Guest Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 Government has 2-weeks to save itself and us all. This is far worse than anything labour could do in their wildest nightmares. Yet the right wants this. Bizarre. EU business leaders tell PM: agree Brexit deal or face collapse in confidence https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/nov/13/eu-business-leaders-tell-pm-agree-brexit-deal-or-face-collapse-in-confidence?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 2 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Well tbf I fully agree that there's a world of difference between preparing hypothetical responses to a negative scenario and real-world encouragement of that negative scenario. Why you're so happy about him doing it is baffling to me if you had a problem with the idea of Labour causing a similar scenario. The issue is Labour's own shadow chancellor has admitted he is preparing (which he can't) for a potentil run on the pound as a result of his policy choices. This is quite a bit different to Redwood comparing central bank policies, criticising our own (admittedly he says it has had assistance from the treasury) and then suggesting that as a reason to invest elsewhere. Now if you can't see the difference between a man admitting his ideas will cause capital flight and a man criticising a central bank's policy choices then so be it, makes very little difference to me.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 I’m not going to lie, I think John Redwood should have kept his trap shut, however to compare it with John McDonnell is a bit silly. Even if it is a fair comparison, you guys were all happy with JM, so what the hell you are complaining for I don’t know.
leicsmac Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 2 minutes ago, KingGTF said: The issue is Labour's own shadow chancellor has admitted he is preparing (which he can't) for a potentil run on the pound as a result of his policy choices. This is quite a bit different to Redwood comparing central bank policies, criticising our own (admittedly he says it has had assistance from the treasury) and then suggesting that as a reason to invest elsewhere. Now if you can't see the difference between a man admitting his ideas will cause capital flight and a man criticising a central bank's policy choices then so be it, makes very little difference to me. When the discussed outcomes are the same, is there really much difference? As Carl said, one is admitting their policy will cause a run on the pound, the other is advocating behaviour that will lead to it. The reasons for advocating such an outcome are irrelevant.
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 (edited) 13 minutes ago, KingGTF said: The issue is Labour's own shadow chancellor has admitted he is preparing (which he can't) for a potentil run on the pound as a result of his policy choices. This is quite a bit different to Redwood comparing central bank policies, criticising our own (admittedly he says it has had assistance from the treasury) and then suggesting that as a reason to invest elsewhere. Now if you can't see the difference between a man admitting his ideas will cause capital flight and a man criticising a central bank's policy choices then so be it, makes very little difference to me. Do Tories simply not understand what "hypothetical" means? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time I read somebody talk about Labour "admitting [their] ideas will cause capital flight" or something similarly intellectually bankrupt. Unless he's been quoted saying as much somewhere that I'm not aware of that's simply not what happened. It's like the new "Labour caused the global crash of 2008". Is there a reason Tories can't stick to factual complaints? If it helps you suppress the urge to picture me as your political enemy entrenched behind Labour's lines who you must argue against at all costs, I'll happily admit to only once having voted for labour in my life at a local by-election in protest against the other choices. 8 minutes ago, Strokes said: I’m not going to lie, I think John Redwood should have kept his trap shut, however to compare it with John McDonnell is a bit silly. Even if it is a fair comparison, you guys were all happy with JM, so what the hell you are complaining for I don’t know. The glaring lack of consistency is all I'm fussed about. As far as JM goes, I've only defended him from the point of view that it's dishonest to claim he's admitted there'll inevitably be a run as a result of his policies, I'm happy for the real content of his ideas to be criticised. Edited 13 November 2017 by Carl the Llama 2
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 And yes I'm feeling persnickety today. Too much coffee maybe.
Guest MattP Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 How is that article from Forbes even news? Is a really a massive surprise to anyone that Brexiteer politicians think that Philip Hammond is doing a crap job as chancellor and they don't think his policies are attracting enough investment? I think not. Still not sure what this has to do Labour "planning" for a run on the pound. You'e excelled yourself with this one Toddy. My only piece of praise for it is you copied something that wasn't from the Guardian.
Guest MattP Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 That nutter from Kensington is in the news again, looks like another one who wasn't vetted properly. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/13/labour-mp-described-black-tory-candidate-token-ghetto-boy/
leicsmac Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 On another note... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41958801 I sincerely hope Gove means what he says here. 1
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 Just now, MattP said: How is that article from Forbes even news? Is a really a massive surprise to anyone that Brexiteer politicians think that Philip Hammond is doing a crap job as chancellor and they don't think his policies are attracting enough investment? I think not. Still not sure what this has to do Labour "planning" for a run on the pound. You'e excelled yourself with this one Toddy. My only piece of praise for it is you copied something that wasn't from the Guardian. I don't think you can fairly argue that his policies aren't attracting enough investment if you're one of the people shooing investors away It's like me going to a 100m sprint championship, betting that the guy in lane 5 isn't going to win then taking out a rifle and knee-capping him. I might have been right regardless but the booky isn't going to pay me out now because I influenced the outcome of my predictions. Tbf the analogy works better if I'm the sprinter in lane 5's hand holding a pistol to his knees but I think you get my point.
Strokes Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 5 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: The glaring lack of consistency is all I'm fussed about. As far as JM goes, I've only defended him from the point of view that it's dishonest to claim he's admitted there'll inevitably be a run as a result of his policies, I'm happy for the real content of his ideas to be criticised. I don’t think I attacked McDonnell so I’m not being inconsistent. However anyone criticising Redwood and supporting McDonnell is guily in reverse no? @toddybad 1
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 Just now, Strokes said: I don’t think I attacked McDonnell so I’m not being inconsistent. However anyone criticising Redwood and supporting McDonnell is guily in reverse no? @toddybad That wasn't meant to sound like I'm suggesting you did, I'm speaking in general terms there. 1
Guest Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: I don’t think I attacked McDonnell so I’m not being inconsistent. However anyone criticising Redwood and supporting McDonnell is guily in reverse no? @toddybad In which way?
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 9 minutes ago, leicsmac said: On another note... http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-41958801 I sincerely hope Gove means what he says here. Agreed, this is good to hear. A pleasant respite from the rise of regressive politics.
Izzy Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 37 minutes ago, toddybad said: Government has 2-weeks to save itself and us all. You're such a drama queen sometimes Toddy
Guest Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 (edited) 2 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: You're such a drama queen sometimes Toddy Just trying to rope webbo and Matty into a pointless bit of chicanery tbh izzy Edit: though we are ****ed Edited 13 November 2017 by Guest
Izzy Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 Just now, toddybad said: Just trying to rope webbo and Matty into a pointless bit of chicanery tbh izzy Fair play dude But we'll all be O.K. - trust me. Life will go on as it always does and we'll just have to make the best of whatever cards we're dealt mate...
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 27 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: Do Tories simply not understand what "hypothetical" means? I feel like I'm taking crazy pills every time I read somebody talk about Labour "admitting [their] ideas will cause capital flight" or something similarly intellectually bankrupt. Unless he's been quoted saying as much somewhere that I'm not aware of that's simply not what happened. It's like the new "Labour caused the global crash of 2008". Is there a reason Tories can't stick to factual complaints? If it helps you suppress the urge to picture me as your political enemy entrenched behind Labour's lines who you must argue against at all costs, I'll happily admit to only once having voted for labour in my life at a local by-election in protest against the other choices. The glaring lack of consistency is all I'm fussed about. As far as JM goes, I've only defended him from the point of view that it's dishonest to claim he's admitted there'll inevitably be a run as a result of his policies, I'm happy for the real content of his ideas to be criticised. It's once more than I've ever voted Conservative (albeit with less opportunities) but that's irrelevant cos I don't give a **** about the party politics of it. Okay its hypothetical, great (and I did amend to might before you said anything). I just didn't see Balls, Osborne, Letwin, Portillo, Brown having to tell us about these hypothetical situations.
Guest MattP Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 42 minutes ago, toddybad said: Government has 2-weeks to save itself and us all. This is far worse than anything labour could do in their wildest nightmares. Yet the right wants this. Bizarre. Being a Brexiteer isn't being on "the right" - just look at the amount of Labour strongholds in the North voted out and how many solid Tory home counties seats voted in. For what it's worth I wouldn't be blackmailed into anything under a threat, no serious nation negotiates from such a position. If you would agree to anything they said then tell us that, I don't want my government to be that weak though.
Guest Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 2 minutes ago, MattP said: Being a Brexiteer isn't being on "the right" - just look at the amount of Labour strongholds in the North voted out and how many solid Tory home counties seats voted in. For what it's worth I wouldn't be blackmailed into anything under a threat, no serious nation negotiates from such a position. If you would agree to anything they said then tell us that, I don't want my government to be that weak though. The whole problem with the government's approach to Brexit is that they're trying to play a hand they don't have. We should have gone in with a fair offer to begin with and we'd have made progress. But we didn't. And now we're faffing about risking possible calamity.
Guest Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 9 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said: Fair play dude But we'll all be O.K. - trust me. Life will go on as it always does and we'll just have to make the best of whatever cards we're dealt mate... Tbh this is what bothers me. We had a bloody strong hand 18 months ago. 5th richest economy. Okay so I didn't like the government but they wouldn't be around forever. But cards that are dealt is the right analogy as Brexit is a complete and utter gamble. The Brexiters vision of free trade deals left right and centre (no matter that we can't even negotiate with our nearest partners somehow we'll dominate negotiations with every other country) is the absolute best case scenario. Even if you assume the remain arguments are worst case scenario, that still leaves some middle ground scenarios which are all much worse than we already had. It's absolute madness.
Izzy Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 7 minutes ago, toddybad said: And now we're faffing about risking possible calamity. ‘Calamity’ 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tbh this is what bothers me. We had a bloody strong hand 18 months ago. 5th richest economy. Okay so I didn't like the government but they wouldn't be around forever. But cards that are dealt is the right analogy as Brexit is a complete and utter gamble. The Brexiters vision of free trade deals left right and centre (no matter that we can't even negotiate with our nearest partners somehow we'll dominate negotiations with every other country) is the absolute best case scenario. Even if you assume the remain arguments are worst case scenario, that still leaves some middle ground scenarios which are all much worse than we already had. It's absolute madness. I’m not going to argue with you Toddy. I haven’t got anywhere near the same passion or energy as you on this topic. All I know is that the government are trying to do the best they can on a decision made by the people of this country. It’s new territory for everyone so there’s bound to be mistakes and things they’d do differently if they had their time again. They’re learning on the job and as they go because they haven’t done this before. I’m sure their intentions are right even if the execution isn’t. That’s why I’m prepared to cut them some slack instead of taking the easy option of constantly criticising them...
Guest MattP Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 18 minutes ago, toddybad said: The whole problem with the government's approach to Brexit is that they're trying to play a hand they don't have. We should have gone in with a fair offer to begin with and we'd have made progress. But we didn't. And now we're faffing about risking possible calamity. What hand are they trying to play that they don't have?
Carl the Llama Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 20 minutes ago, KingGTF said: It's once more than I've ever voted Conservative (albeit with less opportunities) but that's irrelevant cos I don't give a **** about the party politics of it. Okay its hypothetical, great (and I did amend to might before you said anything). I just didn't see Balls, Osborne, Letwin, Portillo, Brown having to tell us about these hypothetical situations. I would be astounded if none of those people you mention ever ran models for hypothetical scenarios during their policy planning processes, in fact until the recent outcry about it I'd assumed it was part and parcel of doing a good job in a policy-setting role. If JM's seriously the only person to have thought of running models then he's suddenly gone to the top of my list for chancellor. And I really don't understand why his decision to run that model is a bigger concern to you than a member of the sitting party discouraging investors from putting their capital into our country.
Guest Kopfkino Posted 13 November 2017 Posted 13 November 2017 6 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said: I would be astounded if none of those people you mention ever ran models for hypothetical scenarios during their policy planning processes, in fact until the recent outcry about it I'd assumed it was part and parcel of doing a good job in a policy-setting role. If JM's seriously the only person to have thought of running models then he's suddenly gone to the top of my list for chancellor. And I really don't understand why his decision to run that model is a bigger concern to you than a member of the sitting party discouraging investors from putting their capital into our country. You don't understand why it is a bigger concern that a shadow chancellor has acknowledged there is a possible situation that he needs to plan for, whereby capital flees the country because of his policy choices than John Redwood using his investment column to encourage people to invest in a globally diverse ETF, such as his dummy FT portfolio, instead of UK general share ETFs. Righto.
Recommended Posts