people's wages, business profits etc - and so tax takes will keep going down as spending power is reduced. 

 

 

In this post you point out inflation is reducing the National debt and that it’s a positive thing.

 

Haha brilliant .

So much wrong with that

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, Strokes said:

And I'll add that the debt is relatively immaterial. The government can create money at any time of its choosing as we are masters of our own currency. Whilst creating large sums does risk inflation, if it had been done two or three years ago they could have cleared half the nation's debt with the money given to the banks with the same zero impact on inflation. 

In terms of deficit, governments historically have borrowed as inflation means that the amount aid back is worth less than the amount borrowed, and with interest costs on top it is still relatively low cost. This is why governments across the globe have run deficits for decades. It isn't one fixed amount which has to be paid back on date x, it's a series of tiny loans each paid back in series. The problem is that deficits got used to cover normal expenditure rather than capital projects. 

If we want to reduce the deficit we need to increase growth. The only way to do this is to inject finance into the real economy. Cutting means that less money is being put into the real economy - people's wages, business profits etc - and so tax takes will keep going down as spending power is reduced. 

 

 

In this post you point out inflation is reducing the National debt and that it’s a positive thing.

But that isn't talking about high inflation per se, which affects living standards, simply inflation over time reducing what money is worth. 

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

But that isn't talking about high inflation per se, which affects living standards, simply inflation over time reducing what money is worth. 

Good, well we don’t really have high inflation. In fact when you look at the historical inflation figures its on the low side.

 

2017	2.7%	1.00
2016	1.8%	1.02
2015	1.0%	1.03
2014	2.4%	1.05
2013	3.0%	1.08
2012	3.2%	1.12
2011	5.2%	1.18
2010	4.6%	1.23
2009	-0.5%	1.23
2008	4.0%	1.27
2007	4.3%	1.33
2006	3.2%	1.37
2005	2.8%	1.41
2004	3.0%	1.45
2003	2.9%	1.49
2002	1.7%	1.52
2001	1.8%	1.55
2000	3.0%	1.59
1999	1.5%	1.62
1998	3.4%	1.67
1997	3.1%	1.72
1996	2.4%	1.77
1995	3.5%	1.83
1994	2.4%	1.87
1993	1.6%	1.90
1992	3.7%	1.97
1991	5.9%	2.09
1990	9.5%	2.29
1989	7.8%	2.46
1988	4.9%	2.59
1987	4.2%	2.69
1986	3.4%	2.79
1985	6.1%	2.96
1984	5.0%	3.10
1983	4.6%	3.25
1982	8.6%	3.53
1981	11.9%	3.95
1980	18.0%	4.66
1979	13.4%	5.28
1978	8.3%	5.72
1977	15.8%	6.62
1976	16.5%	7.71
1975	24.2%	9.58
1974	16.0%	11.10
1973	9.2%	12.10
1972	7.1%	13.00
1971	9.4%	14.20
1970	6.4%	15.10
1969	5.4%	15.90
1968	4.7%	16.70
1967	2.5%	17.10
1966	3.9%	17.80
1965	4.8%	18.60
1964	3.3%	19.20
1963	2.0%	19.60
1962	4.3%	20.50
1961	3.4%	21.20
1960	1.0%	21.40
1959	0.6%	21.50
1958	3.0%	22.20
1957	3.7%	23.00
1956	4.9%	24.10
1955	4.5%	25.20
1954	1.8%	25.60
1953	3.1%	26.40
1952	9.2%	28.90
1951	9.1%	31.50
1950	3.1%	32.50
1949

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Good, well we don’t really have high inflation. In fact when you look at the historical inflation figures its on the low side.

 

2017	2.7%	1.00
2016	1.8%	1.02
2015	1.0%	1.03
2014	2.4%	1.05
2013	3.0%	1.08
2012	3.2%	1.12
2011	5.2%	1.18
2010	4.6%	1.23
2009	-0.5%	1.23
2008	4.0%	1.27
2007	4.3%	1.33
2006	3.2%	1.37
2005	2.8%	1.41
2004	3.0%	1.45
2003	2.9%	1.49
2002	1.7%	1.52
2001	1.8%	1.55
2000	3.0%	1.59
1999	1.5%	1.62
1998	3.4%	1.67
1997	3.1%	1.72
1996	2.4%	1.77
1995	3.5%	1.83
1994	2.4%	1.87
1993	1.6%	1.90
1992	3.7%	1.97
1991	5.9%	2.09
1990	9.5%	2.29
1989	7.8%	2.46
1988	4.9%	2.59
1987	4.2%	2.69
1986	3.4%	2.79
1985	6.1%	2.96
1984	5.0%	3.10
1983	4.6%	3.25
1982	8.6%	3.53
1981	11.9%	3.95
1980	18.0%	4.66
1979	13.4%	5.28
1978	8.3%	5.72
1977	15.8%	6.62
1976	16.5%	7.71
1975	24.2%	9.58
1974	16.0%	11.10
1973	9.2%	12.10
1972	7.1%	13.00
1971	9.4%	14.20
1970	6.4%	15.10
1969	5.4%	15.90
1968	4.7%	16.70
1967	2.5%	17.10
1966	3.9%	17.80
1965	4.8%	18.60
1964	3.3%	19.20
1963	2.0%	19.60
1962	4.3%	20.50
1961	3.4%	21.20
1960	1.0%	21.40
1959	0.6%	21.50
1958	3.0%	22.20
1957	3.7%	23.00
1956	4.9%	24.10
1955	4.5%	25.20
1954	1.8%	25.60
1953	3.1%	26.40
1952	9.2%	28.90
1951	9.1%	31.50
1950	3.1%	32.50
1949

I'm not really sure what your point is. Inflation is greater than wage increases. So living standards are going down right now. It doesn't matter what happened 1 year, 5 years or 25 years ago. Right now people are losing money year after year.

 

I'm gong to buy you a Thatcher pin badge. I don't believe you've ever not been a tory tbh. 

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Webbo said:

A small percentage of 13%. We've all admitted there would be a short term hit to the economy, as there will be to the EU. The difference is we can plough our own furrow, buy cheaper food, make FTA with the growing parts of the world economy, make regulations that suit us. They'll still be stuck in their, now smaller thanks to us leaving, single market.

Just reading this again it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. On our own we'll be better off because we can do a bunch of stuff that the EU can do as well only they have more negotiating power 

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Just reading this again it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. On our own we'll be better off because we can do a bunch of stuff that the EU can do as well only they have more negotiating power 

 

But it doesn't is exactly the point. You know how you, quite rightly, bang on about losing sovereignty because you still have to comply with EU regulation, well that's exactly why the EU is so slow and often relatively unsuccessful at doing those things. Getting out of regulatory harmonisation does exactly what Webbo says and allows us to successfully do that. The EU demands more regulatory harmonisation when it negotiates free trade deals and its part of the reason the negotiations with Canada took well over 5 years for example. Consider that against the mutual recognition of regulations which allows New Zealand to do trade deals in half of that time or less, or even the Georgia-China deal which took 8 months.

 

Besides, the veto players you have, the less negotiating power you really have.

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

I'm not really sure what your point is. Inflation is greater than wage increases. So living standards are going down right now. It doesn't matter what happened 1 year, 5 years or 25 years ago. Right now people are losing money year after year.

 

I'm gong to buy you a Thatcher pin badge. I don't believe you've ever not been a tory tbh. 

Why? Because he believes in Economic Liberalism? So did all 3 major parties until Corbyn got into power (even Ed Milliband and Gordon Brown did) - like Theresa May said the other day - I thought there was a general political consensus on that until Corbyn.

It doesn't make you a Tory to believe in that. I believe in it and have voted for all 3 major parties in the past and will happily vote for all 3 again in the future if I feel I like their ideas at that particular election.

And I really don't think this dislike of individual parties and people looking down on them helps There should be no stigma on being a Tory or a Labour supporter - their ideas change drastically through time (which is why I've never supported one party) all it does is not allow people to take their arguments in.

It reminds me of that old Christopher Hitchens quote - who at the time was a well-known and self-confessed Trotskyite when he said he didn't vote in the 1979 election because he couldn't bring himself to vote Tory, but deep down he knew not voting would allow Thatcher to get into power which he secretly wanted (and he ended up becoming a great admirer of hers) - because he could see like everyone else that the Wilson and Callaghan governments had been a disaster and they constantly bowed to the whims of the trade unions and gave them anything they asked for which was bankrupting the country - why allow that stigma to ever come into play, vote for who you think's best for the country at that particular election, regardless of the name of the party.

And I still find it strange people don't appreciate Thatcher if I'm honest - regardless of your political persuasion. I get that it wasn't easy if you were one who lost your job and identity - absolutely it wasn't! And some of her Social Conservatism was vile - her treatment of gay men during the AIDS crisis especially and Section 28 has rightly been seen by history as evil - and I'm not belittling the people who suffered under her, but she literally saved this country from bankruptcy! She saved the country from run away inflation, huge national debt and a government which would bend to the will of the trade unions and just kept spending and spending and giving into workers' slightest demands and refused free trade for goods which were cheaper in other countries even when it was bankrupting the country - who knows what kind of state the country would've ended up in if Callaghan's government would've got another 5 years, it would likely have been far worse for all of us - she absolutely was what the country needed at that time.

Edited 14 October 2017 by Sampson

[Sampson]

Jeremy Corbyn: Let workers control robots - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41614820

 

I just don't know how anyone can read this and not just think the guy is some Marxist nutcase. He's about as close as you can get to saying "workers - seize the means of production" without actually saying it.

 

I'm imagining an Uber which ran co-operatively by their drivers - and all I can see is endless hold ups with the beaurocracy of negotiations and drivers wanting to charge more and more and work less and less hours and users getting tired of bartering meaning no one would use the service anymore and the drivers would all lose their jobs (and we all know Uber makes huge losses anyway so if the profits would be shared - how would any losses be shared?) - and someone would rise to the top to negotiate it all and take their share - they always do.

 

I just don't get the guy's popularity at all. At least since the election he seems to be getting more and more confident and based on the Labour conference and this more and more explicitly radical and showing his true colours. Just hope that ends up shooting himself in the foot.

Edited 14 October 2017 by Sampson

[Innovindil]

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

Good, well we don’t really have high inflation. In fact when you look at the historical inflation figures its on the low side.

 

2017	2.7%	1.00
2016	1.8%	1.02
2015	1.0%	1.03
2014	2.4%	1.05
2013	3.0%	1.08
2012	3.2%	1.12
2011	5.2%	1.18
2010	4.6%	1.23
2009	-0.5%	1.23
2008	4.0%	1.27
2007	4.3%	1.33
2006	3.2%	1.37
2005	2.8%	1.41
2004	3.0%	1.45
2003	2.9%	1.49
2002	1.7%	1.52
2001	1.8%	1.55
2000	3.0%	1.59
1999	1.5%	1.62
1998	3.4%	1.67
1997	3.1%	1.72
1996	2.4%	1.77
1995	3.5%	1.83
1994	2.4%	1.87
1993	1.6%	1.90
1992	3.7%	1.97
1991	5.9%	2.09
1990	9.5%	2.29
1989	7.8%	2.46
1988	4.9%	2.59
1987	4.2%	2.69
1986	3.4%	2.79
1985	6.1%	2.96
1984	5.0%	3.10
1983	4.6%	3.25
1982	8.6%	3.53
1981	11.9%	3.95
1980	18.0%	4.66
1979	13.4%	5.28
1978	8.3%	5.72
1977	15.8%	6.62
1976	16.5%	7.71
1975	24.2%	9.58
1974	16.0%	11.10
1973	9.2%	12.10
1972	7.1%	13.00
1971	9.4%	14.20
1970	6.4%	15.10
1969	5.4%	15.90
1968	4.7%	16.70
1967	2.5%	17.10
1966	3.9%	17.80
1965	4.8%	18.60
1964	3.3%	19.20
1963	2.0%	19.60
1962	4.3%	20.50
1961	3.4%	21.20
1960	1.0%	21.40
1959	0.6%	21.50
1958	3.0%	22.20
1957	3.7%	23.00
1956	4.9%	24.10
1955	4.5%	25.20
1954	1.8%	25.60
1953	3.1%	26.40
1952	9.2%	28.90
1951	9.1%	31.50
1950	3.1%	32.50
1949

Holy cow. 24.2% in '75. How the hell they manage that? 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Jeremy Corbyn: Let workers control robots - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41614820

 

I just don't know how anyone can read this and not just think the guy is some Marxist nutcase. He's about as close as you can get to saying "workers - seize the means of production" without actually saying it.

 

I'm imagining an Uber which ran co-operatively by their drivers - and all I can see is endless hold ups with the beaurocracy of negotiations and drivers wanting to charge more and more and work less and less hours and users getting tired of bartering meaning no one would use the service anymore and the drivers would all lose their jobs (and we all know Uber makes huge losses anyway so if the profits would be shared - how would any losses be shared?) - and someone would rise to the top to negotiate it all and take their share - they always do.

 

I just don't get the guy's popularity at all. At least since the election he seems to be getting more and more confident and based on the Labour conference and this more and more explicitly radical and showing his true colours. Just hope that ends up shooting himself in the foot.

Thing is, even if you dislike guys policies, you still need an alternative that isn't ruining the country. The current government is not that alternative. 

[Sampson]

58 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Thing is, even if you dislike guys policies, you still need an alternative that isn't ruining the country. The current government is not that alternative. 

It's not just disliking his policies! He's literally advocating workers taking control of technology and the means of production - he's literally advocating Communism.

 

It's like reading something out of a history book on the 1930s - a big economic crash happens (which are well known issues of capitalism because unlike other systems it doesn't pretend to be perfect and is very long-term based) and people proclaim it to be the death of capitalism - and populists on the Hard Left and Hard Right pop up all over the West to exploit it - one side blaming the immigrants and a religious minority and the other side blaming the bourgoise owners of business and industry - each to connect with the common worker. I sincerely hope I'm wrong but I've never seen anything like what's happened in Europe and the US the past 3 or 4 years with the rise of both hard Right and hard Left populism and no, I absolutely don't want to see *these* alternatives!

 

The Tories are still an infinitely better alternative than a government admitting more and more like they're into worker control of the means of production and Communism all the time though and that's the problem.

 

I'd really like a non-crazy Labour party who don't sound like they're from the charasmatic populist rhetoric of the 1930s which every history book has warned us against, to offer that alternative, I really would.

Edited 14 October 2017 by Sampson

[Strokes]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Thing is, even if you dislike guys policies, you still need an alternative that isn't ruining the country. The current government is not that alternative. 

 

If capitalism is so bad and broken, why do love EU membership so much? That has also been part of the system for 40 years, you seem fearful of change on one hand but ready to torch a whole system on the other. Strange guy.

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'm not really sure what your point is. Inflation is greater than wage increases. So living standards are going down right now. It doesn't matter what happened 1 year, 5 years or 25 years ago. Right now people are losing money year after year.

 

I'm gong to buy you a Thatcher pin badge. I don't believe you've ever not been a tory tbh. 

In the 40 years we’ve been members of the EU/EEC 32 of them years have been at higher inflation than we currently enjoy. That was my point.

[Webbo]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

Just reading this again it's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever read. On our own we'll be better off because we can do a bunch of stuff that the EU can do as well only they have more negotiating power 

While we're in the customs union we have to apply the external tariff which makes food more expensive so we can't buy cheaper in the EU. We have to implement EU regulations so we can't make our own, more tailored to us.

 

As for the FTAs there are 28 different sets of vested interests that have to be appeased. If we tried to make an agreement with South Africa for example there'd have to be a special caveat for Spanish orange growers another for French vineyards etc. It takes years and the fact is a lot of European countries have strong protectionist tendencies. Fair enough if that's what they want but don't hold us back.

[foxinexile]

41 minutes ago, Webbo said:

While we're in the customs union we have to apply the external tariff which makes food more expensive so we can't buy cheaper in the EU. We have to implement EU regulations so we can't make our own, more tailored to us.

 

As for the FTAs there are 28 different sets of vested interests that have to be appeased. If we tried to make an agreement with South Africa for example there'd have to be a special caveat for Spanish orange growers another for French vineyards etc. It takes years and the fact is a lot of European countries have strong protectionist tendencies. Fair enough if that's what they want but don't hold us back.

Don't all/most countries? Look at America with Boeing and Bombardier. Where's Farage et al now? Remarkably silent about this after crowing that the United States would sign a trade deal with the UK within 90 days of leaving the EU. Protectionism is hardly exclusive to European countries. Let's hope (for all of us) that we do strike lots of free trade agreements ... but the complexities of doing this is a point that seems to be consistently overlooked (whether intentionally or not) by a lot of Leave supporters.  

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, foxinexile said:

Don't all/most countries? Look at America with Boeing and Bombardier. Where's Farage et al now? Remarkably silent about this after crowing that the United States would sign a trade deal with the UK within 90 days of leaving the EU. Protectionism is hardly exclusive to European countries. Let's hope (for all of us) that we do strike lots of free trade agreements ... but the complexities of doing this is a point that seems to be consistently overlooked (whether intentionally or not) by a lot of Leave supporters.  

Nobody is saying they are not complex. People are saying it's less complex when it's 1 to 1, not 1 to 27. 

[davieG]

If we do manage to set up some good trade deals then I can see European based companies opening offices/branches here to take advantage of them.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, foxinexile said:

Don't all/most countries? Look at America with Boeing and Bombardier. Where's Farage et al now? Remarkably silent about this after crowing that the United States would sign a trade deal with the UK within 90 days of leaving the EU. Protectionism is hardly exclusive to European countries. Let's hope (for all of us) that we do strike lots of free trade agreements ... but the complexities of doing this is a point that seems to be consistently overlooked (whether intentionally or not) by a lot of Leave supporters.  

Trump is definitely protectionist , its one of the reasons I'm not keen on him. 

 

NZ, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong are all pretty fee trade and have seen their GDP grow accordingly. Of course these things aren't easy but it'll be up to us. A British official is just as likely to be incompetent as a European. Politics can mean that we'll sometimes do the popular thing rather than the best thing but we'll only be concentrating on our needs and we can sack a govt that fvcks things up.

[foxinexile]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Trump is definitely protectionist , its one of the reasons I'm not keen on him. 

 

NZ, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong are all pretty fee trade and have seen their GDP grow accordingly. Of course these things aren't easy but it'll be up to us. A British official is just as likely to be incompetent as a European. Politics can mean that we'll sometimes do the popular thing rather than the best thing but we'll only be concentrating on our needs and we can sack a govt that fvcks things up.

Totally agree with that and it's in all our interests that we do get good deals around the globe, whichever way we voted. I am concerned that we're going to be disadvantaged where the EU is already in discussions with other blocs/countries (such as Mercosur and China), or where trade deals have already been agreed (such as Canada, South Korea, Mexico etc) but I will be delighted if, say in ten years' time, we can look back and say we've made a success of it.

 

I know he's been slated recently, but I thought it was interesting a few months back when Phillip Hammond was saying that trade deals won't make any difference to our service exports, and that with services being around the 40% mark, freed trade agreements won't make that much difference to our economy overall. Maybe he was being overly pessimistic and cautious, I don't know. I guess as with anything Brexit-related, no one can really predict triumph or disaster until at least several years after we've left and we can get a clearer position of where we are. 

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, foxinexile said:

Totally agree with that and it's in all our interests that we do get good deals around the globe, whichever way we voted. I am concerned that we're going to be disadvantaged where the EU is already in discussions with other blocs/countries (such as Mercosur and China), or where trade deals have already been agreed (such as Canada, South Korea, Mexico etc) but I will be delighted if, say in ten years' time, we can look back and say we've made a success of it.

 

I know he's been slated recently, but I thought it was interesting a few months back when Phillip Hammond was saying that trade deals won't make any difference to our service exports, and that with services being around the 40% mark, freed trade agreements won't make that much difference to our economy overall. Maybe he was being overly pessimistic and cautious, I don't know. I guess as with anything Brexit-related, no one can really predict triumph or disaster until at least several years after we've left and we can get a clearer position of where we are. 

I think that’s very true, whichever way we do end up going with it, we will have to unite behind it eventually. Otherwise we all suffer. No brexit, soft brexit or hard brexit. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Strokes said:

In the 40 years we’ve been members of the EU/EEC 32 of them years have been at higher inflation than we currently enjoy. That was my point.

But inflation can occur for good or bad reasons. Inflation has been low over recent years as people have less and less money to spend due to falling wages. Inflation has started increasing now because of the fallen pound, further pushing households. Neither of these things are good.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

Trump is definitely protectionist , its one of the reasons I'm not keen on him. 

 

NZ, Australia, Singapore, Hong Kong are all pretty fee trade and have seen their GDP grow accordingly. Of course these things aren't easy but it'll be up to us. A British official is just as likely to be incompetent as a European. Politics can mean that we'll sometimes do the popular thing rather than the best thing but we'll only be concentrating on our needs and we can sack a govt that fvcks things up.

Bit surely business would rather have free trade with EU than Singapore or Australia? The huge increase in export costs to those markets can't be a positive for business.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Bit surely business would rather have free trade with EU than Singapore or Australia? The huge increase in export costs to those markets can't be a positive for business.

I'm sure they'd rather have both. Transport costs aren't that high any more .    We get most of our lamb from NZ it doesn't get much further than that.