Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

Are you referring to the improvements to maternity conditions that Labour introduced in 2007? 

 

The UK led the way in writing much of the legislation so it’s fair to say we might have been able to do it for ourselves and probably unfair to say we are beholden to the EU law making regime, however if we’d have done it alone then other countries would have an edge on us in terms of productivity which is perhaps not a good idea economically. 

It’s a fair point, yes collectively strips away advantage but there is no reason why we can’t continue to lead or atleast keep up with the continent.

[Guest MattP]

1 hour ago, Swan Lesta said:

Are you referring to the improvements to maternity conditions that Labour introduced in 2007? 

 

The UK led the way in writing much of the legislation so it’s fair to say we might have been able to do it for ourselves and probably unfair to say we are beholden to the EU law making regime, however if we’d have done it alone then other countries would have an edge on us in terms of productivity which is perhaps not a good idea economically. 

Yes absolutely, this isn't party political, it's making the point that all these the EU "did for us" we could easily have done ourselves.

 

The Labour government did some terrific things, I have no idea why people would instead credit the European Union for it instead.
 

1 hour ago, Carl the Llama said:

It's a fair point that I worded my initial remark about SM & control poorly, but I've cleared up what I meant by that and I do believe the benefits issue is an important one because it strips benefit tourists of their incentive to up sticks and move to a country with a significantly higher cost of living, leaving you with immigrants who want to actively contribute to the labour force.

 

You may wish to clarify your own remark in bold up there though because it reads like you're asking for arbitrary deportations.

But this isn't controlling your borders is it? Not giving benefits to people who have came into the country is not government authority over the border, I'm not really sure how anyone can make the argument that it is?

 

On the last part, I have absolutely no idea why stating we can't refuse entry without good reason means I'm asking for arbitrary deportations.

[Carl the Llama]

3 minutes ago, MattP said:

But this isn't controlling your borders is it? Not giving benefits to people who have came into the country is not government authority over the border, I'm not really sure how anyone can make the argument that it is?

 

On the last part, I have absolutely no idea why stating we can't refuse entry without good reason means I'm asking for arbitrary deportations.

First point: No I guess not but it's still preventative and we do still have control in that a person needs to prove they have the right to cross our border by presenting the appropriate documents before crossing over from a Schengen nation.  The line that we have no control is a fallacy and as I've already stated, the lack of any significant noise regarding non-EU migrants makes the call for less EU migration a bit baffling.

 

Second point: Fine, but why would you want to deny somebody entry "without good reason"?  What would your parameters for refusal be?

[Finnegan]

You know Matt hates the EU when he'll big-up the Labour Party to bring it down 

[yorkie1999]

10 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

First point: No I guess not but it's still preventative and we do still have control in that a person needs to prove they have the right to cross our border by presenting the appropriate documents before crossing over from a Schengen nation.  The line that we have no control is a fallacy and as I've already stated, the lack of any significant noise regarding non-EU migrants makes the call for less EU migration a bit baffling.

 

Second point: Fine, but why would you want to deny somebody entry "without good reason"?  What would your parameters for refusal be?

The Kalergi Plan.

[Guest MattP]

16 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

First point: No I guess not but it's still preventative and we do still have control in that a person needs to prove they have the right to cross our border by presenting the appropriate documents before crossing over from a Schengen nation.  The line that we have no control is a fallacy and as I've already stated, the lack of any significant noise regarding non-EU migrants makes the call for less EU migration a bit baffling.

 

Second point: Fine, but why would you want to deny somebody entry "without good reason"?  What would your parameters for refusal be?

I would have the same immigration policy as most countries in the World do that our similar to ourselves, you acquire a work permit and are then allowed into the nation. I don't think it should be that you are allowed into the nation first and then we don't pay you benefits if you can't find work. I still think Freedom of Movement could work in practice, but you need the economies of the nations involved to be similar so you won't get large numbers migrating from poorer countries to richer ones, not only because of some of the social unrest you see in the former, but it's also pretty unethical to deprive the weaker economies in the bloc of their brightest minds.

Also, why should a Bulgarian or a Romanian get preferential treatment over and India or a Pakistani to live here as well? It seems bizarre to me we have all sorts of red tape and lengty process to bring in a doctor from Chennai but a car washer from Galati can wave a few pieces of paper at customs and he's in.

[fuchsntf]

14 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

 If you had a business of under 250 employees why on earth would you expand to give 10% of your business away.   The lack of compensation for enforced nationalisation is just as crazy, I believe that a lot of pension schemes are tied into some of these companies and so I am sure that that will end well too. 

 

I hope that greater scrutiny is given to these mad policies if an election is called. No wonder he was proposing measures to deal with capital flight, I mean they are not even hiding it anymore. It really is shit or bust.

The idea initself,isn't that bad,there is nothing really given away,you still have share holders.

One could argue,why should all and Sundry(shareholder) make profit on something they never helped to build.

Many forget,a business has a future,because it has the workers to build on..

Not all firms go on the exchange!!!

But workers who have a share in the firm,will have motivation in taking more interest in the quality they deliver...( Some British work ethic,as lost its pride),

 

Another point I believe is really mis-guided and actually brainless....

A good producing firm with quality and skilled workers and management will always be profitable,on its quality product(whatever that maybe)

So why in any world should precedence/crecedence be taken towards shareholders opinion and worries.

Even without one single shareholder..a company can be,can stay more then viable.

Our modern world,on a media and social standing..have put All a Companies employers, management to all workers levels, on a lower

respect-recognised--necessary  needed partner relationship than shareholders....

 

Shareholders are there for financial boosters,and self-indulgent financial investment...Not to make a company viable,on the basis

Of tittle-tattle one upmanship,of a stock-exchange.

Even without one stock-exchange,Business and work will be made and done.We have corrupted the whole human work ethic,when

a stock-exchange crash happens,it's the corruption of a totally false created financial platform,that it send us in a collapse of society.

Trust in firms quality and means of delivery,don't go amiss,import export needs don't go awry...

We as societies have allowed, an extra to financial gravy-support for companies to get out of our...normal level control,and control our

Working,consuming lives. To make less hard workers with numbers,financial-nuance,and shady-legal printing money nuance,

To take,have and keep to much an high power!!!

 

Why should fonds,even be a possibility,why should a group of share holders,make or break productive hard working companies failures..

All workers..from Boss.BoD,Executives,heads of dept.through to all employers work and product ,should be the only lives need

to serve the society.  Products need and viability in the market should be the only competition..not some ki d or group who wants to

have fun with partner stock brokers and kind,to start a run,to up their quotas and compensations,that puts firms and employees,

and towns out of business....while they laugh and get rich...

I aint a socialist,neither a conservative....but modern world stock markets have unbalanced this world more than the A-bomb!!

What's sickening...we don't even realise or accept it....

Edited 25 September 2018 by fuchsntf

[bovril]

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

I would have the same immigration policy as most countries in the World do that our similar to ourselves, you acquire a work permit and are then allowed into the nation. I don't think it should be that you are allowed into the nation first and then we don't pay you benefits if you can't find work. I still think Freedom of Movement could work in practice, but you need the economies of the nations involved to be similar so you won't get large numbers migrating from poorer countries to richer ones, not only because of some of the social unrest you see in the former, but it's also pretty unethical to deprive the weaker economies in the bloc of their brightest minds.

Also, why should a Bulgarian or a Romanian get preferential treatment over and India or a Pakistani to live here as well? It seems bizarre to me we have all sorts of red tape and lengty process to bring in a doctor from Chennai but a car washer from Galati can wave a few pieces of paper at customs and he's in.

Not really bizarre, those countries are part of the single market and India and Pakistan aren't. Presumably if India and Pakistan joined the single market their citizens would not need a visa to work in the UK. If you feel that the UK is too harsh on people from India and Pakistan then that's the fault of the British government, although both those countries do have sizable communities in the UK.

Also it kind of contradicts your first paragraph about not wanting large numbers moving from poorer countries to richer ones. Your average Romanian is comfortably wealthier than your average Pakistani. 

[Salisbury Fox]

2 hours ago, fuchsntf said:

The idea initself,isn't that bad,there is nothing really given away,you still have share holders.

One could argue,why should all and Sundry(shareholder) make profit on something they never helped to build.

Many forget,a business has a future,because it has the workers to build on..

Not all firms go on the exchange!!!

But workers who have a share in the firm,will have motivation in taking more interest in the quality they deliver...( Some British work ethic,as lost its pride),

 

Another point I believe is really mis-guided and actually brainless....

A good producing firm with quality and skilled workers and management will always be profitable,on its quality product(whatever that maybe)

So why in any world should precedence/crecedence be taken towards shareholders opinion and worries.

Even without one single shareholder..a company can be,can stay more then viable.

Our modern world,on a media and social standing..have put All a Companies employers, management to all workers levels, on a lower

respect-recognised--necessary  needed partner relationship than shareholders....

 

Shareholders are there for financial boosters,and self-indulgent financial investment...Not to make a company viable,on the basis

Of tittle-tattle one upmanship,of a stock-exchange.

Even without one stock-exchange,Business and work will be made and done.We have corrupted the whole human work ethic,when

a stock-exchange crash happens,it's the corruption of a totally false created financial platform,that it send us in a collapse of society.

Trust in firms quality and means of delivery,don't go amiss,import export needs don't go awry...

We as societies have allowed, an extra to financial gravy-support for companies to get out of our...normal level control,and control our

Working,consuming lives. To make less hard workers with numbers,financial-nuance,and shady-legal printing money nuance,

To take,have and keep to much an high power!!!

 

Why should fonds,even be a possibility,why should a group of share holders,make or break productive hard working companies failures..

All workers..from Boss.BoD,Executives,heads of dept.through to all employers work and product ,should be the only lives need

to serve the society.  Products need and viability in the market should be the only competition..not some ki d or group who wants to

have fun with partner stock brokers and kind,to start a run,to up their quotas and compensations,that puts firms and employees,

and towns out of business....while they laugh and get rich...

I aint a socialist,neither a conservative....but modern world stock markets have unbalanced this world more than the A-bomb!!

What's sickening...we don't even realise or accept it....

I can see why this would appeal to those who do not really appreciate that this policy would decimate investment in this country.  Unemployment therefore rise meaning inequality will still be there. People laugh when the comparisons are made with Venezuela, but I feel that this sort of policy aligned with a huge nationalisation programme is a far bigger risk than Brexit

[inckley fox]

I'm amazed by how incompetent the Labour Party is right now on Brexit. With every day it gets worse.

 

Their first choice is to go into a General Election, which would be one of three scenarios. First, May's Brexit deal vs. Corbyn's as-yet-unnegotiated deal, in which case I don't see why the election result would be far removed from what it is now.

 

Or a new Tory leader's unnegotiated Brexit deal vs. Corbyn's, in which case the Tories would win on the grounds that most of the public would prefer anyone other than Corbyn to be in charge, and would take the view that the new leader can't be much worse than the old ones.

 

Or a new Tory hard-Brexiter leader's no deal vs. Corbyn's May-esque deal, in which case a tired public may well just say 'oh, let's not go back down that road'. Corbyn wouldn't galvanise his own support, and even if he won he'd be the guy who'd 'betrayed Brexit' to the 10% of Labour voters who he'd be trying to represent, and also a traitor to the 90% who are pro-Remain.

 

If they can't pull off this masterstroke, they want a second referendum (even though they wouldn't be in government to force it through), which would offer a choice between May's deal (which Labour say they're going to vote down, and is unlikely to be agreed by the EU) or a very similar, as yet unknown deal vs. no deal (which Labour don't support either).

 

They had a meeting over this, the upshot of which was that Remain would have to be on the cards in the referendum (even though if they get the election they want, there will be no referendum and Remain would be off the table). Yet their own Shadow Chancellor failed to remember what was clearly the one key point of the meeting just a few hours later.

 

It's serious headache territory, and regardless of how much you might like aspects of Labour policy, you can't help thinking that from a point of view of competency, they simply can't govern. Even less so than the Tories. How many times have you attended a meeting and forgotten the one key point of it within the day, in an event for which you've prepared at length?

 

Corbyn's choices are to get behind May's deal; propose a new deal which maintains single market membership (and either push it through at election or via referendum) or suggest a new ballot with Remain on it, pushing it through either in or out of government. The leadership doesn't know whether they want one of these three, or some sort of paradoxical alternative which they haven't really got round to thinking about yet. 

 

The crazy thing is, if he stood aside and could find one single person with the standard charisma and competence of a normal human being, they'd be in power by next summer. As it stands, he, McDonnell and Momentum are guaranteeing that left wing ideals will be considered both dangerous and impractical for the next half century.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

The Labour party are baffling at the moment. Their Brexit policy is very far out of alignment from what most of their paying members and unions want but the leadership are pressing on with some form of hard Brexit regardless, mainly because this is the only way they can enact the kind of hard left agenda they desire. 

 

I really hope that people can become to see how incompetent this lot are, the majority of their far left policies are simply terrifying for the economy and British business. I have no doubt a Labour government will be many times more damaging for the economy that Brexit. 

[Kopfkino]

8 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The Labour party are baffling at the moment. Their Brexit policy is very far out of alignment from what most of their paying members and unions want but the leadership are pressing on with some form of hard Brexit regardless, mainly because this is the only way they can enact the kind of hard left agenda they desire. 

 

I really hope that people can become to see how incompetent this lot are, the majority of their far left policies are simply terrifying for the economy and British business. I have no doubt a Labour government will be many times more damaging for the economy that Brexit. 

 

The hopelessness of both parties is the only thing that keeps them both alive. It's difficult to see Labour as incompetent (as you're referring, I think people do see  it) whilst the Conservatives' Brexit paralysis creates far more worrying ineptitude.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

1 hour ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The hopelessness of both parties is the only thing that keeps them both alive. It's difficult to see Labour as incompetent (as you're referring, I think people do see  it) whilst the Conservatives' Brexit paralysis creates far more worrying ineptitude.

In fairness Teresa May is the only person I am aware of who has actually made a Brexit plan at all. Its all very well Labour and the Brexiteers telling us they would do it  differently but they are a lot of bluster and no substance, for me no other person has put forward a remotely credible plan. The whole thing is a cock up at present, I am pretty sure this is mostly because no one even consider the possibility that Leave would win. 

[Guest MattP]

21 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

In fairness Teresa May is the only person I am aware of who has actually made a Brexit plan at all. Its all very well Labour and the Brexiteers telling us they would do it  differently but they are a lot of bluster and no substance, for me no other person has put forward a remotely credible plan. The whole thing is a cock up at present, I am pretty sure this is mostly because no one even consider the possibility that Leave would win. 

It got a bit ridiculous today, Starmer saying "no one is ruling out remain" just a day after McDonnell and McCluskey ruled out remain.

 

I'd have a lot for respect for Labour if they were honest now, just be open and say we aren't taking a position and whatever happens we'll use it to try and get power rather than commit to anything. In the mean time we'll continue to back anything from a second referendum to a Brexit outside the single market with a farcical line about "a customs union" alongside it.

 

The problem of course the Tories have is their plan isn't going to work, time to decide whether it's Norway or Canada and then put it to parliament. If she can get 100 moderate Labour MPS go Norway, if she can't it's Canada and dare Soubry etc to cause an election. 

[fuchsntf]

2 hours ago, Salisbury Fox said:

I can see why this would appeal to those who do not really appreciate that this policy would decimate investment in this country.  Unemployment therefore rise meaning inequality will still be there. People laugh when the comparisons are made with Venezuela, but I feel that this sort of policy aligned with a huge nationalisation programme is a far bigger risk than Brexit

Oh on Nationalisation...It's not the word or planning for it....It's now it's imlemented,and allowing to much politics and competion,in the higher

ranks of the management,who use it for a springboard,and are not too conscientious of success or failure,in the actual product and services.

 

Too many positions are given,where they are not needed,and often used as jobs-for-the-boys!!!

Our Hospitals,our power-services,and our trains,should be under The national Government. No mixing of finances,like borrowing from one,

to pay for inspriring,or even decent projects!!  Each must finance their own.

 

If you want to look at the failings,look towards the top,and over balanced admin.wasted projects.Even the privatisation has ruined and forgot,

the reasons,why the should be serving the customer and not themselves....

 

And ffs,using Venezuela as any comparison,to any North Western European govt,is simply laughable!!!!

When some of not all of major companies,would be nationalised those companies  who base service,is direct to the customer,

like Hospitals,Energy/power,Trains....should be in the people's hand,then they do have some power over their basic way their lives

are ran,and not controlled from other outside forces.....Privatisation kept trains,late,unmodern,unorganized ,more than ever incompetent

timetables and cancellations....Jobs lost because of non-existent or ghost trains,that should of been....There can the electorate,make

their local politics make waves down the line.Private..golden handshakes,and doing a runner....!!

 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

2 hours ago, inckley fox said:

I'm amazed by how incompetent the Labour Party is right now on Brexit. With every day it gets worse.

 

Their first choice is to go into a General Election, which would be one of three scenarios. First, May's Brexit deal vs. Corbyn's as-yet-unnegotiated deal, in which case I don't see why the election result would be far removed from what it is now.

 

Or a new Tory leader's unnegotiated Brexit deal vs. Corbyn's, in which case the Tories would win on the grounds that most of the public would prefer anyone other than Corbyn to be in charge, and would take the view that the new leader can't be much worse than the old ones.

 

Or a new Tory hard-Brexiter leader's no deal vs. Corbyn's May-esque deal, in which case a tired public may well just say 'oh, let's not go back down that road'. Corbyn wouldn't galvanise his own support, and even if he won he'd be the guy who'd 'betrayed Brexit' to the 10% of Labour voters who he'd be trying to represent, and also a traitor to the 90% who are pro-Remain.

 

If they can't pull off this masterstroke, they want a second referendum (even though they wouldn't be in government to force it through), which would offer a choice between May's deal (which Labour say they're going to vote down, and is unlikely to be agreed by the EU) or a very similar, as yet unknown deal vs. no deal (which Labour don't support either).

 

They had a meeting over this, the upshot of which was that Remain would have to be on the cards in the referendum (even though if they get the election they want, there will be no referendum and Remain would be off the table). Yet their own Shadow Chancellor failed to remember what was clearly the one key point of the meeting just a few hours later.

 

It's serious headache territory, and regardless of how much you might like aspects of Labour policy, you can't help thinking that from a point of view of competency, they simply can't govern. Even less so than the Tories. How many times have you attended a meeting and forgotten the one key point of it within the day, in an event for which you've prepared at length?

 

Corbyn's choices are to get behind May's deal; propose a new deal which maintains single market membership (and either push it through at election or via referendum) or suggest a new ballot with Remain on it, pushing it through either in or out of government. The leadership doesn't know whether they want one of these three, or some sort of paradoxical alternative which they haven't really got round to thinking about yet. 

 

The crazy thing is, if he stood aside and could find one single person with the standard charisma and competence of a normal human being, they'd be in power by next summer. As it stands, he, McDonnell and Momentum are guaranteeing that left wing ideals will be considered both dangerous and impractical for the next half century.

This is all pretty much spot on. We've got one of the worst governments in living memory trying to guide us through one of the most serious peacetime events in our history, and on the other side of the benches an opposition that is equally as incompetent and divided. 

 

Pretty depressing by all accounts. 

[Salisbury Fox]

29 minutes ago, fuchsntf said:

And ffs,using Venezuela as any comparison,to any North Western European govt,is simply laughable!!!!

When some of not all of major companies,would be nationalised those companies  who base service,is direct to the customer,

like Hospitals,Energy/power,Trains....should be in the people's hand,then they do have some power over their basic way their lives

are ran,and not controlled from other outside forces.....Privatisation kept trains,late,unmodern,unorganized ,more than ever incompetent

timetables and cancellations....Jobs lost because of non-existent or ghost trains,that should of been...

 

Rubbish, Venezuela is a fair comparison as the model being proposed is not one of a current Western European government.  Taking over a business without offering compensation is not being done by anywhere else in Western Europe unless you can provide an example?  I seem to remember Argentina expropriating Repsol and look at how that country is doing now (I accept that they did agree to pay around half the price originally demanded). 

 

A mix of nationalisation and privatisation would be the right approach by both leading parties, but to suggest that a nationalised service offers a better service than a privatised one is disengenious as that was certainly not the case with British Rail. 

[fuchsntf]

18 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Rubbish, Venezuela is a fair comparison as the model being proposed is not one of a current Western European government.  Taking over a business without offering compensation is not being done by anywhere else in Western Europe unless you can provide an example?  I seem to remember Argentina expropriating Repsol and look at how that country is doing now (I accept that they did agree to pay around half the price originally demanded). 

 

A mix of nationalisation and privatisation would be the right approach by both leading parties, but to suggest that a nationalised service offers a better service than a privatised one is disengenious as that was certainly not the case with British Rail. 

Then you take that non-rubbish,and go and live in any of those surrounding countries...Then report from Venezuela!!!

[davieG]

26 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

Rubbish, Venezuela is a fair comparison as the model being proposed is not one of a current Western European government.  Taking over a business without offering compensation is not being done by anywhere else in Western Europe unless you can provide an example?  I seem to remember Argentina expropriating Repsol and look at how that country is doing now (I accept that they did agree to pay around half the price originally demanded). 

 

A mix of nationalisation and privatisation would be the right approach by both leading parties, but to suggest that a nationalised service offers a better service than a privatised one is disengenious as that was certainly not the case with British Rail. 

British Rail was seriously underfunded especially when compared to how much successive Goverments have pumped in to keep the privatisation going.

 

"Britain’s privatised railways have been getting around £5 billion on average in government support over the last five years. In the last five years of the 1980s—the earliest period we have figures for before privatisation—it was an average of £1.6 billion in today’s money."   -  https://fullfact.org/economy/government-funding-rail-industry-bbcqt/

[davieG]

Labour delegates have approved a motion that would keep all options - including a fresh referendum - on the table if MPs are deadlocked over Brexit.

It was passed by a show of hands at the party conference in Liverpool.

The vast majority were in favour of the motion, with only a small number against.

Leader Jeremy Corbyn - who has previously ruled out another EU referendum - has said he will respect the result of the vote.

Sir Keir Starmer said earlier that the option of staying in the EU would be on the ballot paper in any future referendum if Labour gets its way.

In his party conference speech, the shadow Brexit secretary said all options should be kept on the table, including a so-called People's Vote, to "stop a destructive Tory Brexit".

But a senior Unite official said another vote would "reopen the wounds of Brexit" not heal them.

Labour's policy had been to force an election if MPs are deadlocked over Brexit but members succeeded in getting a debate on getting a fresh referendum on to the agenda at the conference.

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

On ‎24‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 15:05, bovril said:

I'm convinced that Wymeswold and Dangerous Tiger are the same poster. Similar sentence structure, overuse of commas and weird shift from formal to semi-formal in the same sentence.

Who the mastermind is behind those two though remains a mystery... 

 

[Salisbury Fox]

7 minutes ago, davieG said:

British Rail was seriously underfunded especially when compared to how much successive Goverments have pumped in to keep the privatisation going.

 

"Britain’s privatised railways have been getting around £5 billion on average in government support over the last five years. In the last five years of the 1980s—the earliest period we have figures for before privatisation—it was an average of £1.6 billion in today’s money."   -  https://fullfact.org/economy/government-funding-rail-industry-bbcqt/

That article indicates that we are now using the railways far more than in the 80s and so accepts that costs would be more. It also takes an average over 5 years, but this still includes massive one off costs of crossrail and HS2.

[davieG]

4 minutes ago, Salisbury Fox said:

That article indicates that we are now using the railways far more than in the 80s and so accepts that costs would be more. It also takes an average over 5 years, but this still includes massive one off costs of crossrail and HS2.

Well of course there's more using them when the facilities the tax payer has provided have improved significantly.

 

[Salisbury Fox]

1 minute ago, davieG said:

Well of course there's more using them when the facilities the tax payer has provided have improved significantly.

 

So by definition it will cost more

[davieG]

1 minute ago, Salisbury Fox said:

So by definition it will cost more

Yes so by definition British Rail were underfunded so it's unfair to compare how they performed against a proper funded half privatised alternative.