Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

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.

 

It might not be repeated here because our economies are completely and utterly different, we have a much larger population, less natural resources, less manufacturing, higher immigration. These are all reasons why it would be unworkable here. Unfortunately you cant just take a theory and dump it on any country.

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394655511/forget-nordic-socialism-welfare-didnt-make-scandinavia-rich

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/01/why-scandinavia-is-not-the-model-for-global-prosperity-we-should-all-pursue

 

https://www.ft.com/content/65438762-6fef-11e4-a0c4-00144feabdc0

 

 

Again its arguable that what we have here isn't actually as bad as the left would have us believe, we are already a social democracy, we have been for some time and will continue to be so. Despite claims by Labour that all public services will close down and collapse, we are 7 years on and they are still here and still functioning. Labour told us the NHS was going to end and be sold off at the 2015 election, its still here.

 

Also as I think Kopf said, a lot of services in Nordic countries are privatised, something the left fundamentally disagree with so am I correct in assuming you wish to go down the path or privatising certain services to make them more efficient?

 

This has been done in the UK and I am the first to admit it has often been done badly. How companies like Capita, G4S etc. keep getting big contracts and continually **** them up I will never know but there is a place for well run business to replace public bodies in some circumstances. It has t done done correctly but Labour are not suggesting that they are suggesting taking back now private businesses into public ownership and paying whatever they (parliament) decide that sounds like pretty radical socialism to me!

 

 

53 minutes ago, toddybad said:

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.

Try telling that to the momentum lot, that is absolutely not what they want.

 

So basically you are saying we have too middle ground parties then? because the Tories are not hard capitalists by a long way.

Edited 27 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

It might not be repeated here because our economies are completely and utterly different, we have a much larger population, less natural resources, less manufacturing, higher immigration. These are all reasons why it would be unworkable here. Unfortunately you cant just take a theory and dump it on any country.

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394655511/forget-nordic-socialism-welfare-didnt-make-scandinavia-rich

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/01/why-scandinavia-is-not-the-model-for-global-prosperity-we-should-all-pursue

 

https://www.ft.com/content/65438762-6fef-11e4-a0c4-00144feabdc0

 

 

Again its arguable that what we have here isn't actually as bad as the left would have us believe, we are already a social democracy, we have been for some time and will continue to be so. Despite claims by Labour that all public services will close down and collapse, we are 7 years on and they are still here and still functioning. Labour told us the NHS was going to end and be sold off at the 2015 election, its still here.

 

Also as I think Kopf said, a lot of services in Nordic countries are privatised, something the left fundamentally disagree with so am I correct in assuming you wish to go down the path or privatising certain services to make them more efficient?

 

This has been done in the UK and I am the first to admit it has often been done badly. How companies like Capita, G4S etc. keep getting big contracts and continually **** them up I will never know but there is a place for well run business to replace public bodies in some circumstances. It has t done done correctly but Labour are not suggesting that they are suggesting taking back now private businesses into public ownership and paying whatever they (parliament) decide that sounds like pretty radical socialism to me!

 

 

Try telling that to the momentum lot, that is absolutely not what they want.

 

So basically you are saying we have too middle ground parties then? because the Tories are not hard capitalists by a long way.

Neither are middle ground. The tories are just to the right of centre right in many (but not all) ways and labour are just to the left of centre left in many (but not all) ways.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Neither are middle ground. The tories are just to the right of centre right in many (but not all) ways and labour are just to the left of centre left in many (but not all) ways.

Yeah, I would say that compared to some political parties and policy around the world (like in the US) both Labour and the Tories are pretty close to central in terms of policy, particularly socially.

[Innovindil]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

 

Okay, who the hell has kids and/or buys a house without knowing their legal rights if the relationship goes south? 

 

Me and my girlfriend are both independent people with no intention of getting married, for the exact reason that we don't want all this legal crap costing money if things go bad. House splits 50/50 my stuff is mine, her stuff is hers. Easy. 

 

If you want to put these protections in place for the idiots that don't understand how it is, fine, but either make them opt in or give an option to opt out. 

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42134722

 

Okay, who the hell has kids and/or buys a house without knowing their legal rights if the relationship goes south? 

 

Me and my girlfriend are both independent people with no intention of getting married, for the exact reason that we don't want all this legal crap costing money if things go bad. House splits 50/50 my stuff is mine, her stuff is hers. Easy. 

 

If you want to put these protections in place for the idiots that don't understand how it is, fine, but either make them opt in or give an option to opt out. 

Agreed. There would be a lot less acrimony if people knew more about what goes on regarding property when a relationship ends - from what I can tell a lot of the trouble comes when it's time to divide up the crockery.

[Rogstanley]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

It might not be repeated here because our economies are completely and utterly different, we have a much larger population, less natural resources, less manufacturing, higher immigration. These are all reasons why it would be unworkable here. Unfortunately you cant just take a theory and dump it on any country.

 

http://www.cityam.com/article/1394655511/forget-nordic-socialism-welfare-didnt-make-scandinavia-rich

 

https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/2014/dec/01/why-scandinavia-is-not-the-model-for-global-prosperity-we-should-all-pursue

 

https://www.ft.com/content/65438762-6fef-11e4-a0c4-00144feabdc0

 

 

Again its arguable that what we have here isn't actually as bad as the left would have us believe, we are already a social democracy, we have been for some time and will continue to be so. Despite claims by Labour that all public services will close down and collapse, we are 7 years on and they are still here and still functioning. Labour told us the NHS was going to end and be sold off at the 2015 election, its still here.

 

Also as I think Kopf said, a lot of services in Nordic countries are privatised, something the left fundamentally disagree with so am I correct in assuming you wish to go down the path or privatising certain services to make them more efficient?

 

This has been done in the UK and I am the first to admit it has often been done badly. How companies like Capita, G4S etc. keep getting big contracts and continually **** them up I will never know but there is a place for well run business to replace public bodies in some circumstances. It has t done done correctly but Labour are not suggesting that they are suggesting taking back now private businesses into public ownership and paying whatever they (parliament) decide that sounds like pretty radical socialism to me!

 

 

Try telling that to the momentum lot, that is absolutely not what they want.

 

So basically you are saying we have too middle ground parties then? because the Tories are not hard capitalists by a long way.

The guardian article argues against it on the grounds of resource consumption - not an argument you hear being made by Tories very often. Also garbage, in my opinion.

 

The CityAM article is very badly written and speculative in nature. I can't be bothered to go and fact check everything that was stated but it wouldn't surprise me if it's largely inaccurate. Even if it's not, the fact of the matter is that social democracy is proven to work, where austerity isn't. 

 

FT link is behind a paywall.

 

Generally, there would of course be some challenges to overcome, but on the back of seven years of utter economic failure, I think it's worth a go trying to implement some of these ideas that have been proven to work so well elsewhere.

[Jon the Hat]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

Generally, there would of course be some challenges to overcome, but on the back of seven years of utter economic failure, I think it's worth a go trying to implement some of these ideas that have been proven to work so well elsewhere.

If you really believe we have had 7 years of utter economic failure I really don't know what you think economic success looks like.    I suppose this is what I should expect from someone who earlier wrote that the Nordics are much more successful countries than ours.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

44 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Neither are middle ground. The tories are just to the right of centre right in many (but not all) ways and labour are just to the left of centre left in many (but not all) ways.

I would say that Labour are currently rather more to the left than the Tories are to the right and this currently is my problem. What is disappointing as Labour have some genuinely good politicians who are currently confined to the extremities of the party because of the horrible rabble running the show. Its a shame for the electorate that Corbyn and is crusade is denying the electorate a decentre centre ground alternative that would be genuinely a voting possibility.

[Rogstanley]

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If you really believe we have had 7 years of utter economic failure I really don't know what you think economic success looks like.    I suppose this is what I should expect from someone who earlier wrote that the Nordics are much more successful countries than ours.

Seven years of wages falling isn't an economy that it working for ordinary people.

 

It has been descrbed as the biggest fall in living standards for hundreds of years. That's not success.

 

Could it have been worse? Of course. Does that mean we should stop striving to be better? Absolutely not.

 

The Nordics have been far more successful than us over recent years.

Edited 27 November 2017 by Rogstanley

[Guest Foxin_mad]

32 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

The guardian article argues against it on the grounds of resource consumption - not an argument you hear being made by Tories very often. Also garbage, in my opinion.

 

The CityAM article is very badly written and speculative in nature. I can't be bothered to go and fact check everything that was stated but it wouldn't surprise me if it's largely inaccurate. Even if it's not, the fact of the matter is that social democracy is proven to work, where austerity isn't. 

 

FT link is behind a paywall.

 

Generally, there would of course be some challenges to overcome, but on the back of seven years of utter economic failure, I think it's worth a go trying to implement some of these ideas that have been proven to work so well elsewhere.

A good selection of articles and you disagree which is of course your prerogative. There is some pretty decent evidence to suggest it wouldn't work here, notwithstanding the fact we don't have the natural resources they have and immigration which obviously the deniers will deny.

 

If you think we have had 7 years of economic failure when we have had  23 quarters of economic growth and the highest employment figures on record. Ok then!

 

You share Labours vision which is absolutely fine, it doesn't however make you correct.

 

28 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

If you really believe we have had 7 years of utter economic failure I really don't know what you think economic success looks like.    I suppose this is what I should expect from someone who earlier wrote that the Nordics are much more successful countries than ours.

Exactly

 

A few more links on the Nordics, again is it a success or not? All depends on opinion I suppose.

 

https://stream.org/5-myths-nordic-socialism-mislead-the-american-left/

http://fortune.com/2016/01/26/democrat-bernie-sanders-scandinavia-socialism/

Edited 27 November 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Alf Bentley]

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

An explanation was below my agreement with JTH.

Fair enough.

 

3 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

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.

 

Some on the Labour front bench are poor on a personal level, I agree (same applies to the Tories, mind). Labour would benefit from getting one or two more of the moderates on the front bench. Some non-Corbynistas are already involved, though: Keir Starmer, Jon Ashworth, Owen Smith (who stood against Corbyn).

 

Is Momentum "on a purge of decent moderate politicians"? Who have they purged? There was talk of this a year ago - and there might be a few deselections - but I've not heard of anyone getting purged yet?

 

I think you're imagining a greater political polarisation than really exists. There are critical Labour-voting posters on here - and critical Tory posters. I voted Remain, but was genuinely in two minds until about 1-2 weeks before the referendum. I agree that Brexit might work out well in the long-term, though I'm pessimistic about that. Even most convinced Brexiteers now seem to accept that things will get tough in the short-term, though. Some people seem willing to accept 5-10 shit years, banking on a great future after that.....well, I'm sorry, but even if that great future comes about, 5-10 years is a long time for anyone, particularly for me in my 50s and for my daughter who'll be entering the adult world during that period!  

 

Nobody knows the outcome of the Brexit negotiations yet, a good deal might yet be done - and a deal is in the interests of both sides. But the policy to leave the single market and customs union seems quite firm now - I don't think that's just rhetoric, though the Tory Remainers might force a backtrack. I'm not confident that the EU will allow us a deal "very closely aligned to the single market/customs union" if we choose to leave them - why would they allow us most of the benefits with few of the constraints?

 

The idea that "EU countries need to trade with us as much as we need to trade with them" is not "facts", it is opinion - and wrong opinion, IMHO. Almost 50% of our trade is with the EU, but only about 13% of theirs is with us. If we're outside the single market and customs union, almost 50% of our trade will become less competitive, while just 13% of theirs will. Plus, it'll be a lot easier for them to substitute other suppliers from elsewhere in the EU than it will for us to replace any lost trade. Just-in-time car makers have components going to and from the continent several times during the making of a car.. They cannot send parts to and from the USA or Japan so easily. Likewise, it's not as easy to source fresh food supplies from other continents - or to achieve a large expansion in exports to other continents, particularly when many of them (USA, China, Russia) will take an aggressively protectionist approach.

 

I'd feel more confident about reduced immigration (unskilled and skilled) being beneficial if our govt was doing anything to replace departing migrant workers:

- Lots of foreign nurses are leaving, but they haven't reinstated the bursary to encourage Brits to train as nurses, have they?

- Farmers are already complaining of a shortage of seasonal agricultural workers - is anything being done to encourage Brits to do this work?

- The govt apprenticeship levy seems to have led to a massive drop in apprenticeships so far

- We have an aging population with many carers being foreigners - any sign of Brits rushing to fill those jobs?

[Webbo]

3 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

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.

Corbyn isn't a socialist  

[Rogstanley]

15 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Corbyn isn't a socialist  

Exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

[Carl the Llama]

8 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

The idea that "EU countries need to trade with us as much as we need to trade with them" is not "facts", it is opinion - and wrong opinion, IMHO. Almost 50% of our trade is with the EU, but only about 13% of theirs is with us. If we're outside the single market and customs union, almost 50% of our trade will become less competitive, while just 13% of theirs will. Plus, it'll be a lot easier for them to substitute other suppliers from elsewhere in the EU than it will for us to replace any lost trade. Just-in-time car makers have components going to and from the continent several times during the making of a car.. They cannot send parts to and from the USA or Japan so easily. Likewise, it's not as easy to source fresh food supplies from other continents - or to achieve a large expansion in exports to other continents, particularly when many of them (USA, China, Russia) will take an aggressively protectionist approach.

Great post on the whole but I had to quote the bit above in particular because it frustrates me so much that this needed explaining during the pre-ref period, let alone that it needs explaining still and I wanted to make absolutely sure that everyone on here gets a fair crack at reading it.

 

Alas though I'm sure somebody's going to be sat at home reading that and saying "but we spend half our money buying their stuff which means they need us more than we need them", forcing themselves to be completely oblivious to how relativity and trade dependency works.

[Webbo]

Just now, Rogstanley said:

Exactly. Thanks for proving my point.

Somebody PMed me last week saying they thought you were Moosebreath. You're no Moosebreath.

[Carl the Llama]

Just now, Webbo said:

Somebody PMed me last week saying they thought you were Moosebreath. You're no Moosebreath.

 As if that's become an insult.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

 As if that's become an insult.

That’s just the sort of thing a moosebreath wouldn’t say.

[Rogstanley]

3 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Somebody PMed me last week saying they thought you were Moosebreath. You're no Moosebreath.

 

Ok, no idea what you're on about now. If you're not going to address the points raised why are you bothering to reply?

 

Corbyn isn't a socialist. I doubt you've ever actually read any of his policies and you probably don't even know what socialism is. 

 

This debate with you is so vacuous I'm happy to call it quits at this point. 

[Wymsey]

9 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Somebody PMed me last week saying they thought you were Moosebreath. You're no Moosebreath.

Have a feeling he's on here somewhere with another account that posts regularly, begins with 'I'?..

[Webbo]

18 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

The idea that "EU countries need to trade with us as much as we need to trade with them" is not "facts", it is opinion - and wrong opinion, IMHO. Almost 50% of our trade is with the EU, but only about 13% of theirs is with us. If we're outside the single market and customs union, almost 50% of our trade will become less competitive, while just 13% of theirs will. Plus, it'll be a lot easier for them to substitute other suppliers from elsewhere in the EU than it will for us to replace any lost trade. Just-in-time car makers have components going to and from the continent several times during the making of a car.. They cannot send parts to and from the USA or Japan so easily. Likewise, it's not as easy to source fresh food supplies from other continents - or to achieve a large expansion in exports to other continents, particularly when many of them (USA, China, Russia) will take an aggressively protectionist approach.

 

 

Exports to the EU make up 13% of our economy. Most of our economy is made up on domestic consumption. The world bank reckon that leaving the EU without a deal will mean our trade with the EU will go down by 2%, so that's 2% of 13% about a quarter of 1% and that's the worse case scenario. For lots of the countries of the EU exporting to the UK is a huge part of their economy. They won't be able to just shrug it off. Might not finish them off but it'll certainly hurt them.

[Webbo]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

 As if that's become an insult.

Moosey would never have cracked such a lame joke.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That’s just the sort of thing a moosebreath wouldn’t say.

Just now, Webbo said:

Moosey would never have cracked such a lame joke.

What is the world coming to when a man can't go about his daily affairs without being accused of non-moosebreathery?

 

2 minutes ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Have a feeling he's on here somewhere with another account that posts regularly, begins with 'I'?..

Is that an I or an l? 

[Wymsey]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

What is the world coming to when a man can't go about his daily affairs without being accused of non-moosebreathery?

 

Is that an I or an l? 

Second letter 'n'.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Carl the Llama said:

What is the world coming to when a man can't go about his daily affairs without being accused of non-moosebreathery?

 

Is that an I or an l? 

Rogstanley wishes he could be Moosebreath.

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Wymeswold fox said:

Second letter 'n'.

I don't think so.