Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[UpTheLeagueFox]

1 hour ago, Webbo said:

 

Excellent news. 

It's very easy for some parties to use the Viv Nicholson mantra of 'spend, spend, spend' but it takes real balls to make unpopular long term choices for the overall benefit of the country.

[Rogstanley]

4 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Excellent news. 

It's very easy for some parties to use the Viv Nicholson mantra of 'spend, spend, spend' but it takes real balls to make unpopular long term choices for the overall benefit of the country.

You what.

 

It was tax increases that lead to the surplus. Eight years of austerity has been for nothing.

 

Question for the Tories though, do you think they're going to give some of that surplus money to you? 

 

 

Edited 1 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Rogstanley]

31 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where has business been taxed more?

 

Increased receipts doesn't mean you have raised taxes, it's often the opposite. 

Dividend tax reform. 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

4 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

do you think they're going to give some of that surplus money to you? 

To me? Probably not. But that's cool. I can look after myself. The Govt can look after those who need it more than me. As it should be.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, MattP said:

Throw Northern Ireland to the wolves?

 

You realise the DUP, the majority part in NO, back the government position?

You realise that the other side don't?

The troubles didn't occur because one side had an internal argument 

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

Excellent news. 

It's very easy for some parties to use the Viv Nicholson mantra of 'spend, spend, spend' but it takes real balls to make unpopular long term choices for the overall benefit of the country.

What's the benefit?

[Strokes]

Just now, toddybad said:

What's the benefit?

Having the flexibility to invest when on a big downturn, like a global financial crisis for example (or maybe after brexit).

A stable, steady economy rather than boom and bust. 

[Rogstanley]

13 minutes ago, UpTheLeagueFox said:

To me? Probably not. But that's cool. I can look after myself. The Govt can look after those who need it more than me. As it should be.

If they'd have raised taxes in the first place, eight wasted years ago, instead of embarking on this pointless austerity crusade then there would be far fewer people who need looking after.

 

Make no mistake, this is not a victory for the Tories, it's a clear demonstration that their approach over the last eight years has been disastrously wrong. It says it all when you read analysis that says they were shocked by how effective the tax increases have been. Even in finally getting it right they still didn't really know what they were doing.

[Guest Kopfkino]

48 minutes ago, MattP said:

Where has business been taxed more?

 

Increased receipts doesn't mean you have raised taxes, it's often the opposite. 

 

The dividend reform doesn't come into effect until April. So most likely is that dividend payments are higher and will be lower next year, likely to the detriment of investment this year. 

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

The dividend reform doesn't come into effect until April. So most likely is that dividend payments are higher and will be lower next year, likely to the detriment of investment this year. 

That's just the latest change. Big changes happened in 2016 too.

Edited 1 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Buce]

[Guest]

52 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Having the flexibility to invest when on a big downturn, like a global financial crisis for example (or maybe after brexit).

A stable, steady economy rather than boom and bust. 

What has a surplus/deficit got to do with stable finances? How exactly does it affect how you invest? Most of all, what on earth sides out have to do with boom and bust? You think we won't have a bust now?

[Guest]

10 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

If they'd have raised taxes in the first place, eight wasted years ago, instead of embarking on this pointless austerity crusade then there would be far fewer people who need looking after.

 

Make no mistake, this is not a victory for the Tories, it's a clear demonstration that their approach over the last eight years has been disastrously wrong. It says it all when you read analysis that says they were shocked by how effective the tax increases have been. Even in finally getting it right they still didn't really know what they were doing.

Mainly because it's only Tories who believe you have a choice over paying taxes so try to lower them for rich people #****ingthatcherlovingscumbagshiesters

Edited 2 March 2018 by Guest

[Strokes]

18 minutes ago, toddybad said:

What has a surplus/deficit got to do with stable finances? Everything

How exactly does it affect how you invest? Most of all, what on earth sides out have to do with boom and bust? I’m not sure what you mean can you rephrase it?

You think we won't have a bust now?

No I don’t think that but the less the deficit and debt we have, the more we can borrow and invest when it comes to soften and subdue.

 

[Sharpe's Fox]

 

[UpTheLeagueFox]

2 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Make no mistake, this is not a victory for the Tories, it's a clear demonstration that their approach over the last eight years has been disastrously wrong. 

In your opinion. I see things a little different but that's the magic of opinions. People view almost everything in life differently.

 

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

#****ingthatcherlovingscumbagshiesters

 Kinder, gentler politics etc

[Beechey]

2 hours ago, toddybad said:

What has a surplus/deficit got to do with stable finances? How exactly does it affect how you invest? Most of all, what on earth sides out have to do with boom and bust? You think we won't have a bust now?

Oh god you're serious? Let me put it this way:

 

If the UK has a deficit of 5% of GDP per year, and we go into recession, say the receipts plummet and we are forced to borrow much more, deficit goes to 10% of GDP per year. We would be forced to borrow yet more to invest to grow the economy. Is it not  better to have an economy on roughly an even keel, maybe a small surplus, build up a national fund, and use that in a downturn instead of sacrificing public finances? The bust is a lot smaller if you spend well. If we go into the next recession with a massive deficit, we'll be in an even larger hole than last time, where we were on around 3%, and ended up on 13% by the end of 2008 (spending £155bn per year more than we took in through taxes etc).

 

Countries like Canada, South Korea and Australia had good financial stability and were barely affected by the 2008 recession (when compared to us), we did not (as much of Europe too) and were in a worse financial state as a percentage of GDP than Greece.

 

 

And people say austerity wasn't necessary...

Edited 1 March 2018 by Beechey

[DJ Barry Hammond]

6 hours ago, MattP said:

Mea Culpa! Thanks for the correction.

 

The only thing we know is that we won't be putting a border up whatever, I don't think the government could be any clearer on that, the challenge now is to find an acceptable solution to that which is obviously the hard part.

 

May needs to hopefully give us something to work, I also think she'll probably have some harsh words for the EU tomorrow - with the approach they have taken it's now also a political opportunity for her. 

 

If it does go wrong tomorrow we might not be far off seeing the men in grey suits.

 

A hard border wasn’t out of the question in Boris’ leaked letter this week. And i’m still convinced the Irish question will be the biggest problem for the government in achieving the so called ‘hard’ Brexit. 

 

Might be why Theresa May’s speech tomorrow has a more conciliatory, unifying tone (based on the trails i’ve read).

[Rogstanley]

38 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Oh god you're serious? Let me put it this way:

 

If the UK has a deficit of 5% of GDP per year, and we go into recession, say the receipts plummet and we are forced to borrow much more, deficit goes to 10% of GDP per year. We would be forced to borrow yet more to invest to grow the economy. Is it not  better to have an economy on roughly an even keel, maybe a small surplus, build up a national fund, and use that in a downturn instead of sacrificing public finances? The bust is a lot smaller if you spend well. If we go into the next recession with a massive deficit, we'll be in an even larger hole than last time, where we were on around 3%, and ended up on 13% by the end of 2008 (spending £155bn per year more than we took in through taxes etc).

 

Countries like Canada, South Korea and Australia had good financial stability and were barely affected by the 2008 recession (when compared to us), we did not (as much of Europe too) and were in a worse financial state as a percentage of GDP than Greece.

 

 

And people say austerity wasn't necessary...

Austerity wasn’t and isn’t necessary. As we have seen, higher taxes is what is helping to close the deficit. All austerity is doing is holding back growth - along with brexit it’s why we have the slowest wage growth in the entire developed world over the last decade and why we are bottom of the G7 for gdp growth.

 

Tory austerity over the last eight years looks even more foolish in the context of it being an era of super low interest rates. It was probably a once in a lifetime opportunity to borrow practically free money and use it to invest in upgrading infrastructure capable of improving productivity (at which we are also among the worst in the developed world - so plenty of scope for improvement if only we had the confidence to invest in ourselves).

 

Missing that opportunity and choosing austerity instead will go down in the history books as one of the worst economic decisions of our age, of that I am convinced.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Rogstanley

[Beechey]

27 minutes ago, Rogstanley said:

Austerity wasn’t and isn’t necessary. As we have seen, higher taxes is what is helping to close the deficit. All austerity is doing is holding back growth - along with brexit it’s why we have the slowest wage growth in the entire developed world over the last decade and why we are bottom of the G7 for gdp growth.

 

Tory austerity over the last eight years looks even more foolish in the context of it being an era of super low interest rates. It was probably a once in a lifetime opportunity to borrow practically free money and use it to invest in upgrading infrastructure capable of improving productivity (at which we are also among the worst in the developed world - so plenty of scope for improvement if only we had the confidence to invest in ourselves).

 

Missing that opportunity and choosing austerity instead will go down in the history books as one of the worst economic decisions of our age, of that I am convinced.

No, it's not. We've moved from over 48% of GDP being spent by the government in 2008, to 38% within around 8 years (clearly not higher taxes, obviously lower spending). Deficit down from 13% in 2008, to 3% this year. Tell me why we were growing at between 2% and 3% of GDP between 2013 to 2015, when cuts were the most savage, if that's is supposed the sole cause of a slowdown? No doubt it's been a cause for slower growth, but the sole (other than Brexit) cause? No chance.

 

There';s an argument to be made for higher capital spending, but our 2008/09 spending was completely unsustainable, no matter which way you cut it.

 

How anyone can say that spending 13% of GDP per year is okay, and then in the same breath say we should have spent more frankly would walk the country into complete bankruptcy. Not even the majority of Labour say we should have spent more post-2008.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[Vardinio'sCat]

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

Oh god you're serious? Let me put it this way:

 

If the UK has a deficit of 5% of GDP per year, and we go into recession, say the receipts plummet and we are forced to borrow much more, deficit goes to 10% of GDP per year. We would be forced to borrow yet more to invest to grow the economy. Is it not  better to have an economy on roughly an even keel, maybe a small surplus, build up a national fund, and use that in a downturn instead of sacrificing public finances? The bust is a lot smaller if you spend well. If we go into the next recession with a massive deficit, we'll be in an even larger hole than last time, where we were on around 3%, and ended up on 13% by the end of 2008 (spending £155bn per year more than we took in through taxes etc).

 

Countries like Canada, South Korea and Australia had good financial stability and were barely affected by the 2008 recession (when compared to us), we did not (as much of Europe too) and were in a worse financial state as a percentage of GDP than Greece.

 

 

And people say austerity wasn't necessary...

 

I'll try and be civil, but I'm not having that. 

 

It has been known since the thirties (when that approach failed pretty conclusively), that you don't heavily cut your way out of a financial crisis. Even Hitler knew that! Can I recommend the works of JK Galbraith? If you look at the approach the US took, stimulate then slowly claw things back once decent growth has returned, you have a good example of what we could have done.

 

To be precise, conventional economic wisdom suggests that a counter-cyclical approach is best (and it worked for the US), with government pushing up spending and investment when the private sector is in trouble. If the government cuts hard when the private sector is cutting too, you just magnify the crisis, which is precisely what happened here, and why we had the slowest recovery since the horse and cart.

 

Austerity fetishism has brought huge pain on our society. How anyone can think that disabled people topping themselves in despair is a price worth paying?

 

Obviously a big national debt means big interest payments, which isn't a good thing, but with interest rates of virtually zero we could have invested heavily, instead of pumping up asset prices with QE. We could have spent that money much more creatively. Interestingly the Tories did eventually start to see the logic, easing off austerity in 2012 when Gideon stalled the economy, and eventually starting to invest in major projects.

 

This country was taken for fools by one of the most political chancellors we have ever seen. 'Never waste a good crisis' was his mantra, and his mission was to shrink the state towards the levels seen in the US, irrespective of the pain caused to ordinary people. The Bullingdon Club enjoyed burning £50 notes in front of the homeless, and carried that approach into power, and a proper Eton Mess was the result.

 

Having said all that, some areas would have been cut whoever was in power, and Labour's plans were very tough too, but I think they would have changed course when it became clear that it really wasn't working. Tbf I think that a few years of austerity, once in a generation, and the resultant belt-tightening, is arguably a good thing, but 10+ years is just an admission of abject failure.

 

History will not judge Cameron and Osborne well. The Tories have already backtracked on the austerity rhetoric, because they know it didn't really work.

 

 

PS If we hadn't spent so much money bailing out the banks, our debt situation in 2008 would have been relatively ok (ish). The 'why didn't we fix the roof when the sun was shining' was just another Osborne political gambit.

 

PPS Comparing us with countries like Greece, who don't have their own floating currency is a bit misleading, imho, and we were only in that bad a position because of the size of our banking sector, compared to our whole economy.

 

Right, I need to go to bed, sorry for ranting on at such length! 

Edited 2 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Vardinio'sCat]

2 hours ago, Beechey said:

No, it's not. We've moved from over 48% of GDP being spent by the government in 2008, to 38% within around 8 years (clearly not higher taxes, obviously lower spending). Deficit down from 13% in 2008, to 3% this year. Tell me why we were growing at between 2% and 3% of GDP between 2013 to 2015, when cuts were the most savage, if that's is supposed the sole cause of a slowdown? No doubt it's been a cause for slower growth, but the sole (other than Brexit) cause? No chance.

 

There';s an argument to be made for higher capital spending, but our 2008/09 spending was completely unsustainable, no matter which way you cut it.

 

How anyone can say that spending 13% of GDP per year is okay, and then in the same breath say we should have spent more frankly would walk the country into complete bankruptcy. Not even the majority of Labour say we should have spent more post-2008.

 

You need to have a good look at government spending pre-2008, because you are just spouting another of Osborne's lies.

 

The idea that spending was totally out of control before the banks collapsed is a myth, and I'm surprised you don't know that, because you clearly pay attention to the numbers. Do you not remember Gordon's golden rule (even if he did fudge it a bit)?

 

I'll remind you for the sake of clarity. 40%. That was the rule. The bank bail out cost us a bloody fortune because we had such a huge banking sector, which is why we ended up in so much doggy doo.

 

PS the cuts were most savage pre-2012, when Gideon had to back pedal because he had stalled the economy with austerity fetishism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(fiscal_policy)

 

The graph on public spending is here, enjoy. 

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

Edited 2 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat

[Beechey]

9 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said:

 

You need to have a good look at government spending pre-2008, because you are just spouting another of Osborne's lies.

 

The idea that spending was totally out of control before the banks collapsed is a myth, and I'm surprised you don't know that, because you clearly pay attention to the numbers. Do you not remember Gordon's golden rule (even if he did fudge it a bit)?

 

I'll remind you for the sake of clarity. 40%. That was the rule. The bank bail out cost us a bloody fortune because we had such a huge banking sector, which is why we ended up in so much doggy doo.

 

PS the cuts were most savage pre-2012, when Gideon had to back pedal because he had stalled the economy with austerity fetishism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule_(fiscal_policy)

 

The graph on public spending is here, enjoy. 

 

https://www.economicshelp.org/blog/5326/economics/government-spending/

Mate, Labour kept their pre-2008 deficit at around 3-4% of GDP, which is a reasonable level. I never once claimed spending was out of control before 2008, so I'm really unsure where you're getting that from. I'm talking about spending after the crash, not before it. That's pretty clear in my post isn't it? I keep specifying "2008/09", which is the year after the crash, which occurred in 2007/08.

 

I'll criticise the Conservative/Lib Dem government all day long for cutting capital spending, but departmental spending was simply too high to allow for an injection of more capital spending at the time (see page 12). If we'd done a massive infrastructure investment (say £100bn, which is quite mild) to spur the economy, even if that was just a single year investment, it would have doubled our deficit in a single year. No government could ever accept that, it's political suicide. We would have had a public budget deficit of nearing 20% of GDP, 7x the size the EU allows in its rules.

 

We could have kept spending as it was, but nobody thought that was a good idea. Even Labour proposed £80bn worth of cuts and tax rises within a four year period. 

 

 

That's without saying the government now spends almost £120bn per more now than it did when the Conservatives first came to power. Mostly because the economy is around 15% larger than it was in that period, and despite there being cuts to corporation tax, we now collect 40% more than we did before the crash, so clearly higher taxes are not always the solution. So much for stunted growth.

Edited 2 March 2018 by Beechey

[Guest MattP]

Very weird story.

 

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/labour-appoints-transgender-model-munroe-bergdorf-sacked-by-l-oreal-for-race-remarks-lb5hldr9n

 

Quote

 

It was said she described all white people as racist and called gay Tories “a special kind of dickhead”. So eyebrows were raised yesterday when Munroe Bergdorf was appointed an adviser on LGBT issues to a Labour frontbencher.

The model, DJ and activist from London was touted as the “face of modern diversity” last year when she was announced as the first transgender model to front a campaign for L’Oreal.

The cosmetics giant subsequently dropped her when she made controversial remarks about white people in the days after being signed.

Yesterday it emerged that Ms Bergdorf, 29, has been asked by Dawn Butler, the shadow women and equalities secretary, to sit on a panel advising her about gay and transgender issues.

 

Other beliefs include that even homeless people have "white privledge" and the suffragettes were a "white supremacist" movement.

 

What is going on within Labour towards the issue of race at the minute? Investigated twice by the equality commission in a few weeks and now a decision like this, it seems really strange from the outside looking in.

[Buce]

On 27/02/2018 at 18:05, lifted*fox said:

 

whatever you might think of Corbyn's political views / policies, etc. he is clearly a million times more intelligent than Boris lol.

 

Boris is just a fool, a buffoon, an idiot. he clearly doesn't have an intelligent bone in his body. he has bum-licked and bought and blackmailed his way to a high position.

 

it is clear from the way he speaks, the ideas that he has, his inability to understand a situation that he is not, in any way / shape / form a clever man. 

 

most smart people don't make their way to the top in politics because smart people would jeopardise the inner political sanctum where these idiots are currently allowed to roam free - stealing money, taking bribes, protecting one another from various criminal investigations. 

 

if our country was run by an independent panel of intelligent thinkers from sectors such as science, medicine, economics, education, retail, etc. then we'd be far better off. unfortunately it's run by selfish ****-pigs who only care about themselves, money and staying in power at all costs - to the point that they ignore information from advisers in the mentioned sectors above. 

 

it really is a comedy setup. 

 

On 27/02/2018 at 18:22, Izzy Muzzett said:

Boris has a degree, has written several books, speaks fluent French, Italian & Latin, was president of the Oxford Union and Mayor of London among other things.

 

He may well be all the other things you've mentioned but there's no denying he's clever or intelligent.

 

And I think he supports legalizing medical marijuana so I thought he's get your vote straight away 

 

 

On 27/02/2018 at 18:48, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

I largely agree with Izzy. I don't think Boris is a fool - but I do think he's a charlatan and a narcissist.

 

He's not a fool, but he assumes that he can treat everyone else as fools. He is intelligent enough to know that half the stuff he says is garbage, but is so arrogant he thinks he can pull the wool over everyone's eyes with appealing lies and colourful imagery. At first, he was probably right about that. People found him entertaining and charismatic, compared to the other grey bullshitters. But I suspect most people (including many Tories) are wise to him now.

 

The narcissism bit is that his need for attention and desire to get laughs is so great that he cannot resist coming out with off-the-cuff witticisms even when it is completely inappropriate. I don't believe for a minute that he's stupid enough to see the Irish border issue as comparable to the congestion charge zone or to see it as sensible to tell the EU to "whistle for" its divorce settlement. He just cannot resist playing to the crowd - and is so contemptuous of the public that he instinctively believes that he can fool them with his flamboyant phrases. I think he's been found out now and should go off and present a comedy quiz show on TV - he has the intelligence and wit to do that very well, without damaging the country.

 

The one thing that I will say in Bojo's favour is that he has a magnificent vocabulary, and I am always learning new words from him.

 

Take this, for example, Autarky/Autarkic.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autarky