Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Corbyns polices would eventually be a disaster for all. You might have to wait 5-10 years to find out, but we would be looking at record unemployment figures for this country once their socialist policies start to take effect.

[Buce]

Just now, MattP said:

The IMF was quote clear in stating Corbyn's policy would have bad consequences for all sections of the taxpaying public and for all including small business.

 

That's not exactly just being bad for the establishment is it?

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

They have a vested interest in scare-mongering against a Labour govt, which is why I take it with a pinch of salt. Just another version of Project Fear.

[Guest MattP]

This is far worse than anything Brexit related. The Beeb look like they are getting rid of the top interviewer they have.

 

 

Rumours have been abound for a while that the BBC have wanted him out, I really hope he's just messing, he is the Daily/Sunday Politics and This Week wouldn't be worth watching without him.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

That's not what I'm saying.

 

They have a vested interest in scare-mongering against a Labour govt, which is why I take it with a pinch of salt. Just another version of Project Fear.

Prove they have a 'vested interest'

 

They don't. Its just a classic case of someone disagreeing with a left winger therefore they must be racist, an idiot. 'part of the establishment'.

 

A Socialist Labour government would be very dangerous, they are correct. The whole of history backs this up.

 

Edited 17 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Captain...]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

One thing that still baffles me on this though from a small number of posters is how they believe the IMF, CBI without question when it comes to so called "hard-Brexit" - but then are prepared to joyfully ignore it all when they tell us a Corbyn led government would also be a disaster.

Because what Corbyn is doing isn't a complete voyage into the unknown. Raising taxes is a fairly standard thing to do to generate public funds and deal with a deficit, raising minimum wage to bring full time workers out of poverty isn't rocket science and programs of nationalisation of companies like rail, have worked successfully in other developed nations. 

 

Whether Corbyn's figures are spot on or will not have the desired effect we don't know but it is not a giant leap into complete economic unknown lead by a government that seems so hopelessly out of its depth.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

This is the sort of thing that should be of greater concern than the constant briefings coming out in the press, which is essentially lobbying groups making their cases.

[Buce]

Just now, Foxin_mad said:

Prove they have a 'vested interest'

 

They don't. Its just a classic case of someone disagreeing with a left winger therefore they must be racist, an idiot. 'part of the establishment'.

 

 

Increased Corporation Tax; increased minimum wage; improved and consolidated workers' rights; protection for zero-hours employees... the list goes on.

[Guest MattP]

10 minutes ago, Buce said:

That's not what I'm saying.

 

They have a vested interest in scare-mongering against a Labour govt, which is why I take it with a pinch of salt. Just another version of Project Fear.

Any evidence for this or is it just your opinion?

 

6 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Because what Corbyn is doing isn't a complete voyage into the unknown. Raising taxes is a fairly standard thing to do to generate public funds and deal with a deficit, raising minimum wage to bring full time workers out of poverty isn't rocket science and programs of nationalisation of companies like rail, have worked successfully in other developed nations. 

 

Whether Corbyn's figures are spot on or will not have the desired effect we don't know but it is not a giant leap into complete economic unknown lead by a government that seems so hopelessly out of its depth.

I think we already know the answer to that question don't we given the desire was to raise public sector pay in line with inflation? Already billions out.

 

Raising taxes isn't a standard thing to do all to generate public funds, who were the last European country with a similar sized economy to our to do that? (The only one I can think of is France under Hollande and that was such a disaster is didn't even stand for election next time)- Can you give a me a country in the World that raised it's minimum wage by 25%? As for programs of nationlisation, when you read the manifesto that's not actually he was proposing unless his intention was to govern until 2031.

 

We have no idea whether the government is out of it's depth, if you put the Guardian down you would realise no-one really knows.

Edited 17 July 2017 by MattP

[DJ Barry Hammond]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is far worse than anything Brexit related. The Beeb look like they are getting rid of the top interviewer they have.

 

 

Rumours have been abound for a while that the BBC have wanted him out, I really hope he's just messing, he is the Daily/Sunday Politics and This Week wouldn't be worth watching without him.

 

He's very busy man with many interests outside of the Beeb and UK politics (he did work for French broadcasters during the French elections i believe. 

 

Haven't come across rummors myself (I will search for them now) but suspect he'd have many offers from commercial broadcasters.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Increased Corporation Tax; increased minimum wage; improved and consolidated workers' rights; protection for zero-hours employees... the list goes on.

What does the increased levels of unemployment that a Labour government will cause have to do with it?

Edited 17 July 2017 by Foxin_mad

[Kopfkino]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

This is far worse than anything Brexit related. The Beeb look like they are getting rid of the top interviewer they have.

 

 

Rumours have been abound for a while that the BBC have wanted him out, I really hope he's just messing, he is the Daily/Sunday Politics and This Week wouldn't be worth watching without him.

 

Probably knows he'll be hounded out by the militant socialists when his salary is released on Wednesday

[Guest MattP]

1 minute ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

He's very busy man with many interests outside of the Beeb and UK politics (he did work for French broadcasters during the French elections i believe. 

 

Haven't come across rummors myself (I will search for them now) but suspect he'd have many offers from commercial broadcasters.

It was only Robbie Gibb keeping him there according to the Sunday Times yesterday, the rest of the BBC editors seem to dislike him, he's the only interviewer I've seen tear the pro-remain bunch a new arsehole so to lose him from the state broadcaster would be a disaster for balance.

 

Can't imagine him being on ITV which is the only channel that covers politics, Sky is obviously out the question for him. If he moves from the BBC I don't see how he can go on, losing This Week would be a tragedy.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

6 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

This is the sort of thing that should be of greater concern than the constant briefings coming out in the press, which is essentially lobbying groups making their cases.

As devils advocate......

 

So one is an undemocratic behemoth of unfathomable bureaucracy......the other??!

 

The tale a picture tells is in the eye of the beholder.

[Guest MattP]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

Probably knows he'll be hounded out by the militant socialists when his salary is released on Wednesday

That crossed my mind as well although he's said he isn't the top paid at the company in terms of politics (which he should be) - I bet Robinson, Laura K, Marr and Humpreys are all on more than him.

 

Neil, Robertson and Kuennsberg should de-activate Twitter as they are going to be on the end of the Momentum mob.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

As devils advocate......

 

So one is an undemocratic behemoth of unfathomable bureaucracy......the other??!

 

The tale a picture tells is in the eye of the beholder.

 

Think what you will of the undemocratic behemoth, they appear prepared to speak from the same page... our sovereign representatives on the other hand seem set to make it up as they go along!

[Innovindil]

31 minutes ago, Captain... said:

That is going to happen in any oversubscribed labour market during a period of restricted economic growth. You want better minimum wage vote Corbyn, Brexit is no guarantee of that changing. It also relates to border control which I will come onto.

 

GMO foods is a new one, if we leave the EU but stay in the EEA would we be prevented from growing GMO crops? I think that there is still enough doubt over the safety of GMO that I'm happy for it not to be in our food chain at the moment.

 

Weakening the pound is another interesting one, something Japan did to the Yen deliberately to stimulate exports and tourism, it was deemed a risk, but ultimately successful. I can't see many economists advocating it, nor any government actively seeking to do it. As part of a coherent economic strategy then I could get behind it, but as an unintended consequence of a horribly mismanaged Brexit it is not something I see as a positive. Especially as our imports outweigh our exports. Same with house prices, as part of a coherent strategy, fine. An unintended consequence of Brexit, no thanks.

 

Accountability, I can't disagree with you here, the Government has continually failed to address crucial social and economic issues and the blame is being placed on the EU. I don't see this as a reason to leave though I see it as a need for a better government.

 

Finally border control, we have more control over our border than we choose to exert, we have done next to nothing to deal with immigration even though we do have the powers to control immigration from non eu countries, which accounts for as much as eu countries. The reason it hasn't been addressed is because we need migration for growth, and the staffing of hospitals etc. I do understand the border control argument but the facts behind it don't stack up. The government has even said not to expect immigration to fall post Brexit. Unless we are changing our whole economic policy to reducing our economic power, stopping growth, devaluing the pound and actually deliberately causing our economy to shrink?

 

Are GMO foods, and a Government accountable for its own decisions really worth the economic turmoil and trade and movement restrictions predicted?

 

Brexit isn't a guarantee of anything, that isn't what you asked, you asked what I hoped for, not what will or what I even expect to happen. 

 

GMOs are perfectly safe, it's the shite the muricans do to them that isn't, all the pesticides used are the "causes for concern". In that aspect they are worrying, I'll agree. 

 

The "need for a better government" is a great idea, but considering the two biggest parties are both wankers, I don't see where you're going to find it. 

 

I know we have more control over immigration than we use, that was part of the "been covered millions of times" bit, and I also know the government have said don't expect much change, that doesn't change my hope it will. Have we ever had a vote over immigration? Ever? 

 

And if we rely on immigrants for growth, then brexit or no brexit we're messed up already. A constantly growing economy doesn't, and never has meant, a happy population. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Who could this be???

 

But a senior Cabinet minister told The Telegraph: “What’s really going on is that the Establishment, the Treasury, is trying to ---- it up. They want to frustrate Brexit.

 

“This is a critical moment. That’s why we have to keep Theresa there. Otherwise the whole thing will fall apart.” 

 

Mr Hammond views Brexit-supporters as “a bunch of smarmy pirates” who have “taken the Establishment prisoner”, the source said, adding that Mr Hammond is now “trying to break out” and get his own way.

[Captain...]

10 minutes ago, MattP said:

Raising taxes isn't a standard thing to do all to generate public funds, who were the last European country with a similar sized economy to our to do that? (The only one I can think of is France under Hollande and that was such a disaster is didn't even stand for election next time)- Can you give a me a country in the World that raised it's minimum wage by 25%? As for programs of nationlisation, when you read the manifesto that's not actually he was proposing unless his intention was to govern until 2031.

 

We have no idea whether the government is out of it's depth, if you put the Guardian down you would realise no-one really knows.

Of course countries raise taxes to increase public funds or should I say revenue, it's what taxes are for. I wasn't talking specifically about corporation tax, countries need more money they raise tax. It could be VAT or income tax on the high earners. Getting back to corporation tax, we have the lowest rate in the G7 and even with Labour's proposed increase we would have a lower rate than other big economies.

 

 

Minimum wage increase is steep and possibly ill advised, but it would be incremental and not an instant 25% increase and hopefully reviewed and revised as the term progresses, it is only required to be that high because the living wage is currently at that level.

 

Corbyn's policies are not crazy, maybe not perfect, but they at least offer an alternative to austerity, they are also in not going to be implemented any time soon. Whereas Brexit is very real and is such a massive risk that could have a catastrophic effect on this country that we all love. 10-20 years is a long time many of us on here will have children or see them grow up in that time. Casting this country into the potential chaos of Brexit for the hope of something better in 10-20 years time just seems crazy.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

In your opinion. That's one picture chosen by a stupid newspaper to make a point.

 

Davis and his team I am sure a very competent and know exactly what they need to get from these discussions.

 

All the government have stated and are correct in stating is that we will not be bent over a barrel by the EU the deal has to be good and that is the point of negotiating. Both sides have a lot to loose and more to gain by striking a good deal. if the EU can keep us happy then we will contribute more towards the final settlement and the EU citizens will get a good deal, if they are happy with that then we will get what we fee is a good deal on trade. Their will be concessions on both sides I am sure.

 

Pretty much every product we buy from Europe we can by elsewhere. If Europe wont sign a trade deal with us tariff free, the US and many commonwealth countries have already said they will.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

12 minutes ago, Captain... said:

Of course countries raise taxes to increase public funds or should I say revenue, it's what taxes are for. I wasn't talking specifically about corporation tax, countries need more money they raise tax. It could be VAT or income tax on the high earners. Getting back to corporation tax, we have the lowest rate in the G7 and even with Labour's proposed increase we would have a lower rate than other big economies.

 

 

 

Minimum wage increase is steep and possibly ill advised, but it would be incremental and not an instant 25% increase and hopefully reviewed and revised as the term progresses, it is only required to be that high because the living wage is currently at that level.

 

Corbyn's policies are not crazy, maybe not perfect, but they at least offer an alternative to austerity, they are also in not going to be implemented any time soon. Whereas Brexit is very real and is such a massive risk that could have a catastrophic effect on this country that we all love. 10-20 years is a long time many of us on here will have children or see them grow up in that time. Casting this country into the potential chaos of Brexit for the hope of something better in 10-20 years time just seems crazy.

We have been increasing corporation tax receipts year on year by lowering the headline rate, I would say that is a successful policy. Companies are still saying that even with Brexit and uncertainties they still want to operate and invest here. The lowest rate in the G7 is a good thing, its says to business we are open and we want to help you be a success.

 

Corbyns policies are pretty crazy and they are a fiscal massive risk. I can not think of one situation where suddenly implemented high tax and spend policies have been successful ever.

 

I think voting for and installing a Labour government at this time would have a far more catastrophic effect on the country than Brexit will. His Policies could fuel uncontrolled inflation as he promises pay rises left right and centre, more uncontrolled immigration will further stretch resources and feed the far right. More debt could knock our fiscal credibility cause the credit rating agencies to degrade us again, push up borrowing, make us less attractive to business and investors. Whichever way you look at it is you are a business or investor you are not going to invest in a country whose leader has praised Hugo Chavez and his policies, you never know when your success could be seized upon and redistributed.

 

 

Realistically Brexit will probably have very little impact on day to day life once all the rhetoric and hyperbole has gone away.

[Jon the Hat]

On 7/16/2017 at 10:17, Captain... said:

This is the kind of thing really pisses me off, it's not that public services are being damaged, nor that nurses are being forced to use food bins, nor that teachers are leaving in droves. No they might do something about the public sector pay cap because it will help their chances of staying in power!

 

I would take some serious convincing that the pay cap is anywhere in the top 5 reasons for those things happening.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

The neuance of corporation tax level and receipts doesn't appear to be keenly understood. This article makes some very good points on the context that should be applied to the current situation;

 

https://www.ft.com/content/ca3e5bd2-2a7e-11e7-9ec8-168383da43b7

 

Perhaps the most concerning part within this article is the mention of a reducing in company reinvestment - and it's this notion that makes me believe Corporation Tax should be increased rather than decreased (albeit not to the levels Labour propose). 

 

Thats because an increase in corporation tax heightens the value to companies of putting profits back into their business, which can help spur further growth in our economy and better profitability level for companies over the longer term and in theory offset a 'lower' corporation tax take from an increased return from employment and purchase taxes as part of this. 

[DJ Barry Hammond]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

In your opinion. That's one picture chosen by a stupid newspaper to make a point.

 

Davis and his team I am sure a very competent and know exactly what they need to get from these discussions.

 

All the government have stated and are correct in stating is that we will not be bent over a barrel by the EU the deal has to be good and that is the point of negotiating. Both sides have a lot to loose and more to gain by striking a good deal. if the EU can keep us happy then we will contribute more towards the final settlement and the EU citizens will get a good deal, if they are happy with that then we will get what we fee is a good deal on trade. Their will be concessions on both sides I am sure.

 

Pretty much every product we buy from Europe we can by elsewhere. If Europe wont sign a trade deal with us tariff free, the US and many commonwealth countries have already said they will.

 

This is one sided vision. 

 

Look at it on an overall prospective, any deal that is to be agreed would have to be viewed as a 'win' from both sides and the soundbite starting points of "have your cake and eat it" (that Labour are now bizarrely using as well now) could never be labelled as a win on the EU's side, so that won't happen. 

 

But that in turn highlights the problem with setting that bar so high, because any significant climb down on our starting position couldn't be sold as a win to the voting public in this country either. 

 

Which is possibly why the "no deal" rhetoric started coming in - because that would allow both sides to avoid "defeat"'in negotiations and palm blame off on each other.

 

In terms of the front running position at the moment, I think the prospect of "no deal" is very much in front.

[Captain...]

10 minutes ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

 

This is one sided vision. 

 

Look at it on an overall prospective, any deal that is to be agreed would have to be viewed as a 'win' from both sides and the soundbite starting points of "have your cake and eat it" (that Labour are now bizarrely using as well now) could never be labelled as a win on the EU's side, so that won't happen. 

 

But that in turn highlights the problem with setting that bar so high, because any significant climb down on our starting position couldn't be sold as a win to the voting public in this country either. 

 

Which is possibly why the "no deal" rhetoric started coming in - because that would allow both sides to avoid "defeat"'in negotiations and palm blame off on each other.

 

In terms of the front running position at the moment, I think the prospect of "no deal" is very much in front.

The only have your cake and eat it option is EEA. It means leaving the EU, but still accessing the single market, obviously there would be freedom of movement but there is still greater flexibility over border controls, exactly what I don't know, it would allow negotiation of trade deals outside the EU. I'm not sure how much of EU law we would have to follow and which bodies we would need to remain a part of and exactly what would be on the negotiating table. If you want to leave the EU and remain in the single market that is the option.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

I think pretty much what Switzerland have. Anyone know what is happening there as I sure they had a referendum on immigration quotas and the result of that put them at odds with the EU, surely some kind of similar deal to what they have.

 

I m sure there is a deal where both sides can think they have got what they wanted. There is a lot to lose for both sides. In some cases no deal is better than a bad deal.