Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

6 hours ago, toddybad said:

McDonnell making some sensible plans

 

Labour vows to factor climate change risk into economic forecasts

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/13/labour-vows-to-factor-climate-change-risk-into-economic-forecasts?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

They can't even get forecasts right now most of the time and now they want to factor in climate change? I get the feeling if McDonnell said we were going to change our currency to poo so we could all start shitting money to invest you would call it a sensible idea.

 

You are going to be seriously preaching to the converted if your intention is to convince people this guy will be a competent chancellor.

Edited 14 November 2017 by MattP

[Fox Ulike]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

The racist party strikes again.

What about when some Tory did something racist? Eh?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/tory-councillor-is-accused-of-making-racist-and-sexist-remarks-t/

 

Love this:

 

Cllr Andrew Dransfield, vice-chairman of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority, allegedly shook the [black] fireman's hand and declared: "You're the first one I've seen. You know... ethnic minority. Now all we need is a woman. Are there any here?"

 

 

 

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

They can't even get forecasts right now most of the time and now they want to factor in climate change? I get the feeling if McDonnell said we were going to change our currency to poo so we could all start shitting money to invest you would call it a sensible idea.

 

You are going to be seriously preaching to the converted if your intention is to convince people this guy will be a competent chancellor.

 I just wanted to see what you would say Matt. It's funny how easily your responses can be predicted. 

 

It's absolutely right to include climate change as a significant factor affecting our economy going forward. It's obvious that it has to be. 

 

Why is it not possible for you to just say that he's got that right even if you cannot see anything but unmitigated disaster from his other plans?

 

It's amusing watching you contort yourself into negative spaces even when there's nothing wrong with what's been said.

[Guest]

On a separate issue, the contentious Brexit withdrawal bill is back in the commons today. 

 

Why has the government tried to put an absolute date for withdrawal in the bill when it ties our hands if we're closing on an agreement but are not yet there? Even more, why do it when it could cause them to lose a vote? Seems like utter madness.

[David Guiza]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

You won’t get me arguing against you on this, the conservatives have handled grenfell appallingly, particularly at local level. Have you got a copy of the leaflet for us to examine?

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kensington-chelsea-and-fulham-tories-ask-residents-to-rate-grenfell-disaster-from-nought-to-ten_uk_5a0a07e2e4b0bc648a0d32fa Huffington Post happened to be the first article I got to - but there's a few around.

 

Whoever is in charge of PR on both sides must be on substantial annual leave. 

[Strokes]

15 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

What about when some Tory did something racist? Eh?

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/26/tory-councillor-is-accused-of-making-racist-and-sexist-remarks-t/

 

Love this:

 

Cllr Andrew Dransfield, vice-chairman of Buckinghamshire and Milton Keynes fire authority, allegedly shook the [black] fireman's hand and declared: "You're the first one I've seen. You know... ethnic minority. Now all we need is a woman. Are there any here?"

 

 

 

Thats brilliant.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, toddybad said:

 I just wanted to see what you would say Matt. It's funny how easily your responses can be predicted. 

 

It's absolutely right to include climate change as a significant factor affecting our economy going forward. It's obvious that it has to be. 

 

Why is it not possible for you to just say that he's got that right even if you cannot see anything but unmitigated disaster from his other plans?

 

It's amusing watching you contort yourself into negative spaces even when there's nothing wrong with what's been said.

It's a terrible idea, how long does he think he is going to be in the job, 150 years? As I say, we can't get forecasts right at the minute for today from March and now he's going to throw climate change into them as well, it's laughable. Voodoo.

 

Climate change doesn't even affect short term forecasts and I can assure you he'll be a short term chancellor - https://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/10.html

 

The Labour party is now just joining the dots together to make sure they have every single part of the idiot vote sewn up.

[Strokes]

6 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/kensington-chelsea-and-fulham-tories-ask-residents-to-rate-grenfell-disaster-from-nought-to-ten_uk_5a0a07e2e4b0bc648a0d32fa Huffington Post happened to be the first article I got to - but there's a few around.

 

Whoever is in charge of PR on both sides must be on substantial annual leave. 

Jesus. I think i would rate it at 9, obviously not as important as council tax prices. We must put thing into perspective. 

[Rogstanley]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

They can't even get forecasts right now most of the time and now they want to factor in climate change? I get the feeling if McDonnell said we were going to change our currency to poo so we could all start shitting money to invest you would call it a sensible idea.

 

You are going to be seriously preaching to the converted if your intention is to convince people this guy will be a competent chancellor.

Maybe the reason why forecasts are often wrong is precisely because they haven't factored in things like climate change?

 

Behind the cucky Tory servitude you must realise that trying to play the competence card in defence of a party that has missed target after target after target after target is a very weak position to take?

Edited 14 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

It's a terrible idea, how long does he think he is going to be in the job, 150 years? As I say, we can't get forecasts right at the minute for today from March and now he's going to throw climate change into them as well, it's laughable. Voodoo.

 

Climate change doesn't even affect short term forecasts and I can assure you he'll be a short term chancellor - https://ideas.repec.org/p/sgc/wpaper/10.html

 

The Labour party is now just joining the dots together to make sure they have every single part of the idiot vote sewn up.

Matt, climate change is already happening. We aren't waiting 150 years to see the impact. You need to read some UN climate reports. We're going to be seeing increase severe weather, flooding, population movements and very significant problems in the next 20 or 30 years. It's already costing more year in year to deal with flooding etc. To not consider climate change within economic plans NOW would be an absolute dereliction of duty.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

On a separate issue, the contentious Brexit withdrawal bill is back in the commons today. 

 

Why has the government tried to put an absolute date for withdrawal in the bill when it ties our hands if we're closing on an agreement but are not yet there? Even more, why do it when it could cause them to lose a vote? Seems like utter madness.

Because that's the date we leave the EU as stated by Article 50, we can't have a situation where this nonsense goes on forever. As I mentioned about ten times before on here, I still have no idea how any MP thought the vote would be anything other than accept the terms or "crash out" (to use the BBC description) onto WTO terms, what sort of vote did they expect? One where they could overturn it? Send us back to the EU to carry on even though they have given no indication that could happen (and I'm certain Clegg, Clarke etc would have asked them to do this at that meetng)

 

Good news it looks like Tory rebels only number a handful and the ten or so Labour MP's like Hoey and Field etc will vote with the government so it will have enough to pass the house.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Maybe the reason why forecasts are often wrong is precisely because they haven't factored in factors like climate change?

 

Behind the cucky Tory servitude you must realise that trying to play the competence card in defence of a party that has missed target after target after target after target is a very weak position to take?

Like labour supporters are any better really. Lets talk about illegal wars........err red tories. Lets talk about the financial crash and the national debt.........Global. Lets talk about the 1970s........the tories dunnit. Lets talk about Labours position on brexit...........

[Guest]

1 minute ago, MattP said:

Because that's the date we leave the EU as stated by Article 50, we can't have a situation where this nonsense goes on forever. As I mentioned about ten times before on here, I still have no idea how any MP thought the vote would be anything other than accept the terms or "crash out" (to use the BBC description) onto WTO terms, what sort of vote did they expect? One where they could overturn it? Send us back to the EU to carry on even though they have given no indication that could happen (and I'm certain Clegg, Clarke etc would have asked them to do this at that meetng)

 

Good news it looks like Tory rebels only number a handful and the ten or so Labour MP's like Hoey and Field etc will vote with the government so it will have enough to pass the house.

So far today you want climate change ignored in economic considerations and prefer to see MPs given no meaningful say on the biggest issue parliament has dealt with in decades.

 

I've got to say, even for you this is hubris at its worst. 

 

 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Maybe the reason why forecasts are often wrong is precisely because they haven't factored in things like climate change?

I can't believe you have actually wrote that and pressed post.

 

I'd love you to expand on this opinion, purely for my own entertainment.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Like labour supporters are any better really. Lets talk about illegal wars........err red tories. Lets talk about the financial crash and the national debt.........Global. Lets talk about the 1970s........the tories dunnit. Lets talk about Labours position on brexit...........

Ignoring all the he said she said crap, straight question strokes.

 

Should the economic effects of climate change be used in the government's economic modelling. Yes or no?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

So far today you want climate change ignored in economic considerations and prefer to see MPs given no meaningful say on the biggest issue parliament has dealt with in decades.

 

I've got to say, even for you this is hubris at its worst.

Of course I do, did you read the link I sent you? It's totally pointless, it wouldn't effect short term forecasts anyway and predicting these things would be impossible, I know he's a politician that likes to promise ridiculous impossible things but even he is taking the piss here, probably just a cheap attempt at picking up Brighton Pavilion.

 

Parliament delegated the decision on the EU to the people, they must now enact Brexit in the best way possible. We had a meaningful vote, the highest turnout of any election on our lifetime which they gave to us.

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I can't believe you have actually wrote that and pressed post.

 

I'd love you to expand on this opinion, purely for my own entertainment.

I think we're in agreement that financial forecasts are often wrong?

 

Isn't it then obvious that some factor/s must have been missed or incorrectly accounted for when making the forecast?

 

Doesn't then follow that reconsidering your methodology and including all known factors is the sensible thing to do?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Ignoring all the he said she said crap, straight question strokes.

 

Should the economic effects of climate change be used in the government's economic modelling. Yes or no?

Yes, they are in this governments, and should be considered in all coming governments.

I haven’t read the article yet btw, if you copy and paste I will read and reply accordingly.

[Guest]

If you Google it you will find the independent running the same story strokes.

 

McDonnell's not saying anything that isn't entirely sensible so really don't know why Matty has tied himself in knots over this one. Think he's embarrassed himself tbh - and I should know what that looks like ?

[Buce]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/14/theresa-may-ally-accuses-hammond-of-vetoing-politics-promoting-economic-justice-politics-live

 

Sparrow

Tory policy chief: 'very real prospect' Brexit could lead to national decline -

 

George Freeman, Tory MP and chair of the Conservative policy forum, has issued a warning that the UK could become “an old people’s home that can’t pay for itself” with excessive debts and young people fleeing the country, unless it embarks on serious economic renewal.

At an economics conference, the MP set out two scenarios for life in the UK after Brexit, arguing there is a real risk that Britain could take the path of decline.

In the good scenario, he said the UK would tackle its deficit, and “unleash a entrepreneurship revolution”.

He told the IPPR think tank event that he would like to see the UK become an “innovation crucible for technologies the world needs to develop”, such as clean green sustainable models of growth. He said he would like to imagine a world where the UK exported those technologies, paid off its debt and because “a happy prosperous purposeful nation again”.

But in the bad scenario, he said, this could be “the moment we finally failed as a great nation and became a second or third tier nation”. Imagining what this might look like from the future, he said:

People got up and left. We pulled out of Europe and became and isolated, small, insular, old, ageing economy. We became an old people’s home that couldn’t pay for itself.

That I see as a very real prospect and it chills me to the bone. It is an extreme choice but I think that is the choice we face as a country and the question whether we as a generation rise to it and grip it.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/14/theresa-may-ally-accuses-hammond-of-vetoing-politics-promoting-economic-justice-politics-live

 

Sparrow

Tory policy chief: 'very real prospect' Brexit could lead to national decline -

 

George Freeman, Tory MP and chair of the Conservative policy forum, has issued a warning that the UK could become “an old people’s home that can’t pay for itself” with excessive debts and young people fleeing the country, unless it embarks on serious economic renewal.

At an economics conference, the MP set out two scenarios for life in the UK after Brexit, arguing there is a real risk that Britain could take the path of decline.

In the good scenario, he said the UK would tackle its deficit, and “unleash a entrepreneurship revolution”.

He told the IPPR think tank event that he would like to see the UK become an “innovation crucible for technologies the world needs to develop”, such as clean green sustainable models of growth. He said he would like to imagine a world where the UK exported those technologies, paid off its debt and because “a happy prosperous purposeful nation again”.

But in the bad scenario, he said, this could be “the moment we finally failed as a great nation and became a second or third tier nation”. Imagining what this might look like from the future, he said:

People got up and left. We pulled out of Europe and became and isolated, small, insular, old, ageing economy. We became an old people’s home that couldn’t pay for itself.

That I see as a very real prospect and it chills me to the bone. It is an extreme choice but I think that is the choice we face as a country and the question whether we as a generation rise to it and grip it.

Both options sound great tbf.

[Innovindil]

15 minutes ago, Buce said:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/nov/14/theresa-may-ally-accuses-hammond-of-vetoing-politics-promoting-economic-justice-politics-live

 

Sparrow

Tory policy chief: 'very real prospect' Brexit could lead to national decline -

 

George Freeman, Tory MP and chair of the Conservative policy forum, has issued a warning that the UK could become “an old people’s home that can’t pay for itself” with excessive debts and young people fleeing the country, unless it embarks on serious economic renewal.

At an economics conference, the MP set out two scenarios for life in the UK after Brexit, arguing there is a real risk that Britain could take the path of decline.

In the good scenario, he said the UK would tackle its deficit, and “unleash a entrepreneurship revolution”.

He told the IPPR think tank event that he would like to see the UK become an “innovation crucible for technologies the world needs to develop”, such as clean green sustainable models of growth. He said he would like to imagine a world where the UK exported those technologies, paid off its debt and because “a happy prosperous purposeful nation again”.

But in the bad scenario, he said, this could be “the moment we finally failed as a great nation and became a second or third tier nation”. Imagining what this might look like from the future, he said:

People got up and left. We pulled out of Europe and became and isolated, small, insular, old, ageing economy. We became an old people’s home that couldn’t pay for itself.

That I see as a very real prospect and it chills me to the bone. It is an extreme choice but I think that is the choice we face as a country and the question whether we as a generation rise to it and grip it.

Easy solution. Kill all the old folk. 

 

Next problem please. 

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Easy solution. Kill all the old folk. 

 

Next problem please. 

 

Or all the young folk.

 

We could call it youthanasia...

[Innovindil]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Or all the young folk.

 

We could call it youthanasia...

Can't let the oldies out unchecked. Would be like the walking dead. Shuffling slippers and strange groans. 

[leicsmac]

Not really a reply to anyone, but an observation on the debate in the last page:

 

Though the volatility of the markets caused by humans being humans makes it difficult, is it really so pointless to attempt to factor in long-term significant changes in the Earth to economic forecasts? I mean, while it may not happen for a longish time it also has the potential to shake up the world economy in a way unparalleled by any human activity (short of a nuclear war), so perhaps provision (including economic ones) should be made?

 

It's easy to say that we can't predict what the long-term effects of climate change will be (and that's partly true) but seeing as we know CO2 levels and general temperatures are rising, it's a safe conclusion this will lead to some kind of drastic (if unspecified as yet) change. The market tends to see drastic change as always negative and so it follows that ergo the effect on the market will not be good.

 

Perhaps more should be done to account for this and to research and make better predictions (and you know, believe them rather than think the vast majority of the scientific community is lying because reasons) so as to get a better idea of the change we're in for and plan for it and the economic effects accordingly?