Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

You really have to question the wisdom of a group that received 86% of its income from the EU yet overwhelmingly voted leave.

[lifted*fox]

Boris proving today he shouldn't be allowed anywhere near anything of worth whatsoever, at all. What an absolute bumbling buffoon of a man. 

 

I hope this spells the end for him in any position of power / responsibility. The guy is a cvnt of the highest order. 

[Webbo]

So are you saying that foreign farmers won't be able to produce any more food to sell us or that they'll be able to and it'll put our farmers out of business?

[Guest]

Just now, Webbo said:

So are you saying that foreign farmers won't be able to produce any more food to sell us or that they'll be able to and it'll put our farmers out of business?

I think we should both take each other less seriously and the report I've just put up more seriously. 

 

Unless you have a particularly in depth knowledge of farming?

[Webbo]

Just now, toddybad said:

I think we should both take each other less seriously and the report I've just put up more seriously. 

 

Unless you have a particularly in depth knowledge of farming?

I'm just trying to understand what you're arguing about.

 

To me cheaper food means people, especially the poor as they spend a bigger proportion of their income on food, will have more disposable income, which they will be able to spend on other things which will be a boost to the economy. We can compensate our  farmers for their stewardship of the land, if we choose to do so.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

I'm just trying to understand what you're arguing about.

 

To me cheaper food means people, especially the poor as they spend a bigger proportion of their income on food, will have more disposable income, which they will be able to spend on other things which will be a boost to the economy. We can compensate our  farmers for their stewardship of the land, if we choose to do so.

It's a positive argument that you're pushing, the difficulty is there no way of knowing if we can have this until after we've left the EU. It would also crush our farmers, compensation or no compensation.

[Carl the Llama]

The farming debate is an interesting one.  On the one hand I'm all for cheaper food but there are lots of things to consider in the equation, for instance I'm a namby pamby environmentalist and I don't want to see us having to import food from halfway across the planet to keep it affordable nor do I want to see our farmers lower their animal welfare standards so that they can sell more and keep themselves afloat.  It almost looks like nobody planned for the scenario where we would leave the EU and lose its funding... so that we could stop sending money to the EU.

[Innovindil]

Is cheaper food for all vs the 1.5% of the population working as farmers really even a debate? 

 

Farming takes up huge areas of land, about what, 2/3 of our land? Why not get cheaper food from elsewhere, chances are the places we'll be buying from are more dependant on farming than us, so our purchases will benefit them, and we'll free up masses of land space to cater to our growing population, and everyone will get cheaper food. 

 

Then we help the farmers by giving them cash to get more productive in smaller areas so they can stay competitive, for those folk that like buying British only stuffs. 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Cheers, Strokes. Apparently, Boris has been on the blower to the Iranian Foreign Minister, who has said that he's trying to arrange a humanitarian solution and that her detention is not linked to Boris' comments, which he's "clarified" (reversed).

Seems that she's asked Boris to visit her and he's planning to visit Iran. https://news.google.com/news/video/tLGqSjghph4/dYNnwV_E43vq_zMZd7rr71RKCsbiM?hl=en-GB&gl=GB&ned=uk

 

Could be good timing for her as the Iranians might be quite amenable at the moment seeing as the UK and the other European nations have diverged from Trump over his withdrawal from the Iran/West deal over nukes, sanctions, trade etc.

Alf here is a link to some of the interview, I don’t think it has all of it on there as it’s too short. Unfortunately I’m struggling to find all of it and I can’t be bothered to look much further as I’ve just finished a 15 hour shift and I’m still on call.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/husband-of-nazinin-zaghari-ratcliffe-reacts-to-bor/

[Alf Bentley]

23 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Alf here is a link to some of the interview, I don’t think it has all of it on there as it’s too short. Unfortunately I’m struggling to find all of it and I can’t be bothered to look much further as I’ve just finished a 15 hour shift and I’m still on call.

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/iain-dale/husband-of-nazinin-zaghari-ratcliffe-reacts-to-bor/

 

Thanks, mate. He was on C4 News earlier, too - a lot calmer than I'd have been in the circumstances.

 

I don't know enough about Iran to have any idea how this will turn out. Common sense suggests that the Iranians might be quite amenable if approached in the right way. It's in their interests to keep in with the UK and other leading European nations as they're standing by the Iran nukes/sanctions deal, unlike Trump (though I understand that Congress won't necessarily follow through on Trump's rejection of the deal, so it might continue in practice). I do know that Iranian politics is very divided between moderates (around the new PM) and religious hardliners, so internal politics might determine whether this woman gets released on humanitarian grounds or gets banged up for 10 years.... Strangely, a visit to Iran by Boris (in the offing, it seems) might be seen as a gesture of respect to Iran - and one in the eye for Trump.

 

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

Politics in this country is going bonkers now. On top of all the sexual harassment furore, there's Boris shooting his mouth off, Priti Patel freelancing in Israel (what arrogance & disrespect for democratic process).

 

And now there's this Labour member of the Welsh Assembly who's committed suicide, apparently, after being accused of harassment of some sort. Of course, maybe he did something really bad and topped himself out of shame, but yesterday he said that he'd not been told what he'd been accused of. If he's ended up dead due to accusations not being handled properly, that will be utterly tragic - I really feel for his family, either way. Just shows the need to establish a proper independent reporting system - and not to have a media frenzy - I suppose.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks, mate. He was on C4 News earlier, too - a lot calmer than I'd have been in the circumstances.

 

I don't know enough about Iran to have any idea how this will turn out. Common sense suggests that the Iranians might be quite amenable if approached in the right way. It's in their interests to keep in with the UK and other leading European nations as they're standing by the Iran nukes/sanctions deal, unlike Trump (though I understand that Congress won't necessarily follow through on Trump's rejection of the deal, so it might continue in practice). I do know that Iranian politics is very divided between moderates (around the new PM) and religious hardliners, so internal politics might determine whether this woman gets released on humanitarian grounds or gets banged up for 10 years.... Strangely, a visit to Iran by Boris (in the offing, it seems) might be seen as a gesture of respect to Iran - and one in the eye for Trump.

 

 

 

Yeah it seems you know a bit more about Iran than I do

In all seriousness though, whether it be one in eye for trump or Boris falling on his sword, it’s more important that the UK get this lady free and out of Iran. It’s not an enviable situation for her and her family.

[Lionator]

This is just personal opinion and I may be completely wrong but I seriously feel that we're close to a motion of no confidence in the government being put forward. It's a complete shambles.

[Alf Bentley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Yeah it seems you know a bit more about Iran than I do

In all seriousness though, whether it be one in eye for trump or Boris falling on his sword, it’s more important that the UK get this lady free and out of Iran. It’s not an enviable situation for her and her family.

 

My sum total of knowledge about Iran has been gleaned from a couple of news bulletins and newspaper articles. 

Sounds an interesting place, though - one of the youngest demographics in the world and quite a highly politicised public, apparently.

 

Quite agree with your second comment.

[Alf Bentley]

5 minutes ago, Lionator said:

This is just personal opinion and I may be completely wrong but I seriously feel that we're close to a motion of no confidence in the government being put forward. It's a complete shambles.

 

If it hadn't been for the delicate stage of Brexit, you might well be right - or at least the Tories might be seeking a new leader. I suspect that Brexit will prevent that happening.

 

Mind you, would Labour benefit from ending up in power now, if the government fell and they won a subsequent election (two big "ifs")?

Not only would they have some difficult decisions to take over Brexit and a difficult economic situation to deal with, but they could end up getting the blame if Brexit goes pear-shaped.

Then the Tories could regroup under a new leader and be back in power within a couple of years....

 

As someone who doesn't expect us to get a good deal out of the Brexit negotiations, I reckon Labour could benefit massively from the Tories staying in power for another year or so.

The way things are going, the Tories could utterly trash their reputation for a generation - but if the government falls and Labour end up in power, Labour could end up being the ones who trash their reputation.

[Lionator]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If it hadn't been for the delicate stage of Brexit, you might well be right - or at least the Tories might be seeking a new leader. I suspect that Brexit will prevent that happening.

 

Mind you, would Labour benefit from ending up in power now, if the government fell and they won a subsequent election (two big "ifs")?

Not only would they have some difficult decisions to take over Brexit and a difficult economic situation to deal with, but they could end up getting the blame if Brexit goes pear-shaped.

Then the Tories could regroup under a new leader and be back in power within a couple of years....

 

As someone who doesn't expect us to get a good deal out of the Brexit negotiations, I reckon Labour could benefit massively from the Tories staying in power for another year or so.

The way things are going, the Tories could utterly trash their reputation for a generation - but if the government falls and Labour end up in power, Labour could end up being the ones who trash their reputation.

Brexit is the big issue here like you say but then there's going to be more people in parliament and probably the country who would want Keir Starmer there now than David Davis, he at least appears to have a plan and one which doesn't carry a big risk of an economic crisis. It's a very delicate situation but I can't see how May can carry on with all of the recent Patel & Johnson stuff and the tax dodging issues are going to play right into Jeremy Corbyn's hands., using a Cricket term, May really is playing for bad light at the moment.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Lionator said:

This is just personal opinion and I may be completely wrong but I seriously feel that we're close to a motion of no confidence in the government being put forward. It's a complete shambles.

The only thing they have done constructively is put the fear of God into everybody from voting for Corbyn. Because how else this shower of shite poll as highly as they do I've no idea. The Tories on here would be shitting themselves if Labour were closer to the centre. In fact, they'd l probably be voting Labour themselves.

 

I often wonder why they bother wasting their time trying to support obviously bad policies when they might as well just say that the tory policies are bad but they won't vote Corbyn. It would save a lot of pointless arguments. In the last few months we've had people support some horrendous things that I really struggle to believe anybody really supports.

Edited 7 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Perhaps we should just have a president and give the job to Margaret Hodge. I could live with that.

[EnderbyFox]

 

[bovril]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

My sum total of knowledge about Iran has been gleaned from a couple of news bulletins and newspaper articles. 

Sounds an interesting place, though - one of the youngest demographics in the world and quite a highly politicised public, apparently.

Probably the most pro-Western Muslim country in the World, with the possible exception of Albania. 

[Guest MattP]

13 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

It's not always easy as sometimes you've got adequate infrastructure and you start suffering from diminishing returns. 

 

However, when long term lack of investment leads you to having the worst traffic congestion in Europe (source various news articles a couple of months back - labour just as at fault as the Tories by the way), and by extension probably the worst in the developed world (another thing we're currently bottom of the league at), and that kind if thing is leading you to have among the lowest productivity in the developed world (and another), then it's pretty much guaranteed that intelligently targeted investment in transport is going to deliver substantial returns. And that's just one example.

It's another debate to be had but the reason we have infrastructure problems is that we have too many people in the country, an island this big wasn't supposed to have nearly 70 million people in it by 2017. We still have the highest amount of train travel we have ever had, car usage is at it's highest ever, more bus routes are avaliable.

 

You haven't answered the question though, if you have good economic policy investors will continue to invest, the fact Labour internally knows they'll have a run on the pound shows they realise what they are proposing is probably going to be a disaster, this shouldn't surprise anybody, McDonnell is on record as saying he wants to see the system collapse, it's not something he appears to be that bothered about.

 

12 hours ago, toddybad said:

You really have to question the wisdom of a group that received 86% of its income from the EU yet overwhelmingly voted leave.

The EU doesn't have it's own money, it takes money off countries then decides how those countries spend it before giving it them back, I'm sure we all acknowledge we are a net contributor to the EU. If I take £20 out of your wallet, let you into my pub and then give you £10 back to have a couple of pints I haven't bought them for you.

 

Farmers were perfectly entitled to vote to leave it, they just now need to make sure the money saved still gets directed to them.

 

9 hours ago, Lionator said:

This is just personal opinion and I may be completely wrong but I seriously feel that we're close to a motion of no confidence in the government being put forward. It's a complete shambles.

As Alf has said, if it wasn't for Brexit it might have already happened, the fact Priti Patel can do what she's done shows just how off the reservation people have been allowed to go because of the weakness of the government. A sacking today might actually wake a few of them up. The annoying thing is there is so much talent from the 2010 intake and she doesn't seem to want to use any of them.

 

This reminds me of John Major's government and that lasted a full five years, I'm just glad the opposition havw this bunch of idiots on the front bench and don't have someone like Blair in charge to take advantage or I think the Tories would be looking at a generation out of power.

 

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

The only thing they have done constructively is put the fear of God into everybody from voting for Corbyn. Because how else this shower of shite poll as highly as they do I've no idea. The Tories on here would be shitting themselves if Labour were closer to the centre. In fact, they'd l probably be voting Labour themselves.

 

I often wonder why they bother wasting their time trying to support obviously bad policies when they might as well just say that the tory policies are bad but they won't vote Corbyn. It would save a lot of pointless arguments. In the last few months we've had people support some horrendous things that I really struggle to believe anybody really supports.

The reason they are polling so high is quite simple, a lot of the country still remembers what happens when you vote in a hard-left government like the one Corbyn is proposing, begging cap in hand to the IMF, strikes, the dead unburied, litter piling up in the streets - Corbyn and Abbott etc are probably the only reason that the Consevrvatives still hold office.

 

There are still enough people out there who have pensions, jobs and houses etc to keep people McDonnell out of number 10, the only reason I'm going to vote Tory is the minute is because it's so important to keep these people out of office, I have nothing positive to say currently about them except they are better than the alternative, tragic.

[Brizzle Fox]

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

Perhaps we should just have a president and give the job to Margaret Hodge. I could live with that.

Would that be the same Margaret Hodge who as leader of Islington Council who did nothing about various child abuse scandals in her borough and victimised the main whistle blower instead of acting on the advice provided?

 

Or maybe the same Margaret Hodge who received shares in her family company from a foundation based in Liechtenstein?

 

Or maybe the same Margaret Hodge who almost overnight moved from the hard left of the Labour to become and arch Blairite to further her career?

 

Yup Vote Marg!

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Brizzle Fox said:

Would that be the same Margaret Hodge who as leader of Islington Council who did nothing about various child abuse scandals in her borough and victimised the main whistle blower instead of acting on the advice provided?

 

Or maybe the same Margaret Hodge who received shares in her family company from a foundation based in Liechtenstein?

 

Or maybe the same Margaret Hodge who almost overnight moved from the hard left of the Labour to become and arch Blairite to further her career?

 

Yup Vote Marg!

So you don't like Margaret Hodge then?

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

It's another debate to be had but the reason we have infrastructure problems is that we have too many people in the country, an island this big wasn't supposed to have nearly 70 million people in it by 2017. We still have the highest amount of train travel we have ever had, car usage is at it's highest ever, more bus routes are avaliable.

 

You haven't answered the question though, if you have good economic policy investors will continue to invest, the fact Labour internally knows they'll have a run on the pound shows they realise what they are proposing is probably going to be a disaster, this shouldn't surprise anybody, McDonnell is on record as saying he wants to see the system collapse, it's not something he appears to be that bothered 

There's no excuse for the underinvestmebt we've seen in infrastructure, and not just physical but digital as well. Immigration is nothing new, it has been happening for decades and shouldn't still be taking anyone by surprise. The reason we haven't invested in infrastructure is because they government of the time haven't wanted to spend the money and the result of that is that we have among the lowest productivity in the world, the worst traffic congestion in the developed world, some of the worst train lines in the developed world and so on. 

 

You could argue that it's harder for us, because we were early adopters of infrastructure, so now we have a lot of aging infrastructure which doesn't just disappear. But that's a challenge to be overcome not a reason to do nothing.

 

Your last paragraph is intellectual dishonesty and you know it. A competent government plans for all scenarios and that's all labour did when thinking about what they would do in the event that their election caused a run on the pound. There's no point debating anything if you can't be honest. I don't really understand what you think you're achieving by doing that, to be honest.

[Guest MattP]

14 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Your last paragraph is intellectual dishonesty and you know it. A competent government plans for all scenarios and that's all labour did when thinking about what they would do in the event that their election caused a run on the pound. There's no point debating anything if you can't be honest. I don't really understand what you think you're achieving by doing that, to be honest.

Did Tony Blair and Gordon Brown plan for a run a pound when Labour were set to win in 1997? Do you think Cameron and Osborne planned for one in 2010?

 

Of course they didn't, they didn't have to as they knew their policies wouldn't cause one. Intellectual dishonesty is claiming all competent governments would plan for this.