Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Some interesting stats on employment and migration this week, though we need at least one more quarter to confirm any trends..

 

As you say, the total number of EU citizens working here is still going up - but the net EU migration figure (arrivals minus departures) is falling.

Also, there are now fewer NON-EU workers here.

 

If the economic outlook starts getting really black and/or Brexit talks continue to go badly, I assume the overall number of foreign workers will start falling.

I assume most Brexiteers would be happy with that, within reason, but it could cause labour shortages in particular sectors - especially if it's true that those leaving/not coming are unskilled workers from Eastern Europe.

 

Strange that there was a fall in both unemployment and employment (the latter for the first time in 3 years) - presumably a net fall in the number of Brits in the labour force, offsetting the slight increase in foreigners?

Only one quarter's figures, though, so too soon to draw conclusions. Likewise with productivity, which edged up a bit after falling badly over recent months. 

 

I assume the figures will start to shift around a bit more soon, unless the prospects of a good Brexit deal improve. Though with unemployment low, I assume it will take some time for any worst-case scenario to develop, even if a few firms pull out after Xmas. Maybe a few people will have to shift sectors, though: City bankers/stockbrokers cast aside by departing finance firms might have to replace departing Romanians in the turnip fields of Lincolnshire. 

It seems to suggest that EU citizens leaving would probably cause wage growth but, at the same time, the employment figures being so high already mean that business will struggle to find workers, so will not be able to produce as much and it will likely hit growth.

[katieakita]

 

[Realist Guy In The Room]

2 hours ago, katieakita said:

 

Unless there’s a large crowd in front of him, he really can’t deliver a line at all.

[katieakita]

13 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Unless there’s a large crowd in front of him, he really can’t deliver a line at all.

But in fairness they will get Kenneth Branagh to narrate the documentary into why the Government gave away Royal Mail to their city chums for peanuts and blow what pittance they got for it.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

59 minutes ago, katieakita said:

But in fairness they will get Kenneth Branagh to narrate the documentary into why the Government gave away Royal Mail to their city chums for peanuts and blow what pittance they got for it.

Patrick Stewart would be my choice.

[katieakita]

1 minute ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Patrick Stewart would be my choice.

No I voted out and I think he did a video for the Guardian 

[Sampson]

On 17/11/2017 at 13:10, leicsmac said:

If folks think it hasn't worked yet, then fine - and maybe it hasn't. However, after all the human advancement that competitive structures have given and that greed making people push themselves to be better, richer, whatever, than the other guy - it has to be the endgame for humanity as a whole. Otherwise that natural human greed, ambition and instinct to survive as an individual or a small group will end up destroying us, as it has with countless other species in the past. The "most successful" ones will just be the last ones out the door.

Greed was far more relevant in Socialist countries as well as in Feudalist ones before Capitalist ones. The idea that greed has been created by Capitalism or would suddenly disappear in Socialist countries even though it's been tried countless times and never does is bizarre.

 

You think there's no greed in the few remaining Socialist countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe?

 

What does public ownership of industry and business have to do with reducing greed, ambition or the need to survive? It doesn't.

 

The amount of war between or revolutions in Capitalist countries is tiny compared to the amount of wars between Socialist or Feudalist or Mercantalist countries.

 

If you want to reduce people's want to kill each other you give them Economic growth and comfortable lives where people can all eat and cloth themselves and receive the fruits of their own labour. Socialist countries never do that because people are not allowed the fruits of their own labour because it has to be distributed equally through incredibly inefficient means. People who are trained to do the kind of horrible jobs that make society work - like cleaning and unlocking the sewers for example aren't going to become trained in that job and then do it "for the good of humanity" - it's nonsense.

 

It's a utopian unworkable concept that makes absolutely no sense and the fact that people still stick by it after well over 100million deaths have been directly caused by it through famine and the ruthlessness of forced re-distribution of goods and services because they create this bizarre false equivilancy of public ownership of industry and the magical disappearance of greed and suddenly everyone will get along. It's the most frightening form of zealotry and idealoguery imaginable.

 

Socialism is the biggest con in human history and the most evil and frightening one too. After the hundreds of millions of people suffering, after the hundred million+ direct deaths of their own people by Socialist regimes, after continuously keeping its people being unable to eat. I just cannot understand how anyone still thinks Socialism is a good idea or that it will somehow cause some utopian future for humanity and it will somehow rid the world of greed and competition and give every worker a faur shake. It Just boggles the mind.

[Guest]

58 minutes ago, Sampson said:

Greed was far more relevant in Socialist countries as well as in Feudalist ones before Capitalist ones. The idea that greed has been created by Capitalism or would suddenly disappear in Socialist countries even though it's been tried countless times and never does is bizarre.

 

You think there's no greed in the few remaining Socialist countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe?

 

What does public ownership of industry and business have to do with reducing greed, ambition or the need to survive? It doesn't.

 

The amount of war between or revolutions in Capitalist countries is tiny compared to the amount of wars between Socialist or Feudalist or Mercantalist countries.

 

If you want to reduce people's want to kill each other you give them Economic growth and comfortable lives where people can all eat and cloth themselves and receive the fruits of their own labour. Socialist countries never do that because people are not allowed the fruits of their own labour because it has to be distributed equally through incredibly inefficient means. People who are trained to do the kind of horrible jobs that make society work - like cleaning and unlocking the sewers for example aren't going to become trained in that job and then do it "for the good of humanity" - it's nonsense.

 

It's a utopian unworkable concept that makes absolutely no sense and the fact that people still stick by it after well over 100million deaths have been directly caused by it through famine and the ruthlessness of forced re-distribution of goods and services because they create this bizarre false equivilancy of public ownership of industry and the magical disappearance of greed and suddenly everyone will get along. It's the most frightening form of zealotry and idealoguery imaginable.

 

Socialism is the biggest con in human history and the most evil and frightening one too. After the hundreds of millions of people suffering, after the hundred million+ direct deaths of their own people by Socialist regimes, after continuously keeping its people being unable to eat. I just cannot understand how anyone still thinks Socialism is a good idea or that it will somehow cause some utopian future for humanity and it will somehow rid the world of greed and competition and give every worker a faur shake. It Just boggles the mind.

Are you sure you're not talking about communism rather than socialist capitalism?

You seem very, very frightened of southern rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise for wealthy individuals.

[Guest]

 

[The Guvnor]

Sir James Dyson spoke to Andrew Marr last week about the current Brexit negotiations. Couldn't find the full interview unfortunately.

 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/878555/Brexit-news-UK-Sir-James-Dyson-Brexit-latest-EU-Theresa-May-BBC-Andrew-Marr-Show-video

 

 

[fuchsntf]

3 hours ago, Sampson said:

Greed was far more relevant in Socialist countries as well as in Feudalist ones before Capitalist ones. The idea that greed has been created by Capitalism or would suddenly disappear in Socialist countries even though it's been tried countless times and never does is bizarre.

 

You think there's no greed in the few remaining Socialist countries like North Korea, Cuba, Venuzuela and Zimbabwe?

 

What does public ownership of industry and business have to do with reducing greed, ambition or the need to survive? It doesn't.

 

The amount of war between or revolutions in Capitalist countries is tiny compared to the amount of wars between Socialist or Feudalist or Mercantalist countries.

 

If you want to reduce people's want to kill each other you give them Economic growth and comfortable lives where people can all eat and cloth themselves and receive the fruits of their own labour. Socialist countries never do that because people are not allowed the fruits of their own labour because it has to be distributed equally through incredibly inefficient means. People who are trained to do the kind of horrible jobs that make society work - like cleaning and unlocking the sewers for example aren't going to become trained in that job and then do it "for the good of humanity" - it's nonsense.

 

It's a utopian unworkable concept that makes absolutely no sense and the fact that people still stick by it after well over 100million deaths have been directly caused by it through famine and the ruthlessness of forced re-distribution of goods and services because they create this bizarre false equivilancy of public ownership of industry and the magical disappearance of greed and suddenly everyone will get along. It's the most frightening form of zealotry and idealoguery imaginable.

 

Socialism is the biggest con in human history and the most evil and frightening one too. After the hundreds of millions of people suffering, after the hundred million+ direct deaths of their own people by Socialist regimes, after continuously keeping its people being unable to eat. I just cannot understand how anyone still thinks Socialism is a good idea or that it will somehow cause some utopian future for humanity and it will somehow rid the world of greed and competition and give every worker a faur shake. It Just boggles the mind.

So conservatism/right wing poltics is working a treat is it!!!!

This stupid way of arguing against socialism....is simply pathetic.

Socialism like other leanings, is how people believe govts should be up to try and organise,a society   knowing that  there will be 

Financial variants, that there is also fairness and everybodycfeels like they belong and not working for nothing.

 

It seems You  are proud thst NHS and medical staff, are being forced to struggle that soup kitchens are acceptable  in a civilised

Society, and that employment figures are doctored.That   zero hrs contracts  are acceptable  for all, with a government lies through

its teeth by promising housing for all.....If you have no permanent job, you find it difficult to get into rented accomadation, Let alone

asking for a mortgage.

If you are so daft that you believe,or confuse dictatorship, or police states with socialism, then try and base your silly argument on falsehoods

I pity you.

Oh I dont consider myself either leaning towards Socialist/conservative capatalism, but putting up or opinionating upon the validity of non exsistent

Comparisons  , shows a lack of knowledge on democratic variants.

Its not necessarily , the failing of socialism or conservatism in a democracy, but the failings of the politicians implementing their mandates,

or using and abusing their electorate, by riding the democratic idea in name only for their  own obscure  needs.

[bovril]

I think it's disingenuous to completely dismiss socialism without acknowledging that its rise did at least contribute to a lot of positive changes in European societies in the 20th century. 

Edited 18 November 2017 by bovril

[Rogstanley]

Capitalism v socialism is a redundant debate. We don’t have undiluted capitalism now and we wouldn’t have undiluted socialism under a Corbyn government. What we would have is predominantly capitalism with a few more socialist tendencies. Countries like Norway make that work very well for themselves. 

[Sampson]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Capitalism v socialism is a redundant debate. We don’t have undiluted capitalism now and we wouldn’t have undiluted socialism under a Corbyn government. What we would have is predominantly capitalism with a few more socialist tendencies. Countries like Norway make that work very well for themselves. 

But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out.

 

Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. 

 

The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control.

 

Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy.

 

The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly.

 

I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism".

 

My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead.

 

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Are you sure you're not talking about communism rather than socialist capitalism?

You seem very, very frightened of southern rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise for wealthy individuals.

No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do.

 

Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for.

 

"Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.

Edited 19 November 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sampson said:

But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out.

 

Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. 

 

The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control.

 

Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy.

 

The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly.

 

I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism".

 

My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead.

 

No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do.

 

Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for.

 

"Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.

Which was precisely my point. We're talking about rail and utilities. National infrastructure.

 

Admittedly the Post Office too which I suppose I.can't decide counts as infrastructure but there's someone here who knows more about that and it's more invested in it.

 

But not the rest of the economy.

 

A little corner of socialism within a capitalist economy.

 

Tbh I think you're getting carried away. Neither socialism nor capitalism are.wonderful.or terrible in their own right. I can give you just as awful a list able capitalism. Right at the top.is climate change brought about my competitive greed that has led corporations profiting from fossil fuels to keep.burning whilst denying a problem despite having internal reports detailing climate.concerns since the mid 1960s. A huge increase in the % of wealth hoarded at the top. Huge growth in economies (good) which still see increasing numbers of people sleeping on the streets or using food banks.

Edited 19 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

The total number of Conservative donations since 3 May are in excess of 160. The majority are seemingly from bankers, property tycoons, and friends of the Tories in the City.  
The Tories’ donors included:
Sir Henry and Lady Keswick – £150,000. Keswick’s company Jardine Matheson was linked to tax avoidance via Luxembourg and has numerous subsidiaries in tax haven Bermuda.
Charles ‘Julian’ Cazalet – £10,000. Cazalet is a non-executive director of NHS private provider Deltex Medical Group.
John Griffin – £900,000. Griffin and his private hire firm Addison Lee were caught up in a lobbying and tax avoidance scandal in 2012.
David J Rowland – £200,000.  A major investigation into Rowland in 2016, and described his offshore tax affairs as “mind blowing”.
Andrew E Law – £250,000. Law is a hedge fund owner whose firm Caxton Associates is registered in the US tax avoidance state of Delaware.
Malcolm Healey – £100,000. Healey was fined by HMRC in 2015 for making £8.6m by using a tax avoidance scheme.
Bruce Hardy McLain – £100,000  McLain’s private investment firm CVC Capital Partners is currently embroiled in a £5m bribery and tax avoidance scandal involving Formula One.
Ayman and Sawsan Asfari – £100,000. Ayman is currently under investigation by the Serious Fraud Office. He also runs oil company Petrofac, which avoids tax via Jersey.
Rainy City Investments – £100,000 Owned by Peter and Fred Done, who were fined £800,000 by the Serious Fraud Office over money laundering allegations.
Investors in Private Capital Ltd – £150,000 Owned by James ‘Jamie’ Reuben, family friend of George Osborne, it paid no UK corporation tax in 2014 despite a turnover of £35m.
John C Armitage – £1m. Armitage is the founder of Egerton Capital, a hedge fund that enables tax avoidance for investors.
JCB Service – £500,000  It’s owned by Anthony Bamford, who was not only named in the Panama Papers, but who operates JCB out of tax haven Bermuda.
And the list goes on.

[katieakita]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

Which was precisely my point. We're talking about rail and utilities. National infrastructure.

 

Admittedly the Post Office too which I suppose I.can't decide counts as infrastructure but there's someone here who knows more about that and it's more invested in it.

 

But not the rest of the economy.

 

A little corner of socialism within a capitalist economy.

 

Tbh I think you're getting carried away. Neither socialism nor capitalism are.wonderful.or terrible in their own right. I can give you just as awful a list able capitalism. Right at the top.is climate change brought about my competitive greed that has led corporations profiting from fossil fuels to keep.burning whilst denying a problem despite having internal reports detailing climate.concerns since the mid 1960s. A huge increase in the % of wealth hoarded at the top. Huge growth in economies (good) which still see increasing numbers of people sleeping on the streets or using food banks.

The Post Office is a huge dilemma and embarrassment for the Government and highlights the governments inability to deal with incompetence and corruption within the civil service who oversee the government owned Post Office. £2.34 billion from the sale of Royal Mail was been wasted by the Post Office management leaving a network not fit for purpose and in a far worse position than prior to this huge investment. What is supposedly the Front Office of Government according to the Tories is in disarray. The Post Office has no plan going forward and is desperately awaiting a further bailout from the chancellor this week.

[Rogstanley]

10 hours ago, Sampson said:

But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out.

 

Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. 

 

The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control.

 

Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy.

 

The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly.

 

I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism".

 

My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead.

 

No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do.

 

Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for.

 

"Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.

Labour won the last election among the entire working age group, so it isn’t just naive kids that are voting for them. Pensioners won it for the Tories, ironically the protection of their socialist pension payments was one of their main motivations.

 

Capitalism has its risks for young people too. Just look at the decade of falling wages, houses becoming unaffordable, the latest generation of youngsters being poorer than the one before and so on. 

 

At the extreme end of the scale the smaller state, less regulation, business profits above all system leads to things like Grenfell where insufficient regulation coupled with a drive for profit led to people being burned alive.

 

Then consider the relative success of the Nordic model, the success Portugal have had reversing austerity, and the risks of a capitalist society in a near-future where people are less able to sell their own labour due to automation and it shouldn’t come as a surprise that people of all ages are wondering if a change of direction might be in order.

 

While Corbyn offers the only realistic opportunity of bringing that change about people will vote for him. It doesn’t mean everyone is being ignorant towards the risks of socialism any more than people voting Tory are happy to see people dying in the pursuit of business profit.

[leicsmac]

13 hours ago, Sampson said:

But leiscmac was arguing that we literally should be moving towards a Socialist society as humanity to stop humans dying out.

 

Of course it's a redundant debate, anyone who still believes in Socialism and a majority public owned economy is nuts and definitely scary. 

 

The debate now is which few industries are worth putting into public control, not about putting the majority of it under control.

 

Capitalism and an overwhelmingly privatised Economy has proven to be the only sensible way to run an Economy.

 

The problem is that you still get people trying to whip up Socialist ideals like Corbyn and Sanders are playing the youth for fools by selling them some glorification of the public sector whole demonizing the private sector constantly.

 

I know Corbyn won't turn us into a Socialist economy, of course he won't - but it's the way he keeps name dropping Socialism to young people who don't understand what it means and always demonizing the private sector without reproach which is what frightens me - there was a recent poll that more people under 29 in the US view the word "socialism" as a positive term than "capitalism".

 

My worry is plenty of young people who don't really understand what Socialism (i.e. a majority public owned Economy) and Capitalism (i.e. a majority privately owned Economy) actually mean are rallying against Capitalism and rallying behind Socialism without really understanding what they mean - and I hope it doesn't lead to the same disasters in the 21st Century when everyone around to warn then of the socialist states if the 20th century are all dead.

 

No I don't mean Communism - Communism is the stateless, moneyless society which Socialist states are supposed to evolve into, but never do.

 

Southern Rail losing their license and a 5% tax rise is not making the country Socialist which is what leiscmac was calling for.

 

"Socialist Capitalism?" Where have you got that term from? That's a complete oxymoran - an Economy cannot be both majority publically and privately owned.

I think toddy and rog have done a lot of answering these points in a way that I would (especially the climate change part, would like to hear your thoughts on that), but I just have a couple of things to add (think I talked about this with KingGTF on here before but not you, apologies if we have):

 

Do you think that capitalism is a competitive social model, eg. it encourages individuals and/or small groups of people to compete against others for something that in the end is essentially finite (resources, space, whatever)? If not, how would you describe it?

 

Can you think of any circumstance where a complex species in the past has used a competitive social model based on natural selection (as almost all of have) and not ended up in trouble either from fighting amongst each other, from a change in the Earth (including a new better species) or a combination of the two?

 

Are these two things linked in your mind, and if not, why?

 

I know people often say that competition doesn't lead to conflict but history seems to bear out that it almost inevitably does. And while that conflict has often been a really adept driver of human development (when your survival is on the line that tends to make folks rise to the occasion, after all - World War II made us going to the Moon possible), keep doing it and it may well lead to the kind of trouble humanity can't get out of.

[Alf Bentley]

I wonder what consequences this will have for European politics - and Brexit, in particular? http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-42047532

 

"Talks on forming a coalition government in Germany have collapsed, leaving Angela Merkel facing her biggest challenge in 12 years as chancellor.

The free-market liberal FDP pulled out after four weeks of talks with Mrs Merkel's CDU/CSU bloc and the Greens.

FDP leader Christian Lindner said there was "no basis of trust" between them.

What happens next is unclear, but Mrs Merkel is due to meet President Frank-Walter Steinmeier, who has the power to call snap elections".

 

Apparently the SDP (Social Democrats/Labour), who came second in the elections, have ruled themselves out of any coalition. The FDP are obviously a non-starter, now - as are AfD (Far Right), for obvious reasons.

 

Sounds like there could be new elections in Germany, possibly with Merkel standing down....

If so, which party/parties are likely to benefit from that?

 

Anyone with any expertise on German politics have any views? Political instability in Germany doesn't seem a good thing on the face of it....

 

[katieakita]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fines-for-firms-that-cheat-on-status-of-gig-workers-bpm07qg3j

 

 

Wonder how the government is going to fine itself.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, katieakita said:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/fines-for-firms-that-cheat-on-status-of-gig-workers-bpm07qg3j

 

 

Wonder how the government is going to fine itself.

A few months back we had the right wingers inn here arguing that this sort of false self employment was a good thing. Note that about 80% of the right wingers on here are self employed and therefore couldn't give a monkeys about workers rights or companies paying their way.

Edited 20 November 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

If you tax the rich, they won't leave: US data contradicts millionaires' threats

https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2017/nov/20/if-you-tax-the-rich-they-wont-leave-us-data-contradicts-millionaires-threats?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[Guest]

Sorry no more Guardian links today but this one explains why we need to stop fretting about deficits and start worrying about what we provide for our people.

 

A budget to increase national debt? That would be a pay rise for Britain

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/nov/20/budget-increase-national-debt-pay-rise-britain-bill-clinton-philip-hammond?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[David Guiza]

Generally a waste of time trying to argue anything pro animal rights on here but heyho, when's the referendum on whether or not the Tory cabinet can feel pain or emotion? https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/government-votes-animals-cant-feel-pain-emotions/17/11/