Buce Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 34 minutes ago, MattP said: Actually many MP's have been killed over our lifetime, most by Irish terrorists. But yes, most recently it was, but just because of that we shouldn't ignore threats from the hard left. I don't have any sympathy if the moderates are "deselected" - they have brought this on themselves, but people sneakily taking photos of people on trains (especially women) to call them ***** isn't something that sits right with me at all. Curiosity made me check this. Unless you are older than I think you are, there were 'only' two (other than Jo Cox) in your lifetime (Anthony Berry, 1984; Ian Gow, 1990), both killed by the IRA. Something you may not know (I didn't) is that in 1812, the serving Prime Minister (Spencer Perceval) was assassinated in the lobby of the HoC, in a dispute over a personal debt.
Captain... Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 30 minutes ago, MattP said: TTIP was further along at one point than the Japan trade deal, I'd still back us to have one completed before the EU one takes effect, we've seen the form of the voting patterns in the EU parliament. From my memory TTIP collapsed just before the EU referendum so long before Trump took office? https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/06/transatlantic-trade-partnership-ttip-canada-eu - that's from before he was elected, German and French ministers confirming it has failed. I know we like to blame everything on Donald Trump but let's not start pinning things on him when he wasn't even President. He'll be responsible for the Iraq War at this rate. I wouldn't believe everything you read in the guardian Matt. I'm more than happy not to "blame" Trump for this one, I didn't agree with the TTIP deal and glad it is dead, it stalled last year, but Trump has certainly made sure it doesn't get resurrected. I was actually going to put in my post that it wasn't a criticism of Trump, but then I thought better of it... As for your first point what are you basing that on? Is it Britains proud record of negotiating no trade deals in the last 3 decades? Or that we will be so desperate to get a trade deal of some sort to put a positive spin on the balls up we inevitably make if Brexit that we will accept any deal regardless of actual consequences? Also you failed to respond to the point that making any sort of trade deal is completely opposed to Trump's protectionist policy. Do you think he will agree to any trade deal that isn't massively in favour of the US?
Guest Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Labour are about as far from a 'jobs first' party as one can get. What they actually mean is Public sector first. They do not give a flying crap about private sector jobs or businesses and despise the nasty rich men. Ironic considering they need all of these to even try to fund their absolutely mad funding spree. 26% Corporation Tax and a £10 a hour minimum wage are not 'jobs first' policies they are a 'more people on state benefits' hence more voters policies! Many millions of jobs would be lost under a labour government that is pretty much a fact. Its funny the bile spewing hate mongering violent depressed left claim that the west is such a bad place in a capitalist system, yet people still want to migrate here? Odd they would want to come to somewhere so shit!? Britain and America are pretty much the top destinations migrants head for why is that if they are so crap and nasty? Even the migrants could not understand why these left wing fools were destroying their own beautiful city and turning into a warzone? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4677108/Second-night-violence-Hamburg-G20-leaders-meet.html On the subject of cross party discussions on policies for the good of the country, I am all for that. Lets have discussions on all polices and try and evolve they into something practical. Conversely I am not against most of the ideas Labour have except mass uncontrolled unskilled immigration but what I am against is funding policy with Money that we don't have. We need to look at this from all angles, some services need to be made more efficient, some need better funding, some need better management. I mostly agree that infrastructure may benefit from being renationalised as it is most run by foreign government backed companies who have us over a barrel and use us as a funding stream for projects back home. Tell me, when the public sector spends money on procurement, capital projects, buildings etc who gains? The private sector companies delivering ti the public sector. If public sector employees get pay rises where does this go? The goods they purchase in their private lives. A strong public sector is a good thing for the private sector. On the funding thing you've been wrong for some time but neither of us are changing our positions on public debt so i so waste my time with that bit.
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 (edited) 14 minutes ago, Buce said: Curiosity made me check this. Unless you are older than I think you are, there were 'only' two (other than Jo Cox) in your lifetime (Anthony Berry, 1984; Ian Gow, 1990), both killed by the IRA. Something you may not know (I didn't) is that in 1812, the serving Prime Minister (Spencer Perceval) was assassinated in the lobby of the HoC, in a dispute over a personal debt. I said "our" as I was including you, who I presume is a few years older than me so you can add in Airey Neave and Robert Bradford, although I'll concede 5 isn't "many". I did know that, it's a question any "quizzer" has had drummed into their head over the years! The only British PM to be assassinated. I can't remember his name but there was an relative of the assassin actually elected to parliament a few years ago, I don't know if he is still there though 10 minutes ago, Captain... said: I wouldn't believe everything you read in the guardian Matt. I'm more than happy not to "blame" Trump for this one, I didn't agree with the TTIP deal and glad it is dead, it stalled last year, but Trump has certainly made sure it doesn't get resurrected. I was actually going to put in my post that it wasn't a criticism of Trump, but then I thought better of it... As for your first point what are you basing that on? Is it Britains proud record of negotiating no trade deals in the last 3 decades? Or that we will be so desperate to get a trade deal of some sort to put a positive spin on the balls up we inevitably make if Brexit that we will accept any deal regardless of actual consequences? Also you failed to respond to the point that making any sort of trade deal is completely opposed to Trump's protectionist policy. Do you think he will agree to any trade deal that isn't massively in favour of the US? It always depends on economics doesn't it? If Trump employs a protectionist economic agenda he'll end up in a hole similar to any other country that does (not beyond the realms of possibility we'll have the same if Corbyn is elected) so he could end up desperate by the end of a two term office, fact is non of us know. The reason we haven't done any trade deals recently is because we are forbidden to do them whilst a member of the single market. 5 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tell me, when the public sector spends money on procurement, capital projects, buildings etc who gains? The private sector companies delivering ti the public sector. If public sector employees get pay rises where does this go? The goods they purchase in their private lives. A strong public sector is a good thing for the private sector. On the funding thing you've been wrong for some time but neither of us are changing our positions on public debt so i so waste my time with that bit. What ratio of public sector to private sector do you envisage out of interest? It's alright saying more public sector means more tax but in reality it's not the case and the whole wage packet needs to come from the private sector. We heard the strong public sector arguments under Brown and it was becoming clearer and clearer by the end it was totally unsustainable and he ended up having to promise a 3billion cut in pay. Edited 10 July 2017 by MattP
davieG Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 13 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tell me, when the public sector spends money on procurement, capital projects, buildings etc who gains? The private sector companies delivering ti the public sector. If public sector employees get pay rises where does this go? The goods they purchase in their private lives. A strong public sector is a good thing for the private sector. On the funding thing you've been wrong for some time but neither of us are changing our positions on public debt so i so waste my time with that bit. Problem is most of the stuff we buy these days is imported. What this country really need is support and investment to encourage UK production of a range of goods.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 (edited) 45 minutes ago, toddybad said: Tell me, when the public sector spends money on procurement, capital projects, buildings etc who gains? The private sector companies delivering ti the public sector. If public sector employees get pay rises where does this go? The goods they purchase in their private lives. A strong public sector is a good thing for the private sector. On the funding thing you've been wrong for some time but neither of us are changing our positions on public debt so i so waste my time with that bit. Who gains? generally union cronies at over priced construction fees. I have seen many hospitals, schools built by certain unnamed construction companies, very poor quality, covered in fire hazard cladding, not water tight. These companies were chosen time and time again because they 'brought' some kind of public sector gold seal contractor certificate. Are the companies funding the local economy? no. I have been involved in a number of build projects in Stoke on Trent and a lot of the labour comes from other places in the midlands and eastern Europe (the appear in vans and cars each morning and leave at 1-2 on a Friday), so the effect on the economy here has been zero. I would argue very few gain locally, quite a lot of these buildings have been done on the cheap which I have tried to fight against, many 7 years on are not fit for purpose and one I visited the other day is still not water tight and the contractor has long since disappeared. There is little evidence to suggest that public sectors workers would change their spending habits, perhaps they might save more or buy a house. Who knows? But the idea that it would pass on to the local economy in large numbers is false. If most of this pay increase is to support a higher cost of living as suggested then they wont have much more to spend anyway. With incorrect handling of the Private sector there will be no private sector for the public sector employees to spend in, but perhaps we can nationalise Nando's On the funding thing I have not been wrong as you say.....to correct you in your opinion I have been wrong. In my Opinion you are wrong spending money we don't have when we already owe 1.9 trillion is not good, however you dress it up. Spending money and taxing the hell out of business does not make a thriving economy. But as we say agree to disagree on that. Edited 10 July 2017 by Foxin_mad
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 Greatly looking forward to seeing the costings for this. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-tuition-fees-student-debt-angela-rayner-university-costs-jeremy-corbyn-a7831556.html Quote It will cost £100bn to fulfil Jeremy Corbyn’s aim of scrapping current student debt, Labour’s Shadow Education Secretary has admitted. Angela Rayner said the policy remained an “ambition” because Labour does not know how it could be funded.
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 23 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: Who gains? generally union cronies at over priced construction fees. I have seen many hospitals, schools built by certain unnamed construction companies, very poor quality, covered in fire hazard cladding, not water tight. These companies were chosen time and time again because they 'brought' some kind of public sector gold seal contractor certificate. Are the companies funding the local economy? no. I have been involved in a number of build projects in Stoke on Trent and a lot of the labour comes from other places in the midlands and eastern Europe (the appear in vans and cars each morning and leave at 1-2 on a Friday), so the effect on the economy here has been zero. I would argue very few gain locally, quite a lot of these buildings have been done on the cheap which I have tried to fight against, many 7 years on are not fit for purpose and one I visited the other day is still not water tight and the contractor has long since disappeared. There is little evidence to suggest that public sectors workers would change their spending habits, perhaps they might save more or buy a house. Who knows? But the idea that it would pass on to the local economy in large numbers is false. If most of this pay increase is to support a higher cost of living as suggested then they wont have much more to spend anyway. With incorrect handling of the Private sector there will be no private sector for the public sector employees to spend in, but perhaps we can nationalise Nando's On the funding thing I have not been wrong as you say.....to correct you in your opinion I have been wrong. In my Opinion you are wrong spending money we don't have when we already owe 1.3 trillion is not good, however you dress it up. Spending money and taxing the hell out of business does not make a thriving economy. But as we say agree to disagree on that. It's actually just short of 1.9 trillion now. http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ Just watching that clock roll over for a few seconds is quite scary.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 6 minutes ago, MattP said: Greatly looking forward to seeing the costings for this. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-tuition-fees-student-debt-angela-rayner-university-costs-jeremy-corbyn-a7831556.html Just tax the rich the nasty bastards, tax them till they squeak.
Buce Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 3 minutes ago, MattP said: It's actually just short of 1.9 trillion now. http://www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/ Just watching that clock roll over for a few seconds is quite scary. You know what they say - if you owe the bank a hundred quid, it's your problem; if you owe them a million, it's theirs.. 1
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 3 minutes ago, Buce said: You know what they say - if you owe the bank a hundred quid, it's your problem; if you owe them a million, it's theirs.. If it was owed to a bank it wouldn't be that much of a problem.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 78k per person in the UK...........frightening And people advocate spending even more.
Innovindil Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 18 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: 78k per person in the UK...........frightening And people advocate spending even more. But but but if we spend more our economy will boom and everyone will be rich!
Buce Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 30 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: 78k per person in the UK...........frightening And people advocate spending even more. 10 minutes ago, Innovindil said: But but but if we spend more our economy will boom and everyone will be rich!
Strokes Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 17 minutes ago, Buce said: I hope you know how to delete your search history buce 1
Buce Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 9 minutes ago, Strokes said: I hope you know how to delete your search history buce Done.
Innovindil Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 53 minutes ago, Buce said: You can join in if you want lad I've still got a spare hand. Obviously you'll have to denounce your evil leftist ways and praise Theresa May as your saviour.
Guest Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: Who gains? generally union cronies at over priced construction fees. I have seen many hospitals, schools built by certain unnamed construction companies, very poor quality, covered in fire hazard cladding, not water tight. These companies were chosen time and time again because they 'brought' some kind of public sector gold seal contractor certificate. Are the companies funding the local economy? no. I have been involved in a number of build projects in Stoke on Trent and a lot of the labour comes from other places in the midlands and eastern Europe (the appear in vans and cars each morning and leave at 1-2 on a Friday), so the effect on the economy here has been zero. I would argue very few gain locally, quite a lot of these buildings have been done on the cheap which I have tried to fight against, many 7 years on are not fit for purpose and one I visited the other day is still not water tight and the contractor has long since disappeared. There is little evidence to suggest that public sectors workers would change their spending habits, perhaps they might save more or buy a house. Who knows? But the idea that it would pass on to the local economy in large numbers is false. If most of this pay increase is to support a higher cost of living as suggested then they wont have much more to spend anyway. With incorrect handling of the Private sector there will be no private sector for the public sector employees to spend in, but perhaps we can nationalise Nando's On the funding thing I have not been wrong as you say.....to correct you in your opinion I have been wrong. In my Opinion you are wrong spending money we don't have when we already owe 1.9 trillion is not good, however you dress it up. Spending money and taxing the hell out of business does not make a thriving economy. But as we say agree to disagree on that. It isn't about private sector vs public sector. The correct path is to think about all of the things you want society to have. Some of these things are better provided by the state (as they are of national importance) - i guess this is arguable but those on my side of the debate would say that provision of healthcare, education, transport links, security etc all fall under this heading. If society wants those things then fund them (not intended to get into debates on the deficit/borrowing etc). The private sector ordinarily provides goods and services that are wanted by people on a more personal level, or to support the public services. The private sector relies on there being money in the economy in order to drive its profits. Whether that money is in the hands of public or private employees is irrelevant. Saying that people having better wages doesn't help the local economy is just bizarre. It seems it is only good when private sector workers get paid in your mind. The only response to your point about the quality of private services to the public sector is to point out that this is the result of cost efficiencies in the public service that require overall cost to be the deciding factor in procurement above quality. The reason i took a break from this thread is because neither of us are going to agree. It doesn't matter how well researched a point is others will always disagree even using badly researched points. Im not ever saying that i'm immune to that criticism. It's just sad that, rather like paid politicians , we are treating this as a willy waving competition rather than trying to find real solutions. Edited 10 July 2017 by Guest
Guest Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 Tories currently revolting over leaving Eurotom. Obviously, the tories are always revolting....
Guest Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 I do see the disparity between my last two comments, yes
Rincewind Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 (edited) Surely the public and private sectors have qualities that can help the other? Thought that was common sense. Or am I misreading Toddybads point? Edited 10 July 2017 by Rincewind
Innovindil Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 11 minutes ago, Rincewind said: Surely the public and private sectors have qualities that can help the other? Thought that was common sense. Or am I misreading Toddybads point? Wouldn't blame you. There's only so much crazy you can read before joining the asylum yourself.
Rincewind Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 We seem to be a country full of pen pushes amd office workers, pound and quick loan shops. Empty office blocks and student flats are preferred to factories. At some point we need to increase manufacturing. Those places will need machines provided by skilled workers who in turn will need to be trained by people who have been through good quality schools and colleges taught by good quality teachers. An example of public and private sectors working together. I'll let you lot sort which is which.
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 1 hour ago, toddybad said: It isn't about private sector vs public sector. The correct path is to think about all of the things you want society to have. Some of these things are better provided by the state (as they are of national importance) - i guess this is arguable but those on my side of the debate would say that provision of healthcare, education, transport links, security etc all fall under this heading. If society wants those things then fund them (not intended to get into debates on the deficit/borrowing etc). The private sector ordinarily provides goods and services that are wanted by people on a more personal level, or to support the public services. The private sector relies on there being money in the economy in order to drive its profits. Whether that money is in the hands of public or private employees is irrelevant. Saying that people having better wages doesn't help the local economy is just bizarre. It seems it is only good when private sector workers get paid in your mind. The only response to your point about the quality of private services to the public sector is to point out that this is the result of cost efficiencies in the public service that require overall cost to be the deciding factor in procurement above quality. The reason i took a break from this thread is because neither of us are going to agree. It doesn't matter how well researched a point is others will always disagree even using badly researched points. Im not ever saying that i'm immune to that criticism. It's just sad that, rather like paid politicians , we are treating this as a willy waving competition rather than trying to find real solutions. I agree, that public sector can and absolutely do provide some useful functions, I have never denied this. I am not sure however that the Chief executive of a local council on £234000 a year is good value for money, I sort of question why someone in the public sector in a local authority is earning more than supposedly the public servant top job in the country the PM? To be honest I have worked on behalf of many public sector clients and some of the inefficiencies in one area are absolutely staggering, this is a big problem and the solution here is not more money. Some services in particular infrastructure and travel, health care and education, I can see the benefit of being publically run and well funded. The funds have to be directed to the correct places by competent management. Some of these functions should not be run by councils ever. Just stick to the basics and do them well! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8440052/The-council-non-job-job-adverts.html
Guest MattP Posted 10 July 2017 Posted 10 July 2017 http://m.huffpost.com/uk/entry/uk_59638608e4b02e9bdb0e2c77 Could be another by-election on the way...... I've not heard someone use that phrase for years
Recommended Posts