Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I don't disagree. I think it somewhat detracts from peoples arguments when they start calling others Scum etc. 

 

I can understand that people disagree on certain ways of reaching certain goals. Some believe the best way to help people out of poverty is to empower them, get them a job and le them manage their own lives. Other believe we should be giving more guidance and support. Some believe people should keep more of what they earn, others believe this should go into a pot to be shared. 

 

There is no right or wrong way but I refuse to believe that the majority of people go into politics to make peoples lives a misery. Most of these people want and believe in the best for the country. This is where Corbyn falls down, I see little evidence he wats what is best for the country, he has a vision and he wants to fulfil that vision. 

Have you seen what you say about the labour leadership? You're a fine one to start getting offended about language.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

He has put a decent case forward if you’re honest toddy.

The only two words in there which made a point were the words "requisitioning property" and even then you have to take them out of context. The rest is just one man that doesn't believe in the world view that is promoted normally. I don't personally see this as extreme per se. 

 

 

Anyway, let's face it it's basically labour and the tory rebels making all the laws these days anyway:

 

UK to introduce public ownership registers for overseas territories

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/01/uk-to-introduce-public-ownership-registers-for-overseas-territories?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The only two words in there which made a point were the words "requisitioning property" and even then you have to take them out of context. The rest is just one man that doesn't believe in the world view that is promoted normally. I don't personally see this as extreme per se. 

 

 

Anyway, let's face it it's basically labour and the tory rebels making all the laws these days anyway:

 

UK to introduce public ownership registers for overseas territories

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/01/uk-to-introduce-public-ownership-registers-for-overseas-territories?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

No need to change our votes then eh?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

29 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Have you seen what you say about the labour leadership? You're a fine one to start getting offended about language.

Prove me wrong on the Labour leadership. I see no evidence to suggest he is nice normal man. The man is as bad\stupid as Trump just a far left version. His views are just less abhorrent to you being left of centre. He certainly portrays some disturbing far left tendencies and would absolutely cause more damage to this country than Brexit. 

 

25 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The only two words in there which made a point were the words "requisitioning property" and even then you have to take them out of context. The rest is just one man that doesn't believe in the world view that is promoted normally. I don't personally see this as extreme per se. 

 

 

Anyway, let's face it it's basically labour and the tory rebels making all the laws these days anyway:

 

UK to introduce public ownership registers for overseas territories

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/01/uk-to-introduce-public-ownership-registers-for-overseas-territories?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

You don't personally see this as extreme, which is fine and your view.

 

His view being so anti establishment is what makes him and his economic and foreign policy so extreme and dangerous, it is the polar opposite of everything the UK as a nation represents and has represented.  

Edited 1 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Innovindil]

Going to throw this discussion in here. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/01/mcstrike-mcdonalds-workers-walk-out-over-zero-hours-contracts

 

There's a few striking still over pay. But i remember us talking about zero hour contracts a while back and saw this interesting tidbit. 

 

“We offered all 120,000 employees the chance to move to fixed hours contracts, more than 80% of them opted to stay on their existing contracts,” she said.

 

Now I get striking for more pay, but why strike on the premise of something that has been offered, but mostly declined? 

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Going to throw this discussion in here. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/01/mcstrike-mcdonalds-workers-walk-out-over-zero-hours-contracts

 

There's a few striking still over pay. But i remember us talking about zero hour contracts a while back and saw this interesting tidbit. 

 

“We offered all 120,000 employees the chance to move to fixed hours contracts, more than 80% of them opted to stay on their existing contracts,” she said.

 

Now I get striking for more pay, but why strike on the premise of something that has been offered, but mostly declined? 

An example of our entitled society. They want to have fixed contracts but only want to work the hours they want to work. 

 

With the example:

 

If a burger flipper can get paid £10 a hour then I want a pay rise too, obviously the cost of McDonalds will need to rise to pay for the increases or maybe there will be job losses an more of those crap massive iPad things! Anyone see the problem with this kind of nonsense? Apart from rampant inflation. 

Edited 1 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest]

The windrush scandal potentially isn't finished yet.

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/theresa-may-facing-parliamentary-ambush-to-force-publication-of-windrush-documents-labour-opposition-day_uk_5ae87689e4b02baed1be3433/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The windrush scandal potentially isn't finished yet.

 

https://m.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/theresa-may-facing-parliamentary-ambush-to-force-publication-of-windrush-documents-labour-opposition-day_uk_5ae87689e4b02baed1be3433/?__twitter_impression=true

 

Let's hope not.

 

I thought this would be a disaster for the Tories but all its done us reiterated Labour have no coherant policy on illegal immigration and got Diane Abbott in front of the cameras. 

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, Innovindil said:

Going to throw this discussion in here. 

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/may/01/mcstrike-mcdonalds-workers-walk-out-over-zero-hours-contracts

 

There's a few striking still over pay. But i remember us talking about zero hour contracts a while back and saw this interesting tidbit. 

 

“We offered all 120,000 employees the chance to move to fixed hours contracts, more than 80% of them opted to stay on their existing contracts,” she said.

 

Now I get striking for more pay, but why strike on the premise of something that has been offered, but mostly declined? 

Reads like they're striking because they want £10/hr to me, nothing to do with ZHC's.

[Rogstanley]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

An example of our entitled society. They want to have fixed contracts but only want to work the hours they want to work. 

 

With the example:

 

If a burger flipper can get paid £10 a hour then I want a pay rise too, obviously the cost of McDonalds will need to rise to pay for the increases or maybe there will be job losses an more of those crap massive iPad things! Anyone see the problem with this kind of nonsense? Apart from rampant inflation. 

McDonald's profits are up 28% year on year. Why can't they fund the pay rises out of those profits?

[theessexfox]

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea

 

Interesting long read from my head of politics. He talks about potential fixes for democracy, 'epistocracy' where democracy is run by experts or artificial intelligence, and argues why it is a bad idea.

[Guest Kopfkino]

4 minutes ago, theessexfox said:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea

 

Interesting long read from my head of politics. He talks about potential fixes for democracy, 'epistocracy' where democracy is run by experts or artificial intelligence, and argues why it is a bad idea.

 

Briefly discussed epistocracy with David Guiza weeks back. Deservedly has traction around it but is ultimately bollocks imo

The problem with democracy is not that it sometimes produces the wrong result (ultimately where this stems from) it's that it's not very democratic. But if you accept that and accept results then you see the procedure of it is all that really matters.

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, theessexfox said:

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/may/01/why-replacing-politicians-with-experts-is-a-reckless-idea

 

Interesting long read from my head of politics. He talks about potential fixes for democracy, 'epistocracy' where democracy is run by experts or artificial intelligence, and argues why it is a bad idea.

Really good article that, highlighting the problems in a very clear way. The current system is flawed, but all other systems are more so.

 

There's a couple of key lines in there that I'd comment on, though:

 

"Democracy asks only that the voters should be around long enough to suffer for their own mistakes." - this, for me, is the most glaring and fundamental flaw with a  democratic system. Democracy neglects decision-making over terms longer than a human lifetime, and considering that crucial geological and environmental changes often take much longer than that to happen, it means that action to mitigate those changes is often muddied, multilateral and frequently ineffective - why act against something that will only come about after you're dead?

 

That has serious, perhaps even fatal connotations for the future.

 

"Ignorance and foolishness don’t oppress in the same way that knowledge and wisdom do, precisely because they are incompetent: the demos keeps changing its mind." - I'd disagree with this in part; ignorant decisions (admittedly often disguised as wisdom) can be made and stay the case for long enough to exact severe oppression - chattel slavery being a prime example, that was after all a legal part of government in many places for a long time and executed anything but incompetently. Ignorance of long-term issues such as described above can also be a problem.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

Any person with an inkling of sense, can see that Corbyn, and his witch (Abbot), are out and out Communists. They are a disgrace to our country, and should have no place in British politics.

 

[Guest MattP]

8 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

Any person with an inkling of sense, can see that Corbyn, and his witch (Abbot), are out and out Communists. They are a disgrace to our country, and should have no place in British politics.

I remember that witch telling me the stars were aligned for me to win the lottery. Bastard. 

 

Seriously though, if you want to accuse people of being political extremists at least spell their names right. Why would anyone trust the opinion of someone who can't even do that.

[Sampson]

6 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

McDonald's profits are up 28% year on year. Why can't they fund the pay rises out of those profits?

Weren't a good deal of those profits from selling a bunch of stores off in Asia where it was struggling to make an impact?

 

I'm not sure if that 28% is representative of it's UK profits (I very much doubt it) or why you think any company no matter how large or small doesn't have loads else it needs to spend profits on first and that just because a company makes a profit it means that it doesn't have to think about a thousand other things too regarding paying out to shareholders, infrastructure of the company, Building or closing stores, creating or getting rid of new jobs, taking on the competition or taking on any potential new competitors in the market, saving for a rainy day, staying ahead of the competition or guarding against any potential changes in the market or competition.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong but It's a huge over-simplification to say that just because an international company has made profits it should funding wages of its tens of thousands of workers by thousands of pounds a year in one country.

Edited 1 May 2018 by Sampson

[Guest MattP]

Tomorrow might not be AS bad for the Tories as first expected. 

 

They seem to expect to lose Barnet but hold Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth appears to be 50/50.

 

Looked like they could lose all four a month ago.

[Guest]

17 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Prove me wrong on the Labour leadership. I see no evidence to suggest he is nice normal man. The man is as bad\stupid as Trump just a far left version. His views are just less abhorrent to you being left of centre. He certainly portrays some disturbing far left tendencies and would absolutely cause more damage to this country than Brexit. 

 

You don't personally see this as extreme, which is fine and your view.

 

His view being so anti establishment is what makes him and his economic and foreign policy so extreme and dangerous, it is the polar opposite of everything the UK as a nation represents and has represented.  

I think the easiest thing to do here is watch McDonnell himself, a few days ago on Bloomberg. I think McDonnell is generally regarded as the more militant of the shadow cabinet so it makes sense to go to him - particularly given the key role he would have in any labour government. I think you'd be fair in saying his political career has been one of pretty radical thinking but, as somebody said the other day, it's not possible to stay like that in government. 

 

Watch the video via the link below. It is about 9 mins long and covers the recent lords vote over the customs union, his discussions with banks, renationisation etc.

Tell me, based on what he actually says, what is extreme about the labour position.

 

https://youtu.be/U8oPV0wVe4k

 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

Tomorrow might not be AS bad for the Tories as first expected. 

 

They seem to expect to lose Barnet but hold Westminster and Kensington and Chelsea, Wandsworth appears to be 50/50.

 

Looked like they could lose all four a month ago.

You could be right, you could be wrong. But are you seriously using an opinion poll to judge after the last two years?

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

You could be right, you could be wrong. But are you seriously using an opinion poll to judge after the last two years?

Well no, hence why I opened the post with the words "tomorrow might".

 

What results do you expect tomorrow? 

[Guest MattP]

Labour now don't lead in a single poll.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, MattP said:

Well no, hence why I opened the post with the words "tomorrow might".

 

What results do you expect tomorrow? 

 

I haven't studied past results so have little idea, but....

- LDs at 12% looks higher than expected for London & recent national polls all show them rising. If they are picking up anti-Tory votes from Lab, then Lab could under-perform. If they're all ex-Tory votes in SW London, could be bad for Tories down there.

- Without the anti-semitism furore, Lab would probably be confident of taking Barnet, but it's an area with a big Jewish population so might be harder than expected

- Lab would normally have zero chance in Kensington & presumably only has the faintest chance because of Grenfell...even so, apart from a few areas, it is very, very rich; some Tory voters might stay at home in disgust over Grenfell or other issues, but cannot imagine Lab winning here

- General Election results (e.g. Battersea) suggest Lab might have a chance in Wandsworth, much less likely in Westminster...but I don't know details of wards, boundaries, opinion of local councils etc.

 

It's an extraordinary sign of the times that Lab has ANY chance in ANY of these councils, particularly under a leftist like Corbyn. I don't think even Blair won any of these councils, did he?

Of course, it's equally a sign of extraordinary times that an unpopular Tory govt has a chance of winning Lab seats in former industrial areas of the North and Midlands. 

[Rogstanley]

9 hours ago, Sampson said:

Weren't a good deal of those profits from selling a bunch of stores off in Asia where it was struggling to make an impact?

 

I'm not sure if that 28% is representative of it's UK profits (I very much doubt it) or why you think any company no matter how large or small doesn't have loads else it needs to spend profits on first and that just because a company makes a profit it means that it doesn't have to think about a thousand other things too regarding paying out to shareholders, infrastructure of the company, Building or closing stores, creating or getting rid of new jobs, taking on the competition or taking on any potential new competitors in the market, saving for a rainy day, staying ahead of the competition or guarding against any potential changes in the market or competition.

 

I'm not saying it's right or wrong but It's a huge over-simplification to say that just because an international company has made profits it should funding wages of its tens of thousands of workers by thousands of pounds a year in one country.

Yes it was a simple retort to a simple criticism.

 

I don't agree however that McDonald's would necessarily have loads of other things it 'needs' to spend profits on. Profit is income left over after all necessary costs have already been incurred. If the money needed to be spent, it would have been spent and their profit would be reduced accordingly. McDonalds have an choice as to where they spend their profit. One option is on increasing staff pay.

[Guest MattP]

48 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I haven't studied past results so have little idea, but....

- LDs at 12% looks higher than expected for London & recent national polls all show them rising. If they are picking up anti-Tory votes from Lab, then Lab could under-perform. If they're all ex-Tory votes in SW London, could be bad for Tories down there.

- Without the anti-semitism furore, Lab would probably be confident of taking Barnet, but it's an area with a big Jewish population so might be harder than expected

- Lab would normally have zero chance in Kensington & presumably only has the faintest chance because of Grenfell...even so, apart from a few areas, it is very, very rich; some Tory voters might stay at home in disgust over Grenfell or other issues, but cannot imagine Lab winning here

- General Election results (e.g. Battersea) suggest Lab might have a chance in Wandsworth, much less likely in Westminster...but I don't know details of wards, boundaries, opinion of local councils etc.

 

It's an extraordinary sign of the times that Lab has ANY chance in ANY of these councils, particularly under a leftist like Corbyn. I don't think even Blair won any of these councils, did he?

Of course, it's equally a sign of extraordinary times that an unpopular Tory govt has a chance of winning Lab seats in former industrial areas of the North and Midlands. 

I think the Lib Dem vote will again be highly concentrated in certain areas, they'll surely win Kingston/Richmond given the Brexit fallout.

 

Looking at it Labour need an 8% swing in Westminster - that's surely too much? Kensington an even bigger swing.

 

Minimal swing needed in Barnet and Wandsworth, I think they'll win those unless the Jewish community comes out to vote Conservative. 

 

It is pretty incredible, the demographics are starting to have a huge influence on areas now and people now longer seem bound by old tribal loyalties. 

[Guest]

11 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Yes it was a simple retort to a simple criticism.

 

I don't agree however that McDonald's would necessarily have loads of other things it 'needs' to spend profits on. Profit is income left over after all necessary costs have already been incurred. If the money needed to be spent, it would have been spent and their profit would be reduced accordingly. McDonalds have an choice as to where they spend their profit. One option is on increasing staff pay.

This is where short term capital is a problem. Companies continually have to appease investors by minimising pay to maximise profits every year rather than doing what is right by the people that work to make those profits. If you're in the black why shouldn't the money be spread more thickly?