Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Nick]

It wasn't long ago I watched an episode where I questioned the limited range in panel views...

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2016/01/14/bbc-question-time-criticised-by-viewers-for-right-wing-unbalanced-panel_n_8984288.html

 

Though I'm bored and have begun to question there being any purpose in these programs. I watched interviews today and PM's QT's and it was disgusting. Soundbites and spin from all sides - no questions ever answered directly. we are voting for actors with rehearsed lines hungry to represent themselves and others with no real motivations than to seemingly enhance their reputations, careers and powers.

 

[Jon the Hat]

4 hours ago, Buce said:

 

That's the way to do it.

 

 

Similar.

 

FT is definitely a distraction, though; I went out canoeing a couple of weeks ago, and every time I stopped to rest/eat I found myself logging on automatically.

I bought a canoe the other week.  What you got?

[Foxxed]

 

Good to see May found that magic money tree after searching for it for so long.

 

Aren't the Scottish Tories pissed about Northern Ireland being bribed and not them, after they decided to vote Tory as well. There's something about the Barnett formula and some Scots claiming they'll need a billion too. Bung parliament!

[Buce]

Just now, Jon the Hat said:

I bought a canoe the other week.  What you got?

 

I borrowed my friend's 15' Canadian 'Old Town' on that occasion; I'm looking to buy one for myself in the next couple of weeks.

 

What did you buy?

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

 

Good to see May found that magic money tree after searching for it for so long.

 

Aren't the Scottish Tories pissed about Northern Ireland being bribed and not them, after they decided to vote Tory as well. There's something about the Barnett formula and some Scots claiming they'll need a billion too. Bung parliament!

If it keeps Cvnty McTwatface out of office it's money well spent.

[Buce]

Just now, Webbo said:

If it keeps Cvnty McTwatface out of office it's money well spent.

 

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

This is why there needs to be a serious review of all of the Public sector by an independent body. I have worked in several public sector organisations and I have overseen massive efficiency savings, much higher productivity and better service as a result when I left. There needs to be more consistency, you have some NHS trusts spending more buying toilet rolls from a wholesaler than they cost in ASDA, there are wasted supplies (I knew of a box of latex based bandages being sent out to a latex intolerant patient, for obvious reasons this was returned but had to be incinerated (despite all the bandages still being sealed) because it had been sent to a patients home and may have been tampered with), expensive drugs (branded drugs are purchased instead of unbranded, prescriptions are made for things like paracetamol just 28p is Tesco. )

 

The trouble in most of these organisations is the middle management, often ineffectual, creating demoralising environment and policies in the organisations. When faced with the prospects of redundancies they always perhaps naturally look to protect and justify their own positions.  Yes hospitals, schools etc. need effective management as do private businesses but it you look at the structure of most public sector organisations they are drastically top heavy in comparison to their private sector counterparts. I did a case study surrounding the level of management in a major retailer and a similar number of authority run education establishments, the difference was astounding.

 

The government in my eyes has not failed because the country is still solvent, we have record numbers of people in employment and the economy is growing albeit slowly since Brexit. The system is under massive pressure because of a growing aging population. More funding is needed perhaps but it has to be sustainable funding, I would fully support a tax rises (For all) to pay for better services, what I don't support and I feel is counter productive is taxing businesses more whilst asking them to pay a higher minimum wage, I also disagree with Punitive taxes on the rich, which as France proved drives them overseas or into avoidance schemes.

There are definitely savings theoretically possible through procurement but the difficulty is ensuring safety. Some of the the things you cite are actually happening - there has been a significant purge of high cost prescribing, for example, over the past 5 years. Imho done of the biggest savings of attached to the private sector elements of our healthcare system - pharmacists for example have no duty to look after public funds and so look for schemes to maximise profits through shady practices. Prescriptions for very low cost over the counter drugs is something that should have been dealt with a long time ago. The thing is, locally management have literally ripped up the floorboards in order to find savings - it dominates everything that goes on within the nhs - but there are national schemes that cost us which locally they have no control over and have to follow.

 

The difference between the public sector and private sector, though, is the level of regulation put in place to ensure every element can be made transparent, safe and auditable. This is why there are more managers -  endless statutory duties that must be carried out. You can say it's crazy a health trust doesn't just buy toilet paper from costco but it has no choice. It has to go through a thousand public sector procurement hoops, there are probably rules about the type of material, number of sheets, 2, 3 or 4 ply etc (extrapoloting somewhat but you get the idea of why i hope).

 

I preferred this post to the ones you wrote earlier although i clearly don't agree with your politics. The thing is, on a local level, schools and hospitals etc have made all the savings they can. I have seen this with my own eyes in various high level meetings with directors/non-execs. They need more money to keep offering the services we expect. There is more than enough money in this country for those services.  If there are savings to be made through looking at national models we should not be holding back sufficient funding for schools to stay open all week whilst we wait for theoretical centralised savings to be found. 

[Guest Kopfkino]

 

19 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You're not too far off. You've just gotta realise that underlying most arguments ideologically obsessed with the free market is a lack of belief in humanity itself.

 

Might one really argue that a lack of freedom explains why the Duke of Westminster and a person brought up in poverty have grossly unequal wealth and opportunity? Surely other factors are at play - such as inherited wealth or lack thereof?

 

No, I wouldn't want Messi to give his salary to Cov players. But slightly more redistribution of wealth within football would be a good thing. Complete freedom whereby the richest clubs get to exercise their freedom to demand all the money and give none to the smaller clubs doesn't seem a good idea....but that is the logic of the unregulated free market. Who wants to see Scunthorpe v. Rochdale? Let them go bust.....or Pompey or Cov.....or maybe Leicester in a few years? There will always be inequality of income based on inequality of ability - or effort. But it's not good for society (football society or wider society) for it to be given free rein so that some end up bathing in champagne while others lie in the gutter.

 

In Scandinavia, the wise hand of the state ensured not equality but greater equality than here - less disparity between the richest and the poorest. Yet living standards there are higher than here, despite our greater worship of the free market. A few years back, a survey showed that the happiest societies were not those that were the richest. They were the societies with decent living standards AND comparatively low levels of inequality. There is a great deal of unhappiness in the USA, Brazil and Mexico - and increasingly in the UK. Is that because those countries have less free market than Germany or Scandinavia? Is the greater inequality in the USA, Brazil and Mexico due to excessive state intervention in those nations, compared to much greater freedom of the market in Germany and Scandinavia......I think not. 

 

I will start off by saying that any serious thinker/believer in free market economics possesses what I would call the ultra free market ideology. Maybe there are those out there that think everything should be left to the market and that those that fail deserve to fail. But that's not a view that many would genuinely take nor entertain because at the end of the day we see at as a social system which is most beneficial to all. There is an acceptance that markets can't necessarily be completely unfettered; government has a role to play in setting and enforcing the rules to enhance the mechanism of the market by, mainly, solving the problem of asymmetric information (information is key to making the system work). Of course a government then has a responsibility to defend the nation and uphold law and order. It is also true, that being as we come from a point where institutions and norms already exist, the government has to play a role in some provisions, like education, but there is no reason why the market ideas and principles can't be used in that provision.

 

I think that is completely wrong to say that the free market idea lacks faith in humanity. It's the system, that I believe, shows the most faith in humanity and the benefits of human interaction. The system does not care what your background is, what religion you are, what class you are etc; it only cares that you produce something that I want. It's the only effective way to break the barriers of humans who might hate each other to help each other. I don't see that there is a better system for co-ordinating our activities than the voluntary co-operation of a market system, all other ways seem to use coercion. How is it a lack of belief in humanity to encourage someone with a comparative advantage to use that to generate something that is valuable to others? Referencing what you said to leicsmac, the belief that markets establish a meritocracy has been allowed to assimilate into the debate wrongly. The market doesn't reward based on merit, it rewards based on value which are quite different things, but conflation of the two has been allowed. Financial compensation is determined by the value to others of one's creation. A true free market system does not care what qualities you have, it cares how you make that work for the benefit of other people. This allows anyone to market themselves in a way that closes the gap - regrettably someone like Katie Price had this down to a tee. Fundamentally, markets are an anti-elitist, social force. 

 

Of course that's still a problem of a lack of freedom. Just that dates back to land owners and the monarchy way back in the 1500s or whatever, predating even the title of the Duke of Westminster. But of course inheritance is a problem for equal opportunity and one that I'm not sure how to tackle and I don't think has been tackled properly from free market thinkers. I could go philosophical and suggest that inheritance itself inhibits the freedom of the person inheriting as well as the person who can't inherit so actually inheritance is intrinsically a bad thing, but similarly if I can't pass property to offspring then I don't actually own that property so I lack freedom. Anyway, the point is, inheritance is a sticking point because I, and most free marketeers I believe, wholeheartedly aim for equal opportunity as this is the most beneficial to society. But then I don't know how to deal with inheritance. I could tax inheritance at 100%. Whilst this doesn't create equal opportunity because people can still be brought up in different wealth backgrounds, it does mean that people have to become self-sufficient because  they won't have inheritance to prop them up no matter. That being said, only long-term investment goods/assets gets taxed so as I approach death, I switch to short-term consumption goods. This changes the balance of the economy, as the production of long-term goods becomes relatively less valuable/important compared to short-term consumption goods. Is this good for an economy? I suspect that it very much isn't. Now the tax being at 0% has less of an effect on the changes in production in a free market world because you get utility from consumption goods whilst alive so you won't shift solely to long term goods. But I accept 0% probably isn't optimal either. But then no tax on inheritance below 100% gives equal opportunity, the people with little to no inheritance will still have little to nothing. And you might well be creating an inefficient transfer whereby somebody could use inheritance to create something that creates wealth or a socially valuable good etc which they then don't do if the inheritance is taxed. Or someone might use inheritance as their pension and taxing it creates a further pension burden for the government etc etc. Does an inheritance tax actually just hit hardest those that can't afford an accountant? So yes there is unequal opportunity as result of inheritance and therefore it is something that restricts freedom and I don't know the solution. But here I see a great example of a society that puts equality ahead of freedom, would not achieve either. This is something I could easily have written pages on so it's difficult and I apologise for the lack of structure and fluidity in that answer.

 

Football is a difficult one, I'm not entirely sure it's quite applicable to the real world but hey I brought up, albeit quite differently. If Scunthorpe v Rochdale has a value to someone it will survive. Portsmouth had value to someone so they survived. Quite simply though, football hasn't been allowed to be a free market in the fact that the Premier League has effectively been granted a monopoly on money in football in this country; inherently football therefore isn't a free market. In fact you can say the old days of football worked well as a free market but concentration of power has destroyed that competitive edge in football. Monopoly restricts freedom for everyone that isn't the monopoly so the problem isn't freedom, it's freedom concentrated on Man Utd etc. Football is very different to most things in the fact that you need a very particular set of skills which prohibits me finding some comparative advantage which allows me to provide value akin to that of Messi. I'm not sure that it's not good for there to be free reign because actually rewarding on value should produce a better product of football for me to watch as a football fan. Maybe it's less good for me if I was a Coventry fan and not a football fan. I mean this one is difficult, maybe there is a hint that it doesn't work for football but then I don't think America's socialist way of sport works any better, in fact you don't really get a Scunthorpe v Rochdale arrangement there in the first place. 

 

I'm glad you've used the example of Scandinavia but I query why you believe it to be optimal? I know the left likes to hold it up as a bastion of what is possible given a system of social democracy ( a term used to detoxify socialism) but is it actually? All these things come out about how great Scandinavia is and immediately people have assumed causality being this 'Nordic model' that they have. However, is the success of these countries not actually predicated on culture and their homogenous populations. I would suggest this has an effect on the happiness of societies, I'd be interested to see the survey you mention to see.  The Scandinavians have a strong culture of co-operation, trust/honesty, individual responsibility, punctuality, and hard work. When Scandinavians first migrated to America, they gained a reputation for being hardworking, honest, and reliable. This had to be built up for survival due to climate etc and it was instilled in them, because as farmers they got to enjoy the fruits of their labour with property rights being upheld so they had incentive. Nordic countries had strong agriculture before industrialism despite a climate that hampered Farming in Russia struggled because farmers were reduced to serfdom. There's poem about it called “Saarijarven Paavo”. The point is, their culture is very useful for a successful economy and we can't just transform ourselves into that (Kleven from LSE says as much). I admit that doesn't tell us whether the Scandinavian model is better or not. But let's compare Scandinavians to people with a Scandinavian background in America because you'd expect them to share culture and norms but are living in slightly different systems. Now, the first migrants from Scandinavia to America were actually people who were relatively worse off (one of a few papers documenting this) so it can't be levelled that they started from a better position. Anyway, living standards are 59% higher for Finnish Americans compared to Finns, Danish Americans are 55% better off than those in Denmark, and Swedish Americans have 53% higher living standards. Admittedly Norwegians are 3% better off than Norwegian Americans but I think oil wealth plays a huuuuge part for Norway (in fact Norway almost have a magic money tree if they want it). Again, apart from Norway, in all cases unemployment is lower for those in America, despite the fact that the Nordic system tends to underestimate unemployment. The absolute poverty rate, whilst higher overall for America, is lower for Scandinavian migrants than their cousins back home. I don't have figures for Iceland, probs cos there's few Icelandic migrants. Iceland is the least enthusiastic about the Nordic model anyway. Basically, I'm suggesting that America's economic system has allowed people of Nordic origin to do better than their social democratic system back home. It seems to me there's a bit of the case with Scandinavia that "you'd rather the poor were poorer so long as the rich are less rich"

 

We can look at equality as well. Sweden was already more equal than Western countries in 1920 when it was still very much a free market economy. It continued to increase prior to 1970. By 1950, Scandinavian countries already had top income shares that were lower than elsewhere. Denmark was already more equal in the late 19th century. Historically they have been far more equal in the first place, even in times where they truly embraced free market economics. The OECD published figures for income inequality for the years between 2010-2014 which showed Slovenia to be the most equal country in the world. Slovenia has a tax rate lower than the UK and also a flatter tax rate. Czech Republic was in the top 6 with an even lower tax rate and Slovakia was also in there. The other three countries were Denmark, Norway and Iceland whilst Finland and Sweden were in the top 10 as well. So what the Scandinavians have in common with Slovenia, Czech and Slovakia isn't strong state intervention, it's fairly homogenous populations. The Scandinavians admittedly do well on the Better Life Index, but so do Australia and Switzerland but I don't see a hankering to follow the Swiss model. So does the US actually and with a population that is far from homogenous which causes a lot of its structural problems, I'd say that's pretty impressive.

 

Maybe we can also consider the fact the Nordic welfare model is beginning to suffer from the problems that Reagan and even Roosevelt warned of. Lindbeck is a Swedish economist who is really pushing this now it would seem. There's a good study by Dahl, Kostol and Mogstag about the welfare state's erosion of norms and the fact it can create a poverty trap. Maybe we can look at the effect of their social democratic policies on job creation which fell to almost 0 in the private sector prior to their crisis in the 90s which has led to much economic reform which is increasingly market based. Or we can maybe consider that lower levels of freedom as a result of state intervention has led to fewer women being in top positions in Nordic countries and suffering a lack of career development. In Nordic countries, top positions filled by women is up to 15% lower whilst the share of women as top earners is also lower. Norway has no female CEOs in its 60 biggest firms despite having quotas for women on boards. This is in a society that dates back to the Vikings who had fairly high gender equality (for example they carried weapons and fought). Maybe we could consider the fact that immigrants in the US have higher social mobility than those in Scandinavia, possibly suggesting the Nordic system has problems with social mobility. The employment rate for Somalian immigrants in Sweden is 21%, in the US it is 54%. It seems to me that the more free-market system is the one that believes in people and maybe, if what you say is true, "I'm not sure how many people with no capital and no skills are demanding more unrestrained free markets." they should do. The point there is, this system, despite being heralded, doesn't seem to be able to pull people up from the bottom.

 

Anyway, I will stop there. I was glad you mentioned Scandinavia as it's something I've done a lot of research on recently given I've removed myself from the uni fold and have wasted time looking at things that interest me rather than obtaining a full time job which really needs to be a priority now. The Nordic argument is one that interests me and there's a lot of good free-market stuff there (Vouchers for education is a brilliant Friedman kind of policy and one I am fully behind). The lack of belief in the markets I believe comes from people being misinformed about them and incorrectly associating it with this crony corporatism that actually exists and is protected by government.

 

This post ended up a lot longer than I thought it would be. Maybe it's a sign I need to sort my life out or start occupying my mind a little bit better. Still it ended up being a strangely good hangover cure.

 

PS if anyone wants to give a job to me then hit me up, I didn't fail just decided to leave.

 

[James.]

1 hour ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

 

Why the assumption that will drive people to vote Labour?  Corbyn and McDon would favour a hard Brexit, their policy reflects that.  

That's not the point. The current government will take the fall. Labour are probably quite relieved they are not in power while this shit show unfolds.

 

1 hour ago, MattP said:

Not really comparable, we have evidence for this from across the whole nation, it's the Mail but his quotes from the speech are in it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4623456/John-Curtice-says-Labour-no-longer-party-working-class.html

 

It was a light hearted jibe at your tendency towards anecdotal evidence. I take your point on voting trends.

 

 

[Guest Kopfkino]

5 hours ago, MattP said:

50 minutes PMQ's today, no idea how Bercow let's this happen.

 

I thought TM did well. She's not great a PMQs, certainly isn't Cameron, but she shows that she is a minister and not a campaigner. Corbyn used his last question to transport himself back to Glasto and provide soundbites and she replied very eloquently with a maturity Corbyn could only dream of, calling for co-operation as this is a problem across the political spectrum caused by Labour and Conservative governments and councils which isn't helped by trying to get one up on each other. 

[Jon the Hat]

38 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I borrowed my friend's 15' Canadian 'Old Town' on that occasion; I'm looking to buy one for myself in the next couple of weeks.

 

What did you buy?

Nova Craft Prospector 16".  Got to fit the whole family hence a big one, and needs to survive incompetence, hence its the plastic one.  By the time you add in all the kit and a new Thule rack to car top it, I spent quite a lot!  

[Buce]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Nova Craft Prospector 16".  Got to fit the whole family hence a big one, and needs to survive incompetence, hence its the plastic one.  By the time you add in all the kit and a new Thule rack to car top it, I spent quite a lot!  

 

Yeah, they're not cheap, but the fun it'll bring to the family is priceless, isn't it?

 

I'm looking at something of a similar size - big enough for the three of us day tripping, but also roomy enough for me to take it on solo canoe-camping trips.

[Nick]

 

After reading all the interesting stuff written on this page I think somebody needs to start a canoe/kayak thread - I spent years on the water.

 

 

[Jon the Hat]

9 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, they're not cheap, but the fun it'll bring to the family is priceless, isn't it?

 

I'm looking at something of a similar size - big enough for the three of us day tripping, but also roomy enough for me to take it on solo canoe-camping trips.

That is the plan!  Managed one outing on a nearby canal so far, just a bit of paddling and getting the wife & kids used to it.  Planning a more ambitious afternoon paddle in the next couple of weeks. 

I got an extra hanging seat for the kids, so we will all be pretty comfortable.  Under 40kgs to easy enough to slide on to the car roof.

[Jon the Hat]

8 minutes ago, Swan Lesta said:

 

After reading all the interesting stuff written on this page I think somebody needs to start a canoe/kayak thread - I spent years on the water.

 

 

Done!

[leicsmac]

1 hour ago, KingGTF said:

 

Economics chat

 

You clearly have a lot of knowledge about the topic, and first off thanks for bringing it to the fore here.

 

However, based on your post I do have a couple of questions that someone more well-versed in the science of economics like yourself might be able to answer.

 

Firstly, though the Nordic economic model does most likely have certain flaws as you point out, they consistently score highest in quality of life and other social surveys across the board. How much do you think this is to do with economic effects or other factors? And should it be considered at all, in your view?

 

Secondly, do you believe a totally free market ideal to be more likened to simple mutual cooperation or a reflection of natural selection in the monetary field (eg. 'survival of the fittest')? I personally believe the latter to be far more true than the former which is why I think it might lead to big trouble somewhere down the road - perhaps you can convince otherwise?

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

So... Has the government done a u-turn on a u-turn. I've dubbed it a 'q-Turn' 

 

 

[Izzy]

3 hours ago, Swan Lesta said:

I watched interviews today and PM's QT's and it was disgusting. Soundbites and spin from all sides - no questions ever answered directly. we are voting for actors with rehearsed lines hungry to represent themselves and others with no real motivations than to seemingly enhance their reputations, careers and powers.

 

I watched some of the Queens speech debate on the Parliament channel earlier (or whatever it's called).

 

The labour shadow health bloke was in mid flow whilst the rest of his front bench were busy giggling amongst themselves. Then from a side view there were 3 labour women MPs sat together all using their phones. I guess they were doing emails or tweeting but they weren't listening to a word being said.

 

If I witnessed that behaviour when facilitating a board meeting I'd chuck all the fvckers out. And I'm sure the Tory MPs are just as bad.

The overall behaviour of MPs in the HOC is pretty appalling IMO.

 

[Buce]

16 minutes ago, Izzy Muzzett said:

I watched some of the Queens speech debate on the Parliament channel earlier (or whatever it's called).

 

The labour shadow health bloke was in mid flow whilst the rest of his front bench were busy giggling amongst themselves. Then from a side view there were 3 labour women MPs sat together all using their phones. I guess they were doing emails or tweeting but they weren't listening to a word being said.

 

If I witnessed that behaviour when facilitating a board meeting I'd chuck all the fvckers out. And I'm sure the Tory MPs are just as bad.

The overall behaviour of MPs in the HOC is pretty appalling IMO.

 

 

Finally we agree on a political point, Izzy

[Izzy]

16 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Finally we agree on a political point, Izzy

[davieG]

This just popped up on my Facebook page is it actually true?

[Nick]

10 minutes ago, davieG said:

This just popped up on my Facebook page is it actually true?

?

[Guest]

16 minutes ago, davieG said:

This just popped up on my Facebook page is it actually true?

Usually you can't trust facebook but in this case it's about right. graph below actually from the daily mail....

[Strokes]

14 minutes ago, davieG said:

This just popped up on my Facebook page is it actually true?

The budget deficit was £103 billion in 2010, and the conservatives have reduced it each year I think so I don't think that can be entirely accurate can it?

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

The budget deficit was £103 billion in 2010, and the conservatives have reduced it each year I think so I don't think that can be entirely accurate can it?

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/uk_national_deficit_analysis

It's entirely accurate as the Daily Mail confirms (see my last post)