Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Well we were talking about defence cuts and I showed JC saying defence cuts were a good idea. Just seemed kinda relevant.

It seemed like you were posting a video of Jeremy Corbyn in lieu of actually addressing the points raised to me. Corbyn’s opinion is relevant to the overall discussion but just because jezza says something doesn’t mean everyone who votes labour agrees with him. I mean, you don’t agree with absolutely everything the dominatrix ever says, do you? Wait, scratch that. You actually do. Fair play. Move on. Fields of wheat. Oh goodness me.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

So what would you rather they cut?

I'd rather they invested, improved gdp, and the deficit was reduced through increased growth.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

If labour hadn’t bloated public services, they wouldn’t have needed cutting. Why were they running a deficit during a boom? it’s much bigger when you take in all the pfi contracts they used to disguise it, saddling the next government with the bill.

Ffs man. Just because osborne made some shit up about the sun shining doesn't mean it was true. There is absolutely no problem at all with a sensible deficit. 

[Webbo]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

It seemed like you were posting a video of Jeremy Corbyn in lieu of actually addressing the points raised to me. Corbyn’s opinion is relevant to the overall discussion but just because jezza says something doesn’t mean everyone who votes labour agrees with him. I mean, you don’t agree with absolutely everything the dominatrix ever says, do you? Wait, scratch that. You actually do. Fair play. Move on. Fields of wheat. Oh goodness me.

Most of the time I just ignore Toddy's post as they're a bit whiney and boring. I didn't have to reply at all. It just seemed a bit hypocritical to me that you can support Corbyn and complain about defence cuts at the same time, that's not that hard to comprehend surely?

[Webbo]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I'd rather they invested, improved gdp, and the deficit was reduced through increased growth.

Yeah but some of us are grown ups and know that's bollox.

[Guest]

28 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Yeah but some of us are grown ups and know that's bollox.

Okay, so you want to cut to end the deficit. They've cut for 7 years and aren't even close. The end date is currently 10 years later than planned and moving back all the time.

 

You are absolutely clueless webbo.

[Webbo]

7 hours ago, toddybad said:

Okay, so you want to cut to end the deficit. They've cut for 7 years and aren't even close. The end date is currently 10 years later than planned and moving back all the time.

 

You are absolutely clueless webbo.

What are your qualifications in economics if you don't mind me asking?

[Buce]

8 hours ago, bovril said:

I'd like to meet Toddy in real life. We should organise an FT question time down the pub. 

 

Hmm. Politics and alcohol. 

 

What could possibly go wrong?

[Rogstanley]

7 hours ago, Webbo said:

Most of the time I just ignore Toddy's post as they're a bit whiney and boring. I didn't have to reply at all. It just seemed a bit hypocritical to me that you can support Corbyn and complain about defence cuts at the same time, that's not that hard to comprehend surely?

No I understand your point very well. It’s just absolutely nuts, that’s all. The idea that you have to fall in line with the opinions of the leader of the party you vote for or else you’re hypocritical is stone cold crazy.

 

Most normal, intelligent people have a range of views which they’ve arrived at via their own critical analysis and they’ll then vote for the party that best represents their interests.

 

You on the other hand seem to arrive at political discussion from the point of view that you belong to the Tory party and will defend them at any cost, as if you are nothing but a strictly obedient foot soldier. Your views are pliable; will bend and shift to fit in with whatever message you think the dominatrix wants you to promote.

 

It’s pure tribalism I’m afraid and for me it’s almost offensive that somebody who has claimed to be such a fan of democracy would lie down and give up their right to their own views so willingly.

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

No I understand your point very well. It’s just absolutely nuts, that’s all. The idea that you have to fall in line with the opinions of the leader of the party you vote for or else you’re hypocritical is stone cold crazy.

 

Most normal, intelligent people have a range of views which they’ve arrived at via their own critical analysis and they’ll then vote for the party that best represents their interests.

 

You on the other hand seem to arrive at political discussion from the point of view that you belong to the Tory party and will defend them at any cost, as if you are nothing but a strictly obedient foot soldier. Your views are pliable; will bend and shift to fit in with whatever message you think the dominatrix wants you to promote.

 

It’s pure tribalism I’m afraid and for me it’s almost offensive that somebody who has claimed to be such a fan of democracy would lie down and give up their right to their own views so willingly.

But you've told us you don't believe in socialism or nationalisation and yet you support the most leftwing labour party leader ever? That tells me you haven't made a considered opinion. Whereas I, while accepting that everything is not perfect, believe that the Tories are at least economically competent, don't push divisive identity politics and aren't run by hate filled cranks. I consider them to be the better option by far.

[Jon the Hat]

24 minutes ago, Webbo said:

But you've told us you don't believe in socialism or nationalisation and yet you support the most leftwing labour party leader ever? That tells me you haven't made a considered opinion. Whereas I, while accepting that everything is not perfect, believe that the Tories are at least economically competent, don't push divisive identity politics and aren't run by hate filled cranks. I consider them to be the better option by far.

This, although I am less than convinced by the current leadership.  I simply don't understand how anyone with even half a functioning brain can think for more than about 10 seconds that this Labour party could run anything at all without it ending in abject failure which costs us a lot more than Brexit ever could.

[Guest MattP]

9 hours ago, toddybad said:

Ffs man. Just because osborne made some shit up about the sun shining doesn't mean it was true. There is absolutely no problem at all with a sensible deficit. 

I agree; now what do see as a sensible deficit, I'd be interested in what you think. 

 

You can give me a figure as a whole or a % of GDP. 

[Alf Bentley]

48 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

This, although I am less than convinced by the current leadership.  I simply don't understand how anyone with even half a functioning brain can think for more than about 10 seconds that this Labour party could run anything at all without it ending in abject failure which costs us a lot more than Brexit ever could.

 

- I place some faith in senior civil servants to moderate the crazier ideas and advise on how to implement some Leftist policies without destroying the economy etc.

- There are also still a lot of more pragmatic MPs on the Labour benches, who would not allow anything too damaging to become legislation

- I also assume that some of the declared policies of Corbyn/McDonnell are aspirations or policies to be achieved gradually. I'd like to believe that whatever their ideology, they don't really intend to immediately nationalise half a dozen industries and cancel all PFI projects at a cost of £300bn+ or whatever it is....I'd like to believe that McDonnell, at least, is sane enough to adopt a more gradualist approach (not so sure about Corbyn - he has less strategic sense, I think)

 

For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the current govt, which seems to want destroy all our trading and political alliances, destroy our economy, leave our society in conflict and penury and risk reigniting the Irish conflict.....if it knows what it wants to do at all, other than to fight a civil war within the Tory party. Now that is a seriously bonkers party - and it's in govt right now! 

 

Must work.... 

[Jon the Hat]

11 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

- I place some faith in senior civil servants to moderate the crazier ideas and advise on how to implement some Leftist policies without destroying the economy etc.

- There are also still a lot of more pragmatic MPs on the Labour benches, who would not allow anything too damaging to become legislation

- I also assume that some of the declared policies of Corbyn/McDonnell are aspirations or policies to be achieved gradually. I'd like to believe that whatever their ideology, they don't really intend to immediately nationalise half a dozen industries and cancel all PFI projects at a cost of £300bn+ or whatever it is....I'd like to believe that McDonnell, at least, is sane enough to adopt a more gradualist approach (not so sure about Corbyn - he has less strategic sense, I think)

 

For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the current govt, which seems to want destroy all our trading and political alliances, destroy our economy, leave our society in conflict and penury and risk reigniting the Irish conflict.....if it knows what it wants to do at all, other than to fight a civil war within the Tory party. Now that is a seriously bonkers party - and it's in govt right now! 

 

Must work.... 

You are probably right on Labour, but they have been awfully successful at overcoming the more sensible in their ranks so far.  Who's to say a majority Labour has the same level of sanity in it?

 

The funny thing is you seem to be applying my logic to the Tories, i.e. everything they say, and the EU negotiators say is reality not rhetoric.  It isn't.  Again on the Irish border, if you don't know what that border is protecting, it is difficult to say absolutley that you can have a soft border.  It the EU won't give us any access to the single market and force hard customs, then it will be out of our hands no?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 hours ago, toddybad said:

I'd rather they invested, improved gdp, and the deficit was reduced through increased growth.

That is what they are doing FFS

 

We have growth, we have improving GDP and we have record employment,

 

What a fantastic job they are doing lets move on.

Edited 27 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, Webbo said:

What are your qualifications in economics if you don't mind me asking?

The Guardian.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

27 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

- I place some faith in senior civil servants to moderate the crazier ideas and advise on how to implement some Leftist policies without destroying the economy etc.

- There are also still a lot of more pragmatic MPs on the Labour benches, who would not allow anything too damaging to become legislation

- I also assume that some of the declared policies of Corbyn/McDonnell are aspirations or policies to be achieved gradually. I'd like to believe that whatever their ideology, they don't really intend to immediately nationalise half a dozen industries and cancel all PFI projects at a cost of £300bn+ or whatever it is....I'd like to believe that McDonnell, at least, is sane enough to adopt a more gradualist approach (not so sure about Corbyn - he has less strategic sense, I think)

 

For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the current govt, which seems to want destroy all our trading and political alliances, destroy our economy, leave our society in conflict and penury and risk reigniting the Irish conflict.....if it knows what it wants to do at all, other than to fight a civil war within the Tory party. Now that is a seriously bonkers party - and it's in govt right now! 

 

Must work.... 

Normally you are immeasurably wise, but that's is quite frankly utter garbage. Sorry!

 

12 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are probably right on Labour, but they have been awfully successful at overcoming the more sensible in their ranks so far.  Who's to say a majority Labour has the same level of sanity in it?

 

The funny thing is you seem to be applying my logic to the Tories, i.e. everything they say, and the EU negotiators say is reality not rhetoric.  It isn't.  Again on the Irish border, if you don't know what that border is protecting, it is difficult to say absolutley that you can have a soft border.  It the EU won't give us any access to the single market and force hard customs, then it will be out of our hands no?

Very true. The Labour front bench is absolute horseshit, full of absolutely awful politicians. Momentum are on a purge of the decent moderate politicians from the party, if god forbid they ever did win an election, it would strengthen the resolve of the lunatics who would further purge any moderates, they certainly would at the least be expelled to the back benches. I have said time and time again Labour has and had some great people within the party, unfortunately the current Shadow cabinet does not contain ANY of them.

 

Its funny how everything wrote or in the news about Labour is Daily Mail hysteria yet everything to do with the current government or Brexit is absolutely gospel truth. Again as a remain voter (originally) I had concerns about Brexit but this is a two way negotiation, no one knows the outcome yet. When we know the deal we can begin to break it down, the facts are EU countries need to trade with us as much as we need to trade with them so I am fairly confident that we will get a deal, I think the issue then is that the hard Brexit supporters maybe disappointed as the nature of the deal probably means its will be very closely aligned to the single market/customs union. If we can negotiate that without freedom of unskilled movement then it will be a massive success.

[Alf Bentley]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

You are probably right on Labour, but they have been awfully successful at overcoming the more sensible in their ranks so far.  Who's to say a majority Labour has the same level of sanity in it?

 

The funny thing is you seem to be applying my logic to the Tories, i.e. everything they say, and the EU negotiators say is reality not rhetoric.  It isn't.  Again on the Irish border, if you don't know what that border is protecting, it is difficult to say absolutley that you can have a soft border.  It the EU won't give us any access to the single market and force hard customs, then it will be out of our hands no?

 

Fair point re. rhetoric v. reality - and that might apply to May and others, as much as to McDonnell. But does it apply to the more ardent Hard Brexiteers in the Tory party? And who will ultimately control policy in the Tory party?

My impression is that it's not just rhetoric with the likes of Gove, Fox & Davis (and many backbenchers). They are less pragmatic and absolutely intend to go for a Hard Brexit, out of the customs union and single market - and out of the negotiations and over the cliff-edge, if need be. Whether they'll be able to get that through their parliamentary party is another matter....I wouldn't like to hazard a guess either way.

 

As for access to the single market, access will be available, we just don't know yet on what terms. The EU want us to stay in the single market and customs union, but it's UK policy to leave now, isn't it?

 

On the Irish border, it is UK policy to leave both the single market and the customs union, as I understand it - and I don't get the impression that is just rhetoric (though they might backslide if the deal on offer looks too bad).

If we leave the customs union, there simply HAS to be some sort of hard border, surely? Even if we didn't want it, the EU would surely insist on it, so as to prevent smuggling of products without duty paid or the entry of non-compliant products?

 

Really MUST work now - deadline! 

[Alf Bentley]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Normally you are immeasurably wise, but that's is quite frankly utter garbage. Sorry!

 

Thanks for letting me know - and for giving such a detailed explanation for your opinion. 

[Rincewind]

46 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

- I place some faith in senior civil servants to moderate the crazier ideas and advise on how to implement some Leftist policies without destroying the economy etc.

- There are also still a lot of more pragmatic MPs on the Labour benches, who would not allow anything too damaging to become legislation

- I also assume that some of the declared policies of Corbyn/McDonnell are aspirations or policies to be achieved gradually. I'd like to believe that whatever their ideology, they don't really intend to immediately nationalise half a dozen industries and cancel all PFI projects at a cost of £300bn+ or whatever it is....I'd like to believe that McDonnell, at least, is sane enough to adopt a more gradualist approach (not so sure about Corbyn - he has less strategic sense, I think)

 

For the moment, though, I'm more concerned about the current govt, which seems to want destroy all our trading and political alliances, destroy our economy, leave our society in conflict and penury and risk reigniting the Irish conflict.....if it knows what it wants to do at all, other than to fight a civil war within the Tory party. Now that is a seriously bonkers party - and it's in govt right now! 

 

Must work.... 

Cant argue with this. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Thanks for letting me know - and for giving such a detailed explanation for your opinion. 

An explanation was below my agreement with JTH.

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

- I place some faith in senior civil servants to moderate the crazier ideas and advise on how to implement some Leftist policies without destroying the economy etc.

- There are also still a lot of more pragmatic MPs on the Labour benches, who would not allow anything too damaging to become legislation

- I also assume that some of the declared policies of Corbyn/McDonnell are aspirations or policies to be achieved gradually. I'd like to believe that whatever their ideology, they don't really intend to immediately nationalise half a dozen industries and cancel all PFI projects at a cost of £300bn+ or whatever it is....I'd like to believe that McDonnell, at least, is sane enough to adopt a more gradualist approach (not so sure about Corbyn - he has less strategic sense, I 

Genuinely hope you are right on this but we haven't really seen a single thing so far to suggest the sensible back bench MP's have any influence whatsoever any more, they have been effectively and systematically sidelined by the leadership and his circle and despite the talk of olive branches politicians like Cooper, Chuka, Kendall etc look further away from the cabinet than ever. If the Momentum "loyalty" tests have an element of truth about them surely won't stick around?

 

If I was a betting man I'd wager most of the moderates will have been deselected from the party by the time of the next election.

 

The more I watch of McDonnell the more I question his sanity, his "Am I a liar?" Interview with Neil last week was plain weird and he wasn't much better on Peston yesterday.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Fair point re. rhetoric v. reality - and that might apply to May and others, as much as to McDonnell. But does it apply to the more ardent Hard Brexiteers in the Tory party? And who will ultimately control policy in the Tory party?

My impression is that it's not just rhetoric with the likes of Gove, Fox & Davis (and many backbenchers). They are less pragmatic and absolutely intend to go for a Hard Brexit, out of the customs union and single market - and out of the negotiations and over the cliff-edge, if need be. Whether they'll be able to get that through their parliamentary party is another matter....I wouldn't like to hazard a guess either way.

 

As for access to the single market, access will be available, we just don't know yet on what terms. The EU want us to stay in the single market and customs union, but it's UK policy to leave now, isn't it?

 

On the Irish border, it is UK policy to leave both the single market and the customs union, as I understand it - and I don't get the impression that is just rhetoric (though they might backslide if the deal on offer looks too bad).

If we leave the customs union, there simply HAS to be some sort of hard border, surely? Even if we didn't want it, the EU would surely insist on it, so as to prevent smuggling of products without duty paid or the entry of non-compliant products?

 

Really MUST work now - deadline! 

You could ask the same within the Labour party, Corbyn is very clear he wanted to leave the single market, McDonnell the same, Kier Stammer keeps going on about a jobs first Brexit which is empty rehetoric. The official position now seems to be to remain in the single market. Maybe we should have an election and run it on these clear points with no lies, Tories Out, Labour In and see what happens?!

 

We could negotiate a deal similar to Switzerland who  I believe have bilateral agreements in relations to customs and trade but are not full members of the single market and or customs union.

 

Big thing is despite what the press with certain agendas tell us we don't know what will happen, the government and a team of negotiator's are negotiating, and its in everyone's interest for some form of deal to be done. We can get all depressed about it when we actually KNOW what will happen, instead of getting upset about something that we have absolutely no idea what impact it will have.

 

In Summary, yes it could be bad, it could be the more of the same or it could even be better! The government are going to try to avoid a very bad deal at all costs as they will take the flak for it and would if its very bad for jobs they could find themselves in opposition for many years!

 

The thing I find very strange is that Corbyn supporters say we should step forward into this brave new world we everything is different, the current system is failing, everything is shit, in Corbyns land everyone is equal, everyone is happy, we all have lots of money from all the money we are going to 'invest for growth' that we don't have. Yet the same people who say we must change path' cant entertain the idea that Brexit might be a brave new world with many opportunities to change from the supposedly failed model we are now living.

[Rogstanley]

3 hours ago, Webbo said:

But you've told us you don't believe in socialism or nationalisation and yet you support the most leftwing labour party leader ever? That tells me you haven't made a considered opinion. Whereas I, while accepting that everything is not perfect, believe that the Tories are at least economically competent, don't push divisive identity politics and aren't run by hate filled cranks. I consider them to be the better option by far.

I don't believe in socialism no and nor do I think there is much point in nationalising things like rail at this point. Not that I think it would do any harm, i just don't think it would be worth the time and expense.

 

Corbyn isn't even a socialist, his policies are straight out of the social democrat rulebook, but you wouldn't know that because the media you consume tells you otherwise. Once you'd made your mind up that he was a - what did you call him - a piss stained old hippy, no amount of evidence to the contrary will ever get you to reconsider.

 

You seem to refuse to believe that Corbyn's social democracy can 'work', despite some of the most successul countries in the modern world - the Nordics, countries far more succesful than ours - being exactly that. Again, you've made your mind up about something and no amount of evidence that you're wrong will ever get you to reconsider.

 

I'm totally open to a sensible, educated discussion on why the success of other countries might not necessarily be repeated here. Of the Tories on here only kopf comes close to doing this - the rest of you, for the most part just parrot out Tory cliches, misleading statistics and blind ignorance.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Genuinely hope you are right on this but we haven't really seen a single thing so far to suggest the sensible back bench MP's have any influence whatsoever any more, they have been effectively and systematically sidelined by the leadership and his circle and despite the talk of olive branches politicians like Cooper, Chuka, Kendall etc look further away from the cabinet than ever. If the Momentum "loyalty" tests have an element of truth about them surely won't stick around?

 

If I was a betting man I'd wager most of the moderates will have been deselected from the party by the time of the next election.

 

The more I watch of McDonnell the more I question his sanity, his "Am I a liar?" Interview with Neil last week was plain weird and he wasn't much better on Peston yesterday.

As diane abbot said on question time last week......it's not a choice between hard capitalism on one hand or hard socialism on the other, there is a world of options in between. Labour want to be social democrats.

Edited 27 November 2017 by Guest