Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

7 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Right, that's a bit strange though. Why would have a problem with one but not the other?

 

Yes which is obviously a supply and demand issue. Take nursing for example, we don't have a shortage of people capable of being nurses, just a shortage of people wanting to be nurses. To solve that problem they need to make going into nursing sufficiently attractive, typically by increasing wages. The other solution is to import foreign nurses on lower wages, which would potentially have the effect of suppressing wages of native nurses.

 

Why that would be fine in your eyes on the basis that nurses are skilled, but isn't fine for people who are unskilled doesn't really make a lot of sense tbqh

 

Skilled people are in short supply, filling the gap is fine. The wage suppression comes when we have oversupply. Let me know when we have too many skilled people and you might have a decent argument for a change. If it does happen at least we can control it and put/keep wages where they should be.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Strokes

[Guest]

37 minutes ago, MattP said:

Make sure you watch the Daily Poltiics today, hilarious.

 

Labour now has a parliamentary candidate for the next election (Worcester) that believes the Jo Cox murder has no evidence, the Manchester and Westminster attacks were faked, she has also tried to sue MI6, MI5, Thames Water, Hackney Council and the centrist Labour group Progress - https://news.sky.com/story/calls-mount-to-deselect-fantasist-labour-candidate-mandy-richards-11344557

 

She turned up at a hustings last year and did so well they selected her Is this now the sort of candidate your membership selects? UKIP used to attract some nutters but you lot have raised the bar superbly.

My understanding is that the local party - basically the 10 people who turn up to local meetings - have put her forward as a candidate but that the National party might refuse to support her. I haven't read deeply into it to know the ins and outs of what that means though. 

[Guest MattP]

Yvette Cooper just tore May a new one at PMQ. That was a serious reminder of when Labour had someone good at this doing it.

[Alf Bentley]

44 minutes ago, MattP said:

Make sure you watch the Daily Poltiics today, hilarious.

 

Labour now has a parliamentary candidate for the next election (Worcester) that believes the Jo Cox murder has no evidence, the Manchester and Westminster attacks were faked, she has also tried to sue MI6, MI5, Thames Water, Hackney Council and the centrist Labour group Progress - https://news.sky.com/story/calls-mount-to-deselect-fantasist-labour-candidate-mandy-richards-11344557

 

She turned up at a hustings last year and did so well they selected her Is this now the sort of candidate your membership selects? UKIP used to attract some nutters but you lot have raised the bar superbly.

 

4 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My understanding is that the local party - basically the 10 people who turn up to local meetings - have put her forward as a candidate but that the National party might refuse to support her. I haven't read deeply into it to know the ins and outs of what that means though. 

 

If true - and it sounds as if it is - then party HQ need to deselect this woman immediately.

 

It's not as if it's some no-hope seat either - Worcester was a Labour seat under Blair/Brown and the sort of place they need to win to form a govt.

For a selection meeting in a winnable seat, I'm sure there would have been a lot more than 10 people there. I can only assume they didn't know about her background and statements - which suggests a lack of due diligence.

[Rogstanley]

29 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

You're a confused little man Rog. For a start it made up at best a quarter of my point, for which the other three  you've practically already conceded.

 

Requisitioning does show a lack of respect for property rights whether it be an emergency or deemed necessary or whatever. Frankly it is not necessary in the case of Grenfell and what it does show, in my opinion, is Corbyn's instinct to treat property as the state's first and foremost. 

 

Ultimately your last paragraph is the same nonsense left-wing populism. The LSE found, in a report commissioned by the mayor, that on new builds "There was almost no evidence of units being left entirely empty". I don't see why that would be vastly different for non new builds. They also found that the vast majority used as second homes were bought by UK buyers. And they also found that overseas property investment is often key to getting developments off the ground. So yes i do value foreign investment because it's downsides are vastly overplayed in the name of populist socialism and there are other ways of helping people beyond just taking things off others, which is Corbyn's stock answer for almost everything.

Of your four points, one appears to be a total fabrication since there's no evidence of what you claimed to have been said anywhere online.

 

The others I've given my view on. I've not said I necessarily agree with the comments but I do disagree with your conclusion that they demonstrate Corbyn/McDonnell have no respect for property rights.

 

Here again you're using an extremely odd source to try and falsely claim that there are few empty properties (a cursory Google search of a reasonable term like "London empty properties" will quickly show you how woefully inaccurate this point is) and then using that as a very very spurious basis to jump to a conclusion about Corbyn's instincts.

 

It's extremely desperate stuff, to be quite honest.

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

My understanding is that the local party - basically the 10 people who turn up to local meetings - have put her forward as a candidate but that the National party might refuse to support her. I haven't read deeply into it to know the ins and outs of what that means though. 

Well of course the NEC has to confirm it.

 

The point is you are attracting people like this now, which should result in some self-reflection - added to the fact she was actually selected. (Which I'd imagine is far more than 10 people as you don't usually seem shy about telling how big the membership is.

 

What strikes me is how careless you can be, it's not like this is Uxbridge - it's a swing seat on current polling.

[Rogstanley]

33 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Skilled people are in short supply, filling the gap is fine. The wage suppression comes when we have oversupply. Let me know when we have too many skilled people and you might have a decent argument for a change. If it does happen at least we can control it and put/keep wages where they should be.

So you'd rather "fill the gap" with lower paid immigrants than pay natives a decent wage and fill the gap that way? That's fine just seems to be at odds with other points you make about immigration.

[Guest MattP]

7 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

If true - and it sounds as if it is - then party HQ need to deselect this woman immediately.

 

It's not as if it's some no-hope seat either - Worcester was a Labour seat under Blair/Brown and the sort of place they need to win to form a govt.

For a selection meeting in a winnable seat, I'm sure there would have been a lot more than 10 people there. I can only assume they didn't know about her background and statements - which suggests a lack of due diligence.

The comments about Jo Cox surely merit being booted out the party, it does appear she's stepped down mind.

 

The idea she's a teacher is pretty scary to be honest given what we now know.

's a write

Edited 25 April 2018 by MattP

[breadandcheese]

17 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yvette Cooper just tore May a new one at PMQ. That was a serious reminder of when Labour had someone good at this doing it.

Yvette Cooper is the leader the Labour party should have had.  She is very good.

[Sharpe's Fox]

22 minutes ago, MattP said:

Yvette Cooper just tore May a new one at PMQ. That was a serious reminder of when Labour had someone good at this doing it.

Shame she's unelectable

[Guest]

3 hours ago, MattP said:

Well of course the NEC has to confirm it.

 

The point is you are attracting people like this now, which should result in some self-reflection - added to the fact she was actually selected. (Which I'd imagine is far more than 10 people as you don't usually seem shy about telling how big the membership is.

 

What strikes me is how careless you can be, it's not like this is Uxbridge - it's a swing seat on current polling.

I'm not going to defend the local party being useless. In terms of the party having nutters in it yes it surely will have with over half a million members sitting between the centre and a long way to the left. She certainly subs like a nutjob. The fact she's a member doesn't concern me but the fact she could have been up as an mp does - can only assume nobody knows her background. As I said yesterday, the policies aren't an issue for me (in the main) but I would like a few more serious characters up front. It does become wearing having to watch repeated own goals. But then there is clearly a coordinated attempt to discredit Cornyn and the wider labour team and it is focused on various character attacks as the policies are all pretty popular. Let's face it, there are plenty of nutter tory mps but the attacks on them aren't as sustained or vitriolic.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Of your four points, one appears to be a total fabrication since there's no evidence of what you claimed to have been said anywhere online.

 

The others I've given my view on. I've not said I necessarily agree with the comments but I do disagree with your conclusion that they demonstrate Corbyn/McDonnell have no respect for property rights.

 

Here again you're using an extremely odd source to try and falsely claim that there are few empty properties (a cursory Google search of a reasonable term like "London empty properties" will quickly show you how woefully inaccurate this point is) and then using that as a very very spurious basis to jump to a conclusion about Corbyn's instincts.

 

It's extremely desperate stuff, to be quite honest.

 

I gave you the quote from the FT, it was also reported in The Times.

 

I'm not using an odd source. You're citing sources that use a definition of being empty for 6 months. I'm using a report by the LSE on behalf of the mayor that finds that there is almost no evidence of homes being entirely empty. Maybe you don't like that the Qatari royal family has property here so they can spend 2 months in the summer in Mayfair but it doesnt make those homes empty. Your definition says their homes are empty, the LSE report just says they're not actually empty.

 

I didn't use it to jump to conclusions about Corbyn. My words were there are other ways of helping other than Corbyn's way. Had no relation to that report. Should have been paragraphed better.

[Carl the Llama]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

Do you really think it's upto Corbyn to decide whether this meeting was a productive one? What next? It's apto Theresa May to decide whether a meeting with the windrush immigrants was productive? It's upto the dole office to decide whether a meeting with a benefit claimant was productive?

 

Heres's the lowdown on the meeting from the Jewish Chronicle - no doubt it's just "right wing smears" again to anyone in the cult but it's worth a read.

 

I find it hard you, a clearly intelligent, pro European liberal - would try and defend everything Corbyn does.

Yeah I read that last night when I was trying to figure it out. Sounds like some people were determined to be unhappy with the outcome. Man's said he's working on it and given examples of what he has planned but it's not good enough because he's not doing as and what the lobby groups tell him to seems to be the gist of it. I only point out when there seems to be an unfair reaction to his actions, if someone proved tomorrow that he was actively encouraging antisemitism I'd be just as condemning as you.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Skilled people are in short supply, filling the gap is fine. The wage suppression comes when we have oversupply. Let me know when we have too many skilled people and you might have a decent argument for a change. If it does happen at least we can control it and put/keep wages where they should be.

https://www.hsj.co.uk/workforce/absolute-shock-at-government-refusing-visas-for-hospital-doctors/7022223.article

 

Stuff like this is just exasperating. Forget comparisons with labour, just on.their own as a government this surely has to go down as the worst in history. All they need now is an economic downturn and literally everything they've touched would have been disastrous.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Guest

[Kopfkino]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

https://www.hsj.co.uk/workforce/absolute-shock-at-government-refusing-visas-for-hospital-doctors/7022223.article

 

Stuff like this is just exasperating. Forget comparisons with labour, just on.their own as a government this surely has to go down as the worst in history. All they need now is an economic downturn and literally everything they've touched would have been disastrous.

 

It depends whether you count 2010  to now as one government but either way I suggest you swot up on a bit of history Toddy, though it might depends on whether Pretty much every government between Atlee and Thatcher was worse for a start.

[Strokes]

49 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

So you'd rather "fill the gap" with lower paid immigrants than pay natives a decent wage and fill the gap that way? That's fine just seems to be at odds with other points you make about immigration.

It’s not at odds at all, if a gap needs filling skilled or unskilled and there are no natives willing or able we should welcome immigrants. There is oversupply of non skilled and it’s caused a wage suppression and is affecting productivity due to lack of on the job training. To compete with each other they are having become more flexible and work weekends, evenings and on contracts they might not have chosen had the balance of power been the other way. We don’t have that problem in skilled (certainly medical) positions, so why would I oppose them coming here?

[Rogstanley]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

It’s not at odds at all, if a gap needs filling skilled or unskilled and there are no natives willing or able we should welcome immigrants. There is oversupply of non skilled and it’s caused a wage suppression and is affecting productivity due to lack of on the job training. To compete with each other they are having become more flexible and work weekends, evenings and on contracts they might not have chosen had the balance of power been the other way. We don’t have that problem in skilled (certainly medical) positions, so why would I oppose them coming here?

Thought you might prefer wages going up to attract more natives, given wages going down is apparently your main issue with unskilled immigration. Like I said there's no shortage of people capable of learning skills like nursing. People don't do it because the incentives to do it aren't high enough. Every time you import a skilled person that an opportunity missed for increasing wages. I feel like I'm making your argument for you here to some extent.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

Thought you might prefer wages going up to attract more natives, given wages going down is apparently your main issue with unskilled immigration. Like I said there's no shortage of people capable of learning skills like nursing. People don't do it because the incentives to do it aren't high enough. Every time you import a skilled person that an opportunity missed for increasing wages. I feel like I'm making your argument for you here to some extent.

That’s not even slightly true, the reason the natives aren’t training is they can’t support themselves in the 5 years of training. Absolutely nothing to do with the end wage at all. You’re just making things up again aren’t you?

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

The comments about Jo Cox surely merit being booted out the party, it does appear she's stepped down mind.

 

The idea she's a teacher is pretty scary to be honest given what we now know.

 

Labour NEC has blocked her as candidate, and rightly so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43895858

 

I'm all in favour of local parties selecting candidates where possible but it sounds as if party HQ needs to do a few basic checks first, after this and Jared O'Mara.

I don't know how many of this woman's bonkers opinions were already in the public domain, but I imagine that party HQ could have found out about them, even if the local party couldn't.

 

As for her being a teacher, I suppose she might be a perfectly good teacher despite apparently believing in strange conspiracy theories. Wouldn't fill you with confidence, though.

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

That’s not even slightly true, the reason the natives aren’t training is they can’t support themselves in the 5 years of training. Absolutely nothing to do with the end wage at all. You’re just making things up again aren’t you?

No I said incentives, i didn't mention anything at all about end wage. You even bolded the part of my post where I said "incentives" and most definitely not "end wage", LMAO

 

I take it from the way you've dodged the question that you now realise I'm right. 

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

No I said incentives, i didn't mention anything at all about end wage. You even bolded the part of my post where I said "incentives" and most definitely not "end wage", LMAO

 

I take it from the way you've dodged the question that you now realise I'm right. 

What question, you didn’t ask a question. What incentive are you talking about if not wages for work then, maybe you need to add more detail into your ‘questions’ that aren’t questions. I think you need a lie down, you’re having a mare.

Edited 25 April 2018 by Strokes

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

What question, you didn’t ask a question. What incentive are you talking about if not wages for work then, maybe you need to add more detail into your ‘questions’ that aren’t questions. I think you need a lie down, you’re having a mare.

Incentive 

a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something

 

Could be anything from training bonuses, bursaries, higher starting wages, fast track courses etc. 

 

The question is would you prefer we offered adequate incentives to train enough native nurses or would you rather they were imported from other countries on the cheap?

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Incentive 

a thing that motivates or encourages someone to do something

 

Could be anything from training bonuses, bursaries, higher starting wages, fast track courses etc. 

 

The question is would you prefer we offered adequate incentives to train enough native nurses or would you rather they were imported from other countries on the cheap?

I thought I had covered that in my initial post this morning.

7 hours ago, Strokes said:

I agree that we need to fund home training and that should have always been the case. Sadly this government is completely inept at looking at the bigger picture when it comes to education.

That article is a typical guardian brexit hatchet job again though, I know you guys love much more balanced reporting of the facts. So why does it not mention the huge increase in the non EU migrant nurses from the Philippines, India etc? Shitrag.

Yes I would prefer we invested in training residents, I’ve always said that. If there is a shortage now though, return on training takes time so we have to ‘fill the gap’. I’m surprised I’ve needed to re-explain this to you again but here we are.

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I thought I had covered that in my initial post this morning.

Yes I would prefer we invested in training residents, I’ve always said that. If there is a shortage now though, return on training takes time so we have to ‘fill the gap’. I’m surprised I’ve needed to re-explain this to you again but here we are.

They've been talking about a nursing shortage for years. Why haven't this government offered the appropriate incentives? It's obviously a Tory failing isn't it. Showing a preference to import cheap trained nurses from the far East over training existing residents. And this is the government you trust to deliver brexit and reduce immigration? They haven't, and they won't.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Rogstanley said:

They've been talking about a nursing shortage for years. Why haven't this government offered the appropriate incentives? It's obviously a Tory failing isn't it. Showing a preference to import cheap trained nurses from the far East over training existing residents. And this is the government you trust to deliver brexit and reduce immigration? They haven't, and they won't.

No other government will deliver a brexit, so they are the only hope we’ve got of getting one. So until it’s done, I will back them, yes. Do I think they’re shit, yes, they’re are awful, I’m yet to be convinced that the opposition offer better though. Just a different type of shitness.