Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest Foxin_mad]

16 minutes ago, toddybad said:

I wish you'd apply some of your by new found sense with labour.

 

I can't really about trade unions as I.know nothiing about them but will say that in my current experience not that many public sector workers are members it seems to me. Plenty of us are here working during strikes.

 

Re women/minorities half the shadow cabinet is female. There are plenty of minorities represented too. I think the leader not being female is a pretty poor argument when there's only been 2 in British history. If there was a contest now Thornbury would stand a decent chance I'd have thought. 

 

We've argued about corbyn's history before so I won't go there again. We each have to make our own judgements about his history. But I see little in the current Corbyn to suggest he's into violence or to suggest he doesn't genuinely want a fairer world. 

Labour are just heading in the wrong direction to me, again only time will tell but I feel this lurch to the left is unnecessary, the momentum mob are pretty horrendous and they are to all intents and purposes running the party.

 

Something doesn't seem right in Corbyn to me, the way he reacts sometimes is with hate and anger is very strange. I see little to suggest he isn't out on a personal crusade to start a 'class war' and 'make the rich pay'. For me Labour would be a whole lot more electable if they got rid of him. If they got a decent centre left leader and had a clear remain position they would be a serious alternative but I feel for someone who wants a job in a private business they are not a wise voting choice.

[Beechey]

13 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Labour are just heading in the wrong direction to me, again only time will tell but I feel this lurch to the left is unnecessary, the momentum mob are pretty horrendous and they are to all intents and purposes running the party.

 

Something doesn't seem right in Corbyn to me, the way he reacts sometimes is with hate and anger is very strange. I see little to suggest he isn't out on a personal crusade to start a 'class war' and 'make the rich pay'. For me Labour would be a whole lot more electable if they got rid of him. If they got a decent centre left leader and had a clear remain position they would be a serious alternative but I feel for someone who wants a job in a private business they are not a wise voting choice.

Labour would need to shed at least Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry for me to ever consider voting for them. Those four are an absolute shambles and yet somehow find themselves in positions of almost-power. The crap they come out with in regards to subject matters they know absolutely nothing about and faux-anger is utterly astounding. Thornberry's assertion that the Channel 4 (?) news presenter was sexist because he asked for her French counterpart's name, for example. Jeremy Corbyn being livid that someone would say he betrayed the UK, yet he says nothing about McDonnell actually once saying he wished someone had assassinated a UK Prime Minister, it's crazy. Imagine if Theresa May had once said she wished someone had murdered Tony Blair or something, she would have been nowhere near a position in government at any time.

 

I'd take a Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis or frankly anyone else over them.

Edited 6 March 2018 by Beechey

[Rogstanley]

4 hours ago, Kopfkino said:

 

It's literally the centre of the world, 

Must be bloody hot in london then!

 

What's your take on non-residents being able to buy residential property in the UK? Good because it brings money in, bad because it contributes towards pricing British citizens out of their own biggest city, or something else?

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Labour are just heading in the wrong direction to me, again only time will tell but I feel this lurch to the left is unnecessary, the momentum mob are pretty horrendous and they are to all intents and purposes running the party.

 

Something doesn't seem right in Corbyn to me, the way he reacts sometimes is with hate and anger is very strange. I see little to suggest he isn't out on a personal crusade to start a 'class war' and 'make the rich pay'. For me Labour would be a whole lot more electable if they got rid of him. If they got a decent centre left leader and had a clear remain position they would be a serious alternative but I feel for someone who wants a job in a private business they are not a wise voting choice.

Corbyn is the man that has allowed the left to believe in leftist policies again, to believe you can actually win power on promises to nationalise key industries.

 

At the same time, he is also the biggest sticking point for those that might vote labour but can't get beyond his history.

 

I'm slightly to the right of him economically but broadly agree with the manifesto they put together. I'd perhaps want to see a little bit less in the way of reactive words from McDonnell and more clarity over the level of tax rises needed.

 

I think the interesting thing is that it's obvious that corbyn himself does cost labour votes. Yet they still almost won because of the manifesto. I think it shows a genuine appetite for significant change amongst the electorate. It isn't enough to blame a bad tory campaign - the labour manifesto was so far from anything that's been seen for decades it wasn't a straight switch for those that wanted to vote tory. It was a clear signal that if the party stays true to its ideals there's a real chance of power on a leftist platform after Corbyn even if he doesn't get there himself.

 

 

[Guest]

20 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Labour would need to shed at least Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell, Diane Abbott and Emily Thornberry for me to ever consider voting for them. Those four are an absolute shambles and yet somehow find themselves in positions of almost-power. The crap they come out with in regards to subject matters they know absolutely nothing about and faux-anger is utterly astounding. Thornberry's assertion that the Channel 4 (?) news presenter was sexist because he asked for her French counterpart's name, for example. Jeremy Corbyn being livid that someone would say he betrayed the UK, yet he says nothing about McDonnell actually once saying he wished someone had assassinated a UK Prime Minister, it's crazy. Imagine if Theresa May had once said she wished someone had murdered Tony Blair or something, she would have been nowhere near a position in government at any time.

 

I'd take a Chuka Umunna, Dan Jarvis or frankly anyone else over them.

Genuine question - if it was a different leader and shadow cabinet, but broadly the same manifesto, what would your thoughts be?

[Guest]

Model Munroe Bergdorf quits as Labour LGBT adviser

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/model-munroe-bergdorf-quits-as-labour-lgbt-adviser?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Good. She's a ****ing twat.

[Webbo]

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Now, I've pointed out the pointlessness of non election polling before (and quite honestly election polling has proven to be pretty pointless too). What interests me most, dearest webbo, is why you've posted it. 

 

You don't post the ones showing labour ahead (not that they'd mean anything either). Only the tory lead polls. So it isn't a demonstration of the state of play for interested bystanders. It's clearly some warped attempt to either get a rise or claim some bizarre victory.

 

Yet neither tory nor labour leading polls mean anything. As if there's been any demonstrable and meaningful shift in public opinion since last month. So why?

 

What is the purpose of this exercise? 

[Webbo]

5 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Now, I've pointed out the pointlessness of non election polling before (and quite honestly election polling has proven to be pretty pointless too). What interests me most, dearest webbo, is why you've posted it. 

 

You don't post the ones showing labour ahead (not that they'd mean anything either). Only the tory lead polls. So it isn't a demonstration of the state of play for interested bystanders. It's clearly some warped attempt to either get a rise or claim some bizarre victory.

 

Yet neither tory nor labour leading polls mean anything. As if there's been any demonstrable and meaningful shift in public opinion since last month. So why?

 

What is the purpose of this exercise? 

You normally enjoy stuff out of the Guardian.

[Beechey]

24 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Genuine question - if it was a different leader and shadow cabinet, but broadly the same manifesto, what would your thoughts be?

I'm quite stringent on government spending, so I think the policy of borrowing an extra £250bn over a Parliament would be hard to justify for me (it's more than double our current deficit), although an argument could be made that this would stimulate the economy, I'd still find it difficult just on the pure numbers. But many of the policies I don't disagree with in the Manifesto, but I really disagree with many of the personal views from the front bench (on matters regarding the economy, defence and foreign policy mainly).

 

Needless to say, a step in the right direction for many who largely operate in the centre of politics would be to get rid of some of the more radical front bench members.

[Sharpe's Fox]

If you want The Labour Party to be less leftist then they will be polling at 15% along with the SPD, Parti Socialiste and Partito Democratico. European social democracy is on its arse.

[ealingfox]

1 hour ago, Foxin_mad said:

I am not sure the first paragraph is true but am happy to see evidence to the contary. I have worked in a number of public sector organisations and you were pretty much railroaded into the trade unions, if you didn't join and strike you were treated as some kind of leper, some were bullied, there is a pretty concerning internal culture in most unions I feel, but when you have horrible gits like Len McLuskey in charge its hardly surprising. Their attitude is pretty disgusting in my opinion but again that is just my view.

 

Labour say they are a 'government ' in waiting, it they talk the talk then walk the walk.

 

Why have/are there been so few female or ethnic minorities in powerful positions in the Labour Party and Unions? I don't know? but seems much like a game for privileged white middle class (mostly men) people to me? Who knows?

 

So you say the Tories serve the rich and elite, perhaps they do but at least they are honest about it! The Tories are a lot more likely to have a minority woman leader than Labour any time soon. Labour again pretend to care about the poor, they actually don't have a clue about what is going in in their supposed northern heartlands. The contempt with which they are treating the north is now becoming quite worrying as it is only a matter of time before some far right nutter comes and tells them what they want to hear, through years of neglect Labour will quite rightly trounced at the polls if the right candidate appears.

 

I just think Corbyn is a complete charlatan, a disgrace and a liar. He has been polished by an absolute nasty bastard in Seamus Milne, make no mistake these people are not nice people. Again purely my view, but I will not hide my personal disgust towards that man.

 

What about it do you think isn't true?

 

Again, you sound very bitter. You've made grand sweeping statements that are massively unfair to the thousands of people working in, for or with trade unions up and down the country. What evidence do you have for this 'attitude' you're attributing to people you've never met and have no experience of? You can't just give vague and unverifiable anecdotal evidence and expect people to give it any credence. Equally I've worked in the public sector for most of my professional career, I've never joined a union and I've not experienced any of the stuff you've described. There's absolutely no reason to believe it goes on either. That's not going to have any impact on your views though is it? What experience of the internal culture of trade unions do you have?

 

I'm not sure what you mean by the government in waiting remark as its nonsense, but the fact remains that describing Labour as a privileged elite making decisions for the masses is incorrect.

 

The leadership thing - interesting enough consideration. Toddy's point is fair that its not really a pattern to draw any conclusions from as there have only been 2 female Tory leaders, it's not a strong point. However, Labour MPs are and have always been more representative and diverse than the Tories. Do you think it's more a game for privileged white middle class people than the Tory party is?

 

To say that the Tories are honest about only serving the rich and elite is a frankly ridiculous statement, you're not right about that at all. The people of this country are thick but they're not that thick - the Tories would not be in government if that was the case. Have a look at the last few Tory manifestos.

 

What are you basing these statements about the Labour party on? Why are they 'pretending to care' about the poor? Can you provide some examples of Labour being contemptuous towards the north of England?

 

I'm afraid you can't make statements like that without quantifying them, add that its 'your view' or 'your opinion' and expect people to take them as valid points, particularly when they aren't. I'm really struggling to get my head around these criticisms of Labour if you are equally holding up the Tories as virtuous in those regards. Maybe you aren't, I would hope not anyway. But the extent to which you've burrowed into these hateful viewpoints of people and groups of people on very little real evidence is weird.

[Guest]

31 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

If you want The Labour Party to be less leftist then they will be polling at 15% along with the SPD, Parti Socialiste and Partito Democratico. European social democracy is on its arse.

People are voting against the establishment. Social democrats are the establishment across much of europe.

[Guest]

Boris gets bloody nose as No 10 kicks World Cup boycott into long grass

John Crace

The foreign secretary threatens Russia with robust action if it had a hand in Sergei Skripal case

0

Published:17:42 GMT+00:00 Tue 6 March 2018

 Follow John Crace

The foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, arriving at Downing Street on Tuesday sporting what he described as a tennis injury. Photograph: Will Oliver/EPA

It began with a bloody nose and ended as war. Boris Johnson had shambled his way into the House of Commons several minutes late looking rather the worse for wear. Sometime over the past few days his conk had fought a losing battle with a hard object – possibly the prime minister’s fist – and a large scab had formed over its bridge. It wasn’t the best of looks. Especially when combined with the large bags that have formed under his eyes. The job is taking its toll.

Though the urgent question from Tom Tugendhat, the chair of the foreign affairs select committee, was broadly on Britain’s relations with Russia, the real subtext was the alleged poison attack in Salisbury on Sergei Skripal and his daughter. The foreign secretary quickly cut to the chase. For legal reasons he prefaced his remarks by saying it was far too early to speculate if this had been a state-sponsored assassination attempt. But, that out the way, he made little effort to hide the fact he clearly considered this to be the most likely scenario and promised swift and severe retribution.

Russian spy mystery: counter-terror police take charge of investigation - live updates

Not everyone was entirely convinced by the foreign secretary’s protestations of defiance. Tugendhat, Labour’s Emily Thornberry and a succession of backbenchers from both sides of the house pointed out that an investigation by BuzzFeed had come to the conclusion that, as well as burying a report into the murder of Alexander Litvinenko, the government had also managed to turn a blind eye to the assassination of 14 Russian nationals by the Putin regime in the UK.

AdvertisementHide

 

Boris was outraged that nobody thought the government was taking the situation sufficiently seriously. The very fact the Russians had killed so many of their own people on UK soil was clear proof just how effective the British deterrent was. He was only sorry the number of deaths wasn’t significantly higher.

Our sanctions regimes – excluding the £30,000 the Tories were prepared to trouser in exchange for dinner with defence secretary Gavin Williamson at one of their recent fundraising balls from one of Putin’s closest allies – were hitting the Russians so hard and they had such respect for our intelligence services that they reserved all their top wet jobs for us. The reason fewer Russian nationals were getting whacked in other countries was because Putin just thought it was beneath him.

Now Boris decided to up the ante. When Conservative Jack Lopresti asked if Russian cyber-attacks should be classified as cyber-attacks or acts of war, the foreign secretary was unequivocal. “I increasingly think that we have to categorise them as acts of war,” he said. So that was it. We were now officially at war. Time was when politicians used to give the country – and the enemy – a bit of warning. Time to back down and think of the consequences before delivering a sombre address over the radio. No more. Now the foreign secretary could just do what he liked unilaterally.

 

 Play Video. Duration:2:12

Surprisingly, it was the Labour backbenchers who were most thrilled by this. Chris Bryant, Ben Bradshaw and Barry Sheerman were so hawkish they begged to enlist. Buoyed by this unexpected show of support, Boris continued to make up government policy on the hoof. If the Skripal assassination attempts were proved to be authorised by the Kremlin then Britain should not compete in this summer’s football World Cup.

The foreign secretary seemed unaware that Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland had got wind of the Skripal affair long ago and had chosen to boycott the event by not qualifying. Or that England had already put in place plans to protest by failing to progress beyond the opening rounds. Just as they had last time. It’s come to something when even the Football Association is more ahead of the game than the foreign secretary.

Within minutes of this announcement, the government was being forced into a retraction. England would still play. We just wouldn’t be sending any referees or other officials. That would show the Russians what’s what. It’s war, Jim. But not as we know it.

[Guest]

Surely it should be illegal to sell access to ministers?

[Sharpe's Fox]

51 minutes ago, toddybad said:

People are voting against the establishment. Social democrats are the establishment across much of europe.

If the electorate doesn’t vote for social democratic parties it’s because it doesn’t work not because they ascribe a meaningless “establishment” label to it. The working class have long since realised social democracy doesn’t negate the fundamentals of neoliberalism; namely privatisation, outsourcing, low pay and low standards of rights in the workplace, it only seeks to sustain or exacerbate them. The fact that Labour is polling constitently in the fourties and not the twenties like its European counterparts is because it has Marxists who realise this leading it.

Edited 6 March 2018 by Sharpe's Fox

[Buce]

May 'double cherry-picking' on Brexit, says leaked EU report

Exclusive: Brussels analysis dismisses proposed model on trade as unworkable

 

The EU has dismissed Theresa May’s Brexit speech as being more about Conservative party management than putting forward sensible solutions on trade, according to an internal document leaked to the Guardian.

The Brussels’ analysis of the prime minister’s address, issued to representatives of all 27 member states, described her intervention as “a change in tone, but not in substance”, warning that all the UK’s red lines remained.

And while it said the prime minister had promised clarity on Britain’s hopes for a future trading relationship, it described the model she proposed as unworkable and “double cherry-picking”. It also claimed there had been “zero progress” when it came to ideas for customs cooperation.

 

“Like with PM May’s previous speeches, she addressed more her domestic audience, trying to bridge the gaps between the two poles of the debate on Brexit in the UK,” the paper concluded.

“While the speech was long on aspirations, it was short on workable solutions that would respect the EU27 principles.”

The document, drawn up by the council of the EU general secretariat, appears to be a “lines to take” paper to help secure a coordinated response to May in an attempt to maintain a united position.

But emerging on the eve of the European council’s planned publication of guidelines for a post-Brexit trade deal, expected to be as short and general as possible, it could raise tensions between the EU and UK.

A spokesman for the Department for Exiting the EU said it would not comment on leaks.

However, a Whitehall source condemned the document as a “highly misleading summary which was clearly prepared at pace, contains very poor analysis, and does not reflect the detailed conversations we are having with European partners”.

 

The document did list a series of positives from the prime minister’s speech, including accepting the trade-offs between sovereignty and market access, accepting that leaving the EU would inflict a cost on Britain and that crashing out on World Trade Organization rules would be negative.

It called the tone “positive and measured” with an “explicit recognition of (some of) the negative impacts” of Brexit, but also:

• Claimed that May was overly inward looking, saying: “She is trying to keep the unity in her cabinet, which could so far only agree on ‘divergence from the EU unless the UK does not want to diverge’. Her speech was more a domestic communication battle than proposing real substance and ways forward.”
• Described the model she wanted as “double cherry-picking: taking in selective elements of EU membership and of third country trade agreements”.
• Said there was “no solution” proposed for the Irish border, criticising what it called the “mutually contradictory UK objectives” of no single market or customs union, no hard border in Ireland and no border down the Irish Sea.
• Outlined May’s determination to agree a transition period within the next fortnight “in spite of the remaining and substantive divergences at the negotiation table”.

The document also set out a question and answer section for the EU27 on the controversy surrounding the commission’s recent publication of a legal text of the withdrawal agreement. That infuriated the Conservatives because of a suggestion that Northern Ireland could remain in the customs union while the rest of the UK left it.

This latest document argued: “Creating a regulatory regime in Northern Ireland, which might be different from the rest of the UK does not undermine UK integrity or sovereignty either.”

A European commission source confirmed that the document was genuine, but called it an “initial analysis of the prime minister’s speech, which we will continue to analyse”, and stressed that discussions were ongoing.

Chris Leslie MP, a leading supporter of the Open Britain campaign, said: “The commission’s view that Theresa May is ‘double cherry picking’ shows how far the government has to go to present a credible negotiating position.

“The commission plainly see the prime minister’s speech in much the same way as many in Britain do, a means to satisfy internal party critics and not as a serious contribution to the negotiating process.”

He said the government needed to produce a “realistic and workable negotiating position” with just a year to go until the UK is due to formally leave the EU.

The document emerged after May and a number of senior cabinet ministers met with Guy Verhofstadt, the European parliament’s chief Brexit representative, in Downing Street for talks that were described by sources as very positive.

A No 10 spokesman said they had discussed citizens rights and that the prime minister had restated her “commitment to avoiding a hard border between Ireland and Northern Ireland”.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/theresa-may-conservative-politics-brexit-solutions-leaked-eu-report

Edited 6 March 2018 by Buce

[Wymsey]

[urban.spaceman]

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

Model Munroe Bergdorf quits as Labour LGBT adviser

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/mar/06/model-munroe-bergdorf-quits-as-labour-lgbt-adviser?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Good. She's a ****ing twat.

Wonderful news. That's two jobs she's lost now due to her racist, homophobic and misogynistic views. Of course, that's all the fault of the "right-wing media", for reporting her tweets accurately.

[lifted*fox]

 

 

Edited 6 March 2018 by lifted*fox
lmao that post broke the forum 

[Sampson]

To go back to the discussion at the top of the page, I'm not a fan at all of the current Labour Party but I suppose it depends on the era you grew up in. If you grew up in the 50s 60s 70s or 80s then the Hard Left were the main perveyer of terrorism - back when terrorism was an even worse problem than it is now and the people dying from it in Western Europe were far more than there even have been in recent years. The Marxist terrorism in Spain and Italy and obviously the Soviet Union, Cuba and China. Those Islamic Socialist states under Saddam Hussein and Gadaffi and the likes which started to pop up in the final stages of the Cold War around the world and Sinn Fein and it's blatant links to the IRA were the main ones closer to home.

 

I really really don't want to be one of those "the youth of today who don't remember the Cold War and don't understand why no Western country (bar maybe Italy and Spain who took far longer to get over the Second World War than the rest of the West (even though ironically Spain didn't partake) and last us not forget Franco was still in power well into the 1970s) has had a genuinely Left-wing governments for at least a good 25 years now" kind of people but it's more that I don't think some younger people understand why a lot of older people are so cynical of Corbyn, MacDonnell and Abbott and I guess it's more I'm just trying to explain that- because Corbyn, MacDonnell and Abbott quite clearly all belong to that generation of the Left which most people over a certain age remember being vile and had hoped the West had put behind it. And you only have to listen to what they've said over the years to get the feeling there still part of it. Their obvious warmness still for Marxism and Trotsky and Mao and Castro/Guevara and Gadaffi and Sinn Fein still comes across whenever they're asked about it - they'll never condemn those things despite them all obviously being vile and you would hope most reasonable human beings who hate violence would do - but because it's violence in the name of being anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment they're at pains to condemn it. (Or for non-violence how they were at pains not to condemn Venezuela the old get out of "condemning on both sides was finally all they could muster).

 

I don't for one second think Corbyn doesn't genuinely want a better world but that's also what makes him even more alarming. He's not just an old school ideologue, he's a sincere one - and they're always the worst of the bunch. As the old (pre-Godwin's law) exampld goes - the reason Hitler was so much worse than Musollini was because Hitler was a sincere fanatic who believed he was creating a better world and was unflinching to his ideology whereas Musollini was just a corrupt politician who flip-flopped depending on the latest trend or whoever bribed him the most.

 

The fact Corbyn, MacDonnell and Abbott have been so unflinching and refused to change their views when the political landscape of the world has changed so much over the past few decades definitely sends huge alarm bells going off for me personally - any politician who does that is bound by zealotry- and zealotry when it is a sincere belief they want to make the world a better place is the worst of the lot- it was prevalent in nearly all the dictators from Left and the Right in the 20th Century in the post-Great Depression and the supposed "death of Capitalism" of the 1930s which lasted until the 1980s and which a few still kick around in the Middle East, Africa and North Korea refusing to believe their ideology has any flaws (and it's not just ductators, you only gave to read Richard Littlejohn or Owen Jones on either side to see certain pundits or journalists who do the same and refuse to ever admit their principals they made decades ago may ever be wrong or flawed). They're anti-establishment for the sake of being anti-establishment, there's a thinly veiled sense of the West is the establishment and we must be against them in virtually all their foreign policy rhetoric.

Edited 7 March 2018 by Sampson

[Guest]

11 hours ago, Foxin_mad said:

Labour are just heading in the wrong direction to me, again only time will tell but I feel this lurch to the left is unnecessary, the momentum mob are pretty horrendous and they are to all intents and purposes running the party.

 

Something doesn't seem right in Corbyn to me, the way he reacts sometimes is with hate and anger is very strange. I see little to suggest he isn't out on a personal crusade to start a 'class war' and 'make the rich pay'. For me Labour would be a whole lot more electable if they got rid of him. If they got a decent centre left leader and had a clear remain position they would be a serious alternative but I feel for someone who wants a job in a private business they are not a wise voting choice.

Just on momentum, I'm finding their portrayal rather frustrating. 

 

Momentum has over 37,000 members and is growing at over 1,500 members a month. It is larger than UKIP and almost as big as the Green Party. If it continues at the current rate it's membership will reach Conservative Party levels in 2 years (there is some guess work here as the Tories last official members count in 2013 was 148,000 but some tory estimates are now as low as 70,000).

 

Labour as a whole has over 550,000 members. It is the largest party in Europe. The membership vote on the make up of the NEC etc and it is the membership that are voting for left wing candidates. 

 

This talk of a momentum coup is nonsense.

[Guest Kopfkino]

14 hours ago, Rogstanley said:

Must be bloody hot in london then!

 

What's your take on non-residents being able to buy residential property in the UK? Good because it brings money in, bad because it contributes towards pricing British citizens out of their own biggest city, or something else?

 

There are obviously problems for the whole market caused by foreign property ownership and speculative investments which means I can understand the desire to intervene. Further it is uncomfortable how easy we make for some dodgy folk to hide money in property over here and how weak we are when it comes to Russian/Chinese money sloshing around London despite its criminal connections. But I'm always uncomfortable with restrictions, fundamentally, free flows of cash and capital are no different to free trade in importance to me.

 

I don't know much about the precedent for policy. I know Denmark gives out permits for non-EU citizens to buy, Singapore has a list of properties foreigners can and can't buy, and Australia whacks on massive taxes and says foreigners can only buy new(?) property. I'm not sure how successful any of that has been. I don't know if New Zealand is blanket banning or if its the same as Australia. But I have seen that they're going further by restricting land buying by any foreign entity. So, for example, foreign telecoms firms could have to jump through hoops just to get the land to install the necessary infrastructure. And then there's the issue of signalling, often more important than the specific policy. It hardly shows an openness to the world and depending on policy design can just show a government to be too ideological. And really a big problem, particularly here, is the repeated failure to build enough houses, the restrictive planning system. Seems too easy to shift the blame, how much difference would it really make?

[David Guiza]

I see May and the Queen (not Brian and the band) are rolling out the red carpet for the notorious human rights abuser, but it's ok because May is going to tell him that he's a naughty prince https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/crown-prince-saudis-theresa-may-britain-saudi-arabia-money 

[Strokes]

28 minutes ago, David Guiza said:

I see May and the Queen (not Brian and the band) are rolling out the red carpet for the notorious human rights abuser, but it's ok because May is going to tell him that he's a naughty prince https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/06/crown-prince-saudis-theresa-may-britain-saudi-arabia-money 

I wonder if it will attract the same protests as Donald Trump?