Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Webbo]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Yes, we can compensate landowners for their stewardship of the land, as the EU does under CAP - but that means less of a saving for the consumer/taxpayer. Anyway, that's cash that Boris has promised to the NHS....or extra cash to be obtained from tax increases, debt or further public service cuts, if the EU farm subsidies are indeed diverted to the NHS.

 

Those tariff-free imports you're advocating would have to be targeted with minuscule precision, wouldn't they? Tariff-free oranges from Africa, but not tariff-free mange-touts as they'd be in competition with British produce (peas, beans etc.).

Likewise with manufactures: they'd have to be goods produced in Germany and India, but not in the UK, otherwise cheap imports would impact British producers. Anyway, I don't understand the suggestion that we should make unilateral cuts to tariffs when we can negotiate trade deals to benefit both parties. Brexiteers assured us that this would be quick and easy to do, and that Liam Fox was already doing the groundwork. With trade deals, we could get a quid pro quo - low-tariff exports for our manufacturers etc. I thought you were advocating free trade, not a unilateral elimination of tariffs that would be a disguised increase in international development spending?

 

Neither of us can know whether there would be more or less jobs, or a higher or lower trade deficit if we unilaterally eliminated tariffs on certain imports from certain countries. It would depend on all sort of factors: whether consumers used any cash savings to purchase more imports, whether the extra output was generated here or abroad, how much was lost in tariff revenue, how many extra jobs were created at importers/distributors/shops compared to jobs lost on British farms and in British factories, whether any extra profits were invested in the UK or moved offshore etc.

 

Anyway, I'm waiting to hear about all these new trade deals that were promised - and not only the new ones that the EU was supposedly too inflexible to negotiate, but those dozens of deals worldwide that we already have through the EU and will need to replace, unless we want to pay HIGHER tariffs than we do now (bar any unilateral cuts in tariffs levied on developing countries). At least we know that the UK plans to try to negotiate a deal with the EU once the transition is hopefully agreed. We don't know anything about any plans to replace existing trade deals with Morocco, Norway, Switzerland, South Korea, Israel, Egypt, Mexico, Chile or Turkey, or deals part-implemented or pending with Canada, Japan, Singapore etc. 

http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/countries-and-regions/negotiations-and-agreements/#_in-place

 

Like you, I'm out of here now - and will try to be in here less tomorrow! 

 

Just pretend that this post was posted tomorrow.

 

 

I've repeatedly said that if it affect British growers and manufacturers so be it.

 

We're not allowed to sign any free trade deals until we've left, complaining about not doing something we're not allowed to do seems a bit poor tbh.

[Webbo]

Tories up in yet another poll.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

37 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Just pretend that this post was posted tomorrow. 

 

I've repeatedly said that if it affect British growers and manufacturers so be it.

 

We're not allowed to sign any free trade deals until we've left, complaining about not doing something we're not allowed to do seems a bit poor tbh.

 

A fellow addict! 

 

So, the slogan on the bus should really have read: "Let's take back control, close down British businesses and give our money to Africa"? 

 

I didn't complain about not signing any deals, as I know that's not possible. Just some serious news of free trade agreements ready to go once we leave the EU.

Coverage doesn't look promising:

https://www.standard.co.uk/business/sam-lowe-britain-is-drowning-trying-to-land-trade-deals-a3758206.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-trade-deals-lost-eu-liam-fox-caroline-lucas-theresa-may-latest-a8201596.html

https://www.buzzfeed.com/albertonardelli/the-uk-wants-to-remain-in-the-eus-trade-deals-during-the?utm_term=.un8l2pJpd#.avbZm121d

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Tories up in yet another poll.

 

 

 

 

Tories lead Labour by 24% in yet another poll:

 

 

 

 

Poll taken 20th April 2017....6 weeks before the last election. 

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

I think the best thing to have come out of this exchange is that we have finally killed the politics thread.

Looks like we need to try harder.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Corbyn alledged to have met with Communist Spy... in 1977. 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5581166/jeremy-corbyn-communist-spy-cold-war-briefings/

[Rogstanley]

For decades we’ve heard “no we can’t build more roads, we’ll invest in public transport instead”.

 

Britain’s bus coverage now at 28-year low.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42749973

 

Where’s our money gone then you robbing bastards?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

For decades we’ve heard “no we can’t build more roads, we’ll invest in public transport instead”.

 

Britain’s bus coverage now at 28-year low.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-42749973

 

Where’s our money gone then you robbing bastards?

Labour spent it all on Senior/middle managers for the public sector between 1997 and 2010

Now were paying it back!

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Webbo said:

Tories up in yet another poll.

 

 

These polls are being backed up by the local elections as well, Tories and Labour both levelling out and the Lib Dems doing well.

 

9 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Corbyn alledged to have met with Communist Spy... in 1977. 

 

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5581166/jeremy-corbyn-communist-spy-cold-war-briefings/

Reason number 2582 he shouldn't be anywhere near a position in office.

 

I don't think it's actually his own nastiness though that he would do this, much again his own stupidity and naivety, probably again someone more sinister behind him pulling his strings. 

[Guest MattP]

Chukka Umunna again on Radio 4 saying the Leave campaign never said it wanted to leave the single market.

 

Here's a tweet from Chukka Umanna, from the campaign, standing in front of a poster saying the leave campaign wants to leave the single market - Do these people not realise we can find these things?

[Rogstanley]

Just 27% of middle income 25 to 34-year olds now own their own home, compared to nearly 70% twenty years ago.

 

Middle income is defined as having a take home of £22k - £30k. A take home of £30k is a salary of about £55k, nearly triple the national average. Quite why that's defined as middle income I'm not sure.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Very Interesting:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43078920

 

I have to say that a Universal Basic Income given some of the reading I have done may actually be a good idea and something that should be given a lot more consideration.

 

The Theory I have is that it would be funded not be massive taxation increases but by savings made in other areas whether this belief is naive I do not know.

 

Basically my theory is it costs a vast amount of money to stop crime, put people through the court systems, into prisons, poor health costs a lot also. Perhaps by giving money to those that are likely to benefit would help them to make better choices and in the long term actually save the country money. Fact is some homeless people at the minute commit crime to get put into a cell because it is better than being on the streets.

 

One thing I do not buy is the automation replacing jobs thing. If British companies invest in automation they will increase productivity, automation in certain sectors has been around for years. It may replace certain jobs but the plus side to all this unreliable tech is that there will need to be a whole army of skilled IT Staff required to support this kind of stuff and the networks that will go with it! Certain jobs will be replaced but as a result better jobs may evolve from the progression I feel but maybe I am just an eternal optimist. I don't think we wil lever go into Costa and be served by a Robot for instance, if we did what happens when it crashes and pours Coffee in my lap?

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Very Interesting:

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43078920

 

I have to say that a Universal Basic Income given some of the reading I have done may actually be a good idea and something that should be given a lot more consideration.

 

The Theory I have is that it would be funded not be massive taxation increases but by savings made in other areas whether this belief is naive I do not know.

 

Basically my theory is it costs a vast amount of money to stop crime, put people through the court systems, into prisons, poor health costs a lot also. Perhaps by giving money to those that are likely to benefit would help them to make better choices and in the long term actually save the country money. Fact is some homeless people at the minute commit crime to get put into a cell because it is better than being on the streets.

 

One thing I do not buy is the automation replacing jobs thing. If British companies invest in automation they will increase productivity, automation in certain sectors has been around for years. It may replace certain jobs but the plus side to all this unreliable tech is that there will need to be a whole army of skilled IT Staff required to support this kind of stuff and the networks that will go with it! Certain jobs will be replaced but as a result better jobs may evolve from the progression I feel but maybe I am just an eternal optimist. I don't think we wil lever go into Costa and be served by a Robot for instance, if we did what happens when it crashes and pours Coffee in my lap?

But what will happen to the people being replaced by these robots, most of whom will presumably lack the IT skills required to benefit from these improved jobs? 

 

A universal basic income is a great idea which you would imagine is eventually going to have to become a reality but I struggle to see how it can be funded... it's not like every low income/homeless person is a criminal so the savings on incarceration would only recoup a fraction of the new cost, likewise it's not like every poor/homeless person goes in for costly hospital treatment so the few that represent a saving to the NHS would be outweighed by the many more now representing a cost to the state in UBI where they cost nothing before...

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

9 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

But what will happen to the people being replaced by these robots, most of whom will presumably lack the IT skills required to benefit from these improved jobs? 

 

A universal basic income is a great idea which you would imagine is eventually going to have to become a reality but I struggle to see how it can be funded... it's not like every low income/homeless person is a criminal so the savings on incarceration would only recoup a fraction of the new cost, likewise it's not like every poor/homeless person goes in for costly hospital treatment so the few that represent a saving to the NHS would be outweighed by the many more now representing a cost to the state in UBI where they cost nothing before...

I don't know if it would work, but i've read savings would also be made in the reduction of bureaucratic costs, ie. universal income doesnt require a proces to make sure people are relevant candidates etc...

 

I read of a small scale study in I think it may have been Canada inwhich they tested UI and on the whole it increased productivity and people were not inclined to sit and do nothing just because they were secure

 

Edited 16 February 2018 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[Izzy]

20 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Just 27% of middle income 25 to 34-year olds now own their own home, compared to nearly 70% twenty years ago.

 

Middle income is defined as having a take home of £22k - £30k. A take home of £30k is a salary of about £55k, nearly triple the national average. Quite why that's defined as middle income I'm not sure.

 

www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-43075099

Take home of £30k is a salary of around £40k before tax and the national average is £27,600 before tax and £22.5k after tax

[Carl the Llama]

We've gone from being a nation where in pretty much any line of work if you worked hard and got a decent job you could achieve the luxury of affording a mortgage with relative ease to one where if you work hard and get a decent job you'll be able to afford to rent without house-sharing.

 

Imagine losing about half your monthly income just to afford the use of a small room in a shared house.  That's the reality for most young people these days, when the have nots are being made to lose all that money to the haves how does anybody expect this nation to have any kind of positive future?

[Rogstanley]

17 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

Take home of £30k is a salary of around £40k before tax and the national average is £27,600 before tax and £22.5k after tax

Yeah if you ignore pensions and student loans which almost everyone earning those sums is going to have. 

 

Still £55k was over-egging it a bit. £48k is more reasonable. Still a decent wage to be considered 'middle income' 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

But what will happen to the people being replaced by these robots, most of whom will presumably lack the IT skills required to benefit from these improved jobs? 

 

A universal basic income is a great idea which you would imagine is eventually going to have to become a reality but I struggle to see how it can be funded... it's not like every low income/homeless person is a criminal so the savings on incarceration would only recoup a fraction of the new cost, likewise it's not like every poor/homeless person goes in for costly hospital treatment so the few that represent a saving to the NHS would be outweighed by the many more now representing a cost to the state in UBI where they cost nothing before...

Well again it wont happen on all counts but some will be use the money to retrain. Companies would have the incentive to retrain staff too, there is already an IT Skills shortage in the country, basically running these things is going to be a massive technical operation on a day to day basis. Its not quite as simple as buying a few robots and turning them on. There are a lot of skilled jobs required as a result. The coders to program the robots, the networks to support the robots, the support staff to maintain the robots and proactively monitor networks equipment. For example if my business brought a robot tomorrow it wouldn't actually work out cheaper than having 5 people on minimum wage doing the same job as I would most likely need an IT Person or at the very least a supportive robot reseller! Of course if we reach a point of wages rising and basically no one works for minimum wage it may become more attractive to start buying robots!

 

Not every low income or homeless person is a criminal but a sufficient number of them are that our criminal and justice system costs a lot. It costs around £50k to send a person to prison and around 35k per year to keep a person there. That is a huge cost, we could probably do a lot better in giving people money to keep them out of the criminal and justice system. Crime is rising so I think maybe its time to be a little proactive here, prisons are full. I am not suggesting rewarding crime but maybe a trial could be done with people with minimal convictions or those identified to be at high risk of committing crime and see whether this theory would actually work.

 

Obviously it would need to be looked into in depth on savings but I expect they could be high, I like the idea where maybe it is tapered via tax for those in higher incomes, for example someone on £100k don't need a universal income. To someone on 30k It may make life a little easier, to someone with nothing its the difference between having to steal to get by and not. One thing I would not support to fund it is tax rises.

[Innovindil]

 

High fives for all my fellow 27%ers out there. Keep working hard people. 

[Carl the Llama]

I think that's the first time I've added to my ignore list in over a year.  Don't know why I've given him this long tbh.

[Fox Ulike]

38 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

But what will happen to the people being replaced by these robots, most of whom will presumably lack the IT skills required to benefit from these improved jobs? 

 

A universal basic income is a great idea which you would imagine is eventually going to have to become a reality but I struggle to see how it can be funded... it's not like every low income/homeless person is a criminal so the savings on incarceration would only recoup a fraction of the new cost, likewise it's not like every poor/homeless person goes in for costly hospital treatment so the few that represent a saving to the NHS would be outweighed by the many more now representing a cost to the state in UBI where they cost nothing before...

 

There's no getting away from the fact that those in work will have to fund those without work.

 

This would be such a seismic shift in Western culture - especially because at the moment we are actively moving the other way with wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

 

In some sub-Saharan African countries the culture is that huge extended families live together reliant on the income of one or two earners within that family. That would be the alternative to a Universal Income.

 

I can't imagine how that would work here.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

 

There's no getting away from the fact that those in work will have to fund those without work.

 

This would be such a seismic shift in Western culture - especially because at the moment we are actively moving the other way with wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

 

In some sub-Saharan African countries the culture is that huge extended families live together reliant on the income of one or two earners within that family. That would be the alternative to a Universal Income.

 

I can't imagine how that would work here.

This is what I mean though, unfortunately this country's politics is more interesting in preserving the wealth of the narrowing few, it'll probably take something seismic like another world war where the UK suffers heavy damage or some other catastrophic event for our priorities to change for the better.

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

Imagine losing about half your monthly income just to afford the use of a small room in a shared house.  That's the reality for most young people these days, when the have nots are being made to lose all that money to the haves how does anybody expect this nation to have any kind of positive future?

Another reason why I find it so baffling young people are in favour of mass immigration, one of the main factors that contributes to this problem.

 

Then again isn't this bringing us more into line with Europe? Sure I remember reading in Germany the amount of people who rent is a huge percentage. 

[Guest MattP]

9 minutes ago, Fox Ulike said:

There's no getting away from the fact that those in work will have to fund those without work.

 

This would be such a seismic shift in Western culture - especially because at the moment we are actively moving the other way with wealth being concentrated into fewer and fewer hands.

 

In some sub-Saharan African countries the culture is that huge extended families live together reliant on the income of one or two earners within that family. That would be the alternative to a Universal Income.

 

I can't imagine how that would work here.

Those in work already do fund those who don't work, the state gets its money from taxation.

 

Then the government borrows the shortfall to pay for the rest.(currently about 50billion a year)

 

I'd love us to go back to the days of looking after extended family but it's not viable for a variety of reasons, both adults work in most households, families in poorer countries often have to do this as they have no choice.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

21 minutes ago, MattP said:

Those in work already do fund those who don't work, the state gets its money from taxation.

 

Then the government borrows the shortfall to pay for the rest.(currently about 50billion a year)

 

I'd love us to go back to the days of looking after extended family but it's not viable for a variety of reasons, both adults work in most households, families in poorer countries often have to do this as they have no choice.

Interesting a UBI may help with some of that. Would mothers need to go back to work so soon if there was an income guaranteed during that period? Would both adults need to work? could we begin to look after our older family members once again? Actually giving people the money to look after themselves instead of expecting the state to do it badly and often at huge cost may actually have some ground to it I am beginning to think. We need to change the way we work, I am not really in favour of higher taxation but I think UBI has the potential for massive savings in other areas. Morally it is probably better to fund a family to look after a family member instead of shoving them in a home and paying some care home provider to do it incompetently!!