Another new Brexit thread

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ric
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
bellbuzzer said:
After the ERM disaster, many thousands lost their homes and jobs, you dont walk away from that with a shrug and "deal with it". Poor sods who handed their keys back thinking that would be the end of it were/are pursued for years for the debt, and seeing the property sold for peanuts to "mates" of solicitors and property conveyors then seeing it rented out at exorbitant prices, caused a spike in suicide statistics. A NO-DEAL brexit will make those times seem trivial. May's utterly transparent pitch to the JAM's , which she claimed to number hundreds of thousands, but was actually far more, has been expunged deleted erased from any and every brexit debate. Their situation (the jams) is now much worse and there are many more, thanks to ZHC's, the self-employment SCAM. The trivialising of their situation by the MSM , "a pinch" , a "blip", even "we got over the war" FFS, is calculated lying at it's most pernicious. The brexit response on BM typifies it. "WE (yep the royal WE) are brave enough to cope, remainers are all cowards, scared of change, no backbone, good job they weren't at Dunkirk eh lads, and many other similar opinions, designed to airbrush the iceberg out of the picture that is the bleakest of futures, (apart from the financially bulletproof who will be lavishly rewarded as ever.) Revoke, remain REVENGE.....:)
Click to expand...

I love your posts buzzer but always relieved when I've finished reading them...

tenor.gif
 
Chippy_boy said:
I throw this out there for you to consider for a moment. Maybe, just maybe, what was the disaster was the 2008 crash and the economic carnage which ensued for nearly a decade afterwards? You might or might not agree with the need for austerity (I am guessing not, since it's the in vogue idea to pretend it was all a Tory stitch up to punish poor people who we Tories all hate). But the fact is the public voted for it, not once, not twice, three times; in 2010, 2015 and again in 2017. People in the majority believed it to be necessary.
Click to expand...
There's no question the 2008 crash was responsible for a lot of the shit that has gone on (and I would argue the anger it caused lead the way to cameron deciding the referendum would be a good idea) but the public voting for something is not evidence that it was the right way to go about things. Austerity has been proved to have disproportionately affected the less well off, with the rich increasing their share of the wealth in the decade since. I'm a big fan of Keynes, I believe governments should spend when the economy is in the shit, and tighten their belts when the economy is booming. What Cameron and Osbourne did was an economic and ideological choice and it didn't work. I don't think it was a tory stitch up, I just think that Osbourne should have stuck to folding shirts in selfridges as he's a shit economist.
 
feedmpenzaandhewillscore said:
I’ve seen it on motorways too advising truck drivers that paperwork may change on the 1st of November. I think with the way it’s playing out we will still be in it by then unless Boris can get something out of Brussels, he doesn’t look like he is doing much negotiating unless it’s with a gun to the EUs head with sort a deal or else.
Click to expand...
Nah, it's with a gun to his own head and the EU have told him to pull the trigger.
 
bluejon said:
There's no question the 2008 crash was responsible for a lot of the shit that has gone on (and I would argue the anger it caused lead the way to cameron deciding the referendum would be a good idea) but the public voting for something is not evidence that it was the right way to go about things. Austerity has been proved to have disproportionately affected the less well off, with the rich increasing their share of the wealth in the decade since. I'm a big fan of Keynes, I believe governments should spend when the economy is in the shit, and tighten their belts when the economy is booming. What Cameron and Osbourne did was an economic and ideological choice and it didn't work. I don't think it was a tory stitch up, I just think that Osbourne should have stuck to folding shirts in selfridges as he's a shit economist.
Click to expand...
Fair enough mate - reasoned enough comments. In the main I disagree, but I respect your view.

What I would say is that whereas there's undoubtedly been a significant impairment to our public services, for which we all suffer, I am not entirely bought in to this idea that the less well off have all been so terribly hit.

Yes of course, pay rises have been scarce and prices have been inching up (albeit pretty slowly by modern inflation rate standards), so of course anyone already struggling in 2010 will likely be finding life quite hard. I don't doubt there's a lot of people in that boat, but many at the lower end of the pay scale are still managing, they are just worse off, as we all are.

Also, and this is an absolutely key and MUCH overlooked point: The greatest poverty which can be inflicted on an individual or family is for them to be unemployed and in receipt of benefits. What value do you place on the Tories' record of low unemployment, vs that of Labour, which frankly is dismal? It's an interesting observation that spending on social welfare in the UK has increased approximately 10 fold over the past 50 years or so, and yet poverty rates remain largely unchanged over that period, staying in the 15% to 20% range throughout. Conclusion: increased welfare spending is ineffective at reducing poverty. What makes the biggest difference is getting people back to work, or keeping people in work. And therein lies the problem: Labour policies, by and large, put more people out of work. It's not hard to understand why either. If you make it more expensive to hire people and more expensive to get rid of them, then businesses hire less people. Their products and services are less competitive, they sell less and need fewer people. You tax businesses more and they have less money to invest to drive growth. Labour policies drive down demand for employment, and ultimately make a LOT of people much worse off.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Fair enough mate - reasoned enough comments. In the main I disagree, but I respect your view.

What I would say is that whereas there's undoubtedly been a significant impairment to our public services, for which we all suffer, I am not entirely bought in to this idea that the less well off have all been so terribly hit.

Yes of course, pay rises have been scarce and prices have been inching up (albeit pretty slowly by modern inflation rate standards), so of course anyone already struggling in 2010 will likely be finding life quite hard. I don't doubt there's a lot of people in that boat, but many at the lower end of the pay scale are still managing, they are just worse off, as we all are.

Also, and this is an absolutely key and MUCH overlooked point: The greatest poverty which can be inflicted on an individual or family is for them to be unemployed and in receipt of benefits. What value do you place on the Tories' record of low unemployment, vs that of Labour, which frankly is dismal? It's an interesting observation that spending on social welfare in the UK has increased approximately 10 fold over the past 50 years or so, and yet poverty rates remain largely unchanged over that period, staying in the 15% to 20% range throughout. Conclusion: increased welfare spending is ineffective at reducing poverty. What makes the biggest difference is getting people back to work, or keeping people in work. And therein lies the problem: Labour policies, by and large, put more people out of work. It's not hard to understand why either. If you make it more expensive to hire people and more expensive to get rid of them, then businesses hire less people. Their products and services are less competitive, they sell less and need fewer people. You tax businesses more and they have less money to invest to drive growth. Labour policies drive down demand for employment, and ultimately make a LOT of people much worse off.
Click to expand...
I place very little value in the tory record of low employment, for a couple of reasons. First, the employment figures don't take into account the quality of the employment. As I mentioned, the majority of people on benefits are in work, so whilst they are considered employed, you could argue they are not 'employed enough'. Second, the tory party have done some very sneaky things with the numbers regarding employment. If you are on job seekers, you are considered 'looking for employment' so are not counted in the unemployment figures, yet you are not employed. It's bullshit.

As for Labour's policies, I have no doubt they are well meaning, but I've seen you laughing about this idea of McDonnell's 32 hour work week for everyone and I'm in full agreement. What he's done is read about the incoming wave of AI, and applied it to the full economy, which is fucking ridiculous. Yes, there are some sectors where there's evidence a 32 hour week will increase performance, but the key word is 'some'. Significant areas of the economy, especially the public sector (see teachers, the dibble, the military etc) need simple man hours put in to complete the jobs and reducing the hours on the same pay would be a fucking mess. McDonnell seems to read a lot of the same economist literature I read (as I've heard him quoting the same people I'm fond of, think Piketty, Stiglitz, Mazuccato etc) whilst simultaneously completely missing the point of what they are discussing. When Corybn was first going for Labour leader, McDonnell was on some program waving a copy of Atkinson's Inequality, What Can Be Done around. 'Fucking brilliant' thought me, because the book is fucking brilliant. The book contains a number of specific policy suggestions that would help reduce inequality. The number he has suggested as policy is the same as the number of Premier League trophies Liverpool has won.
 
Mëtal Bikër said:
More EFTA than EEA. Being able to conclude trade deals outside of the EU was one of my main reasons for leaving, but if it acts as a stepping stone towards that, i'd be in favour.
Click to expand...

If anything, I think such a deal would likely see us back in the EU in a few years. Which, personally, I would be happy about.
 
bluejon said:
I place very little value in the tory record of low employment, for a couple of reasons. First, the employment figures don't take into account the quality of the employment. As I mentioned, the majority of people on benefits are in work, so whilst they are considered employed, you could argue they are not 'employed enough'. Second, the tory party have done some very sneaky things with the numbers regarding employment. If you are on job seekers, you are considered 'looking for employment' so are not counted in the unemployment figures, yet you are not employed. It's bullshit.

As for Labour's policies, I have no doubt they are well meaning, but I've seen you laughing about this idea of McDonnell's 32 hour work week for everyone and I'm in full agreement. What he's done is read about the incoming wave of AI, and applied it to the full economy, which is fucking ridiculous. Yes, there are some sectors where there's evidence a 32 hour week will increase performance, but the key word is 'some'. Significant areas of the economy, especially the public sector (see teachers, the dibble, the military etc) need simple man hours put in to complete the jobs and reducing the hours on the same pay would be a fucking mess. McDonnell seems to read a lot of the same economist literature I read (as I've heard him quoting the same people I'm fond of, think Piketty, Stiglitz, Mazuccato etc) whilst simultaneously completely missing the point of what they are discussing. When Corybn was first going for Labour leader, McDonnell was on some program waving a copy of Atkinson's Inequality, What Can Be Done around. 'Fucking brilliant' thought me, because the book is fucking brilliant. The book contains a number of specific policy suggestions that would help reduce inequality. The number he has suggested as policy is the same as the number of Premier League trophies Liverpool has won.
Click to expand...
Interesting comments.

I had not heard of "Atkinsons Inequality", so I did a quick google and considered perhaps buying a copy and having a read. And I read the precis on Amazon:

"Inequality is one of our most urgent social problems. Curbed in the decades after World War II, it has recently returned with a vengeance. We all know the scale of the problem talk about the 99% and the 1% is entrenched in public debate but there has been little discussion of what we can do but despair. According to the distinguished economist Anthony Atkinson, however, we can do much more than skeptics imagine. Atkinson has long been at the forefront of research on inequality, and brings his theoretical and practical experience to bear on its diverse problems. He presents a comprehensive set of policies that could bring about a genuine shift in the distribution of income in developed countries. The problem, Atkinson shows, is not simply that the rich are getting richer."...

I am significant deterred from further reading as a result of that line. It bothers me. Why, because that is not the problem at all. In fact it's great that the rich are getting richer. The problem is why are the poor not getting richer at the same rate. The poor ARE getting richer of course, although the left would have you believe otherwise. The "poor" now drive cars when only a few decades ago, they did not. They have large flatscreen TV's ditto. You get the picture. The standards of living of everyone in society are on an upwards trend and have been for decades. And yet the book seeks to describe "the problem" as "the rich are getting richer"??? Really???

In China only a few decades ago, 1 billion people - give or take - lived in abject poverty. Nowadays whereas many are still in poverty, tens if not hundreds of millions are not. And yet China now has hundreds of billionaires. Can China's problems be described as "the rich are getting richer"? Milllions in China have got richer to some degree. Would they prefer to go back to when everyone was poor? I doubt it.
 
Chippy_boy said:
Interesting comments.

I had not heard of "Atkinsons Inequality", so I did a quick google and considered perhaps buying a copy and having a read. And I read the precis on Amazon:

"Inequality is one of our most urgent social problems. Curbed in the decades after World War II, it has recently returned with a vengeance. We all know the scale of the problem talk about the 99% and the 1% is entrenched in public debate but there has been little discussion of what we can do but despair. According to the distinguished economist Anthony Atkinson, however, we can do much more than skeptics imagine. Atkinson has long been at the forefront of research on inequality, and brings his theoretical and practical experience to bear on its diverse problems. He presents a comprehensive set of policies that could bring about a genuine shift in the distribution of income in developed countries. The problem, Atkinson shows, is not simply that the rich are getting richer."...

I am significant deterred from further reading as a result of that line. It bothers me. Why, because that is not the problem at all. In fact it's great that the rich are getting richer. The problem is why are the poor not getting richer at the same rate. The poor ARE getting richer of course, although the left would have you believe otherwise. The "poor" now drive cars when only a few decades ago, they did not. They have large flatscreen TV's ditto. You get the picture. The standards of living of everyone in society are on an upwards trend and have been for decades. And yet the book seeks to describe "the problem" as "the rich are getting richer"??? Really???
Click to expand...
How many centuries have the rich lived in palaces?
 
Machiavelli said:
You were talking about the poor driving cars and having flatscreen tv’s thus their quality of life improving. I just wondered how many centuries do the poor have to go before they can trade the cars and tv’s for palaces or private islands?
Click to expand...
What a bizarre question. What on earth make you think poor people should have palaces and private islands? How absolutely strange.

Clearly you need to be rich to have those things. And that will ALWAYS be the case.

Do you envisage a world where no inequality exists? Where perhaps we all have our brains adjusted at birth so that everyone has the same intelligence? And that anyone who does marginally better at school is punished in order to keep them in check? Every PL football team finished in joint 1st place, all on 53 points every season?

Honestly I have no idea what on earth you are thinking.
 
Not sure who it was who challenged me on No Deal Brexiters being like a death cult here's further evidence to back up what was a flippant comment

Jess Phillips has said she received a death threat which quoted Boris Johnson.

“I have had a death threat this week that literally quoted the prime minister and used the prime minister’s name and words in a death threat that was delivered to my staff,” she said, while asking an urgent question in the House of Commons.

The threat read: “To quote Boris Johnson … people like you who don’t support Brexit will be found dead in a ditch’,” Ms Phillips told the BBC.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...brexit-speech-labour-parliament-a9121231.html

Maybe some don't take this too seriously but we already have one dead MP and the PM describing her friends kind words about the tone of language as a humbug!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top