Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 Just now, toddybad said: Or the rest of the world. Quite.
Guest MattP Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Only yesterday you were telling us that the experts were dismissing Labour's plans. So which is it? Should we ignore experts as they're likely wrong about Brexit and labour. Or are they more likely to be right about Brexit and labour? You can't have it both ways. I want to know, from you, which it is. Chuck them in the toilet. You know what the best thing about these forecasts is? If you compare them to what they gave us pre-ref it's a bettr outlook. Not that you know by the way they have been reported, but they have actually been upgraded.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 Just now, Strokes said: Also I’m still waiting for you to answer my question on the impact of FOM on house prices. I know their has been a distraction but it’s as relevant now as ever. As I said the other day, the vast majority of immigrants are moving into rented accommodation. We all see this in our lives. They aren't, therefore, putting pressure on purchase prices. That's the landlords buying the houses. I will concede that their presence gives landlords more incentive to keep buying. But if you see that as a positive, why would you want to limit migration?
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, MattP said: Chuck them in the toilet. You know what the best thing about these forecasts is? If you compare them to what they gave us pre-ref it's a bettr outlook. Not that you know by the way they have been reported, but they have actually been upgraded. Right. I don't expect to hear you mention experts next time somebody different like Labour's costings then.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, toddybad said: Right. I don't expect to hear you mention experts next time somebody different like Labour's costings then. He won’t because you won’t question their validity will you?
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 minute ago, Strokes said: He won’t because you won’t question their validity will you? The ifs said their plans would likely require further tax rises. I'm okay with that.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: As I said the other day, the vast majority of immigrants are moving into rented accommodation. We all see this in our lives. They aren't, therefore, putting pressure on purchase prices. That's the landlords buying the houses. I will concede that their presence gives landlords more incentive to keep buying. But if you see that as a positive, why would you want to limit migration? You provided no evidence that the vast majority go into rented accommodation, although I don’t doubt this to be true but you are missing the point. It’s not about migrants or how many, it’s about not knowing how many will come or not. How can councils or governments plan how much to build or not?
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 This is getting absolutely ridiculous now. I can't believe anybody wants this government in charge. https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5456185/st-marys-catholic-primary-school-4-day-week-isleworth-west-london/#comments
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 Just now, Strokes said: You provided no evidence that the vast majority go into rented accommodation, although I don’t doubt this to be true but you are missing the point. It’s not about migrants or how many, it’s about not knowing how many will come or not. How can councils or governments plan how much to build or not? Councils and the government don't plan anything. It's in the hands of the market which doesn't want to build so as to keep prices high.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 (edited) 4 minutes ago, Strokes said: You provided no evidence that the vast majority go into rented accommodation, although I don’t doubt this to be true but you are missing the point. It’s not about migrants or how many, it’s about not knowing how many will come or not. How can councils or governments plan how much to build or not? Besides, EU rules provide a limit, if we implemented them properly. We have an unemployment rate of 4% (incap caveat). We clearly need the immigrants to provide the workers our economy needs. Where EU migrants can't show they have a job within 3 months we can make them leave. Belgium does it. The employment market - and ultimately the state of the economy - therefore dictates how many we can accept before the point at which we can begin enforcing the 3 months rule. You can use that information to plan. Edited 30 January 2018 by Guest
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: The ifs said their plans would likely require further tax rises. I'm okay with that. The problem is that Labour wont admit that themselves. If a party comes in and says honestly to the public we ALL need to pay more to get more fair enough. Labour have come in and said we will get the nasty rich men and business and make them pay. The IMF has correctly said this wont fund their planned spending spree. Why not just be honest about it? That is my problem with Labour, I would have more respect if they based their plans on something that could/would actually be realised for a party/leader that claims good honest politics they are not that honest. An honest question for the remain voters (of which I was one). If you are a labour voter or Corbyn advocate, can we not just apply the same principals of massive public investment, public sector employment and inflation to make a success out of Brexit in the same way you suggest a Labour government would be a success? Corbyn is an avid Brexiteer so would we thrive under his leadership in a brave new world? This government are getting so incompetent at the moment its almost getting to tipping point of thinking **** it!
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 Labour - the anti-Semitic party http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-makes-facebook-concentration-1137727 2
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 28 minutes ago, toddybad said: Councils and the government don't plan anything. It's in the hands of the market which doesn't want to build so as to keep prices high. They block or approve planning applications and do so regularly, they can insist on how many affordable homes need to be built to approve applications.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 28 minutes ago, toddybad said: Besides, EU rules provide a limit, if we implemented them properly. We have an unemployment rate of 4% (incap caveat). We clearly need the immigrants to provide the workers our economy needs. Where EU migrants can't show they have a job within 3 months we can make them leave. Belgium does it. The employment market - and ultimately the state of the economy - therefore dictates how many we can accept before the point at which we can begin enforcing the 3 months rule. You can use that information to plan. It’s nothing to do with the employment, you’re diverting the argument. I’ve not said I want to kick them out.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 (edited) 12 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: Labour - the anti-Semitic party http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-makes-facebook-concentration-1137727 I’d just say thats humour in bad taste tbh. Edited 30 January 2018 by Strokes 1
Alf Bentley Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 17 minutes ago, Strokes said: I’d just say thats humour in bad taste tbh. Yep. File under "Neville, Phil".
Fox Ulike Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 5 hours ago, Webbo said: These are the same experts who told us we'd be in recession now. Even in their worse case scenario its 8% over 15 years, around 0.5% a year. We all accepted we might be slightly worse off in return for our freedom. Since the referendum a lots of different experts have come to the same conclusion about Brexit. That doesn’t make them the same experts! From memory I think it was the IMF who said we’d be in recession now. This is a leaked cabinet document. To confirm: The IMF and the British Government are not “The Same Experts”.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 34 minutes ago, Strokes said: It’s nothing to do with the employment, you’re diverting the argument. I’ve not said I want to kick them out. No but it is. If we applied EU rules properly we would have at least some sort of idea of the maximum possible migration. That's directly relevant to your point asking how we can plan.
Guest Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: Labour - the anti-Semitic party http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-makes-facebook-concentration-1137727 What's more reflective of a party's views? A- Individuals making bad jokes or disparaging comments as you've highlighted? Or B - a party being found by the courts to have enacted "blatantly discriminatory" policies with regard to the disabled? And if you believe it's option a, don't forget the tory councillor talking about - well, the n word, last year. Edited 30 January 2018 by Guest
UpTheLeagueFox Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 15 minutes ago, toddybad said: What's more reflective of a party's views? A- Individuals making bad jokes or disparaging comments as you've highlighted? Or B - a party being found by the courts to have enacted "blatantly discriminatory" policies with regard to the disabled? And if you believe it's option a, don't forget the tory councillor talking about - well, the n word, last year. Ahhhhhhhh, the standard left wing "whatabouttery" reply. 1
Alf Bentley Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 46 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: The problem is that Labour wont admit that themselves. If a party comes in and says honestly to the public we ALL need to pay more to get more fair enough. Labour have come in and said we will get the nasty rich men and business and make them pay. The IMF has correctly said this wont fund their planned spending spree. Why not just be honest about it? That is my problem with Labour, I would have more respect if they based their plans on something that could/would actually be realised for a party/leader that claims good honest politics they are not that honest. An honest question for the remain voters (of which I was one). If you are a labour voter or Corbyn advocate, can we not just apply the same principals of massive public investment, public sector employment and inflation to make a success out of Brexit in the same way you suggest a Labour government would be a success? Corbyn is an avid Brexiteer so would we thrive under his leadership in a brave new world? This government are getting so incompetent at the moment its almost getting to tipping point of thinking **** it! I agree with your central point that Labour need to show more honesty and realism over tax/spend. They've started showing a bit more realism over the "spend" side of the equation, making it clear that not all the costly spending would be implemented immediately, that nationalisations and public takeovers of PFI schemes would be assessed carefully for value etc. I agree that they still need to be more realistic about the "tax" side of the equation, though: they can focus more of the taxation on big corporations and high-earners, but will still need some other tax rises to fund any significant increase in public spending - for the first few years, at least. Re. your question: I'm a Remain supporter and Soft Left Labour, not Corbynista. For decades, many on the Hard Left (inc. Corbyn) have believed that they could achieve "socialism in one country", leaving the EU to successfully introduce the radical social and economic policies you describe. If this was ever a good idea (which I doubt), it has been unrealistic for 40+ years. Capital and finance is now far too globally mobile and would soon scarper if Labour introduced policies way out of line with the norm in the West. That's a big part of why I'm pro-Remain: not because the EU is perfect, but because Soft Left policies at EU level stand much more chance vis-à-vis global capital than Hard Left policies at national level. But I also think that Brexit undermines Corbyn's chances of heading a successful left-wing govt as it will reduce growth, incomes and tax revenues. A Soft Brexit that keeps us in a close relationship with our main trading partners might only do a small amount of damage to the potential for an effective left-wing govt, but a Hard Brexit would utterly destroy any chance of a successful Corbyn govt - he'd end up either wrecking the economy and Labour's reputation or having to compromise massively on spending plans, disillusioning his support base. My impression is that Corbyn has moderated his stance and now accepts a Soft Brexit policy - either convinced by economic reality or aware of the political reality that most of his members, supporters & MPs oppose Hard Brexit. 1
Buce Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 1 hour ago, Strokes said: You provided no evidence that the vast majority go into rented accommodation, although I don’t doubt this to be true but you are missing the point. It’s not about migrants or how many, it’s about not knowing how many will come or not. How can councils or governments plan how much to build or not? They could start by building the social housing which we know we require, and take it from there. 1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said: The problem is that Labour wont admit that themselves. If a party comes in and says honestly to the public we ALL need to pay more to get more fair enough. Labour have come in and said we will get the nasty rich men and business and make them pay. The IMF has correctly said this wont fund their planned spending spree. Why not just be honest about it? That is my problem with Labour, I would have more respect if they based their plans on something that could/would actually be realised for a party/leader that claims good honest politics they are not that honest. An honest question for the remain voters (of which I was one). If you are a labour voter or Corbyn advocate, can we not just apply the same principals of massive public investment, public sector employment and inflation to make a success out of Brexit in the same way you suggest a Labour government would be a success? Corbyn is an avid Brexiteer so would we thrive under his leadership in a brave new world? This government are getting so incompetent at the moment its almost getting to tipping point of thinking **** it! If evidence was ever needed to say this government's time is up, surely this is it. Welcome to the dark side. 1 hour ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: Labour - the anti-Semitic party http://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/labour-councillor-makes-facebook-concentration-1137727 So one local councillor makes an ill-advised joke (for which he has apologised) and Labour are an anti-semitic party? I would stick to football if I were you.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 (edited) 31 minutes ago, toddybad said: What's more reflective of a party's views? A- Individuals making bad jokes or disparaging comments as you've highlighted? Or B - a party being found by the courts to have enacted "blatantly discriminatory" policies with regard to the disabled? And if you believe it's option a, don't forget the tory councillor talking about - well, the n word, last year. There is racism in both parties, I doubt it’s anymore widespread than the general public. So about 51.8% ? Edited 30 January 2018 by Strokes 1 1
bovril Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 24 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said: Ahhhhhhhh, the standard left wing "whatabouttery" reply. Your initial post could be seen as whatabouttery. All very boring, anyway. I think people on left or right who use individual examples to tar the other side care very little about the actual bigotry in the first place.
Strokes Posted 30 January 2018 Posted 30 January 2018 10 minutes ago, Buce said: They could start by building the social housing which we know we require, and take it from there. Building houses is a long process buce, it’s not a quick signature here and hey presto here are a million new homes. It could take 4-5 years to get what we need now. By then we could be in the same position. 10 minutes ago, Buce said: If evidence was ever needed to say this government's time is up, surely this is it. Welcome to the dark side. I genuinely don’t care if the tories never get elected again but I do care about getting out of the EU. If labour were clear and believable in their approach to brexit, I’d have no trouble voting for them if it matched my view. 10 minutes ago, Buce said: So one local councillor makes an ill-advised joke (for which he has apologised) and Labour are an anti-semitic party? I would stick to football if I were you.
Recommended Posts