Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

I know, I can read too. It isn't Labour's 2017 manifesto.

 

Actually the policy written in that document is given a two year time limit, whereas I believe the Tories haven't put a time limit on it, so maybe that's why labour voted against the Tory version.

It's a Labour party document and it says "Housing mini manifesto". You can spin it anyway you like, you're wrong.

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

Ok, one more go, because you're ignoring key factors in this case and using your strong opinion on a different matter to cloud judgement. There is a narrow similarity between the two cases, but there are stark differences in that;

• In this case we have a history of questionable behaviour towards children under his care
• The evident lack of concern shown is an additional damning factor
• There is a big difference to leaving a child unattended near a very real hazard, where there are clear warning signs - to that of leaving a child unattended in what may have seemed to be a reasonably secure room. Yes both are foolish acts, but its the bit I've highlighted that provides both the clear public interest in pursing a prosecution in this case and the increased likelihood of securing a conviction (key elements which go towards defining whether charges are brought and a case makes it to trial)
• Being a twat and having a bad attitude when you are a parent or guardian, meaning you have a duty of care, is a crime should those qualities result in a child coming to harm when under your care. 
• In this case, we know a child has come to harm and ultimately lost his life. In the other, we don't (another massive factor).

The other thing you might wish to consider is whether someone reading your comments might take it that you are down playing the disgusting and serious nature of the crimes on show in the Charlie Dunn case - rather than advocating that the McCann's should be being prosecuted. 

Being a twat and having a bad attitude doesn't automatically mean you fail a duty of care. Whichever way you spin it, being a twat is not a crime whether you are a parent or not.

 

The crime in my opinion is leaving a child unattended in a situation where they could come to harm.

 

I said in my original post on the subject that I thought the decision in this case was correct.

 

 

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

It's a Labour party document and it says "Housing mini manifesto". You can spin it anyway you like, you're wrong.

 

Surely you don't need it explaining to you what an election manifesto is?

 

Well maybe you do, but I'm not wasting my time on something that basic.

 

Even if that was the election manifesto, the policy described in it is different from the one the Tories have enacted, so it's perfectly reasonable, in fact to be expected that labour would vote against the Tory version.

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

 

Surely you don't need it explaining to you what an election manifesto is?

 

Well maybe you do, but I'm not wasting my time on something that basic.

 

Even if that was the election manifesto, the policy described in it is different from the one the Tories have enacted, so it's perfectly reasonable, in fact to be expected that labour would vote against the Tory version.

Please enlighten me. Tell us what the difference is between an election manifesto and a section specific manifesto released during the election? Were Labour planning to do away with stamp duty for first time buyers or not?

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Please enlighten me. Tell us what the difference is between an election manifesto and a section specific manifesto released during the election? Were Labour planning to do away with stamp duty for first time buyers or not?

For two years they were, yes. That's a marked difference from the Tory policy.

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

For two years they were, yes. That's a marked difference from the Tory policy.

[Rogstanley]

Just now, Webbo said:

Yeah right what?

 

It clearly says in that document that labour plan to limit the stamp duty cut to two years. Why would they vote for a policy that removes it permanently if they only want it removed for two years?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02q3vbs

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-2017-latest-labour-cut-costs-homes-100000-first-time-buyers-help-to-buy-scheme-stamp-duty-a7773421.html

 

I would imagine, the key difference would be Labour were proposing a Stamp Duty Cut as part a raft of measures, not as an isolated tax give away. If you take a balanced view, there are reasons why as an opposition they could vote against the move proposed by the Conservatives. You can also take the unbalanced view and simply label it hypocritical.  

[lifted*fox]

[Guest MattP]

50 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

@MattP

I think you might be right about it all being a some Trump-like cult. Fake news

 

 

https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Housing-Mini-Manifesto.pdf

"As a down-payment on this commitment we will cut stamp duty to zero for first-time buyers buying their first home up to a maximum value of £330,000"

 

Or Corbyn's post-budget words http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyns-response-2017-autumn-11566554

"We back the abolition of stamp duty for first-time buyers because it was another Labour policy at the election"

Worse than the "I'll deal with it" stuff, which of course meant "I won't deal with it".

 

It's amazing how different the reaction to a policy is when it's on the side of a bus compared rather than in Labour literature. 

 

That's me out anyway, Merry Xmas all.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, MattP said:

Worse than the "I'll deal with it" stuff, which of course meant "I won't deal with it".

 

It's amazing how different the reaction to a policy is when it's on the side of a bus compared rather than in Labour literature. 

 

That's me out anyway, Merry Xmas all.

Nobody reads labour literature though so they won't be using it as a foundation for taking Britain back (to the stone ages).

Edited 21 December 2017 by Carl the Llama

[Rogstanley]

Of course if it's election promise u-turns you want then nobody need look any further than the Tories who have failed to deliver on dozens of things from their 2010 and 2015 campaigns. My personal favourite being the scrapping of the 'northern powerhouse' investments within about six business days of being elected in 2015. Six days! They didn't even bother trying to hide the fact they'd chatted a load of absolute horseshit just to get elected and never had any intention whatsoever of actually doing any of it.

Edited 21 December 2017 by Rogstanley

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Of course if it's election promise u-turns you want then nobody need look any further than the Tories who have failed to deliver on dozens of things from their 2010 and 2015 campaigns. My personal favourite being the scrapping of the 'northern powerhouse' investments within about six business days of being elected in 2015. Six days! They didn't even bother trying to hide the fact they'd chatted a load of absolute horseshit just to get elected and never had any intention whatsoever of actually doing any of it.

Not doing something promised > actively blocking implementation of a promise.

[katieakita]

Some real political extremities on here bet some refuse to eat Red Leicester or Blue Cheeses due to political leanings. Anyway hear that self serving Tory MP with the initials  A S  had one of their famous shouty,hissy fits when they were going to re-locate a Post Office in her constituency into a Bargain Booze. After many constituents raised their concerns about the vulnerable and poor members of society collecting cash from a place specialising in selling fags and cheap booze being a recipe for disaster the MP put a stop to the Post Offices plans. After all what sort of fvcking idiot thinks that this is a good idea? wonder what changed her mind as being a former Postal Minister she endorsed

these stupid ideas 

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, katieakita said:

Some real political extremities on here bet some refuse to eat Red Leicester or Blue Cheeses due to political leanings. Anyway hear that self serving Tory MP with the initials  A S  had one of their famous shouty,hissy fits when they were going to re-locate a Post Office in her constituency into a Bargain Booze. After many constituents raised their concerns about the vulnerable and poor members of society collecting cash from a place specialising in selling fags and cheap booze being a recipe for disaster the MP put a stop to the Post Offices plans. After all what sort of fvcking idiot thinks that this is a good idea? wonder what changed her mind as being a former Postal Minister she endorsed

these stupid ideas 

Alan sugar?

[BoyJones]

On 20/12/2017 at 08:11, Buce said:

 

The turkeys that voted for Xmas:

 

 

Parts of the UK that voted for Brexit are most exposed to its effects, report finds:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/20/brexit-vote-exposure-trade-effects-report-uk-regions

 

 

The UK regions that voted to leave the EU are more economically exposed to the effects of Brexit than anywhere else in Europe, research suggests.

A University of Birmingham study examined the degree to which EU regions were exposed to the possible negative trade-related consequences of Britain’s departure and found areas in the Midlands and north of England, many of which voted for Brexit, had the greatest exposure.

This appeared to contradict claims during the EU referendum campaign in 2016 that London benefited the most from membership.

Researchers from the university’s City Region Economic and Development Institute looked at regional variations in the share of labour income and GDP reliant on the EU.

The UK was found to be 4.6 times more exposed than the rest of the EU, with the majority of member states facing almost no exposure. An estimated 2.64% of EU GDP was at risk because of Brexit trade-related consequences, the report found, whereas 12% of UK GDP was at risk.

The report’s authors concluded that this left Britain in a very weak bargaining position in economic terms.

Parts of Ireland had levels of exposure similar to those in London and northern areas of Scotland, the regions of the UK with the lowest levels. The next most affected regions after Ireland were in Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and France, while regions in southern and eastern Europe were barely affected.

“Mercantilist arguments popular in the UK media, which posit that the UK trade deficit with the rest of Europe implies that on economic grounds, other EU member states will be eager to agree a free trade deal with the UK, are not correct,” the report said.

 

“When we consider the real trade-demand impacts on the EU member states and their regions ... the emerging picture is very different.”

Prof Raquel Ortega-Argilés from the University of Birmingham said: “London is genuinely the most globalised part of the UK and as such less dependent on European markets for its prosperity.

“In contrast, many parts of the UK, especially in the Midlands and in the north of England, are heavily dependent on European markets for their trade and prosperity, but in fact these are the regions that voted for Brexit.”

The economic readjustments following Brexit, she said, “are expected to be more challenging and difficult for the UK’s weaker regions, in part because they are more dependent on European markets, but also because they are less resilient”.

Don't often come on this thread, but that report is quite reassuring - every single economist and their so called reports and policies since 1945 has not worked properly. I regret to say I had to study economics for a few years in the 70's and although it is obviously an inexact science, so many "economists / think tanks" believe that all people have the same behaviours and instincts and can be controlled to all think the same way. 

 

If if any of them knew what they were talking about, every country would have been a success by now. The trouble is anybody can opt to be Member of Parliament. Qualifications and brains don't matter, so obviously all parties in all countries have more than their fair share of idiots trying to get an easy living. 

 

Anyway, it's too late now, many parts of England are lost already.  The EU have done what two world wars couldn't and diminished our way of life forever. Being selfish, I am just glad I lived here when it was a caring / sharing place to live and you were confident bringing up your children to have a happy and fulfilling life.

 

 

[Guest]

Right. I find it very unlikely that there is a bill passing through parliament that does nothing but enact a cut in duty. Is this a specific section of a finance bill or similar? If so, the reason they would vote against is because they want to vote against the broader bill. You don't agree one element if you are planning to vote against the bill in its entirety. I'm sure it will be a simple as that. Can anybody find out what the actual bill/motion or otherwise is that's being discussed?

[Guest]

Yep, just checked, it was the finance bill. Labour are voting against the whole bill hence them voting against each individual clause. Pretty simple really. 

[Rogstanley]

10 hours ago, Strokes said:

Not doing something promised > actively blocking implementation of a promise.

Selling the electorate a web of lies and u-turning within days of getting into power < not voting for a policy you don't agree with

[Rogstanley]

6 hours ago, BoyJones said:

Don't often come on this thread, but that report is quite reassuring - every single economist and their so called reports and policies since 1945 has not worked properly. I regret to say I had to study economics for a few years in the 70's and although it is obviously an inexact science, so many "economists / think tanks" believe that all people have the same behaviours and instincts and can be controlled to all think the same way. 

 

If if any of them knew what they were talking about, every country would have been a success by now. The trouble is anybody can opt to be Member of Parliament. Qualifications and brains don't matter, so obviously all parties in all countries have more than their fair share of idiots trying to get an easy living. 

 

Anyway, it's too late now, many parts of England are lost already.  The EU have done what two world wars couldn't and diminished our way of life forever. Being selfish, I am just glad I lived here when it was a caring / sharing place to live and you were confident bringing up your children to have a happy and fulfilling life.

 

 

While it's fashionable at present among some people to hate experts and educated people in favour of gut feeling and wild guesses, it's just not true to say "economists have not worked properly". They don't all get it spot on all of the time, but things like GDP predictions are usually within a fraction of a percent, which is pretty damn close in reality given they are trying to predict the behaviour of an entire nation.

 

Your third paragraph is a joke but the senile old fart racist undertones are so boring i can't even be bothered to deal with them. Thankfully people with those kind of views have never been respected in this country and they never will. The way you've then gone on to use those who gave their lives in the world wars to make a political point further demonstrates how little respect your views deserve.

[Buce]

 

Words fail me.

 

  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/british-passports-will-be-navy-blue-after-brexit-says-home-office

  

The first burgundy machine-readable passports were issued in the UK in 1988, after the common format introduced by the European Economic Community.

Speaking in April, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said the burgundy EU passport had been a source of national “humiliation”.

“The restoration of our own British passport is a clear statement to the world that Britain is back. Our British identity was slowly but surely being submerged into an artificial European one that most Brits felt increasingly unhappy about,” he told Press Association.

“The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport will now soon be over and the United Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling, just as the Swiss and Americans can do.

“National identity matters and there is no better way of demonstrating this today than by bringing back this much-loved national symbol when travelling overseas.”

[Webbo]

I couldn't care less what colour my passport is.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Buce said:

 

Words fail me.

 

  https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/dec/22/british-passports-will-be-navy-blue-after-brexit-says-home-office

  

The first burgundy machine-readable passports were issued in the UK in 1988, after the common format introduced by the European Economic Community.

Speaking in April, the Conservative MP Andrew Rosindell said the burgundy EU passport had been a source of national “humiliation”.

“The restoration of our own British passport is a clear statement to the world that Britain is back. Our British identity was slowly but surely being submerged into an artificial European one that most Brits felt increasingly unhappy about,” he told Press Association.

“The humiliation of having a pink European Union passport will now soon be over and the United Kingdom nationals can once again feel pride and self-confidence in their own nationality when travelling, just as the Swiss and Americans can do.

“National identity matters and there is no better way of demonstrating this today than by bringing back this much-loved national symbol when travelling overseas.”

I genuinely can't get my head around people thinking national identity matters. 

 

We're all people. Countries and borders don't really exist. They're make believe. 

 

It's fun in a sporting context and makes sense for people on smaller scales to club together to have rules and infrastructure in common but imagine actually BELIEVING that a flag or the colour of a small booklet was a fundamentally important element of the human condition.

 

Our British identity was being consumed by an artificial European one? Every country has an artificial identify. As if I have anything in common - really - with everybody in this country. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I genuinely can't get my head around people thinking national identity matters. 

 

We're all people. Countries and borders don't really exist. They're make believe. 

 

It's fun in a sporting context and makes sense for people on smaller scales to club together to have rules and infrastructure in common but imagine actually BELIEVING that a flag or the colour of a small booklet was a fundamentally important element of the human condition.

 

Our British identity was being consumed by an artificial European one? Every country has an artificial identify. As if I have anything in common - really - with everybody in this country. 

Whether you like or not they do exist and they exist because people wanted different things and to live in different ways.

 

I'm extremely proud of my national identitiy and the way this tiny piece of land has shaped the World in so many ways, I'm proud we were the country who drew up Magna Carta and then exported it across the globe, I'm proud we played a huge part in defeating fascism and communism, I'm proud of our artists, our poets and our writers, I'm proud we are a democracy and not a country where an army or a mob can decide to rule over the people, I'm proud of our history and our landmarks, I'm proud that we don't make too much of a fuss about it either, we don't swear to our flag every morning in school, we don't define ourselves in terms of race or religion like so many countries still do in 2017.

 

To say you are immune to this because you find it "make believe" is for me is to declare yourself a spirtual desert, you'll have lost touch with your ancestors and won't be able to pass it on to your own children.

[Finnegan]

Giving a **** what colour your passport is is a level of shit-giving that even I can't stoop to. 

 

Jesus.