Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

A majority of 221 to not support staying in the single market. Couldn't even raise a third of Labour against it.

 

Hard Brexit dead still @toddybad ?

That wasn't the leadership's amendment. Nobody appears to agree on what hard brexit actually is...

[Guest Kopfkino]

@leicsmac I'll be as brief as possible 

 

A functioning free market gives people freedom whereby they would not be subject to exertion of power or coercion. The idea can't be stolen because the role of the government is to uphold property rights and ensure that citizens are protected from crimes against them or their property. The government also upholds the contracts between us. The government does not "legislate" beyond what upholds the freedoms of individuals so there is no chance for cronyism, there's no political game to play, there is no chance for bigger firms to lobby government. Friedman said "When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player". The only way to "silence the creator" would be to buy the rights to his idea and fairly compensating the individual for that. Society wouldn't lose out because the buyer will only buy if it deems the idea to have value and will therefore carry the idea to extract the value for itself, possibly acting to increase the value. 

 

But the difference with here is that in a system of free markets the 'fittest' create something for the benefit of actors in that system. I don't know of any other system in nature that has done that anywhere near as successfully as a free market. Think of all the market driven medical advancements that has enabled us to save people who are quite literally 'unfit', to the point that we now have more people alive than have ever lived before. Actually, the market allows the 'weakest' to not just survive but thrive thanks to wealth creation. And the thing that underlines it and makes it possible is the protection of private property rights. Might doesn't give you rights. Herbert Spencer once said "far from being, as some have alleged, an advocacy of the claims of the strong against the weak, is much more an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong." 

 

So actually, the free market contrasts the Darwinian view of competition where others are your enemy. The view of competition in that setting would be that one actor gains at another expense through the seizure of property. In a free market, the fittest is the one that's best able to serve society and therefore help the weakest. If you think about it, competition arises because we are free to choose who we cooperate with, competition is cooperation. The incentive is to serve others as by serving others you increase your own income. Resources are scarce no matter what system you choose to employ but the free market forces us to satisfy ourselves by benefitting others rather than harming. As soon as the state intervenes, someone is harmed. Competition within the free market is the positive creation of new wealth and price mechanisms prevent us genuinely competing for the same resource.

 

I absolutely believe the only way to solve our future energy crisis and prevent further climate change harm is through the free markets. The problem is that government (Trump and the coal industry for example) obstruct it. There's one heck of an incentive to solve the problem because there's a lot of money to be made from it. I had a very drunken argument about this one time (don't normally go near this kind of topic when drunk but I was being goaded probs cos I took his monies during poker). I won't go into the discussion myself but here are a couple of articles I have saved. Granted they don't create a solution/if you join the dots you see that it's about further incentivising someone to step forward to solve the problem, it's interesting for the discussion, I guess nobody actually knows on any side. I actually think this is an issue akin to national security where 'government' has to be involved but it will always be ruined by politics. Anyway Forbes (debatable whether Friedman would have said that but discussion is still interesting), Mises, Niskanen, Last.

 

 

 

Edited 29 June 2017 by KingGTF

[Guest Kopfkino]

15 minutes ago, Guesty said:

Not really sure what Chuka Umunna thought he was going to achieve. The manifesto said they were leaving the single market. All this has done is cause division in Labour at a time when they were actually gaining momentum.

 

Umunna's such a weasel. You can tell it's all about him. It must be killing him that he pulled out of the Labour leadership race as he knew Labour had no chance in the next General Election. Figured he'd get his shot after - and now it's backfired for him. So he just s**t stirs.

 

The best bit about Corbyn being leader is knowing how much it must be pissing off people like him and Cooper.

 

Thing is: Umunna's on record last September saying we should pull out of the single market if it meant the end to free movement. 

 

Maybe he's doing his job? His job being to represent the people of Streatham whom voted heavily to Remain in the EU. People complain that whips have too much power etc etc and now people moan that an MP represents the interests of his constituents.

[Buce]

29 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

@leicsmac I'll be as brief as possible 

 

A functioning free market gives people freedom whereby they would not be subject to exertion of power or coercion. The idea can't be stolen because the role of the government is to uphold property rights and ensure that citizens are protected from crimes against them or their property. The government also upholds the contracts between us. The government does not "legislate" beyond what upholds the freedoms of individuals so there is no chance for cronyism, there's no political game to play, there is no chance for bigger firms to lobby government. Friedman said "When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player". The only way to "silence the creator" would be to buy the rights to his idea and fairly compensating the individual for that. Society wouldn't lose out because the buyer will only buy if it deems the idea to have value and will therefore carry the idea to extract the value for itself, possibly acting to increase the value. 

 

But the difference with here is that in a system of free markets the 'fittest' create something for the benefit of actors in that system. I don't know of any other system in nature that has done that anywhere near as successfully as a free market. Think of all the market driven medical advancements that has enabled us to save people who are quite literally 'unfit', to the point that we now have more people alive than have ever lived before. Actually, the market allows the 'weakest' to not just survive but thrive thanks to wealth creation. And the thing that underlines it and makes it possible is the protection of private property rights. Might doesn't give you rights. Herbert Spencer once said "far from being, as some have alleged, an advocacy of the claims of the strong against the weak, is much more an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong." 

 

So actually, the free market contrasts the Darwinian view of competition where others are your enemy. The view of competition in that setting would be that one actor gains at another expense through the seizure of property. In a free market, the fittest is the one that's best able to serve society and therefore help the weakest. If you think about it, competition arises because we are free to choose who we cooperate with, competition is cooperation. The incentive is to serve others as by serving others you increase your own income. Resources are scarce no matter what system you choose to employ but the free market forces us to satisfy ourselves by benefitting others rather than harming. As soon as the state intervenes, someone is harmed. Competition within the free market is the positive creation of new wealth and price mechanisms prevent us genuinely competing for the same resource.

 

I absolutely believe the only way to solve our future energy crisis and prevent further climate change harm is through the free markets. The problem is that government (Trump and the coal industry for example) obstruct it. There's one heck of an incentive to solve the problem because there's a lot of money to be made from it. I had a very drunken argument about this one time (don't normally go near this kind of topic when drunk but I was being goaded probs cos I took his monies during poker). I won't go into the discussion myself but here are a couple of articles I have saved. Granted they don't create a solution/if you join the dots you see that it's about further incentivising someone to step forward to solve the problem, it's interesting for the discussion, I guess nobody actually knows on any side. I actually think this is an issue akin to national security where 'government' has to be involved but it will always be ruined by politics. Anyway Forbes (debatable whether Friedman would have said that but discussion is still interesting), Mises, Niskanen, Last.

 

 

 

 

Blimey, what's it like when you're being verbose?

[Guesty]

2 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

 

Maybe he's doing his job? His job being to represent the people of Streatham whom voted heavily to Remain in the EU. People complain that whips have too much power etc etc and now people moan that an MP represents the interests of his constituents.

 

I get your point, but by doing this, Tom Watson has come out and said it's now backed Labour into a corner towards Hard Brexit - the one thing most of his constituents don't want. It's clear Labour is massively split, and are struggling to find a position. Who knows what would have happened in the future? 

 

It's more the timing of it - it was never going be successful. If he really wanted to represent his constituents; he should have waited a bit and been a bit more clever about it. Now he's just caused divisiveness and forced the very thing he shouldn't really want as Labour can't play both sides. And the next time there is a general election all remainers are going to have to think twice about voting Labour.

 

 

 

[Strokes]

9 minutes ago, Guesty said:

 

I get your point, but by doing this, Tom Watson has come out and said it's now backed Labour into a corner towards Hard Brexit - the one thing most of his constituents don't want. It's clear Labour is massively split, and are struggling to find a position. Who knows what would have happened in the future? 

 

It's more the timing of it - it was never going be successful. If he really wanted to represent his constituents; he should have waited a bit and been a bit more clever about it. Now he's just caused divisiveness and forced the very thing he shouldn't really want as Labour can't play both sides. And the next time there is a general election all remainers are going to have to think twice about voting Labour.

 

 

 

If they care enough about remaining that is. Which they probably don't....

[Sharpe's Fox]

Chuka is a complete prat and knows exactly what he was doing. He's probably been waiting for a chance to stick one on Corbyn for weeks and found one even though Labour's manifesto doubled his majority. 

[Buce]

 

Heidi Allen slams DUP deal:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2017/jun/29/heidi-allen-i-can-barely-express-my-anger-at-deal-with-dup-video

[Guest]

3 hours ago, KingGTF said:

@leicsmac I'll be as brief as possible 

 

A functioning free market gives people freedom whereby they would not be subject to exertion of power or coercion. The idea can't be stolen because the role of the government is to uphold property rights and ensure that citizens are protected from crimes against them or their property. The government also upholds the contracts between us. The government does not "legislate" beyond what upholds the freedoms of individuals so there is no chance for cronyism, there's no political game to play, there is no chance for bigger firms to lobby government. Friedman said "When government-- in pursuit of good intentions tries to rearrange the economy, legislate morality, or help special interests, the cost come in inefficiency, lack of motivation, and loss of freedom. Government should be a referee, not an active player". The only way to "silence the creator" would be to buy the rights to his idea and fairly compensating the individual for that. Society wouldn't lose out because the buyer will only buy if it deems the idea to have value and will therefore carry the idea to extract the value for itself, possibly acting to increase the value. 

 

But the difference with here is that in a system of free markets the 'fittest' create something for the benefit of actors in that system. I don't know of any other system in nature that has done that anywhere near as successfully as a free market. Think of all the market driven medical advancements that has enabled us to save people who are quite literally 'unfit', to the point that we now have more people alive than have ever lived before. Actually, the market allows the 'weakest' to not just survive but thrive thanks to wealth creation. And the thing that underlines it and makes it possible is the protection of private property rights. Might doesn't give you rights. Herbert Spencer once said "far from being, as some have alleged, an advocacy of the claims of the strong against the weak, is much more an insistence that the weak shall be guarded against the strong." 

 

So actually, the free market contrasts the Darwinian view of competition where others are your enemy. The view of competition in that setting would be that one actor gains at another expense through the seizure of property. In a free market, the fittest is the one that's best able to serve society and therefore help the weakest. If you think about it, competition arises because we are free to choose who we cooperate with, competition is cooperation. The incentive is to serve others as by serving others you increase your own income. Resources are scarce no matter what system you choose to employ but the free market forces us to satisfy ourselves by benefitting others rather than harming. As soon as the state intervenes, someone is harmed. Competition within the free market is the positive creation of new wealth and price mechanisms prevent us genuinely competing for the same resource.

 

I absolutely believe the only way to solve our future energy crisis and prevent further climate change harm is through the free markets. The problem is that government (Trump and the coal industry for example) obstruct it. There's one heck of an incentive to solve the problem because there's a lot of money to be made from it. I had a very drunken argument about this one time (don't normally go near this kind of topic when drunk but I was being goaded probs cos I took his monies during poker). I won't go into the discussion myself but here are a couple of articles I have saved. Granted they don't create a solution/if you join the dots you see that it's about further incentivising someone to step forward to solve the problem, it's interesting for the discussion, I guess nobody actually knows on any side. I actually think this is an issue akin to national security where 'government' has to be involved but it will always be ruined by politics. Anyway Forbes (debatable whether Friedman would have said that but discussion is still interesting), Mises, Niskanen, Last.

 

 

 

Whilst this is all well and good, there is plenty of evidence that markets don't work for the public good in the real world. Competitors work together to rig markets, deregulation allows what society needs to be ignored in favour of profit and cosy little cartels arise. The difference between your theories and reality is stark.

[DJ Barry Hammond]

 

Quite a charged Question Time.

[Guest Kopfkino]

29 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Whilst this is all well and good, there is plenty of evidence that markets don't work for the public good in the real world. Competitors work together to rig markets, deregulation allows what society needs to be ignored in favour of profit and cosy little cartels arise. The difference between your theories and reality is stark.

No, you're confusing the crony capitalism system that governments protect with the true free market system I talk about. All of what you stated more often than not comes from government failure. As I said in that post and my post to Alf before, it is up to the government to set the rules of the game to uphold our freedoms. If competitors are colluding to rig markets, our freedoms are being infringed and therefore the government has failed, most likely through cosying up to an industry that has promised to help maintain office. If a market has been 'deregulated' by government and that has led to higher profits then that market is not truly free because if it was, that above-normal profit would signal to competitors to join the market. That market then regulates itself as only those that provide value to society survive. Deregulation is not the same as being set free. 

 

The only thing that I can think that come close to being examples of an actual free market are betting exchanges. Do any of the problems you have with a market exist on a betting exchange? 

Edited 29 June 2017 by KingGTF

[Guest]

25 minutes ago, KingGTF said:

No, you're confusing the crony capitalism system that governments protect with the true free market system I talk about. All of what you stated more often than not comes from government failure. As I said in that post and my post to Alf before, it is up to the government to set the rules of the game to uphold our freedoms. If competitors are colluding to rig markets, our freedoms are being infringed and therefore the government has failed, most likely through cosying up to an industry that has promised to help maintain office. If a market has been 'deregulated' by government and that has led to higher profits then that market is not truly free because if it was, that above-normal profit would signal to competitors to join the market. That market then regulates itself as only those that provide value to society survive. Deregulation is not the same as being set free. 

 

The only thing that I can think that come close to being examples of an actual free market are betting exchanges. Do any of the problems you have with a market exist on a betting exchange? 

I see your point but I think the theory of pure markets is just that...theory. It assumes perfection and ignores the human aspects of lies, betrayal etc that are too readily apparent within business at all levels. Even at the lowest level subterfuge exists within business - how many sole traders trade without accepting cash in hand and claiming every family member under the sun works for them? Complete deregulation would be a huge risk to the nation by suddenly deciding to accept the idea that corrupt practice would suddenly weeded out naturally. Even without regulation markets would find a way to collude as all the evidence shows that any new market sees a very small number of companies succeed because, in part, crowds follow each other like sheep. You could introduce exactly the same product under 10 names and you can almost guarantee that 1 or 2 would dominate the market. 

[Innovindil]

Can we all just take the time to applaud our hard working councillors. Outstanding work they're doing. 

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-gloucestershire-40451896

[Alf Bentley]

10 hours ago, Guesty said:

 

I get your point, but by doing this, Tom Watson has come out and said it's now backed Labour into a corner towards Hard Brexit - the one thing most of his constituents don't want. It's clear Labour is massively split, and are struggling to find a position. Who knows what would have happened in the future? 

 

It's more the timing of it - it was never going be successful. If he really wanted to represent his constituents; he should have waited a bit and been a bit more clever about it. Now he's just caused divisiveness and forced the very thing he shouldn't really want as Labour can't play both sides. And the next time there is a general election all remainers are going to have to think twice about voting Labour.

 

 

 

 

Completely agree. Egotistical, appalling timing and counter-productive from Umunna.

 

I get it that there are a lot of committed Remainers among the Labour support, particularly in London and places like Cambridge (the people sacked were all MPs in London, apart from Zeichner, MP for Cambridge). There might be a big swing in wider public opinion against Brexit in a few months or in a year, and that would be the time for Remainers to push for the Single Market or even Remain. Now is the wrong time: (a) because public opinion hasn't yet swung against Brexit - most people expect it to happen and think the referendum result should be implemented, whether they voted for it or not - the argument is currently about what sort of Brexit; (b) because it causes Labour divisions and takes pressure off the divided Tories & brittle Govt.

 

I also get it that he and the others are representing the views of their constituents by rebelling. There are times to put constituents before party - but this is absolutely NOT one of them.. The Tories are fragile and under pressure, Labour has united during the election campaign and Corbyn has earned the right to lead with a surprisingly good result. The Remainer MPs should have pushed for the agreed, vague Soft Brexit position. Umunna shouldn't have tabled this amendment and the others should have abstained as instructed by the whips. If they had to take personal flak from constituents.....tough! They could also explain to Remain supporters that their cause is best served by challenging the Brexit consensus at the right time and in the right way.

 

Now much of the story is about "divided Labour" and "where does Labour stand on Brexit?". The story should have been that the Tories had to do a U-turn to prevent a Tory rebellion over Stella Creasey's amendment allowing NHS abortions for women from Northern Ireland, where abortion is still illegal - due mainly to DUP policy. The Tories had to reverse their policy and take a stance that could cause friction with their new DUP allies to avoid the risk of defeat on part of the Queen's Speech. Instead, everyone's talking about Labour divisions due to the strategic clumsiness of the talented but egotistical Umunna.

 

People rightly say that Labour's position on Brexit is vague. True, but it is the correct policy at the moment. Some Labour voters are strong Remainers, others are strong Leavers, many others just expect the Govt to get on with it, but might turn against it when they see the reality. Labour's current ambiguity about the Single Market is the best policy with such divisions. IF the public mood turns against Brexit, THEN Remainers will be in a position to push strongly to stay in the Single Market/Customs Union or even in the EU. Plus, its not Labour's precise policy that needs to be under scrutiny as they're not in power. Labour should be uniting to ensure the focus is on Tory divisions over Brexit, as they're the ones actually in power and negotiating the fvcking thing!! I know we can speculate (and I do) about what the Tories would have done over Iraq or what Labour would have done about Black Wednesday.....but that's secondary. It's the Govt of the day that has to decide and take most of the flak for the outcome.

[Guest MattP]

12 hours ago, Guesty said:

Not really sure what Chuka Umunna thought he was going to achieve. The manifesto said they were leaving the single market. All this has done is cause division in Labour at a time when they were actually gaining momentum.

 

Umunna's such a weasel. You can tell it's all about him. It must be killing him that he pulled out of the Labour leadership race as he knew Labour had no chance in the next General Election. Figured he'd get his shot after - and now it's backfired for him. So he just s**t stirs.

 

The best bit about Corbyn being leader is knowing how much it must be pissing off people like him and Cooper.

 

Thing is: Umunna's on record last September saying we should pull out of the single market if it meant the end to free movement. 

This Week was worth a watch, Andrew Neil was absolutely tearing Liz Kendall to pieces over the Labour position on Brexit.

 

You've got Philip Hammond talking about full access and now Labour frontbenchers being sacked for suggesting we should stay in the single market.

 

It's becoming clear now who is more the party of hard Brexit and it's not the Conservatives - if they do try and keep us in it then Corbyn will be getting my vote at the next election as at least know he's committed to a proper Brexit.

[Guest MattP]

8 hours ago, DJ Barry Hammond said:

Quite a charged Question Time.

Just tried to watch, had to turn off after ten minutes. Looks like the whole of Momentum has been bussed in again.

[Alf Bentley]

11 minutes ago, MattP said:

This Week was worth a watch, Andrew Neil was absolutely tearing Liz Kendall to pieces over the Labour position on Brexit.

 

You've got Philip Hammond talking about full access and now Labour frontbenchers being sacked for suggesting we should stay in the single market.

 

It's becoming clear now who is more the party of hard Brexit and it's not the Conservatives - if they do try and keep us in it then Corbyn will be getting my vote at the next election as at least know he's committed to a proper Brexit.

 

I watched This Week and didn't see anyone "torn to pieces". Neil was pressing Kendall, trying to expose Labour divisions and she had the sense to resist the temptation to blab on about her disagreements with the leadership.

Shame Umunna didn't do the same. That might be an argument for This Week to hire pundits who are retired politicians (like Portillo, even Alan Johnson to a lesser extent) but I didn't see blood on the carpet.

 

IF the public mood turns against Brexit (and it might not), then Labour will definitely be in a difficult position. Not only because Corbyn & co are Eurosceptics and most MPs are Remainers. There's also the little matter that most of the membership - including a large proportion of Corbyn fans - are strongly pro-Remain. I get the impression that a lot of Corbynistas are still unaware of his Euroscepticism. Who backs down or compromises under that scenario, I don't know....but for now it's the Tories who have to work out a stance and to deal with whatever fallout results from Brexit negotiations.

 

On the other side, Hammond & many Tory MPs might favour Soft Brexit or even Remain, but most of the Tory membership is still strongly Hard Brexit, I presume. Certainly many backbenchers are. There could be a serious Tory civil war if someone like Hammond tried to keep us in the Single Market.

[Strokes]

36 minutes ago, MattP said:

This Week was worth a watch, Andrew Neil was absolutely tearing Liz Kendall to pieces over the Labour position on Brexit.

 

You've got Philip Hammond talking about full access and now Labour frontbenchers being sacked for suggesting we should stay in the single market.

 

It's becoming clear now who is more the party of hard Brexit and it's not the Conservatives - if they do try and keep us in it then Corbyn will be getting my vote at the next election as at least know he's committed to a proper Brexit.

Me too, I'm wishing I had voted now.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Just tried to watch, had to turn off after ten minutes. Looks like the whole of Momentum has been bussed in again.

 

I only watched the last 15 minutes, but got the opposite impression. There seemed to be a loud, vocal Rightist, or at least Eurosceptic element in the crowd - lots of shouting at the more left-wing panelists or anyone saying anything nuanced about the EU.

 

Based on what I saw, the Economist woman was good, as was Stella Creasey (a very capable politician - not just on media, but in parliament as yesterday's Tory U-turn over N. Ireland showed). The woman from The Canary was better than I was expecting but nothing special. Liam Fox seemed flat - maybe a lot on his mind. Nick Ferrari was fairly articulate but annoying in constantly talking over other panelists - a loudmouth, even if he's an LCFC fan (just seen that on his Wiki profile).

[Guest Foxin_mad]

8 hours ago, toddybad said:

I see your point but I think the theory of pure markets is just that...theory. It assumes perfection and ignores the human aspects of lies, betrayal etc that are too readily apparent within business at all levels. Even at the lowest level subterfuge exists within business - how many sole traders trade without accepting cash in hand and claiming every family member under the sun works for them? Complete deregulation would be a huge risk to the nation by suddenly deciding to accept the idea that corrupt practice would suddenly weeded out naturally. Even without regulation markets would find a way to collude as all the evidence shows that any new market sees a very small number of companies succeed because, in part, crowds follow each other like sheep. You could introduce exactly the same product under 10 names and you can almost guarantee that 1 or 2 would dominate the market. 

You could argue this is why no system works and no system is perfect and this is probably the case. The biggest weakness in any system is the human factor. Some humans will always be greedy and want more for themselves.

 

This in my opinion is the problem with Socialism, the intentions are admirable but in reality it never works because the people in power become greedy and power hungry, eventually everyone ends up poor except those who control the system; so  actually it ends up being far worse for more people than most other systems.  Its why most true socialist states end up no longer being a democracy.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

You could argue this is why no system works and no system is perfect and this is probably the case. The biggest weakness in any system is the human factor. Some humans will always be greedy and want more for themselves.

 

This in my opinion is the problem with Socialism, the intentions are admirable but in reality it never works because the people in power become greedy and power hungry, eventually everyone ends up poor except those who control the system; so  actually it ends up being far worse for more people than most other systems.  Its why most true socialist states end up no longer being a democracy.

And there clearly is evidence of that, I'd agree. We probably need some honesty on both sides on this thread rather than people (me included) backing whatever their party of choice said, no questions asked. The reality is the tory approach is not entirely free market (banks bailed out) and whilst more left wing than they've been for many years, the labour approach isn't true socialism either as it would simply be a more socialist capatalist system. I obviously prefer that approach. 

[lifted*fox]

[Guest]

Time for some simon jenkins. I know even mattp has had good words to say of him in the past.

 

Soft Brexit is the only sane option. This is no time for partisan politics

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/30/soft-brexit-sane-option-partisan-politics

Edited 30 June 2017 by Guest

[Guest]

Yet more evidence of epic government economic failure. 

 

Britons' savings at record low as household incomes drop, says ONS

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jun/30/britons-savings-at-record-low-as-household-incomes-drop-says-ons

[The Horse's Mouth]

Umunna putting himself before the party as usual, guy is a complete snake