Our system detected that your browser is blocking advertisements on our site. Please help support FoxesTalk by disabling any kind of ad blocker while browsing this site. Thank you.
Jump to content
DJ Barry Hammond

Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

Recommended Posts

4 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

Did that "can you revoke article 50" question ever get answered? Honestly can't remember. :sleep:

Don't think it really did but I think the answer is probably yes.

I'm not fussed particularly about the last bit - more the short length of the transition which can't be extended. Any serious government would use the longest possible time to reduce risks. But there's so much side taking and internal politics going on they've instead put themselves in a really difficult position of it fits turn out not to be long enough. We're leaving the EU, the leavers win, that doesn't mean the government should allow us to leave chaotically just because a vocal minority are happy to risk economic annihilation.

 

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, toddybad said:

Don't think it really did but I think the answer is probably yes.

I'm not fussed particularly about the last bit - more the short length of the transition which can't be extended. Any serious government would use the longest possible time to reduce risks. But there's so much side taking and internal politics going on they've instead put themselves in a really difficult position of it fits turn out not to be long enough. We're leaving the EU, the leavers win, that doesn't mean the government should allow us to leave chaotically just because a vocal minority are happy to risk economic annihilation.

 

I agree, although I would suggest if you didn't set an end date, there would probably never be one. "one more thing to sort out..." x 60billion times = status quo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heard Tony Blair on R4 this morning bleating on about the possible reversal of Brexit. I seriously think all Remainers get together and gag this lunatic if you want to stand any chance of a decent debate about staying in the EU, as he just seems to galvanise the Brexiteers resolve whenever he pipes up. 

 

Bless the British public, they had no idea what they were voting for - too thick, apparently. 

 

Totally disgusting, despicable individual.

 

 

 

 

(and I once voted for him..!!) :blush:  Shhhhhhhh!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Don't think it really did but I think the answer is probably yes.

I'm not fussed particularly about the last bit - more the short length of the transition which can't be extended. Any serious government would use the longest possible time to reduce risks. But there's so much side taking and internal politics going on they've instead put themselves in a really difficult position of it fits turn out not to be long enough. We're leaving the EU, the leavers win, that doesn't mean the government should allow us to leave chaotically just because a vocal minority are happy to risk economic annihilation.

 

I’m more concerned about whether Independence Day will be a bank holiday or not. What do you reckon?

Edited by Strokes
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Don't think it really did but I think the answer is probably yes.

I'm not fussed particularly about the last bit - more the short length of the transition which can't be extended. Any serious government would use the longest possible time to reduce risks. But there's so much side taking and internal politics going on they've instead put themselves in a really difficult position of it fits turn out not to be long enough. We're leaving the EU, the leavers win, that doesn't mean the government should allow us to leave chaotically just because a vocal minority are happy to risk economic annihilation.

 

Ah yes, of course. 

 

 

Ffs. 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP

If that's the best the Guardian can come up with now even they are moving from the denial stage to the acceptance stage.

 

No need to revoke anything and the implementation period just give ample time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Milo said:

Ah yes, of course. 

 

 

Ffs. 

 

 

Come on. Focusing on two words which were rather tongue in cheek rather detracts from you taking a view of the wider point I'm making, doesn't it?

 

We're a bunch of football fans, stop worrying amount the semantics.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

If that's the best the Guardian can come up with now even they are moving from the denial stage to the acceptance stage.

 

No need to revoke anything and the implementation period just give ample time.

Did you read the Guardian link? It was different to the text and was just quite interesting as it talked about what was going on inside parliament in both sides. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I’m more concerned about whether Independence Day will be a bank holiday or not. What do you reckon?

If we don't get a bank holiday for George defeating the dragon we won't get one for the day our global authority faded.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Did you read the Guardian link? It was different to the text and was just quite interesting as it talked about what was going on inside parliament in both sides. 

I’ve not read it, I assumed you copied it into your post and I only scanned that if I’m honest.

I will read it but I’m in a bad mood tonight so I’ll do so with fresh eyes tomorrow and try to be balanced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest MattP
1 hour ago, toddybad said:

Did you read the Guardian link? It was different to the text and was just quite interesting as it talked about what was going on inside parliament in both sides. 

Nah. 

 

Been busy today, accidentally joined five antisemitic groups on Facebook. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kopfkino
48 minutes ago, Carl the Llama said:

What's up with the GKN thing and why should it be blocked?

 

Because people like this weird patriotism nonsense and because people fell for the defence strategy. Oh no we can't sell it because Melrose might sell it to the Chinese. Oh it's a great British firm and it's really old so we must protect it. Oh look it made Spitfires, don't take out Spitfires on it. Melrose are nasty city asset-strippers who will rip all that apart to line their own pockets, despite GKN's plan being to sell 2/3 of its business to a dodgy American firm. Oh no we must protect jobs because we definitely know workers will be worse off. We must protect this underperforming, badly managed, probably too sprawling business because we just must. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

54 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Because people like this weird patriotism nonsense and because people fell for the defence strategy. Oh no we can't sell it because Melrose might sell it to the Chinese. Oh it's a great British firm and it's really old so we must protect it. Oh look it made Spitfires, don't take out Spitfires on it. Melrose are nasty city asset-strippers who will rip all that apart to line their own pockets, despite GKN's plan being to sell 2/3 of its business to a dodgy American firm. Oh no we must protect jobs because we definitely know workers will be worse off. We must protect this underperforming, badly managed, probably too sprawling business because we just must. 

While I agree there's more than enough weird patriotism nonsense to go around (and it's hilarious that it's at this point that the Mail actually draws the line when it comes to such matters), let's not pretend that predatory capitalists don't exist and that there are firms that specialise in eating companies alive and shitting out the pieces for a profit for a select few while a lot of people lose almost everything. Look at Bain Capital, for instance.

 

Lot of money in being a shark in that particular sea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kopfkino
44 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

While I agree there's more than enough weird patriotism nonsense to go around (and it's hilarious that it's at this point that the Mail actually draws the line when it comes to such matters), let's not pretend that predatory capitalists don't exist and that there are firms that specialise in eating companies alive and shitting out the pieces for a profit for a select few while a lot of people lose almost everything. Look at Bain Capital, for instance.

 

Lot of money in being a shark in that particular sea.

 

I'm not pretending they don't exist, I'm not pretending all they do is fine. With Bain Capital, if you just ignore the large majority of its investments and look at those it asset-stripped then yes 'really bad'. This is often an accusation levelled at most of the private equity industry but I think its only right if you select the right cases, and I'd agree with Ian King who says Melrose will probably be better for GKN than GKN was. 

Edited by Kopfkino
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

I'm not pretending they don't exist, I'm not pretending all they do is fine. With Bain Capital, if you just ignore the large majority of its investments and look at those it asset-stripped then yes 'really bad'. This is often an accusation levelled at most of the private equity industry but I think its only right if you select the right cases, and I'd agree with Ian King who says Melrose will probably be better for GKN than GKN was. 

It is an accusation with merit IMO though, even if many of the investments are benign as you say. Asset-stripping a company and making all the people who work on the ground level there redundant with as little payoff as possible while creaming maximum outcome from it for yourself is hardly what you'd call ethical in any situation, is it?

 

It shouldn't happen at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Kopfkino
14 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

It is an accusation with merit IMO though, even if many of the investments are benign as you say. Asset-stripping a company and making all the people who work on the ground level there redundant with as little payoff as possible while creaming maximum outcome from it for yourself is hardly what you'd call ethical in any situation, is it?

 

It shouldn't happen at all.

 

No of course, over-leveraging and then creaming off the assets before placing it into liquidation is pretty bad, I'm not defending the practice. RBS's GRG unit a great example of that and truly terrible practice. I actually think the industry should be better regulated and more transparent, but there's this perception that PE is bad when actually it serves a useful purpose. It's really just that modern day capitalism has lots of moral people and lots of immoral people. 

 

I find it weird that perceptions of PE and VC vary so drastically. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

No of course, over-leveraging and then creaming off the assets before placing it into liquidation is pretty bad, I'm not defending the practice. RBS's GRG unit a great example of that and truly terrible practice. I actually think the industry should be better regulated and more transparent, but there's this perception that PE is bad when actually it serves a useful purpose. It's really just that modern day capitalism has lots of moral people and lots of immoral people. 

 

I find it weird that perceptions of PE and VC vary so drastically. 

PE to keep a business running and keep peoples livelihoods intact (or at the very least to give them enough to keep them safe going into something else) is a useful thing.

 

I guess you could make the argument that it is just a tool, and it depends on the person how it is used.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...