Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[breadandcheese]

There's no real defence for the government on the Windrush immigration situation. It is just wrong and should be reversed.

[Guest MattP]

46 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

Beginning to think it's the only hope on either side. At the moment I can only see a reptivtiely anaemic Conservatives that's just a bit shit. Back to the days of managed decline. If the boundary changes come in, then it'll only make it worse. Some of the newer MPs are good but I fear the dross is going to have to get a go first. A daft Labour government might speed up the process of getting a new Mrs T in.

He won't win a majority, but it's very possible he could end up as Prime Minister in a minority government or backed up by the SNP.

 

The only positive from that would be we got 17 years of Tories after the last "proper Labour" government. Probably be even longer after these lunatics were set free on the nation.

 

18 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

There's no real defence for the government on the Windrush immigration situation. It is just wrong and should be reversed.

Nope, thankfully they seem to realise what a cock up this is and are now trying to rectify this, a lot of damage has already been done though.

[Strokes]

36 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Big difference between some suggestions of anti-semitism and the systematic targeting and punishment of vulnerable groups. Think about that word, "punishment", because that's exactly what it is. Punishing people for seemingly no other reason than that you can. It's disgusting behaviour. 

I don’t see much difference in supporting one party or the other making you culpable in either. 

My hands are clean, I didn’t vote. I’m just a brexit racist.

[Strokes]

23 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

There's no real defence for the government on the Windrush immigration situation. It is just wrong and should be reversed.

Totally agree, it’s a complete balls up and really, TM should be booted out over it. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Totally agree, it’s a complete balls up and really, TM should be booted out over it. 

TM and Boris must be the two most incompetent politicians ever to not lose their jobs! 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

4-day week and energy rationing occurred under the tory government before labour got it. Check your facts.

 

Inflation peaked in 1975 (bearing in mind the oil price crisis began in 1973) and then rapidly fell.

I was not referencing any particular government. Its fair to say the 1970s was a screw up from all sides of government. 

 

Inflation rarely went below 10% during the 70s, point being that when you have high inflation it is easy to inflate away a deficit. 

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I was not referencing any particular government. Its fair to say the 1970s was a screw up from all sides of government. 

 

Inflation rarely went below 10% during the 70s, point being that when you have high inflation it is easy to inflate away a deficit. 

Not if borrowing costs are high too. Right now inflation is higher than borrowing costs so the government's debt is being inflated away as we speak. No real need for austerity don't you agree.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

10 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Not if borrowing costs are high too. Right now inflation is higher than borrowing costs so the government's debt is being inflated away as we speak. No real need for austerity don't you agree.

There is no austerity, its a myth. Just spending within  our means. 

 

The reason borrowing cost are low is because the government has fiscal credibility globally, as a general rule most UK governments in history have always been seen as fiscally credible. However, I doubt very much that the sentiment would remain with an anti business, high tax, high borrowing, far left extremist, Corbyn led government in power. 

 

The higher the risk the higher the cost of borrowing. Make no mistake a far left extremist government that is anti business, high tax, unionised, with massive unfunded spending commitments is VERY high risk, I am sure most global lenders will see it that way too. 

 

It would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation, something far beyond the damage that Brexit could do. Its terrifying to think the young could turn this once great nation into a 3rd world, corrupt, anti free press, south American/soviet style despot socialist dictatorship. If you think things are bad now, you aint seen nothing yet! 

Edited 16 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I was not referencing any particular government. Its fair to say the 1970s was a screw up from all sides of government. 

 

Inflation rarely went below 10% during the 70s, point being that when you have high inflation it is easy to inflate away a deficit. 

That's fairer.

Not sure why you used the 70s to kick labour then.

[Rogstanley]

7 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

There is no austerity, its a myth. Just spending within  our means. 

 

The reason borrowing cost are low is because the government has fiscal credibility globally, as a general rule most UK governments in history have always been seen as fiscally credible. However, I doubt very much that the sentiment would remain with an anti business, high tax, high borrowing, far left extremist, Corbyn led government in power. 

 

The higher the risk the higher the cost of borrowing. Make no mistake a far left extremist government that is anti business, high tax, unionised, with massive unfunded spending commitments is VERY high risk, I am sure most global lenders will see it that way too. 

 

It would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation, something far beyond the damage that Brexit could do. Its terrifying to think the young could turn this once great nation into a 3rd world, corrupt, anti free press, south American/soviet style despot socialist dictatorship. If you think things are bad now, you aint seen nothing yet! 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

There is no austerity, its a myth. Just spending within  our means. 

 

The reason borrowing cost are low is because the government has fiscal credibility globally, as a general rule most UK governments in history have always been seen as fiscally credible. However, I doubt very much that the sentiment would remain with an anti business, high tax, high borrowing, far left extremist, Corbyn led government in power. 

 

The higher the risk the higher the cost of borrowing. Make no mistake a far left extremist government that is anti business, high tax, unionised, with massive unfunded spending commitments is VERY high risk, I am sure most global lenders will see it that way too. 

 

It would be an unmitigated disaster for this nation, something far beyond the damage that Brexit could do. Its terrifying to think the young could turn this once great nation into a 3rd world, corrupt, anti free press, south American/soviet style despot socialist dictatorship. If you think things are bad now, you aint seen nothing yet! 

To pick up on the three points in bold.

 

Spending within our means - give over. The government gave the DUP £1b and then cut school meals.

 

Anti-business/high tax - raising business tax on large business to where it was in 2014. Much lower taxes on the wealthy than under Thatcher.

 

Extremist - enacting policies which have been in play within the last 25 years. 

Edited 16 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

That's fairer.

Not sure why you used the 70s to kick labour then.

The late 70s were a disaster whichever way you look at it. The unions had too much power. Its why Maggie got voted in, things needed to be sorted whether you agree with the way they were sorted is a different matter but she did change the country at a time when it was in decline. 

 

 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The late 70s were a disaster whichever way you look at it. The unions had too much power. Its why Maggie got voted in, things needed to be sorted whether you agree with the way they were sorted is a different matter but she did change the country at a time when it was in decline. 

 

 

I wouldn't entirely disagree with that.

But what I did disagree about is that an absolute root cause of it all is any of the things being proposed now.

Germany has much stronger laws allowing employee representatives on boards etc with no negative effect.

Tbh I believe that conservatism (with a small c) is what has led our society to put money - and the monied - first so that any moves to empower ordinary people are argued to be bad. 

The idea that a few percent on the richest is going to bring down the country is an argument you only find in Britain, in the main. It's rubbish. It's the entire economic and societal set up here that needs changing.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

To pick up on the three points in bold.

 

Spending within our means - give over. The convergent have the DUP £1b and then cut school meals.

 

Anti-business/high tax - raising business tax on large business to where it was in 2014. Much lower taxes on the wealthy than under Thatcher.

 

Extremist - enacting policies which have been in play within the last 25 years. 

 

Not that I agree with the DUP deal but it is relatively small change for government.

 

Schools meals is Guardian sound bite garbage:

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-arent-telling-the-full-story-about-free-school-meals

 

They are anti business as they want to buy private business for a price decided by parliament. Do you realise how dangerous a precedent this is?

 

I don't care what the tax rates were in 2014 or what Thatcher's tax rates were. I am saying that now in 2018 for many they will be seen as anti business. It is not just that high rates of tax its their whole rhetoric, they are pro union, anti business leader.

 

They are extreme, they proposing ceasing control of private property, buying back utilities at a 'price determined by parliament', they want to nationalise the railways, write off student debt, spend loads more on the NHS, loads on social care, loads on schools, more uncontrolled immigration. There simply is not enough money.

 

Corbyn and McDonnel are dangerous left wing extremist lunatics, they should be looked at in the same light as Britain First.

 

I would be happy to entertain a decent centre left Labour government, but this lot aint that!

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

Not that I agree with the DUP deal but it is relatively small change for government.

 

Schools meals is Guardian sound bite garbage:

 

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-labour-arent-telling-the-full-story-about-free-school-meals

 

They are anti business as they want to buy private business for a price decided by parliament. Do you realise how dangerous a precedent this is?

 

I don't care what the tax rates were in 2014 or what Thatcher's tax rates were. I am saying that now in 2018 for many they will be seen as anti business. It is not just that high rates of tax its their whole rhetoric, they are pro union, anti business leader.

 

They are extreme, they proposing ceasing control of private property, buying back utilities at a 'price determined by parliament', they want to nationalise the railways, write off student debt, spend loads more on the NHS, loads on social care, loads on schools, more uncontrolled immigration. There simply is not enough money.

 

Corbyn and McDonnel are dangerous left wing extremist lunatics, they should be looked at in the same light as Britain First.

 

I would be happy to entertain a decent centre left Labour government, but this lot aint that!

For the bold bit, the first two sentences of need to know exactly what they want to happen and how. 

 

railways we could argue about until the cows come home.

 

student debt shouldn't exist so good.

 

We need to spend loads more on the NHS, schools and social care. The question shouldn't be whether we spend more - it should be how we raise it. Increased taxes is the answer. It's the same answer the Tories will come to. The difference is that labour recognise that rich people are the only group who can currently afford to pay extra taxes.

 

Immigration I tend towards a more centrist view anyway.

Edited 16 April 2018 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

They are anti business as they want to buy private business for a price decided by parliament. Do you realise how dangerous a precedent this is?

 

 

 

Absolutely the biggest problem that this lot pose. Of course it's an insight to how they really think and act. To show such flagrant disregard from property rights as they do would put anyone off investing here. Why would anyone want to invest here when government willing, completely on a whim, seizes it. And utterly flabbergasting that it's not seen as extreme.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I wouldn't entirely disagree with that.

But what I did disagree about is that an absolute root cause of it all is any of the things being proposed now.

Germany has much stronger laws allowing employee representatives on boards etc with no negative effect.

Tbh I believe that conservatism (with a small c) is what has led our society to put money - and the monied - first so that any moves to empower ordinary people are argued to be bad. 

The idea that a few percent on the richest is going to bring down the country is an argument you only find in Britain, in the main. It's rubbish. It's the entire economic and societal set up here that needs changing.

Germany does have its problems. Generally they make very high quality products in efficient factories. The business I work for has many European subsidiary's , operating in Germany or anywhere in Europe can quite frankly be a ball ache. The unions can be an absolute nightmare to deal with, and getting rid of someone who is genuinely shit at their job is quite hard with so many pitfalls, its often easier just to move them sideways. 

 

We could move towards the German economy, it might not be a bad thing but they are very far away from what Corbyn is proposing. Of course they are running a surplus.

 

The problem we have now is  we are London centric and vastly dependant on the service sector. Currently every year manufacturing is growing as a share of GDP. If Corbyn comes in a pisses of 75% of the creators of our GDP we are going to have a huge problem, Brexit is a minor spec in comparison. 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, toddybad said:

For the bold bit, the first two sentences of need to know exactly what they want to happen and how. 

 

railways we could argue about until the cows come home.

 

student debt shouldn't exist so good.

 

We need to spend loads more on the NHS, schools and social care. The question shouldn't be whether we spend more - it should be how we raise it. Increased taxes is the answer. It's the same answer the Tories will come to. The difference is that labour recognise that rich people are the only group who can currently afford to pay extra taxes.

 

 

I don't necessarily disagree with nationalising the railways or at least reforming the franchising system. I do agree it is stupid to have foreign state run rail companies running our railways and investing the profits back home. I do think that Labour costing is completely unrealistic (As are most of their costings), obviously there is the cost of rolling stock much of which in the UK is 20-30 years old. 

 

Student Debt - I would agree for some careers it should be subsidised but why should the government pay for little Johnny to go an study Sociology when his dad earns £150k? Some work needs to be done surrounding this, worthwhile degrees with employable skills should possibly be funded by the benefactor of those skills. I don't agree we should just pay for everyone to do everything.

 

I think we need a radical look at how things are funded, the solution can not just be an endless call for more tax, more spending. We have an aging population, there is a possibility of more automation which may affect jobs, which could reduce tax take over coming years. We cant just keep taxing more and spending more. 

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I don't necessarily disagree with nationalising the railways or at least reforming the franchising system. I do agree it is stupid to have foreign state run rail companies running our railways and investing the profits back home. I do think that Labour costing is completely unrealistic (As are most of their costings), obviously there is the cost of rolling stock much of which in the UK is 20-30 years old. 

 

Student Debt - I would agree for some careers it should be subsidised but why should the government pay for little Johnny to go an study Sociology when his dad earns £150k? Some work needs to be done surrounding this, worthwhile degrees with employable skills should possibly be funded by the benefactor of those skills. I don't agree we should just pay for everyone to do everything.

 

I think we need a radical look at how things are funded, the solution can not just be an endless call for more tax, more spending. We have an aging population, there is a possibility of more automation which may affect jobs, which could reduce tax take over coming years. We cant just keep taxing more and spending more. 

But we also can't spend less than we need to.

We won't ever agree on tax perhaps - if we taxed the rich more we might be able to afford things. If we actually implemented expansionist (economy wise) policies we might well see tax takes rise very significantly. You won't convince me otherwise

[Guest Foxin_mad]

13 minutes ago, toddybad said:

But we also can't spend less than we need to.

We won't ever agree on tax perhaps - if we taxed the rich more we might be able to afford things. If we actually implemented expansionist (economy wise) policies we might well see tax takes rise very significantly. You won't convince me otherwise

We have to spend what we can afford to spend, if we keep spending money on the basis that one day things will get better. Eventually all funding will stop, and even the absolute most critical of items can not be funded. 

 

We wont agree on tax or borrowing I am sure. The rich already contribute a large amount. I would probably argue for a more simplified tax system which may decrease avoidance and increase take. I would possibly look at legalising some drugs and taxing them as we do alcohol, invest that straight into the NHS. Maybe more taxes on things that have a direct result on people ending up in NHS hospitals, use that money to fund them. 

 

I could agree that maybe if we could grow more and have a less London centric manufacturing high tech green economy we could see tax takes rise. Unfortunately this is nothing like what the Labour party and Corbyn are suggesting. They are just riding on a bandwagon of anti-rich rhetoric with popularist sound bite freebie unfunded policies that attract the young. 

Edited 16 April 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

56 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We have to spend what we can afford to spend, if we keep spending money on the basis that one day things will get better. Eventually all funding will stop, and even the absolute most critical of items can not be funded. 

 

We wont agree on tax or borrowing I am sure. The rich already contribute a large amount. I would probably argue for a more simplified tax system which may decrease avoidance and increase take. I would possibly look at legalising some drugs and taxing them as we do alcohol, invest that straight into the NHS. Maybe more taxes on things that have a direct result on people ending up in NHS hospitals, use that money to fund them. 

 

I could agree that maybe if we could grow more and have a less London centric manufacturing high tech green economy we could see tax takes rise. Unfortunately this is nothing like what the Labour party and Corbyn are suggesting. They are just riding on a bandwagon of anti-rich rhetoric with popularist sound bite freebie unfunded policies that attract the young. 

Me and you have been having better exchanges recently. I'm trying to stay calm when you go on your anti-labour rants. Please try to digest what I'm about to say about that last sentence.

 

Labour won the support of every age group up to almost 50 at the last election. The policies they are pursuing have led them to become the biggest political movement in Europe with at least 5 times as many members as the Tories.

 

It is absolutely false to claim their support is down to offering the young freebies. It shows a lack of effort to understand what does drive their support. 

 

What is driving their support is an economy that is set up to favour the rich. The average wage is still lower than it was in 2008 yet the rich have got richer year in, year out.

 

What is driving their support is inter-generational unfairness that is almost part of the genome of the conservative party. The young are poorer than their parents for the first time.

 

What is driving their support is a housing crisis to which the government's only responses have helped to push up prices even further. Council housing is the obvious - and only - answer.

 

What is driving their support is endless foreign conquests that seem to make every country we touch worse off.

 

What is driving their support is an austerity agenda that was hopelessly scewed towards rewarding the wealthy and hitting fringe groups like benefit recipients and the disabled.

 

What is driving their support is failing public services.

 

What is driving their support is a sense of hopelessness for those that can't afford a house, have huge student debts and have gig economy jobs.

 

What is driving their support is that we finally have a party willing to fight back the establishment voices to argue for those that have been failed in the last 10-30 years, from students to the miners. 

 

What is driving their support is that the conservatives are offering nothing - nothing - in response to any of this. And in many cases they are actively working to make things worse.

 

This isn't about freebies, its about social justice.

 

 

 

Edited 16 April 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Have to disagree to be honest. The current Labour party are economically illiterate. 

 

The members numbers this is a misnomer who really cares? what matters is votes at an election. Just because they have a few hundred thousand far left zealots willing to pay a membership fee means nothing to me. Even the communist party were refusing to put a candidate against Labour. 

 

They can offer nothing to solve any of those problems. Most of what they suggest will lead to less jobs, less wealth and less tax for everyone, all of which offers less public services. How the hell you expect business to invest in a nation where if people get jealous of its success the government will 'cease' its assets and nationalise it I have no idea. Building more council homes does not solve the problem of people not being able to afford homes. Lets not forget the last Labour government preceded over 13 years of house price rises (which played a part in the bust that wasn't labours fault), some houses rose over 1000% in price during that period, now who was failing there? 100% rises were common. 

 

If we ever have the misfortune of them leading the country you will see that the impact they will have will be many times worse than your fears for Brexit, Brexit will be a drop in the ocean compared to the economic calamity this bunch could cause. 

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Germany does have its problems. Generally they make very high quality products in efficient factories. The business I work for has many European subsidiary's , operating in Germany or anywhere in Europe can quite frankly be a ball ache. The unions can be an absolute nightmare to deal with, and getting rid of someone who is genuinely shit at their job is quite hard with so many pitfalls, its often easier just to move them sideways. 

 

Toddy has already politely torn your arguments to shreds again so I won't say much, but I have to comment on this bit because I think it shows where many fundamental disagreements in this thread lie.

 

Essentially when talking about the impact of policies you take the point of view of a business first. You do that even though you're not a business. You do it even though what is in the interests of the business is often by necessity diametrically opposed to your own interests and those of people like you.

 

You'll also take the point of view of the government ahead of your own. You're not the only one who constantly refers to the government as "we" as if you are the government, when clearly you're not.

 

Why do you do that, do you think? It's a bit strange when you think about it, I'm sure you'll agree. 

Edited 16 April 2018 by Rogstanley

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Toddy has already politely torn your arguments to shreds again so I won't say much, but I have to comment on this bit because I think it shows where many fundamental disagreements in this thread lie.

 

Essentially when talking about the impact of policies you take the point of view of a business first. You do that even though you're not a business. You do it even though what is in the interests of the business is often by necessity diametrically opposed to your own interests and those of people like you.

 

You'll also take the point of view of the government ahead of your own. You're not the only one who constantly refers to the government as "we" as if you are the government, when clearly you're not.

 

Why do you do that, do you think? It's a bit strange when you think about it, I'm sure you'll agree. 

Haven't you been telling us for over a year how bad Brexit will be for business? If you're not interested in how business will do what are you complaining about?

[Beechey]

Our mate Jezza has once again done himself no favours