Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 The thing I do not get is the hypocrisy of people who will vote Corbyn who WILL fvck over the economy with his return to hard left socialism and anti rich and business sentiment but in the same sentence condemn Brexit for fvcking over the economy. Completely unfathomable! If you think what we have is so shit, surely it doesn't matter if we lose it and can enter into a brave new world without the 'elite establishment' who will surely all fvck off when everything is so tragically shit after brexit?? if we believe everything we are being told by the guardian. It seems for once I appear to have the most logical position of not wanting either. Happy Friday! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Foxin_mad Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 Also saw this! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43343956 Could be a while off the mass replacement of humans by robots as predicted by some! Even dodgy Dave who spends the first 50 minutes talking about the last box set he watched is more efficient than this guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lifted*fox Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 14 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said: The thing I do not get is the hypocrisy of people who will vote Corbyn who WILL fvck over the economy with his return to hard left socialism and anti rich and business sentiment but in the same sentence condemn Brexit for fvcking over the economy. Completely unfathomable! I would rather have Corbyn **** the economy up; albeit with good intentions - whilst trying to do something for the lesser privileged in this country than watch the Tories **** the economy up by pulling us out of the EU for no good reason. It's quite fathomable and it's probably a scenario many, many people would prefer. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 didnt know where to put this 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Realist Guy In The Room Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 3 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said: didnt know where to put this Unbelievable that it makes Littlejohn look uncomfortable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carl the Llama Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 That video's gold, the posh, matter of fact way he drops the n-bomb - twice - gets me every time. What a hoodlum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfox Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 I like good metaphors On how tricky Brexit might be... “as difficult as removing an egg from an omelette” Pascal Lamy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vardinio'sCat Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: The thing I do not get is the hypocrisy of people who will vote Corbyn who WILL fvck over the economy with his return to hard left socialism and anti rich and business sentiment but in the same sentence condemn Brexit for fvcking over the economy. Completely unfathomable! If you think what we have is so shit, surely it doesn't matter if we lose it and can enter into a brave new world without the 'elite establishment' who will surely all fvck off when everything is so tragically shit after brexit?? if we believe everything we are being told by the guardian. It seems for once I appear to have the most logical position of not wanting either. Happy Friday! You're not pulling to the centre ground then? I think it would take a few terms (at least) to get back to 1979, never mind the full on socialist utopia. That's why I would give Corbyn a term, whereas I didn't vote Labour in the 80's. It's my opinion that the UK has been moving to the right since 79, at varying speeds, but I guess we won't have much in the way of common ground there either. Happy Friday to you. Edited 9 March 2018 by Vardinio'sCat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vardinio'sCat Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 5 hours ago, Foxin_mad said: Also saw this! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-43343956 Could be a while off the mass replacement of humans by robots as predicted by some! Even dodgy Dave who spends the first 50 minutes talking about the last box set he watched is more efficient than this guy! Flippy floppy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vardinio'sCat Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 23 minutes ago, Wolfox said: I like good metaphors On how tricky Brexit might be... “as difficult as removing an egg from an omelette” Pascal Lamy He was a rubbish driver, I hope he is a better analyst. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 55 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said: Unbelievable that it makes Littlejohn look uncomfortable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vardinio'sCat Posted 9 March 2018 Share Posted 9 March 2018 this is from the guardian, so it will be toxic for some. But for the rest of you, some uncomfortable words for pretty much everyone, from Paul Johnson at the widely respected IFS. As usual, nobody comes out without some criticism, but he weighs in on all the issues of the day. Although you can criticise the IFS, they are head and shoulders above most analysts/forecasters, and there is a reason they are the go to people after the chancellor has done his spinning of the economic figures when the chancellor Philip Hammond sits down on Tuesday after delivering his first spring statement – the streamlined replacement for what we used to call the budget – one man will be greatly in demand, popping up on every media outlet to tell us what the figures on borrowing levels and the projected deficit really mean. That man is Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). I suggest to him that his official role is to pour a bucket of cold water over Hammond’s head, and he doesn’t disagree. “Economics is the dismal science, after all,” he says. ......... On Austerity He says the government has done well to get the deficit under control, but thinks the pips are now starting to squeak. “If you look at the period up to 2013/14, spending came down without big political consequences or things falling apart. But, in a whole range of areas, that is no longer true. If you look at what’s happening in prisons it’s just disastrous. Local government until 2014 was coping fine. It really isn’t any more. Clearly, the health service is struggling in a way that, three or four years ago, it wasn’t. So it feels as if we’ve got to the crunch point. We’re really beginning to feel the cost.” .......... On Brexit Even without Brexit, the challenges facing the UK would be formidable. With Brexit, they look cataclysmic. “The economics are obvious,” he says. “If you make trade with your biggest, nearest and richest trading partner more expensive, you will make yourself worse off. The truth is there is no dispute about that. Of course there is a case for Brexit. It’s just not an economic case. It’s a controlling-immigration case. With everything – and this is what’s frustrating about a lot of political debate – there are trade-offs. Do you want control of your borders or do you want to avoid taking a hit of a couple of per cent of GDP? You can’t have both. Politicians tell you that you can have your cake and eat it, but you can’t. It’s true of pretty well all politicians about everything.” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/09/ifs-economist-paul-johnson-we-are-nowhere-near-out-of-austerity 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 9 hours ago, Vardinio'sCat said: this is from the guardian, so it will be toxic for some. But for the rest of you, some uncomfortable words for pretty much everyone, from Paul Johnson at the widely respected IFS. As usual, nobody comes out without some criticism, but he weighs in on all the issues of the day. Although you can criticise the IFS, they are head and shoulders above most analysts/forecasters, and there is a reason they are the go to people after the chancellor has done his spinning of the economic figures when the chancellor Philip Hammond sits down on Tuesday after delivering his first spring statement – the streamlined replacement for what we used to call the budget – one man will be greatly in demand, popping up on every media outlet to tell us what the figures on borrowing levels and the projected deficit really mean. That man is Paul Johnson, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS). I suggest to him that his official role is to pour a bucket of cold water over Hammond’s head, and he doesn’t disagree. “Economics is the dismal science, after all,” he says. ......... On Austerity He says the government has done well to get the deficit under control, but thinks the pips are now starting to squeak. “If you look at the period up to 2013/14, spending came down without big political consequences or things falling apart. But, in a whole range of areas, that is no longer true. If you look at what’s happening in prisons it’s just disastrous. Local government until 2014 was coping fine. It really isn’t any more. Clearly, the health service is struggling in a way that, three or four years ago, it wasn’t. So it feels as if we’ve got to the crunch point. We’re really beginning to feel the cost.” .......... On Brexit Even without Brexit, the challenges facing the UK would be formidable. With Brexit, they look cataclysmic. “The economics are obvious,” he says. “If you make trade with your biggest, nearest and richest trading partner more expensive, you will make yourself worse off. The truth is there is no dispute about that. Of course there is a case for Brexit. It’s just not an economic case. It’s a controlling-immigration case. With everything – and this is what’s frustrating about a lot of political debate – there are trade-offs. Do you want control of your borders or do you want to avoid taking a hit of a couple of per cent of GDP? You can’t have both. Politicians tell you that you can have your cake and eat it, but you can’t. It’s true of pretty well all politicians about everything.” https://www.theguardian.com/business/2018/mar/09/ifs-economist-paul-johnson-we-are-nowhere-near-out-of-austerity https://news.sky.com/story/amp/man-85-died-due-to-dangerous-overcrowding-at-northampton-general-hospital-11283121?__twitter_impression=true It's time for the age of austerity to end. Now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kopfkino Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: https://news.sky.com/story/amp/man-85-died-due-to-dangerous-overcrowding-at-northampton-general-hospital-11283121?__twitter_impression=true It's time for the age of austerity to end. Now. Or we could have a health system fit for purpose. Uneccessary deaths have been higher than they need to be long before austerity. Of course, the benefits of other systems is it takes a lot of funding decisions out of the hands of politicians. That can only be a positive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 (edited) 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: Or we could have a health system fit for purpose. Uneccessary deaths have been higher than they need to be long before austerity. Of course, the benefits of other systems is it takes a lot of funding decisions out of the hands of politicians. That can only be a positive. I'm not against cross party work to look at European style alternatives if they are better. But I am absolutely for funding the nhs properly in the meantime. You cannot cut before you've even started looking at another way. Edited 10 March 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 1 hour ago, Kopfkino said: Or we could have a health system fit for purpose. Uneccessary deaths have been higher than they need to be long before austerity. Of course, the benefits of other systems is it takes a lot of funding decisions out of the hands of politicians. That can only be a positive. get another ideology kulak. you’ll never beat the statists. “Our NHS” mother****er Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 Jeremy Corbyn has argued that Labour must reject full single market membership if his hard-Left socialist vision is to become a reality as his supporters were accused of using underhand tactics to quash opposition. The Labour leader told the party’s Scottish conference that the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU must be “fully compatible” with his radical agenda, including nationalising the railways and stopping employers “importing” cheap labour. He used his keynote speech to the Dundee gathering to argue that Labour could not accept a Norway-style deal for membership that would leave Britain “as a passive recipient of rules decided elsewhere by others". But Catherine Stihler, a Scottish Labour MEP, rejected his claims and argued there was “no Left-wing case” for leaving the single market. In a pointed dig at Mr Corbyn, she argued it was Labour’s job “to challenge anti-immigrant sentiment". The Labour leader was also forced to deny that he had tried to nullify dissent on single market membership after it emerged the conference is highly unlikely to get a vote on the key issue following a debate on Sunday. The party’s national executive, which is dominated by his supporters, presented a “unity” motion for debate that contained no mention of the single market. Unless this is defeated, which is highly unlikely, there is no prospect of a vote on the issue. Pro-single market campaigners expressed their fury, claiming the move was a “democratic outrage”. If their motions had passed, they would have become official Scottish Labour policy – at odds with the UK party. But Mr Corbyn used his keynote speech to argue that full single market membership was at odds with the party’s hard-Left blueprint, which relies on a high degree of state-funded intervention. The Labour leader said: “The European Union is set to make changes of its own in the coming period, especially in relation to the rules governing Eurozone economies and the rights of temporary migrant workers. It would therefore be wrong to sign up to a single market deal without agreement that our final relationship with the EU would be fully compatible with our radical plans to change Britain's economy.” Although he pledged to seek “full tariff-free access”, he said Labour would demand protections from current rules and directives “that push privatisation and public service competition, or restrict our ability to intervene to support domestic and local industry and business". Mr Corbyn said the UK cannot be “held back” from “being able to import cheap agency labour, to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy". But he was earlier forced to deny that the party’s leadership was clamping down on dissent at the conference, saying members would still be able to fully debate single market membership even without a vote. He added: “This is an open democratic conference with lots of new members and it's the biggest conference for years. What is there not to like about that?" Richard Leonard, the Scottish Labour leader, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that members will have the choice whether to support or oppose the executive statement. But a new Scottish Labour for the Single Market group has been spearheaded by Kezia Dugdale, Mr Leonard’s predecessor as leader, Ian Murray, the Edinburgh South MP, and Ms Stihler. Ms Stihler said it was “disappointing” there is unlikely to be a vote on the issue and rejected Mr Corbyn’s suggestion that the single market’s rules prevent public ownership of the utilities and rail. Jamie Glackin, a former Scottish Labour chairman, said a “healthy party” would encourage members to express its views even if they were at odds with the leadership. He added: “Perhaps the reason it is not is that the days of control freakery in the Labour machine have not actually gone at all. Indeed, looking in from the outside of the party hierarchy, it does look like it has got significantly worse." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-must-reject-full-eu-single-market-membership/ 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 3 hours ago, Webbo said: Jeremy Corbyn has argued that Labour must reject full single market membership if his hard-Left socialist vision is to become a reality as his supporters were accused of using underhand tactics to quash opposition. The Labour leader told the party’s Scottish conference that the UK’s post-Brexit relationship with the EU must be “fully compatible” with his radical agenda, including nationalising the railways and stopping employers “importing” cheap labour. He used his keynote speech to the Dundee gathering to argue that Labour could not accept a Norway-style deal for membership that would leave Britain “as a passive recipient of rules decided elsewhere by others". But Catherine Stihler, a Scottish Labour MEP, rejected his claims and argued there was “no Left-wing case” for leaving the single market. In a pointed dig at Mr Corbyn, she argued it was Labour’s job “to challenge anti-immigrant sentiment". The Labour leader was also forced to deny that he had tried to nullify dissent on single market membership after it emerged the conference is highly unlikely to get a vote on the key issue following a debate on Sunday. The party’s national executive, which is dominated by his supporters, presented a “unity” motion for debate that contained no mention of the single market. Unless this is defeated, which is highly unlikely, there is no prospect of a vote on the issue. Pro-single market campaigners expressed their fury, claiming the move was a “democratic outrage”. If their motions had passed, they would have become official Scottish Labour policy – at odds with the UK party. But Mr Corbyn used his keynote speech to argue that full single market membership was at odds with the party’s hard-Left blueprint, which relies on a high degree of state-funded intervention. The Labour leader said: “The European Union is set to make changes of its own in the coming period, especially in relation to the rules governing Eurozone economies and the rights of temporary migrant workers. It would therefore be wrong to sign up to a single market deal without agreement that our final relationship with the EU would be fully compatible with our radical plans to change Britain's economy.” Although he pledged to seek “full tariff-free access”, he said Labour would demand protections from current rules and directives “that push privatisation and public service competition, or restrict our ability to intervene to support domestic and local industry and business". Mr Corbyn said the UK cannot be “held back” from “being able to import cheap agency labour, to undercut existing pay and conditions in the name of free market orthodoxy". But he was earlier forced to deny that the party’s leadership was clamping down on dissent at the conference, saying members would still be able to fully debate single market membership even without a vote. He added: “This is an open democratic conference with lots of new members and it's the biggest conference for years. What is there not to like about that?" Richard Leonard, the Scottish Labour leader, told BBC Radio Scotland's Good Morning Scotland programme that members will have the choice whether to support or oppose the executive statement. But a new Scottish Labour for the Single Market group has been spearheaded by Kezia Dugdale, Mr Leonard’s predecessor as leader, Ian Murray, the Edinburgh South MP, and Ms Stihler. Ms Stihler said it was “disappointing” there is unlikely to be a vote on the issue and rejected Mr Corbyn’s suggestion that the single market’s rules prevent public ownership of the utilities and rail. Jamie Glackin, a former Scottish Labour chairman, said a “healthy party” would encourage members to express its views even if they were at odds with the leadership. He added: “Perhaps the reason it is not is that the days of control freakery in the Labour machine have not actually gone at all. Indeed, looking in from the outside of the party hierarchy, it does look like it has got significantly worse." https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2018/03/09/jeremy-corbyn-labour-must-reject-full-eu-single-market-membership/ Well, he's wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 The Tory/DUP deal gets scummier by the day. The DUP were looking at voting with labour on Tuesday to bring an end to the proposed cuts to free school meals. The government have given enough money for Northern Ireland to be protected to buy the DUP's votes and continue the cuts in England. There'll be nothing left of this country by the time the tories have finished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 2 minutes ago, toddybad said: Well, he's wrong. The Absolute Boy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 (edited) Why would any serious leftist want to partake in an economic institution partially created by Thatcher? Seriously. Edited 10 March 2018 by Sharpe's Fox Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 (edited) 5 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: Why would any serious leftist want to partake in an economic institution partially created by Thatcher? Seriously. There's pros and cons isn't there? The three major pros for me: 1- it secures us economically which means we are able to set a left wing agenda 2- I want us to be like the Europeans culturally. The European culture is fantastic and I want easy access to it. 3- europe leads the world with human rights and environmental activism on the world stage. I would hate us to build an EU-like relationship with the US. Edited 10 March 2018 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpe's Fox Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 19 minutes ago, toddybad said: There's pros and cons isn't there? The three major pros for me: 1- it secures us economically which means we are able to set a left wing agenda 2- I want us to be like the Europeans culturally. The European culture is fantastic and I want easy access to it. 3- europe leads the world with human rights and environmental activism on the world stage. I would hate us to build an EU-like relationship with the US. There are literally no pros. Britain is the best at everything. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 54 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said: There are literally no pros. Britain is the best at everything. Genuinely staggered but webbo liked this and you all know he actually means it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Webbo Posted 10 March 2018 Share Posted 10 March 2018 1 hour ago, toddybad said: Genuinely staggered but webbo liked this and you all know he actually means it. Of course Britain is best, why wouldn't I mean it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts