Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I wouldn't say that the ultra-Thatcherite right is getting more powerful within the Tory party, but they are getting more powerful amongst the voter base on social issues rather than economic ones. "Free Tommy", anyone?

You think the "Free Tommy" lot are Conservatives or Thatcherite? !

Edited 2 August 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

22 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

A small point.  I'm not sure the ultra-Thatcherite right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory party.  Under the Tories, the government is taxing the economy more than at any point in the last 50 years.  If anything, they are morphing into Ed Miliband-lite.

 

There is nothing Thatcherite about the Tories now, even that wing spoken about is voting through government policy on spending and taxation that would make Tony Blair blush.

 

Its more Ed Miliband if anything. 

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

It's a ridiculous stretch to describe supporters of Tommy Robinson as Thatcherite.  Far right, yes.  Thatcherite?  No.  

 

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

You think the "Free Tommy" lot are Conservatives or Thatcherite? !

 

Yeah, lack of clarity on my part. The voter base in general, rather than the Tory one specifically - I'm pretty sure Thatcher espoused some socially conservative views (section 28, at least tacit support for apartheid South Africa etc) but I've no doubt the ones saying "Free Tommy" right now would have just voted for the NF when she was in charge rather than the Tories.

 

Anyway...my point is that there is something of a surge to the right in terms of social views on the UK (driven by a variety of different factors) and I wondered how each main party would handle that with respect to how it applies to Brexit.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

7 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

I think it is true. Labour have a massive chance of a landslide without this incompetent bumbling idiot in charge. I honestly can not see what the appeal is with the man. He is old labour, a vile, hateful, mouth frothing Trotskyite who should be confined to 1979. I cant believe such a man is a leader of a major opposition party in 2018.

 

 

 

I would probably be more closely aligned to voting Labour if they had a decent more dynamic/intelligent leader along the lines IMO of Benn, Stammer, Chukka. I think it would be suitable for Labour to have a female leader also, but I am not yet sure if any of them are ready yet. 

 

 

BENN!   He was a total wet twerp, that only bleated nonsense, On a par with Corbyn in fact. but less obviously dim witted.

[breadandcheese]

15 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

Yeah, lack of clarity on my part. The voter base in general, rather than the Tory one specifically - I'm pretty sure Thatcher espoused some socially conservative views (section 28, at least tacit support for apartheid South Africa etc) but I've no doubt the ones saying "Free Tommy" right now would have just voted for the NF when she was in charge rather than the Tories.

 

Anyway...my point is that there is something of a surge to the right in terms of social views on the UK (driven by a variety of different factors) and I wondered how each main party would handle that with respect to how it applies to Brexit.

I would see it more as a surge towards anti-establishment views.  Momentum, Robinson.  Opposite cheeks on the same a rse.

Edited 2 August 2018 by breadandcheese

[Buce]

36 minutes ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

BENN!   He was a total wet twerp, that only bleated nonsense, On a par with Corbyn in fact. but less obviously dim witted.

 

He’s also dead. 

 

Pretty sure he means his son, DT. 

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

 

A small point.  I'm not sure the ultra-Thatcherite right is becoming increasingly powerful within the Tory party.  Under the Tories, the government is taxing the economy more than at any point in the last 50 years.  If anything, they are morphing into Ed Miliband-lite.

 

 

27 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Literally zero idea where you've got that from.

 

Granted, the Tories haven't been particularly conservative on social policy (e.g. gay marriage, U-turn on "hostile environment" policy after Windrush scandal) - Thatcher was more socially conservative.

 

But on economic policy, Thatcherite laissez-faire / small state ideology has been to the forefront, even if it has been concealed behind the "need for austerity" and by tax/spend inching up recently due to structural factors (debt interest, increased cost of pensions and health/social care due to aging population etc.). There have been political compromises out of realpolitik but maximum laissez-faire and minimum state is the goal.

 

Zero idea where I got the idea ultra-Thatcherites are in the ascendant in the Tory party, Kopf?

- Blinkered pursuit of a balanced budget regardless of social cost

- 8 years of swingeing public spending cuts in most areas apart from health & debt interest (even health falling behind needs)

- Local govt spending cuts causing councils to fall to bits (Tory Northants threatened with bankruptcy)

- Benefits cuts/"reforms" that have left countless thousands using food banks and many on the streets

- 80 members of the ERG, when Major only had about 9 ultra-Eurosceptic "bastards" to cope with

- A party membership that, when polled, consistently wants the most right-wing, Eurosceptic Thatcherites to be leader

- A party that left the main centre-right group in the European Parliament as it wasn't Thatcherite and Eurosceptic enough.

Here's the first principle of the group they set up instead: "Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity".

 

As for the Tories "taxing the economy more than at any point in 50 years"?! Unless you're using some worthless criterion like nominal revenue, I've no idea where you get that idea, er, breadandcheese.

Granted, tax has inched up slightly recently due to slow growth and the structural factors I've mentioned. But as a % of GDP, tax is LOWER than at most times in the last 50 years (despite aforementioned structural factors bumping it up) and spending has been absolutely slashed after the initial spike caused by the 2008 crash.

 

Ignore the article (different topic) and scroll down to the graphic with OBR data in this article (sorry cannot copy into post): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/ifs-warns-steep-cuts-tax-rises-40bn-black-hole-uk

It shows tax and spending as % of GDP since the 1950s.

 

 

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, breadandcheese said:

I would see it more as a surge towards anti-establishment views.  Momentum, Robinson.  Opposite cheeks on the same a rse.

 

Probably so.

 

However (and there may be some disagreement here) it is the far right anti-establishment who are in the ascendancy more than the far left across Europe and in the US.

[Kopfkino]

28 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

Granted, the Tories haven't been particularly conservative on social policy (e.g. gay marriage, U-turn on "hostile environment" policy after Windrush scandal) - Thatcher was more socially conservative.

 

But on economic policy, Thatcherite laissez-faire / small state ideology has been to the forefront, even if it has been concealed behind the "need for austerity" and by tax/spend inching up recently due to structural factors (debt interest, increased cost of pensions and health/social care due to aging population etc.). There have been political compromises out of realpolitik but maximum laissez-faire and minimum state is the goal.

 

Zero idea where I got the idea ultra-Thatcherites are in the ascendant in the Tory party, Kopf?

- Blinkered pursuit of a balanced budget regardless of social cost

- 8 years of swingeing public spending cuts in most areas apart from health & debt interest (even health falling behind needs)

- Local govt spending cuts causing councils to fall to bits (Tory Northants threatened with bankruptcy)

- Benefits cuts/"reforms" that have left countless thousands using food banks and many on the streets

- 80 members of the ERG, when Major only had about 9 ultra-Eurosceptic "bastards" to cope with

- A party membership that, when polled, consistently wants the most right-wing, Eurosceptic Thatcherites to be leader

- A party that left the main centre-right group in the European Parliament as it wasn't Thatcherite and Eurosceptic enough.

Here's the first principle of the group they set up instead: "Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation, and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity".

 

As for the Tories "taxing the economy more than at any point in 50 years"?! Unless you're using some worthless criterion like nominal revenue, I've no idea where you get that idea, er, breadandcheese.

Granted, tax has inched up slightly recently due to slow growth and the structural factors I've mentioned. But as a % of GDP, tax is LOWER than at most times in the last 50 years (despite aforementioned structural factors bumping it up) and spending has been absolutely slashed after the initial spike caused by the 2008 crash.

 

Ignore the article (different topic) and scroll down to the graphic with OBR data in this article (sorry cannot copy into post): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/ifs-warns-steep-cuts-tax-rises-40bn-black-hole-uk

It shows tax and spending as % of GDP since the 1950s.

 

 

 

So you said having increasing influence but have cited policy from Cameron's premiership, many of which the current party has no appetite for. Secondly, you've let personal feeling and rhetoric warp your thinking on what Thatcherism was as viewed by the woman herself.

 

- Next to zero appetite remaining for the pursuit of a balanced budget anymore, they're quite content to be somewhere close on day-to-day spending. We've just had a completely unfunded increase to the NHS budget and the OBR confirm to us that debt is only going to keep increasing with the fiscal plans of the government. Besides, much of the idea of balanced budgets comes from German ordo-liberalism, still practiced by the Germans - are they 'ultra-Thatcherites' in Germany?

-  Swingeing? Bit of a strong term, not really true but for a few areas. In fact, both Thatcher and Cameron/Osborne failed in their attempts to really cut the size of government. Spending up in real terms for both. The idea of cutting the size of government was shared though again increasing influence is false. There seems near universal approval for loosening the purse strings, so not increasing influence.

- Right okay. Differing reasons mind.

- I don't know why at this point you decided consequence of actions mattered in whether they were 'Thatcherite' or not. But yes welfare probably the most Thatcher of recent Conservative policy.

- I take the biggest issue on Europe. The ERG members that self-label as 'Thatcherite's' are 'Thatcherites' in name only. There is very little in their approach to Europe that is actually 'Thatcherite'. You've clung on to rhetoric if you think that is Thatcherite influence, they cannot objectively be thought of as 'Thatcherites' with their attitude to Europe.

 

I spoke to Ken Clarke for a while about Thatcher and Europe after a talk he did in June because I find it appalling how she's portrayed, and used, with respect to Europe. He said she was horribly used after she left office and had started losing her mind by the Eurosceptics and it didn't help that she thought it was a European plot to get rid of her.

 

- I genuinely know very little about JRM's policy ideas to call him a 'Thatcherite'. If you're basing it on Europe then no he is not a Thatcherite. Others that have been high in polling in recent times: Boris - well his record as London mayor doesn't scream 'ultra-Thatcherite', Gove - typical old-fashioned Conservative pragmatist, with some Thatcherism in him I'm sure Javid - pretty 'Thatcherite' yep, Hunt - see Gove. I'm not really seeing much 'ultra-Thatcherite' here. 

 

But anyway, you said they have an increasing influence on the party. I cannot see much the government has done/party has proposed in the last two years that really warrants Thatcher-influenced, let alone being 'Thatcherite' which was my main bone of contention. 

[l444ry]

3 hours ago, The Guvnor said:

I'd want a fcuking big slice of cake for £39 Billion.

That's to honour existing EU commitments.

Edited 2 August 2018 by l444ry

[breadandcheese]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

As for the Tories "taxing the economy more than at any point in 50 years"?! Unless you're using some worthless criterion like nominal revenue, I've no idea where you get that idea, er, breadandcheese.

Granted, tax has inched up slightly recently due to slow growth and the structural factors I've mentioned. But as a % of GDP, tax is LOWER than at most times in the last 50 years (despite aforementioned structural factors bumping it up) and spending has been absolutely slashed after the initial spike caused by the 2008 crash.

 

Ignore the article (different topic) and scroll down to the graphic with OBR data in this article (sorry cannot copy into post): https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/feb/07/ifs-warns-steep-cuts-tax-rises-40bn-black-hole-uk

It shows tax and spending as % of GDP since the 1950s.

 

 

I've pasted this link before from the other week.

 

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highest_tax_burden_this_year_since_1969_70

 

• A new research note, released today by the TPA, reveals that the tax burden in Britain has reached a 49-year high. This year, taxes will account for 34.3 per cent of GDP, the highest since 1969-70 when the figure was 35.0 per cent

I think where the confusion comes in is explained in the research note, where it mentions about non tax receipt income which was higher during the 70s and 80s. Strip this out and actual tax as a percentage of gdp was lower back then.

Edited 2 August 2018 by breadandcheese

[Alf Bentley]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

So you said having increasing influence but have cited policy from Cameron's premiership, many of which the current party has no appetite for. Secondly, you've let personal feeling and rhetoric warp your thinking on what Thatcherism was as viewed by the woman herself.

 

- Next to zero appetite remaining for the pursuit of a balanced budget anymore, they're quite content to be somewhere close on day-to-day spending. We've just had a completely unfunded increase to the NHS budget and the OBR confirm to us that debt is only going to keep increasing with the fiscal plans of the government. Besides, much of the idea of balanced budgets comes from German ordo-liberalism, still practiced by the Germans - are they 'ultra-Thatcherites' in Germany?

-  Swingeing? Bit of a strong term, not really true but for a few areas. In fact, both Thatcher and Cameron/Osborne failed in their attempts to really cut the size of government. Spending up in real terms for both. The idea of cutting the size of government was shared though again increasing influence is false. There seems near universal approval for loosening the purse strings, so not increasing influence.

- Right okay. Differing reasons mind.

- I don't know why at this point you decided consequence of actions mattered in whether they were 'Thatcherite' or not. But yes welfare probably the most Thatcher of recent Conservative policy.

- I take the biggest issue on Europe. The ERG members that self-label as 'Thatcherite's' are 'Thatcherites' in name only. There is very little in their approach to Europe that is actually 'Thatcherite'. You've clung on to rhetoric if you think that is Thatcherite influence, they cannot objectively be thought of as 'Thatcherites' with their attitude to Europe.

 

I spoke to Ken Clarke for a while about Thatcher and Europe after a talk he did in June because I find it appalling how she's portrayed, and used, with respect to Europe. He said she was horribly used after she left office and had started losing her mind by the Eurosceptics and it didn't help that she thought it was a European plot to get rid of her.

 

- I genuinely know very little about JRM's policy ideas to call him a 'Thatcherite'. If you're basing it on Europe then no he is not a Thatcherite. Others that have been high in polling in recent times: Boris - well his record as London mayor doesn't scream 'ultra-Thatcherite', Gove - typical old-fashioned Conservative pragmatist, with some Thatcherism in him I'm sure Javid - pretty 'Thatcherite' yep, Hunt - see Gove. I'm not really seeing much 'ultra-Thatcherite' here. 

 

But anyway, you said they have an increasing influence on the party. I cannot see much the government has done/party has proposed in the last two years that really warrants Thatcher-influenced, let alone being 'Thatcherite' which was my main bone of contention. 

 

Sorry, Kopf, I've spent enough time on here over recent days and cannot answer all your points or I'll end up having to give myself another self-ban from FT.

 

We are arguing about a concept with no set definition to some extent, anyway: Thatcherism. There are people who have made whole careers out of analysing exactly what Thatcherism was - and ending up with different definitions from one another. Though that first principle of the Tories' European Parliament group is a big part of it for me: "Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity". It is that blind belief in maximum laissez-faire, minimum state that I see as the core.

 

Certainly, Thatcher was less Eurosceptic in practice than current Tory Eurosceptics are - and signed the UK up to plenty of EEC/EU arrangements. Different times, different climate, though. My guess is that she'd be a Brexiteer if she was around today.

I'm envious of you getting to chat with Ken Clarke, one of the truly top-calibre politicians of our era. While I'm essentially a Soft Left type, I'm now getting old and soft enough in the head that I wouldn't be too disappointed if I heard that Clarke was going to be running the country for the rest of my lifetime....given the potential alternatives. He'd be an interesting commentator on Thatcher, if you could get him to be honest....but hardly a neutral one.

 

Cuts certainly have been swingeing in some areas: local govt funding, police, early years care etc. I appreciate that there have been pragmatic compromises along the way - the recent one-off increases in public sector pay being another example, but laissez-faire and small state are still the ideological obsessions, I think. They probably just feel they've got enough on their plate with Brexit just now, so want to avoid other confrontations in the short-term. Both party membership and MPs seem to be increasingly right-wing - and I'd expect that influence and those priorities to come to the fore again once Brexit has been finalised....though I agree that some of the people you've mentioned are either semi-Thatcherite pragmatists (Gove, Hunt) or opportunistic charlatans (Boris)....and the Germans have different historical reasons for their balanced budgets obsessions (memories of 1920s hyperinflation, not right-wing ideology).

 

 

49 minutes ago, breadandcheese said:

I've pasted this link before from the other week.

 

https://www.taxpayersalliance.com/highest_tax_burden_this_year_since_1969_70

 

• A new research note, released today by the TPA, reveals that the tax burden in Britain has reached a 49-year high. This year, taxes will account for 34.3 per cent of GDP, the highest since 1969-70 when the figure was 35.0 per cent

I think where the confusion comes in is explained in the research note, where it mentions about non tax receipt income which was higher during the 70s and 80s. Strip this out and actual tax as a percentage of gdp was lower back then.

 

 

We'd need to compare the data used by the OBR (which I quoted) and the Taxpayers' Alliance (which you quote) to see whether the TA has a point. It seems an odd one, if so: I thought the argument was always that privatisations were needed because these firms and utilities were hopelessly inefficient and losing money hand over fist....yet they were apparently pumping profits into the Treasury according to the TA?!? Maybe we should have kept the revenue streams nationalised then?!

 

Sorry, but again I'd end up having to ban myself from FT if I started comparing data sets.

 

Instead, I'll just compare the credibility of our sources:

Mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

"The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body that the UK government established to provide independent economic forecasts and independent analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget".

Yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance

"The TaxPayers' Alliance is a right-wing British pressure group and think tank formed in 2004 to campaign for a low tax society". 

[Kopfkino]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Sorry, Kopf, I've spent enough time on here over recent days and cannot answer all your points or I'll end up having to give myself another self-ban from FT.

 

We are arguing about a concept with no set definition to some extent, anyway: Thatcherism. There are people who have made whole careers out of analysing exactly what Thatcherism was - and ending up with different definitions from one another. Though that first principle of the Tories' European Parliament group is a big part of it for me: "Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity". It is that blind belief in maximum laissez-faire, minimum state that I see as the core.

 

Certainly, Thatcher was less Eurosceptic in practice than current Tory Eurosceptics are - and signed the UK up to plenty of EEC/EU arrangements. Different times, different climate, though. My guess is that she'd be a Brexiteer if she was around today.

I'm envious of you getting to chat with Ken Clarke, one of the truly top-calibre politicians of our era. While I'm essentially a Soft Left type, I'm now getting old and soft enough in the head that I wouldn't be too disappointed if I heard that Clarke was going to be running the country for the rest of my lifetime....given the potential alternatives. He'd be an interesting commentator on Thatcher, if you could get him to be honest....but hardly a neutral one.

 

Cuts certainly have been swingeing in some areas: local govt funding, police, early years care etc. I appreciate that there have been pragmatic compromises along the way - the recent one-off increases in public sector pay being another example, but laissez-faire and small state are still the ideological obsessions, I think. They probably just feel they've got enough on their plate with Brexit just now, so want to avoid other confrontations in the short-term. Both party membership and MPs seem to be increasingly right-wing - and I'd expect that influence and those priorities to come to the fore again once Brexit has been finalised....though I agree that some of the people you've mentioned are either semi-Thatcherite pragmatists (Gove, Hunt) or opportunistic charlatans (Boris)....and the Germans have different historical reasons for their balanced budgets obsessions (memories of 1920s hyperinflation, not right-wing ideology).

 

 

 

We'd need to compare the data used by the OBR (which I quoted) and the Taxpayers' Alliance (which you quote) to see whether the TA has a point. It seems an odd one, if so: I thought the argument was always that privatisations were needed because these firms and utilities were hopelessly inefficient and losing money hand over fist....yet they were apparently pumping profits into the Treasury according to the TA?!? Maybe we should have kept the revenue streams nationalised then?!

 

Sorry, but again I'd end up having to ban myself from FT if I started comparing data sets.

 

Instead, I'll just compare the credibility of our sources:

Mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

"The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body that the UK government established to provide independent economic forecasts and independent analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget".

Yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance

"The TaxPayers' Alliance is a right-wing British pressure group and think tank formed in 2004 to campaign for a low tax society". 

 

Of course, it's probably best that way because I'm sure we could go on and on about something that as you say has no set definition and end up achieving nothing but you accepting I'm right.  But no I really just took issue to your notion of increasing influence. Austerity was essentially a guise to make the PR easier to cut the size of the state (it failed to do that and actually they'd have been better being upfront about it and doing it properly) but support for it in the party is decreasing so I don't see how that's increasing influence of ultra-thatcherism. I can't see how any Thatcher-influence is increasing, let alone ultra. The party is more Macmillan than Thatcher with May at the helm and unless Sajid has a bigger influence I don't see much Thatcher-influence in the near future. 

 

I disagree with your assessment of what Thatcherism was from Mrs T's point of view, to me it lacks nuance and lacks appreciation for it being a different time. A blind belief in laissez-faire lacks understanding of the philosophical basis in my opinion. 

 

I genuinely don't think she would have been much of a Brexiteer(well Thatcher once she started losing her faculties maybe) or at least it would have been a tight call for her, maybe she'd have voted leave but I think she'd have done it for the Norway option. But she always preferred for us to be a thorn in Europe's side from within and I don't think that would be different with the modern EU. She certainly wouldn't subscribe to the ERG's FTA or no-deal solution.

 

Ken Clarke is fantastic, can listen to people like him all day. It was great to chat to him...I say chat to him, he more talked to me and I listened, not the easiest man to interject. You can listen to the talk he did prior if you ever want/have time - it was interesting thought obviously 90 minutes is never going to be enough for anything thorough with a man that doesn't know how to stop talking. http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=4424

 

 

Also the IFS and OBR expect the tax burden to be at 34.4% by 2020, which would be as high as it was when Thatcher came to power. Ed Conway says highest for 67 years but I don't know where he gets it from. I think it would be strange to think the tax burden isn't high even by historical standards.

Edited 2 August 2018 by Kopfkino

[breadandcheese]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

We'd need to compare the data used by the OBR (which I quoted) and the Taxpayers' Alliance (which you quote) to see whether the TA has a point. It seems an odd one, if so: I thought the argument was always that privatisations were needed because these firms and utilities were hopelessly inefficient and losing money hand over fist....yet they were apparently pumping profits into the Treasury according to the TA?!? Maybe we should have kept the revenue streams nationalised then?!

 

Sorry, but again I'd end up having to ban myself from FT if I started comparing data sets.

 

Instead, I'll just compare the credibility of our sources:

Mine: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_for_Budget_Responsibility

"The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) is an advisory non-departmental public body that the UK government established to provide independent economic forecasts and independent analysis of the public finances as background to the preparation of the UK budget".

Yours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TaxPayers'_Alliance

"The TaxPayers' Alliance is a right-wing British pressure group and think tank formed in 2004 to campaign for a low tax society". 

The phrase play the ball not the man comes to mind. I don't think the taxpayers alliance and OBR contradict each other when it comes to actual tax rises. But the point stands that the Tories have not been a low tax party for as long as deficit reduction has been the target.  Any suggestion that they are is just PR and spin from both sides.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

15 hours ago, DANGEROUS TIGER said:

BENN!   He was a total wet twerp, that only bleated nonsense, On a par with Corbyn in fact. but less obviously dim witted.

Benn was a far superior politician to Corbyn in every single way, he was much more intelligent and eloquent than the thicko Corbyn. I disagreed with his views but he was a decent man. I actually believe that Corbyn is a nasty horrible man who is so driven by his hatred, his divisive politics he is extremely dangerous for this country. 

 

I was of course referring to Hillary Benn who apparently is a Blairite and makes his father turn in his grave, if you believe the far left extremists. 

[The Guvnor]

13 hours ago, l444ry said:

That's to honour existing EU commitments.

 

I was aware of that. But they would be unable to fund their 18 month projects without it.

[Guest MattP]

You have to be impressed by the coalition of support he has, Nick Griffin, the Communist Party of Great Britain, Daily Stormer, George Galloway and now a ex Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/former-kkk-wizard-praised-corbyn-victory-rztzv263g

 

Quote

 

Former KKK wizard David Duke praised Jeremy Corbyn victory

 

A white supremacist and former grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan praised the election of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership as a sign that people were recognising “Zionist power” and “Jewish establishment power”.

David Duke, who led a branch of the KKK based in Louisiana in the 1970s, told listeners to his radio show in 2015: “It’s a really good kind of evolutionary thing, isn’t it, when people are beginning to recognise Zionist power and ultimately the Jewish establishment power in Britain and in the western world.”

His endorsement was unearthed as splits deepened between Mr Corbyn’s most vocal supporters over how to respond to allegations of antisemitism in Labour’s ranks. The decision of the pro-Corbyn activist group Momentum to abandon Peter Willsman, an ally of the Labour leader who railed against Jewish “Trump fanatics”, sparked fury among other supporters of the Labour leader.

Mr Corbyn is planning to try to build bridges with the Jewish community over the antisemitism row that has engulfed his party. He has approached the Jewish Museum in Camden, London, about hosting a speech — possibly next week — for Jewish community members, or a meeting with Jewish groups.

 

 

Edited 3 August 2018 by MattP

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

Benn was a far superior politician to Corbyn in every single way, he was much more intelligent and eloquent than the thicko Corbyn. I disagreed with his views but he was a decent man. I actually believe that Corbyn is a nasty horrible man who is so driven by his hatred, his divisive politics he is extremely dangerous for this country. 

 

I was of course referring to Hillary Benn who apparently is a Blairite and makes his father turn in his grave, if you believe the far left extremists. 

I was watching a Tony Benn speech earlier this week, was fantastic. Way ahead of his time. He spoke about how to control the population and said the first attempt will be through fear and if that doesn't work then they'll try to demoralise you, very relevant to recent times.

His lad has certainly got a bit of it about him as well, his speech on Syria was one of the most formidable in recent memory.

As for Corbyn, he's one the strangest politician's I've ever seen, he must be the only man in the World who refuses to share platforms with people he agrees with but continuously shares platforms with people he doesn't agree with and ends up having to apologise for.

Edited 3 August 2018 by MattP

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

I was watching a Tony Benn speech earlier this week, was fantastic. Way ahead of his time. He spoke about how to control the population and said the first attempt will be through fear and if that doesn't work then they'll try to demoralise you, very relevant to recent times.

His lad has certainly got a bit of it about him as well, his speech on Syria was one of the most formidable in recent memory.

As for Corbyn, he's one the strangest politician's I've ever seen, he must be the only man in the World who refuses to share platforms with people he agrees with but continuously shares platforms with people he doesn't agree with and ends up having to apologise for.

 

Benn's five questions about power is still one of the most important parts of any political process ever.

 

He had such keen understanding of how power corrupts and how it always needs to be accountable - I wish more people had the same understanding now.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Good radio programme here about Tony Benn by one of the most principled parliamentarians in the House, David Davis MP.

 

 

[Alf Bentley]

10 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Of course, it's probably best that way because I'm sure we could go on and on about something that as you say has no set definition and end up achieving nothing but you accepting I'm right.  But no I really just took issue to your notion of increasing influence. Austerity was essentially a guise to make the PR easier to cut the size of the state (it failed to do that and actually they'd have been better being upfront about it and doing it properly) but support for it in the party is decreasing so I don't see how that's increasing influence of ultra-thatcherism. I can't see how any Thatcher-influence is increasing, let alone ultra. The party is more Macmillan than Thatcher with May at the helm and unless Sajid has a bigger influence I don't see much Thatcher-influence in the near future. 

 

I disagree with your assessment of what Thatcherism was from Mrs T's point of view, to me it lacks nuance and lacks appreciation for it being a different time. A blind belief in laissez-faire lacks understanding of the philosophical basis in my opinion. 

 

I genuinely don't think she would have been much of a Brexiteer(well Thatcher once she started losing her faculties maybe) or at least it would have been a tight call for her, maybe she'd have voted leave but I think she'd have done it for the Norway option. But she always preferred for us to be a thorn in Europe's side from within and I don't think that would be different with the modern EU. She certainly wouldn't subscribe to the ERG's FTA or no-deal solution.

 

Ken Clarke is fantastic, can listen to people like him all day. It was great to chat to him...I say chat to him, he more talked to me and I listened, not the easiest man to interject. You can listen to the talk he did prior if you ever want/have time - it was interesting thought obviously 90 minutes is never going to be enough for anything thorough with a man that doesn't know how to stop talking. http://www.lse.ac.uk/website-archive/newsAndMedia/videoAndAudio/channels/publicLecturesAndEvents/player.aspx?id=4424

 

 

Also the IFS and OBR expect the tax burden to be at 34.4% by 2020, which would be as high as it was when Thatcher came to power. Ed Conway says highest for 67 years but I don't know where he gets it from. I think it would be strange to think the tax burden isn't high even by historical standards.

 

 

In the absence of a single, accepted definition of Thatcherism, in my comments I'm referring to the first principle of the European Conservatives & Reformists Grouping: "Free enterprise, free and fair trade and competition, minimal regulation, lower taxation and small government as the ultimate catalysts for individual freedom and personal and national prosperity". That is the core to me, though I accept that a full definition involves all sorts of nuances re. European policy, social conservatism, pragmatism etc.

 

I accept your point that Thatcherite politics has not necessarily been moving forward in the Tory Party over the last couple of years. I'd see that as a pragmatic truce or temporary tactical retreat: pragmatic in that they know there's a limit to how long the public will accept stagnant living standards and declining public services without throwing them out of office, and tactical in that Brexit is all-consuming so they simply haven't got the political resources to fight on a second front over their ideological belief in unfettered free enterprise, minimal regulation, low tax and the small state. Once the Brexit outcome is finally confirmed, I'd expect that ideological battle over Thatcherism to become more prominent again. Of course, some Tories (particularly MPs) are pragmatists who might hold sway at certain times. But all polling evidence suggests that party membership has moved well to the right of where it was 20-30 years ago, while groups like the ERG, which would have been a tiny splinter group back then, have grown in size and influence - though still a minority. I know that you cannot simply equate Euroscepticism to Thatcherism, but the core belief for most of the ERG is surely "minimal regulation, lower tax & small govt as the route to personal and national prosperity"?

 

I know that the tax burden has been lower in the past, but there are good structural reasons for that: e.g. much higher public spending on pensions, health and social care due to the aging of the babyboomer generation. To match previous tax lows, the govt would have to cut either pension/health/social care provision for that generation or some other budget headings by a much larger margin than they did in the past. There's an argument that, in practice, the minimum tax burden acceptable to the electorate is now higher than it was 20-30 years ago for demographic reasons.....barring a political project that was prepared to challenge minimum public expectations to a much greater extent. 

 

I certainly don't see the 2010-2018 Tory Party as similar to the Macmillan era. While the post-2010 Tories have shied away from a full-frontal attack on the NHS, in an attempt to minimise tax/spend and pursue a balanced budget they have absolutely taken the hatchet to most other budget headings - and not just obvious stuff like local government and welfare, but even headings like police and defence that Thatcher would have been much less keen to cut.

 

While accepting that there are greater nuances to Thatcherism, you're being unfair to accuse me of lacking appreciation for the Thatcher era being a different time. I lived through that era as an adult (well, age 16-28) and haven't completely lost my memory yet. I see the core beliefs of the current Tory party - particularly its increasingly influential right-wing - as very much a logical continuation of the economic ideology back then on unfettered free enterprise, low tax/spend, minimal regulation & the small state, even if there are differences (less social conservatism) and room for pragmatism and temporary retreats by the party leadership.

 

Thanks for the Ken Clarke audio. I'll try to listen to that some time.

 

4 hours ago, breadandcheese said:

The phrase play the ball not the man comes to mind. I don't think the taxpayers alliance and OBR contradict each other when it comes to actual tax rises. But the point stands that the Tories have not been a low tax party for as long as deficit reduction has been the target.  Any suggestion that they are is just PR and spin from both sides.

 

I accept that the Tory Govt hasn't reduced the overall tax burden as much as some predecessors, due to the structural factors mentioned above - and the desire to reduce the deficit that you mention. That doesn't mean they've abandoned the ideology of low tax and low public spending. Policies such as jacking income tax personal allowances up to £11k+ and cutting higher-rate tax suggests low tax is still an ideological aim. Taking a hatchet to most public spending apart from the NHS (still hardly generous spending) suggests a continued belief in the small state - the current lull/tactical retreat notwithstanding.

 

Sorry, but the nature of your sources does matter. The Taxpayers' Alliance is a partisan campaign group with an axe to grind - just as, say, the Labour Party or a Guardian editorial would be. It cannot be treated as an objective source in the same way as the OBR. I just don't have the time to go looking at the data behind the claims of the TA - and, really, that's your job as the person who's quoting them. I'd be interested if you could find some figures to support their argument. So, overall, the nationalised industries and utilities were a moneyspinner for the Treasury, they reckon? That's counter-intuitive. Or were their costs and losses added into the accounts elsewhere, maybe increasing public spending? If the privatised industries/utilities were profitable overall, not only does it question the wisdom of privatising them, but you'd need to look at what happened to the revenues subsequently received from the privatisations and how they were accounted for...... I don't have the time. 

[breadandcheese]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I accept that the Tory Govt hasn't reduced the overall tax burden as much as some predecessors, due to the structural factors mentioned above - and the desire to reduce the deficit that you mention. That doesn't mean they've abandoned the ideology of low tax and low public spending. Policies such as jacking income tax personal allowances up to £11k+ and cutting higher-rate tax suggests low tax is still an ideological aim. Taking a hatchet to most public spending apart from the NHS (still hardly generous spending) suggests a continued belief in the small state - the current lull/tactical retreat notwithstanding.

 

Sorry, but the nature of your sources does matter. The Taxpayers' Alliance is a partisan campaign group with an axe to grind - just as, say, the Labour Party or a Guardian editorial would be. It cannot be treated as an objective source in the same way as the OBR. I just don't have the time to go looking at the data behind the claims of the TA - and, really, that's your job as the person who's quoting them. I'd be interested if you could find some figures to support their argument. So, overall, the nationalised industries and utilities were a moneyspinner for the Treasury, they reckon? That's counter-intuitive. Or were their costs and losses added into the accounts elsewhere, maybe increasing public spending? If the privatised industries/utilities were profitable overall, not only does it question the wisdom of privatising them, but you'd need to look at what happened to the revenues subsequently received from the privatisations and how they were accounted for...... I don't have the time. 

The Tory govt has been playing a PR game to create the image of a low tax party.  This image is supported by Labour as it suits them.  True, headline taxes have come down like Income tax and corporation tax, but the less glamorous ones that can be raised without being noticed have been raised.  Insurance premium tax, company car tax rates, second home taxes, dividend taxes have all increased over the last few Tory governments.  Pension allowance contributions, pension lifetime allowances, benefits to high earners have all been cut.

 

I agree that this is because the current Tory policy is aimed at deficit reduction and that is now the chief ideology rather than low taxes.  Which to be honest, I support.  It is a priority in my book to reduce the government's interest payments so that there is more in the pot for things the country needs.  And I think the will is there within the country for everyone to pay a little bit more to fund public services, even amongst Tory voters.  Although I suspect at some point, they will need to start raiding the foreign aid budget as that will be a popular vote winner.

 

In terms of it being up to me to prove that the Taxpayer Alliance figures are correct.  I'm not sure it's my job either.  But I haven't seen any reports rubbishing these figures that were put out nationally over various news outlets, which you would expect if they were wrong.

[l444ry]

1 hour ago, The Guvnor said:

I was aware of that. But they would be unable to fund their 18 month projects without it.

Contrary to what the Brexiteer liars keep repeating, the UK is legally bound to pay the £39 billion. Therefore, your point is irrelevant Guvnor.

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, l444ry said:

Contrary to what the Brexiteer liars keep repeating, the UK is legally bound to pay the £39 billion. Therefore, your point is irrelevant Guvnor.

Under what law, who is the upholder of said law and what is the punishment for breaking it?

[Claridge]

20 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Under what law, who is the upholder of said law and what is the punishment for breaking it?

Smacked bum