The I cant believe it’s not politics thread.

[dsr-burnley]

17 minutes ago, Daggers said:

I demand the final say on how my next operation is performed because democracy.

Democracy doesn't so much issue rules about how you live your own life, but how the nation as a whole lives theirs.  So if you want your operation to be done on your kitchen table by a part qualified vet, you can.  But you can't enforce that on anyone else unless the majority of people insist that should be the case.

[danny.]

24 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I really don't understand the objection.  I strongly suspect my taxes are going to rise shortly which will make me worse off.  Why should I accept it?  Because that's democracy.  The elected government wants to raise taxes, which I don't, but I have to accept it unless I can find enough like-minded people to vote for a government that does not want to raise taxes.

Your argument makes no sense because the government was voted in on a manifesto of not rising taxes. 

[Zear0]

0.75% to 3%.  Know a few people due for a remortgage soon which won't be fun for them.  Still predicting rates to 4.75% next summer though (down from 6% thanks to the Truss car crash so a small mercy).

[bovril]

30 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I really don't understand the objection.  I strongly suspect my taxes are going to rise shortly which will make me worse off.  Why should I accept it?  Because that's democracy.  The elected government wants to raise taxes, which I don't, but I have to accept it unless I can find enough like-minded people to vote for a government that does not want to raise taxes.

 

I understand that in a sense, it is better to have a benevolent and wise dictator making the important decisions and not letting the people have a say.  But if you do that, how do you ensure that it isn't someone like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Napoleon or Pol Pot or even Putin who is in charge?  Democracy is the biggest safeguard against dictatorship, and just because we may be a little financially better off in the short term if we don't have democracy, does not (in my view) make it a good idea.

This seems paradoxical to me. You're saying democracy is the best safeguard against dictatorship but you're also saying people should accept certain decisions made by the government (e.g. trade barriers with our neighbours) in perpetuity. You even give the example of tax rises which I don't believe anybody voted for. 

[leicsmac]

33 minutes ago, dsr-burnley said:

I really don't understand the objection.  I strongly suspect my taxes are going to rise shortly which will make me worse off.  Why should I accept it?  Because that's democracy.  The elected government wants to raise taxes, which I don't, but I have to accept it unless I can find enough like-minded people to vote for a government that does not want to raise taxes.

 

I understand that in a sense, it is better to have a benevolent and wise dictator making the important decisions and not letting the people have a say.  But if you do that, how do you ensure that it isn't someone like Hitler or Stalin or Mussolini or Napoleon or Pol Pot or even Putin who is in charge?  Democracy is the biggest safeguard against dictatorship, and just because we may be a little financially better off in the short term if we don't have democracy, does not (in my view) make it a good idea.

That's a pretty typical, and accurate, argument in favour of democracy. Power, especially unaccountable power, almost always corrupts.

 

Perhaps though the best form of government isn't one or another, but dependent on the situation both locally and worldwide at any particular time.

 

NB. Ideally a direct democracy would work best in all situations, but that would rely on a populace that was informed, and critically, have the time and inclination to be informed.

[Mickyblueeyes]

Wow. Honestly, wow. 

[Dahnsouff]

7 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That's a pretty typical, and accurate, argument in favour of democracy. Power, especially unaccountable power, almost always corrupts.

 

Perhaps though the best form of government isn't one or another, but dependent on the situation both locally and worldwide at any particular time.

 

NB. Ideally a direct democracy would work best in all situations, but that would rely on a populace that was informed, and critically, have the time and inclination to be informed.

Brexit says hold my beer  

[Zear0]

"The Bank of England has also warned that the UK is facing its longest recession since the great depression - a century ago.  In its outlook for the UK economy, it said that a downturn will likely last for two years and that the unemployment rate will nearly double.  The Bank had previously expected the UK to fall into recession at the end of this year and it would last for the entirety of 2023.  It now forecasts that the UK economy already entered a downturn in the summer, which will continue for next year and into the first half of 2024 – a possible general election year.  While it will not be the UK’s deepest downturn, it will be the longest since records began in the 1920s.  Inflation, which hit 10.1% in September, is expected to peak at 11% this winter before falling next year."

 

Might want to think twice about that early election, the pain has barely begun.

[weller54]

2 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

"The Bank of England has also warned that the UK is facing its longest recession since the great depression - a century ago.  In its outlook for the UK economy, it said that a downturn will likely last for two years and that the unemployment rate will nearly double.  The Bank had previously expected the UK to fall into recession at the end of this year and it would last for the entirety of 2023.  It now forecasts that the UK economy already entered a downturn in the summer, which will continue for next year and into the first half of 2024 – a possible general election year.  While it will not be the UK’s deepest downturn, it will be the longest since records began in the 1920s.  Inflation, which hit 10.1% in September, is expected to peak at 11% this winter before falling next year."

 

Might want to think twice about that early election, the pain has barely begun.

Absolutely nothing to do with Brexit though 😂😂.....

It's a Global problem.

[Dahnsouff]

1 minute ago, weller54 said:

Absolutely nothing to do with Brexit though 😂😂.....

It's a Global problem.

Can be both you know  

[weller54]

4 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Can be both you know  

Of course, but politicians and the deluded Brexiteers will never admit that Brexshit has even contributed to the downturn!!

[Zear0]

5 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Can be both you know  

[leicsmac]

31 minutes ago, Zear0 said:

"The Bank of England has also warned that the UK is facing its longest recession since the great depression - a century ago.  In its outlook for the UK economy, it said that a downturn will likely last for two years and that the unemployment rate will nearly double.  The Bank had previously expected the UK to fall into recession at the end of this year and it would last for the entirety of 2023.  It now forecasts that the UK economy already entered a downturn in the summer, which will continue for next year and into the first half of 2024 – a possible general election year.  While it will not be the UK’s deepest downturn, it will be the longest since records began in the 1920s.  Inflation, which hit 10.1% in September, is expected to peak at 11% this winter before falling next year."

 

Might want to think twice about that early election, the pain has barely begun.

....so, look for more work here then?

 

29 minutes ago, weller54 said:

Absolutely nothing to do with Brexit though 😂😂.....

It's a Global problem.

 

27 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Can be both you know  

And those global problems really aren't going to go away.

[Tommy G]

Feel sorry for anyone needing to remortgage their home between now and the end of 2023.

[leicsmac]

54 minutes ago, Dahnsouff said:

Brexit says hold my beer  

Yep, that can of worms opened six years ago and shows no sign of being closed again. Exhibit A.

[RoboFox]

3 hours ago, urban.spaceman said:

Leicestershire's finest

 

 

 

 

 

 

What a surprise. He's a odious, slimy fvcking toad of a man. What a disgusting sack of shit. 

 

Even amongst his corrupt Tory contemporaries, he stands out head and shoulders as being particularly unscrupulous. Embarrassing to have his name associated with our noble county. 

 

A by-election should be called immediately. We've had enough of lazy, bent politicians who are nowhere near fit for the job.

 

Edited 3 November 2022 by RoboFox

[David Hankey]

I wish I had lived through times when interest rates were 3% when I first got on the property ladder back in the 70s.

 

 

[Tommy G]

7 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I wish I had lived through times when interest rates were 3% when I first got on the property ladder back in the 70s.

 

 

How much was your mortgage repayments as a proportion of income? Just look at house price changes between the 70s and now and compare to real wage growth. It isn't even comparable 

[David Hankey]

2 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

How much was your mortgage repayments as a proportion of income? Just look at house price changes between the 70s and now and compare to real wage growth. It isn't even comparable 

I know would have been far better off had interest rates been 3%. As it was they were between 9 and 11%.

[grobyfox1990]

11 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I wish I had lived through times when interest rates were 3% when I first got on the property ladder back in the 70s.

 

 

 

3 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

How much was your mortgage repayments as a proportion of income? Just look at house price changes between the 70s and now and compare to real wage growth. It isn't even comparable 

Innit. To counter this ridiculous sentiment with my own, if you lived through the 70s in the UK when everything was handed to you and you aren't extremely comfortable/rich by now, you have failed.

 

I don't know how this narrative doesn't get as much airtime as the 'it was worse in my day' nonsense.

[David Hankey]

1 minute ago, grobyfox1990 said:

 

Innit. To counter this ridiculous sentiment with my own, if you lived through the 70s in the UK when everything was handed to you and you aren't extremely comfortable/rich by now, you have failed.

 

I don't know how this narrative doesn't get as much airtime as the 'it was worse in my day' nonsense.

Precisely, what was "handed" to me?

[ealingfox]

2 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I know would have been far better off had interest rates been 3%. As it was they were between 9 and 11%.

 

And how much better off would you have been if your house had cost 500k rather than 50k?

[leicsmac]

9 minutes ago, Tommy G said:

How much was your mortgage repayments as a proportion of income? Just look at house price changes between the 70s and now and compare to real wage growth. It isn't even comparable 

To back this up:

 

 

4 minutes ago, David Hankey said:

I know would have been far better off had interest rates been 3%. As it was they were between 9 and 11%.

...not if your house was twice the price compared to your income.

[Dahnsouff]

12 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

To back this up:

 

 

...not if your house was twice the price compared to your income.

Although this is unfortunately true, it does miss a rather significant factor, specifically demand or rather shortage of available properties (OFten in the most desired locations)

[Leicester_Loyal]

Where's that V shaped economic recovery we were promised during COVID lockdown?