Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

The trouble with your theory is that fewer and fewer young people have those things. And by young I mean under 40.

Possibly for some which is the danger here. I know plenty of under 40s with houses, cars and jobs.

 

If you are letting people with nothing vote for people to lose what they have its quite a dangerous game. Of course the likelihood is they will still have nothing at the end anyway. 

 

Obviously these people wont experience the damage that can be done until its done, I suppose we almost have to experience it at some point to teach them a valuable life lesson due to the inability of them to evaluate history. But it will be tough for all. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Possibly for some which is the danger here. I know plenty of under 40s with houses, cars and jobs.

 

If you are letting people with nothing vote for people to lose what they have its quite a dangerous game. Of course the likelihood is they will still have nothing at the end anyway. 

 

Obviously these people wont experience the damage that can be done until its done, I suppose we almost have to experience it at some point to teach them a valuable life lesson due to the inability of them to evaluate history. But it will be tough for all. 

Which specific policies are going to ruin the country then?

And don't say taking corporation tax back to 2014 levels. 

[Strokes]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The trouble with your theory is that fewer and fewer young people have those things. And by young I mean under 40.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Which specific policies are going to ruin the country then?

And don't say taking corporation tax back to 2014 levels. 

There are many:

 

Corporation Tax will damage the economy and cost jobs and investment

The Financial Services Transaction Tax will cause massive problems in the City the majority of our GDP is generated here.

Taking back utilities at a 'rate determined by parliament' very dangerous for the markets

 

If they start to spook the markets then our debt servicing costs and future borrowing costs are going to rise significantly, our credit rating could be down graded. All of this would have a huge impact on business and investor confidence in the country.

 

The Tax rises they predict will have to be higher and to more people to raise the revenue they say that they need to be able to generate to support the spending that they claim they will make.

 

There could be a lot more and I know McDonnell claims the Bank of England will be 'independent' still but goodness knows what they could get up to with Money printing and gilts if they ever get their grubby mitts on a that. 

 

Whatever happens I suspect the instant and long term impact on jobs, investment and borrowing costs will be significantly more problematic than the after mouth of Brexit. Is it worth it for so called 'Social Justice' which is basically making everyone the same level of poor. 

 

[Rogstanley]

18 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Possibly for some which is the danger here. I know plenty of under 40s with houses, cars and jobs.

 

If you are letting people with nothing vote for people to lose what they have its quite a dangerous game. Of course the likelihood is they will still have nothing at the end anyway. 

 

Obviously these people wont experience the damage that can be done until its done, I suppose we almost have to experience it at some point to teach them a valuable life lesson due to the inability of them to evaluate history. But it will be tough for all. 

An evaluation of history gives us 8 years of diabolical performance from this Tory government, with the economy in the shitter throughout and scandal after racist scandal being the order of the day. 

 

It's not just the forgotten generation voting labour either, as you know labour won last year's GE outright among all people of working age. I've no doubt many of those consider voting Corbyn a risk, but they do it anyway because the present government have proven over nearly a decade that they are not just unfit to run the country, but are also morally reprehensible, a cesspit of disgrace and a national embarrassment.

[Guest MattP]

The problem with Labour's theory is that there are too many of "the few".

 

BBC reporting Labour could be struggling in Birmingham, if that's true then it will be an unbelievable result.

[Guest Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If Brexit/economy progress without major traumas, you could be right. Lab isn't seizing the agenda and winning people over, despite Tory disasters. Can't rely on making progress during the election campaign like 2017.

 

But I do think that a disastrous Brexit/economy could still put Corbyn in No. 10, despite his failings. Issues like Windrush or cabinet chaos don't shift many votes, but a lot more would shift if Brexit yields a chaotic no deal and economic crash - or something perceived as a sell-out by fervent Brexiteers. Depending on circumstances, that might benefit the LDs or a new Far Right force (given time - there would certainly be an opening for them) or it might benefit Labour. Most people care a lot more about their personal/family circumstances and prospects, and a sizeable minority on both sides care greatly about Brexit - that could still shift a lot of votes over coming months, never mind 1-2 years.  

 

Yeah I'm in broad agreement. I actually think, contrary to thought that it was okay, this isn't at all good for the Conservatives. Or at least it shows the big problems they face. It seems strange to say that about an incumbent government getting a small swing outside of London. I think maybe taking a pasting would have been better for them. Problem is, Labour are nowhere near close to taking advantage. I'm not saying yesterday is wholly representative, but it shows that the fervent excitement from activists that they're a government in waiting is simply unfounded.

 

Taking it as almost certain that the economy is going to be sluggish for a while (not necessarily Brexit-related) and you take out an, albeit diminished, strength away from the Conservatives. Labour won't be able to capitalise on that though, I don't think so anyway. The real problem for the Conservatives is Brexit. I'd say it looks like they're hoovering up 'Brexit votes', whether that is because of Brexit or what Brexit signals about social conservatism outside of metropolitan areas I'm not sure. Either way, deliver an unsatisfactory Brexit, a Brexit that could be in anyway construed as 'in name only' will make it very very tough. And the parliamentary arithmetic makes this look likely. The one saving grace for them, is where will those votes go. They're not going ton Labour because their Brexit policy is no better, UKIP currently is in no fit state to be an electoral force, and pretty much every other option essentially supports staying. There probably is room for another party there, a grotesque Farage-JRM coalition, but it seems unlikely. 

 

The party itself talks about appealing to younger voters more, but then they're targeting a tricky coalition of voters. I think it's fair to say May is doing a great job of reversing Cameron's modernisation attempts, taking the party back to the 50s and 60s almost. Probably works in Leave areas where working age populations are falling but it won't work elsewhere. So who is the next leader. Gove probably has the best chance of getting a message out there for both. Boris has a knack for getting people to vote for him (or he did in London) but is he too damaged. Ruth Davidson (yeah can't be atm) probably works on a smaller scale, I'm not sure she'll be as effective nationally (even though she is popular) and she's probably too socially liberal for a lot of leave areas. 

As for Labour, well they need an Ed Miliband with Corbyn's campaigning skills that doesn't get dragged right by a more politically effective opponent. 

 

Truth be told, we're on for a bad period of politics akin to the 70s, where nobody is up to the job. And most of us won't really want to vote for anyone. 

 

 

I just wonder how much different things would be had the Lib Dems been more successful, or actually genuinely tried, with electoral reform. 

[Guest MattP]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

An evaluation of history gives us 8 years of diabolical performance from this Tory government, with the economy in the shitter throughout and scandal after racist scandal being the order of the day.  

 

It's not just the forgotten generation voting labour either, as you know labour won last year's GE outright among all people of working age. I've no doubt many of those consider voting Corbyn a risk, but they do it anyway because the present government have proven over nearly a decade that they are not just unfit to run the country, but are also morally reprehensible, a cesspit of disgrace and a national embarrassment.

I think you need reminding again that Labour lost the last election, you speak about them at times like they won it.

Edited 4 May 2018 by MattP

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

An evaluation of history gives us 8 years of diabolical performance from this Tory government, with the economy in the shitter throughout and scandal after racist scandal being the order of the day. 

 

It's not just the forgotten generation voting labour either, as you know labour won last year's GE outright among all people of working age. I've no doubt many of those consider voting Corbyn a risk, but they do it anyway because the present government have proven over nearly a decade that they are not just unfit to run the country, but are also morally reprehensible, a cesspit of disgrace and a national embarrassment.

ok then. Is that an extreme left-winger Foaming at the mouth I see. 

Edited 4 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Buce]

43 minutes ago, toddybad said:

The trouble with your theory is that fewer and fewer young people have those things. And by young I mean under 40.

 

Well, what do they expect, wasting their money on food and heating and shit like that?

 

Back in the 19th century, Foxin managed perfectly well on a cuppa soup and a warm cardy.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

 

The party itself talks about appealing to younger voters more, but then they're targeting a tricky coalition of voters. I think it's fair to say May is doing a great job of reversing Cameron's modernisation attempts, taking the party back to the 50s and 60s almost. Probably works in Leave areas where working age populations are falling but it won't work elsewhere. So who is the next leader. Gove probably has the best chance of getting a message out there for both. Boris has a knack for getting people to vote for him (or he did in London) but is he too damaged. Ruth Davidson (yeah can't be atm) probably works on a smaller scale, I'm not sure she'll be as effective nationally (even though she is popular) and she's probably too socially liberal for a lot of leave areas. 

As for Labour, well they need an Ed Miliband with Corbyn's campaigning skills that doesn't get dragged right by a more politically effective opponent. 

 

Truth be told, we're on for a bad period of politics akin to the 70s, where nobody is up to the job. And most of us won't really want to vote for anyone. 

 

 

I just wonder how much different things would be had the Lib Dems been more successful, or actually genuinely tried, with electoral reform. 

I kind of wonder whether Javid might be good for the Tories in future. Seems fairly strong, modern. 

 

For Labour I still like Benn who is a lot more moderate than his father but I am probably on my own there!

 

At the moment I would still be tempted to put the country to general election. I don't think the Tories can win with Brexit, it looks like the EU are hell bent on not giving us a deal, the Ireland border is going to be a big issue politically and if we end up back in an era of shopping centres being blown up its not going to go down well. 

 

Id be tempted to take a risk let Labour **** it up and come back stronger in a few years when we have huge unemployment and Labour can not get their customs union deal off the ground, the Brexit voters will hate them for even trying even though it is unobtainable. Could keep them out for decades. 

 

The danger is we do Brexit the hard way, have a recession, things begin to pick up again and then Labour get in and give us 'Social Justice'

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Well, what do they expect, wasting their money on food and heating and shit like that?

 

Back in the 19th century, Foxin managed perfectly well on a cuppa soup and a warm cardy.

My point is single people can afford all of these things on £1200 a month after tax. Obviously there is no absolute requirement for people to live alone. They could share with a friend a decent house, a few friends etc. Many of peoples costs are down to personal choices, who's personal choices do we base arbitrary standards on?

 

I do agree housing costs are too high, as do many which is why house building levels are now the highest they have been for many years. Is it enough? probably not. 

 

Some of the responsibility for high housing costs falls to Labour for its immigration policy, lack of infrastructure investment and lack of house building when it was in power too. Of course during a supposed boom time they were happy to take credit for house prices increasing 300%. 

 

[Rogstanley]

32 minutes ago, MattP said:

I think you need reminding again that Labour lost the last election, you speak about them at times like they won it.

 

Among working age people, they did, which is what I said.

[Guest Kopfkino]

35 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I kind of wonder whether Javid might be good for the Tories in future. Seems fairly strong, modern. 

 

For Labour I still like Benn who is a lot more moderate than his father but I am probably on my own there!

 

At the moment I would still be tempted to put the country to general election. I don't think the Tories can win with Brexit, it looks like the EU are hell bent on not giving us a deal, the Ireland border is going to be a big issue politically and if we end up back in an era of shopping centres being blown up its not going to go down well. 

 

Id be tempted to take a risk let Labour **** it up and come back stronger in a few years when we have huge unemployment and Labour can not get their customs union deal off the ground, the Brexit voters will hate them for even trying even though it is unobtainable. Could keep them out for decades. 

 

The danger is we do Brexit the hard way, have a recession, things begin to pick up again and then Labour get in and give us 'Social Justice'

 

I'd be a fan of Sajid but I don't see it happening tbh. As a Cameron successor (had Brexit no happened), with a struggling Corbyn not buoyed by an election I'd have said yes. At this moment I think he's probably too Thatcherite and not the person to draw the coalition of voters they need. Of the possible contenders, I only see Gove as a genuine, viable option but how much is his rep affected by past events. 

 

I can see the appeal of Hilary Benn. He's great to listen to. Absolutely no chance though. Tho tbf with the ravenous membership, nobody that isn't Corbyn or someone dressed as Corbyn stands a chance. 

 

I'd say there's an argument for the government to dare backbenchers (even the DUP) to bring them down. I don't think there's anything to be gained from going to the country. It will just create an even bigger mess. The Conservatives would be weaker and have no chance of forming a working government. Labour would also struggle to form a working government. A snap election is a big factor in the current malaise. Nobody has the energy for another one. 

 

Of course the Conservatives, realistically, are ready for some time in opposition. There is some real promise with some of the newer backbenchers, who given time, could really change the party for the better and flush out the May/Hammond types. Time in opposition is more tolerable with Blair and Brown in office, even Miliband and Balls. Not so much with Marx and Engels advised by Trotsky. 

Edited 4 May 2018 by Kopfkino

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Rogstanley said:

Among working age people, they did, which is what I said.

Amongst the delusional 18-19, 20-24, 25-29 and 30-39 age groups maybe

, they obviously were swung by comrade Corbyns promises of free stuff for the masses taken from the nasty rich bogey man. 

 

Of course results for the more sensible life experience 40-49 (56% against labour) and 50-59 ( 47% hello still working) are not supporting Labour party rule, the really wise people are ephatic! Even the 60-69 age group most are still working age. 

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

labour won last year's GE outright among all people of working age

The Conservatives would've won the GE outright if it was just held in England

Cons 296 seats

Lab/LD 235 seats

 

Pointless stats

[leicsmac]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Amongst the delusional 18-19, 20-24, 25-29 and 30-39 age groups maybe

, they obviously were swung by comrade Corbyns promises of free stuff for the masses taken from the nasty rich bogey man. 

 

Of course results for the more sensible life experience 40-49 (56% against labour) and 50-59 ( 47% hello still working) are not supporting Labour party rule, the really wise people are ephatic! Even the 60-69 age group most are still working age. 

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2017/06/13/how-britain-voted-2017-general-election/

 

5

Wee bit of a generalisation there, perhaps?

 

It's not like those groups have the most to lose from policies that affect long-term futures because they'll (probably) be around for longer, is it?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Wee bit of a generalisation there, perhaps?

 

It's not like those groups have the most to lose from policies that affect long-term futures because they'll (probably) be around for longer, is it?

Or it could be that they don't realise the impact of far left socialist policies on the nation as they have never been around to experience it before? 

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Wee bit of a generalisation there, perhaps?

 

It's not like those groups have the most to lose from policies that affect long-term futures because they'll (probably) be around for longer, is it?

Ironically they have the most to lose from it as they'll be the ones paying it back or living through the cuts after it.

[leicsmac]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

Or it could be that they don't realise the impact of far left socialist policies on the nation as they have never been around to experience it before? 

Not buying that, you can read about those policies everywhere and it's not like conservatives have been shy about highlighting those consequences either. 

 

2 minutes ago, MattP said:

Ironically they have the most to lose from it as they'll be the ones paying it back or living through the cuts after it.

This is a reply to you and foxin but I'll just say it once: that only matters if all you care about regarding the future is your own material gain.

[Guest MattP]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Not buying that, you can read about those policies everywhere and it's not like conservatives have been shy about highlighting those consequences either. 

 

This is a reply to you and foxin but I'll just say it once: that only matters if all you care about regarding the future is your own material gain.

Public cuts due to profligacy is nothing to do with material gain.

 

Go and have a look at the situation in Greece or Italy over the last few years.

[leicsmac]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Public cuts due to profligacy is nothing to do with material gain.

 

Go and have a look at the situation in Greece or Italy over the last few years.

Since when was cutting various financial streams due to hardship not to do with material gain - or loss, in this case?

 

In any case, in case I wasn't being clear - my point was that economic figures aren't the only metric by which a voter might measure the future, nor (perhaps) even the most important one. Of course, the UK conservatives tend to be rather better regarding those other metrics than their US counterparts (it's not like the Tories are advocating for more coal plants and large-scale shale gas extraction as well as neglect of scientific policy in favour of the Good Book), so I guess the economic arguments should carry more sway in the UK, which means what you and foxin are saying does make more sense.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Not buying that, you can read about those policies everywhere and it's not like conservatives have been shy about highlighting those consequences either. 

 

This is a reply to you and foxin but I'll just say it once: that only matters if all you care about regarding the future is your own material gain.

 

I'm not sure how enlightened most of the electorate are regarding this. When you ask them about their views on Socialist experiments they tend to go into a fit of whataboutary and ifbutery

 

Its a strange  one as naturally I want myself and my family to be a success and that is my upmost concern, I also want to see my friends and colleagues doing well. Perhaps survival of the fittest comes into play? I also like to know that the country will look after those most in need in dire straits and can afford things like free education, free healthcare etc. for the masses. I am sure many will call me wrong but I fee the UK has done and will continue to do that under the Tories. The system is far from perfect, this government are far from perfect but I feel at present they offer the best solution for a decent life for the wide majority.

 

Of course there are problems for certain people. My argument is that the general wealth of the nation will fall under Labour. Is that worth it for 'Social Justice'.

 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

My point is single people can afford all of these things on £1200 a month after tax. Obviously there is no absolute requirement for people to live alone. They could share with a friend a decent house, a few friends etc. Many of peoples costs are down to personal choices, who's personal choices do we base arbitrary standards on?

 

I do agree housing costs are too high, as do many which is why house building levels are now the highest they have been for many years. Is it enough? probably not. 

 

Some of the responsibility for high housing costs falls to Labour for its immigration policy, lack of infrastructure investment and lack of house building when it was in power too. Of course during a supposed boom time they were happy to take credit for house prices increasing 300%. 

 

The key thing is your use of the word 'credit'. No government should get credit for increasing house prices. An entire generation cheered from the sidelines as their homes became more and more expensive. They shouldn't have cheered. It was not a good thing.

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

 

I'm not sure how enlightened most of the electorate are regarding this. When you ask them about their views on Socialist experiments they tend to go into a fit of whataboutary and ifbutery

 

Its a strange  one as naturally I want myself and my family to be a success and that is my upmost concern, I also want to see my friends and colleagues doing well. Perhaps survival of the fittest comes into play? I also like to know that the country will look after those most in need in dire straits and can afford things like free education, free healthcare etc. for the masses. I am sure many will call me wrong but I fee the UK has done and will continue to do that under the Tories. The system is far from perfect, this government are far from perfect but I feel at present they offer the best solution for a decent life for the wide majority.

 

Of course there are problems for certain people. My argument is that the general wealth of the nation will fall under Labour. Is that worth it for 'Social Justice'.

 

It's certainly a many-layered argument and often you'll get a dozen different opinions on the same matter. Right and wrong tends to get pretty subjective when that's the case - I just wish people would acknowledge that, and qualify their remarks more rather than often being so interested in objectivity and certainty. Perhaps, again, that's human nature, though.