Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Donut said:

Based on the falling value of the pound, our economy growing slower than most of the EU countries where even weak economies like Greece grew at a faster rate than ours last year, The fact that we will be subject to tariffs when we leave the EU and the CBI report saying no brexit strategy will leave us better off.

 

As opposed to those saying the economy will get better based on snake oil and a handful of magic beans.

Well the falling value on the pound can help our exports after brexit and import duty can help the treasury.

Its amazing how many people who bemoan the trickle down effect is not working but then use it as an excuse to keep us in an overbloatedover regulated behemoth of exactly that design. Say they don’t trust tories but champion a Margret Thatcher concept and applaud John Major speeches. Strange world.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

3 minutes ago, Bryn said:

Really is time to chuck Brexit out the window with all this going on with Russia. Really horrendous time to be distancing ourselves from the international community. We will probably have to be slightly more obsequious towards the US than I'd like as well.

I think all this is the real deal, I think Russia are quite prepared to go to war in the next 10-15 years.

I really dont think its like that with Russia.  We dont want another cold war.  American war hawks are angling for conflict with Russia as much as anything.  Much of Russia's aggression in the European region is due to NATO expansion

 

For an example of how Russia look to de-escalate tensions in some areas and the USA does not, here is a good article

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/story:21300:US-Misses-Putin's-Nuclear-Message-(12)

 

I'm not saying Russia does no wrong, of course they do.  But demonisation of them diminishes the very real responsibility of other actors

[Beechey]

Just now, Donut said:

Based on the falling value of the pound, our economy growing slower than most of the EU countries where even weak economies like Greece grew at a faster rate than ours last year, The fact that we will be subject to tariffs when we leave the EU and the CBI report saying no brexit strategy will leave us better off.

 

As opposed to those saying the economy will get better based on snake oil and a handful of magic beans.

But that's a relative loss of GDP (compared to 15-30 year forecasts now, which I can tell you are wrong), not absolute, so even in their most pessimistic visions, we're better off, just less better off. Greece has lost almost 30% of its entire GDP, so naturally they will bounce back. Our economy is 15-20% larger than it was in 2007/08, can they say the same?

[Carl the Llama]

13 minutes ago, Strokes said:

No not off the top of my head but the HRA covers a bit more than the protection of good honest citizens and it has been used by criminals/terrorists to escape justice/deportation. If we can find a way to rewrite it that enables us to keep our protection and them to lose a bit, I’d say that’s a job well done tbh.

As I understand it when that happens it's a matter of not allowing us to send criminals to places where they'll probably be tortured or subjected to draconian sentences which makes it more a question of your definition of justice, your view on appropriate punishment and the requirement of the state to behave better than base criminals even if it means showing them a respect that those people won't show others.

 

As for the not off the top of my head argument, tbh if there aren't tangible explanations for being upset by something then it can't affect or offend you that much surely?  By contrast our government has a storied history of shafting workers in the name of economic progress (for London) so people have good reason to be distrustful of a Tory government with free reign to change workplace rights.  Sure they can be voted out but only after the damage is done and people have been negatively affected by their policies for a number of years.

[Bryn]

I'm quite prepared to accept that it is highly likely we've done our share to inflame the situation, I'm almost certain we've bumped off our share of traitors in the last 28 years, probably a good few of them on Russian soil.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, Bryn said:

I'm quite prepared to accept that it is highly likely we've done our share to inflame the situation, I'm almost certain we've bumped off our share of traitors in the last 28 years, probably a good few of them on Russian soil.

We were just more discreet about it were we?  I have wondered if we've engaged in this kind of behaviour but surely the news would get out in some shape or form?

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, Bryn said:

 

And it looks like the UK are going to have to take the lead in changing that, leaving the EU does not help that.

 

Whatever you think about the EU (558 pages and I still haven't seen a particularly detailed, coherent argument in favour of staying or leaving) pissing it off looks a shit idea with Russia driving on towards war.

We are still part of NATO I’m not sure what extra protection you think the EU offers tbh. 

The EU if anything is holding us back because of its reliance on Russian gas, they’ve done nothing but turn a blind eye to him. How does brexit change anything?

[Guest Foxin_mad]

Its ok the peoples hero Comrade Corbyn is going to pop across to Russia and have a nice chat with Comrade Putin, appear on Russia Today and all will be fine.

[Bryn]

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

We are still part of NATO I’m not sure what extra protection you think the EU offers tbh. 

The EU if anything is holding us back because of its reliance on Russian gas, they’ve done nothing but turn a blind eye to him. How does brexit change anything?

 

Where did I say anything about protection? It's about international relations.

[Realist Guy In The Room]

2 hours ago, lgfualol said:

Decent speech by May about Russia. Thought she would shrivel and bow down to Russia. 

 

Shame Russia are probably going to kill all the England players at the world cup now. 

Problem with May is she’s done decent speeches in the past and then followed them up with the total sum of fook all which no doubt will happen here.  

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

6 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

Its ok the peoples hero Comrade Corbyn is going to pop across to Russia and have a nice chat with Comrade Putin, appear on Russia Today and all will be fine.

Here is an article with a slightly more nuanced view of the role of the left in British politics

 

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=33&Itemid=74&jumival=1699

[Beechey]

Anneliese Dodds (Labour Shadow Minister) says she wants Phillip Hammond to spend more money, then says Labour would cut the national debt. How do these people perform such mental gymnastics?

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

Yeah I do trust our government either Tory or Labour to get basic protections right, in fact I’d expect them to do it better as they can be more refined and bespoke to our needs. If they get it wrong we can hold them to account as a democratic sovereign nation, as is our right.

How can you hold them to account?

Voting once every five years doesn't focus on one particular issue so it's difficult to hold a government to account for individual issues through elections.

As it stands we can take our government to court in Europe.

This is important. It's estimated that about 50,000 deaths a year are caused by air pollution. The government had done sod all to solve a huge issue killing our citizens. It's the European Court that has stepped in to hammer home our government's failure. Outside of the EU there'd have been nothing you could do. I'm hugely in favour of the ECJ having jurisdiction.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Anneliese Dodds (Labour Shadow Minister) says she wants Phillip Hammond to spend more money, then says Labour would cut the national debt. How do these people perform such mental gymnastics?

It's called growth.

You grow the economy to cut the debt.

The reason debt is still so high is the lack of expenditure which has caused slow growth in recent years. We could have cut the deficit far faster with a more positive programme of government.

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

As I understand it when that happens it's a matter of not allowing us to send criminals to places where they'll probably be tortured or subjected to draconian sentences which makes it more a question of your definition of justice, your view on appropriate punishment and the requirement of the state to behave better than base criminals even if it means showing them a respect that those people won't show others.

 

As for the not off the top of my head argument, tbh if there aren't tangible explanations for being upset by something then it can't affect or offend you that much surely?  By contrast our government has a storied history of shafting workers in the name of economic progress (for London) so people have good reason to be distrustful of a Tory government with free reign to change workplace rights.  Sure they can be voted out but only after the damage is done and people have been negatively affected by their policies for a number of years.

 

I didn’t say I was upset or offended, I merely stated that there is nothing stopping us replicating, improving or refining the good positive laws.

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Realist Guy In The Room said:

Problem with May is she’s done decent speeches in the past and then followed them up with the total sum of fook all which no doubt will happen here.  

The most we can do is chuck out some diplomats, we're hardly going to go to war are we?

[Finnegan]

Slightly amusing wording on the front page of the beeb. How should the UK "retaliate" against Russia. 

 

 

Not quite sure that's right. Sounds a bit eye for an eye, like we now get to poison a British defector hanging out somewhere in Krasnodar or something. 

[Beechey]

9 minutes ago, toddybad said:

It's called growth.

You grow the economy to cut the debt.

The reason debt is still so high is the lack of expenditure which has caused slow growth in recent years. We could have cut the deficit far faster with a more positive programme of government.

Lack of expenditure? Tell me, how much does our government spend on an annual basis?

It's £815,000,000,000.

 

Growth of the economy will not make up for the current ~£45bn deficit + the extra spending (was it an extra £20bn per year) that Labour planned in one Parliament (you'd need like 3% growth per year at least). Can't say I'm against higher infrastructure spending though. That's the major error the Con/Dem government made.

 

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[Guest]

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

 

I didn’t say I was upset or offended, I merely stated that there is nothing stopping us replicating, improving or refining the good positive laws.

But you've voted for a myth. The myth of what could be. Because you have no facts of what will be. One word. Punt.

[Guest Foxin_mad]

The Labour policies will create more growth argument is tripe anyway. You would need Growth of 7-8% per year at least to pay for the spending plans that Labour are proposing. No western developed nation is ever going to sustain growth like that, particularly a nation that hates business and the rich and has an economy with low manufacturing output and a heavy reliance on financial services; most of which is based on secured loans of London property purchased by wealthy foreign investors.

 

We need to invest and we are investing, unfortunately due to previous fiscal mismanagement we have to take the slow and steady approach else we will all be shafted for generations. Keep this course and gradually we can begin to increase spending without increasing debt any further.

[Carl the Llama]

4 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I didn’t say I was upset or offended, I merely stated that there is nothing stopping us replicating, improving or refining the good positive laws.

What you actually said was that you

Quote

expect them to do it better as they can be more refined and bespoke to our needs. If they get it wrong we can hold them to account as a democratic sovereign nation 

which honestly comes across as a bit naive pie in the sky thinking in the absence of any real world examples where you specifically believe this to be the case.

 

Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh I'm just a bit fatigued of people making/defending big decisions based on what they feel to be true instead of any solid attributable evidence...And yes it happens on all sides and I'm certainly guilty of it myself.

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Lack of expenditure? Tell me, how much does our government spend on an annual basis?

It's £815,000,000,000.

 

Growth of the economy will not make up for the current ~£45bn deficit + the extra spending (was it an extra £20bn per year) that Labour planned in one Parliament (you'd need like 3% growth per year at least). Can't say I'm against higher infrastructure spending though. That's the major error the Con/Dem government made.

 

Growth was 3.1% when labour left office.

It dropped like a stone soon after the Tories taking over.

There's a reason the vast majority of economists opposed austerity.

 

2 minutes ago, Foxin_mad said:

The Labour policies will create more growth argument is tripe anyway. You would need Growth of 7-8% per year at least to pay for the spending plans that Labour are proposing. No western developed nation is ever going to sustain growth like that, particularly a nation that hates business and the rich and has an economy with low manufacturing output and a heavy reliance on financial services; most of which is based on secured loans of London property purchased by wealthy foreign investors.

 

We need to invest and we are investing, unfortunately due to previous fiscal mismanagement we have to take the slow and steady approach else we will all be shafted for generations. Keep this course and gradually we can begin to increase spending without increasing debt any further.

Rubbish.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

What you actually said was that you

which honestly comes across as a bit naive pie in the sky thinking in the absence of any real world examples where you specifically believe this to be the case.

 

Apologies if that sounds a bit harsh I'm just a bit fatigued of people making/defending big decisions based on what they feel to be true instead of any solid attributable evidence...And yes it happens on all sides and I'm certainly guilty of it myself.

I know what I wrote there’s no need to be patronising.

Do you think non of these legislations can be improved then?

[Beechey]

11 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Growth was 3.1% when labour left office.

It dropped like a stone soon after the Tories taking over.

There's a reason the vast majority of economists opposed austerity.

 

Rubbish.

Source? Because GDP growth in 2009 was -4.3%. And for the 1/3 of the year Labour were in office in 2010, the growth for that year was 1.9%. The average growth rate from 1997 to 2010 was 2.1% (during one of the biggest boom periods in living memory).

Average growth between 2010 and 2018 was 1.93%. Where's the dropping like a stone here? Your statistics seem way off.

 

Opposition parties always annoy me with their hollow rhetoric.

Edited 13 March 2018 by Beechey

[Guest Foxin_mad]

22 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Growth was 3.1% when labour left office.

It dropped like a stone soon after the Tories taking over.

There's a reason the vast majority of economists opposed austerity.

 

Rubbish.

Sorry but that is absolute Horse shit

 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/281734/gdp-growth-in-the-united-kingdom-uk/

 

 

Edited 13 March 2018 by Foxin_mad