Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

33 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

Playing devil's advocate, for that amount, you could buy private medical insurance and take some of the burden off the NHS.

 

£2,000 per household over 15 years is less than £2.50 a week. 

 

Where are you getting private medical insurance at that price?

Edited 24 May 2018 by Buce

[Innovindil]

30 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

£2,000 per household over 15 years is less than £2.50 a week. 

 

Where are you getting private medical insurance at that price?

 

Thought it was 2k per year, not over 15 years?

 

For that price, would fairly easy cover private insurance. 

[Buce]

17 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Thought it was 2k per year, not over 15 years?

 

For that price, would fairly easy cover private insurance. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news

 

The Guardian report does say per annum. Somebody has dropped a bollock. 

 

Edit. And it appears to be me.  

 

 

Edited 24 May 2018 by Buce

[breadandcheese]

52 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

£2,000 per household over 15 years is less than £2.50 a week. 

 

Where are you getting private medical insurance at that price?

 

If it was that, I'd say bargain. **** it. I'd go big and pay a fiver per week.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

Playing devil's advocate, for that amount, you could buy private medical insurance and take some of the burden off the NHS.

It wouldn't work very well though. The more people go private, the less consultant time is available in the NHS. It's the same doctors. The private system is more expensive than the NHS system too so if it requires £2k per person based on NHS costs it would be more for the private equivalent. 

[breadandcheese]

6 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It wouldn't work very well though. The more people go private, the less consultant time is available in the NHS. It's the same doctors. The private system is more expensive than the NHS system too so if it requires £2k per person based on NHS costs it would be more for the private equivalent. 

I appreciate that many consultants work both in the NHS and the private sector but I don't understand why there is an automatic assumption that means the consultant will dump their NHS work. Taking the assumption above to an extreme, if private medical was banned, would there be more consultants? I'm not sure there would be, so I'm not sure I agree that there would be less consultants. If anything, I think there would be more (which would raises a whole new ethical question as a lot of these would come from other health services).

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

Squad goals

 

[Buce]

UK 'chasing a fantasy' in Brexit talks, top EU official warns

Senior official involved in talks says EU will not negotiate under threat, after a fraught week in Brussels

 

The EU has accused the British government of “chasing a fantasy” and warned that it will not negotiate under threat, after a fraught week of Brexit talks in Brussels that have raised serious concerns about the talks’ future.

The whole approach of the UK government to the negotiations was castigated by a senior EU official involved, who further warned that the bloc would not be forced into positions that were against its interests.

The UK’s suggestion that it would seek to recover more than €1bn of contributions to the Galileo satellite project unless the European commission lifted a block on British firms being involved received a particularly strident response, with an implicit threat that such posturing could unravel the discussions.

 

“The EU doesn’t negotiate under threat,” the senior EU official said. “Such a request for reimbursement would be backsliding and unacceptable.”

After a bad-tempered week in Brussels, frustration is mounting as EU negotiators think that almost two years after the referendum, the British government has not come to terms with Brexit.

The senior EU official said: “I have to say on the basis of this week’s discussions, I am a bit concerned because the pre-condition for fruitful discussions has to be that the UK accepts the consequences of its own choices.

“I am concerned that if the current debate continues, in three months time it will be the EU, which will be made responsible for the Brexit decision. We need the UK to accept the consequences of its own decisions.

“To paraphrase The Leopard by Tommaso di Lampedusa, I have the impression that the UK thinks everything has to change on the EU’s side so that everything can stay the same for the UK.”

A whole host of withdrawal issues, from the role of the European court of justice in the governance of the withdrawal agreement, to the UK’s role in Euratom, are yet to be dealt with, despite the looming autumn deadline for an agreement.

However, it remains the issue of the Irish border that could see the talks combust before the European council summit in June, by which time Dublin and Brussels are demanding progress.

The EU wants the UK to agree to a backstop position for Northern Ireland that would come into force should a future trade deal or bespoke technological solutions fail to arise that could avoid the need for a hard border.

In a blow to Theresa May, the EU has formally rejected suggestions that the entire UK could remain half-inside the EU’s single market, while benefitting from a special customs deal to avoid a hard border.

The EU also poured cold water on suggestions from some influential Conservatives that the backstop could be time limited, to allow the UK to find another answer. “We were not keen to have a discussion on the backstop to the backstop,” the official said.

The EU official warned that progress on the Irish border – “let alone substantive progress” – was proving “illusive”.

“We need to have the recognition that the backstop has to be Northern Ireland specific,” the official said. “We have to do away with the fantasy that there is an all-UK solution to that.”

Senior sources at the Brexit department, however, rejected the suggestion that Brussels had dismissed the UK’s new backstop plan for the Irish border, suggesting that it was “simply a negotiating position” and that they believed the EU was open to the idea. “It’s a public stance for them to take during the negotiation,” one said.

A No 10 source added: “This is what they do every time. As usual we’ve heard it all before. There’s nothing they’ve said which concerns us.”

However, in a forthright point-by-point deconstruction of the UK’s negotiating positions, the EU official further:

• warned that it would not allow the UK the access it wants post-Brexit to the Galileo satellite programme as it would give Downing Street the ability to “switch off the signal for the EU”;
• ruled out the UK retaining use of the European arrest warrant, as it could put in jeopardy “the lives and liberty of citizens”;
• responded to UK complaints that the EU’s proposed free-trade deal was insufficient, by pointing out that the UK was asking for a more trusted position than that enjoyed by the member states, who are held accountable by the ECJ and the EU institutions, which it described as “a big ask” and “not where the European council is at”;
• noted that the UK had suggested it could try to change the EU’s rules from inside before it leaves to gain access to its programmes post-Brexit, ominously warning that the commission’s negotiators would report back to the member states on the development.

In Dublin, Ireland’s taoiseach, Leo Varadkar, confirmed that he had not seen any firm proposals on the Irish border backstop since his meeting with May 10 days ago in Sofia.

“We are still waiting for them,” he said. “We’re not that far away from the deadline for the withdrawal agreement, we’re very much in the space where we need legal text,” he said.

Asked if he would consider, in principle, an extension of the transition period to 2023, he said: “There’s been no request from the UK to extend that and no offer to do so.”

[lifted*fox]

 

the UK looking like such a ****ing joke right now 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, lifted*fox said:

 

the UK looking like such a ****ing joke right now 

The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

Every time we discuss Brexit the leavers tell us all these amazing things that could happen without once asking themselves whether any of those things are even government policy.

Every time we see more evidence of its detrimental effect - 90% drop in foreign investment for example - we're told either figures are being massaged or that we'll see benefits greater than the losses.

The EU have it right when they use the term magical thinking.

 

Edited 24 May 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

Every time we discuss Brexit the leavers tell us all these amazing things that could happen without once asking themselves whether any of those things are even government policy.

Every time we see more evidence of its detrimental effect - 90% drop in foreign investment for example - we're told either figures are being massaged or that we'll see benefits greater than the losses.

The EU have it right when they use the term magical thinking.

 

 

Since when has foreign investment dropped by 90%?

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Since when has foreign investment dropped by 90%?

https://www.economist.com/britain/2018/04/07/why-foreign-investment-into-britain-remains-so-strong

The figure of 90% is true though rather over eggs it over a longer period. Pre 2016 there was approx £40b/annum invested. In 2016 some mega deals raised this to around £250b/annum. It has since shrunk to £19b/annum.

So over 90% down on 2016 and still over 50% down on more normal years.

[Guest]

 

 

[Guest]

UK economy posts worst quarterly GDP figures for five years

Growth slumps to 0.1% on weak business investment and household spending

The weakest household spending for three years and falling levels of business investment dragged the economy to the worst quarter for five years, official statisticians have confirmed.

The Office for National Statistics confirmed its previous estimate that GDP growth slumped to 0.1% in the first quarter, while sticking to its view that the “beast from the east” had little impact. 

The latest figures will further stoke concerns over the strength of the UK economy, amid increasing signals for deteriorating growth as Britain prepares to leave the EU next year. Some economists, including officials at the Bank of England, thought the growth rate would be revised higher as more data became available.

Threadneedle Street delayed raising interest rates earlier this month following the weak first GDP estimate, despite arguing that the negative hit to the economy from heavy snowfall in late February and early March had probably been overblown. Instead the ONS said it had seen a longer-term pattern of slowing growth in the first three months of the year.

Rob Kent-Smith of the ONS said: “Overall, the economy performed poorly in the first quarter with manufacturing growth slowing and weak consumer-facing services.”

While admitting bad weather will have had some impact, particularly for firms in the construction industry and some areas of the retail business, statisticians said the overall effect was limited, with increased online sales and heightened energy production during the cold snap.

The figures show the services industries contributed the most to GDP growth, with an increase of 0.3% in the first quarter, while household spending grew at a meagre 0.2%. The construction industry declined by 2.7% and business investment fell by 0.2%.

Much will now hinge on how consumers fare over the coming months, with some early indications there could be a rebound in stronger retail sales data for April.

John Hawksworth, chief economist at PwC, said he still believed the figures from the ONS overstate the underlying weakness of the economy, given job creation in recent months. “We expect some recovery in the second quarter, with GDP growth of around 1.3% for 2018 as a whole,” he said.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 hours ago, toddybad said:

The whole thing is getting ridiculous.

Every time we discuss Brexit the leavers tell us all these amazing things that could happen without once asking themselves whether any of those things are even government policy.

Every time we see more evidence of its detrimental effect - 90% drop in foreign investment for example - we're told either figures are being massaged or that we'll see benefits greater than the losses.

The EU have it right when they use the term magical thinking.

 

 

Is this not the same everytime we tell the left what a cluster**** a Corbyn government would be?

 

Corbyns economics are unicorn economics too. 

 

I cant see how any of them could be beneficial but apparently others can. 

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Foxin_mad said:

Is this not the same everytime we tell the left what a cluster**** a Corbyn government would be?

 

Corbyns economics are unicorn economics too. 

 

I cant see how any of them could be beneficial but apparently others can. 

Problem is you're comparing apples and pears. We're already seeing evidence of a negative Brexit impact.

There is no evidence in relation to Corbyn et al, given socialism hasn't been tried in the UK for about 70 years.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Problem is you're comparing apples and pears. We're already seeing evidence of a negative Brexit impact.

There is no evidence in relation to Corbyn et al, given socialism hasn't been tried in the UK for about 70 years.

I am sure we would see evidence the moment they won an election or became clear they were going to. It would absolutely fook this entire country over forever, the markets would crash and millions would lose their jobs. 

 

The reason we haven't tried it for 70 years is because its shit, reference Venezuela.  (copyright not a real socialist country tm John McDonnell) 

Edited 25 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[ealingfox]

12 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am sure we would see evidence the moment they won an election or became clear they were going to. It would absolutely fook this entire country over forever, the markets would crash and millions would lose their jobs. 

 

The reason we haven't tried it for 70 years is because its shit, reference Venezuela.  (copyright not a real socialist country tm John McDonnell) 

 

 

Are we in Venezuela?

[Guest]

21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am sure we would see evidence the moment they won an election or became clear they were going to. It would absolutely fook this entire country over forever, the markets would crash and millions would lose their jobs. 

 

The reason we haven't tried it for 70 years is because its shit, reference Venezuela.  (copyright not a real socialist country tm John McDonnell) 

 

"The sky would fall, the sun would burn out, the tides would roll out forever"

It sounds truly apocalyptic. 

Who'd have thought a country treating it's own water supplies and taxing corporations what they were taxed 4 years ago would bring about the end of days?

I'm glad you've found an example country that is exactly like the UK that we can learn from.

Edited 25 May 2018 by Guest

[Guest Foxin_mad]

23 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

Are we in Venezuela?

We are probably less wealthy than Venezuela was before socialism ****ed it up. We have a lot less oil. 

 

Corbyn is as ****ed up as Chavez. If not more so. 

Edited 25 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 minutes ago, toddybad said:

"The sky would fall, the sun would burn out, the tides would roll out forever"

It sounds truly apocalyptic. 

Who'd have thought a country treating it's own water supplies and taxing corporations what they were taxed 4 years ago would bring about the end of days?

I'm glad you've found an example country that is exactly like the UK that we can learn from.

 

Sounds much like your very own Brexit scenario. 

 

The IFS already said Labours tax plans wont work and they will have to tax more for more people, you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe otherwise.

 

It will crash the city. I suppose you could class  this a 'necessary evil' like Brexit could before better long term. If we lose 75% of the GDP overnight due to Socialist anti bank policies we have an issue, a big one. Surely anyone can see this? Unless they don't want to. 

 

My point is you cant criticise Brexiteers who say they will accept short term loss for long term gain, then support a Labour government who absolutely WILL crash the economy like nothing we have ever seen before.

Edited 25 May 2018 by Foxin_mad

[ealingfox]

16 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

We are probably less wealthy than Venezuela was before socialism ****ed it up. We have a lot less oil. 

 

Corbyn is as ****ed up as Chavez. If not more so. 

 

 

I suggest you actually do some reading...

[Guest Foxin_mad]

11 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

 

I suggest you actually do some reading...

I suggest you do. Or please enlighten me with you wisdom. 

[ealingfox]

11 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

I suggest you do. Or please enlighten me with you wisdom. 

 

Lol

 

Why? I'm not the one making grand statements about things I don't know anything about, which your response proves. What even is that reply? Just admit you don't know.

 

The fact is that Venezuela is absolutely incomparable to the UK in economic terms, your continued use of it as the crux of an argument against a Labour government is utterly worthless and proves how little actual substance you have.

 

I'll start you off with something easy - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Venezuela

[Guest]

53 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Sounds much like your very own Brexit scenario. 

 

The IFS already said Labours tax plans wont work and they will have to tax more for more people, you are living in cloud cuckoo land if you believe otherwise.

 

It will crash the city. I suppose you could class  this a 'necessary evil' like Brexit could before better long term. If we lose 75% of the GDP overnight due to Socialist anti bank policies we have an issue, a big one. Surely anyone can see this? Unless they don't want to. 

 

My point is you cant criticise Brexiteers who say they will accept short term loss for long term gain, then support a Labour government who absolutely WILL crash the economy like nothing we have ever seen before.

 

Exactly which anti bank policies are you talking about?

You think we'll lose 75% of GDP overnight?

 

Some questions:

Is socialism to blame for 1973, 1990 or 2008?

Is socialism to blame for us earning less on average than in 2008?

Is socialism to blame for us having the slowest recovery ever?

Is socialism to blame for us having the slowest sustained period of growth for over 200 years?

Is socialism to blame for the top 5%'s share of the wealth increasing disproportionately over the last 40 years (I can't be bothered to find the figures again but from something like 8% to 70% of all wealth)?

Is socialism to blame for the throw away and sod everybody else culture that is destroying all of the planet's ecosystems?

Is socialism to blame for the destruction of lives and jobs in the north and midlands of England?

Is socialism to blame for the housing crisis?

Was socialism to blame for banks wrecking the economy?

 

No, capitalism was. 

Edited 25 May 2018 by Guest