Then why are they so desperate to squeeze a massive divorce payment out of us, and expect us to continue paying alimony for years to come?
Because they need us and our money...
I'd have thought it was because of all the science funding projects and other various that we'd signed up to, but that's far less interesting a headline.
All of which will suffer significant funding shortfalls if we withdraw.
Ergo...they need our money.
You'd think that but if you work out the actual numbers they don't agree with you we make up about 5-6% of the eu budget. So assuming the budget stats the same (cost savings and Brexit costs level out and EU27 economies stay the same) they need to make up a shortfall of £8bn. Our transition offer was for £5-10bn/year so if we keep that up going forward they just about break even.
They just want us to pay for the stuff we committed to whilst we were members.
They really don't need our money anything like as badly as we need theirs.
I doubt we'd ever make up the trading shortfall with non eu markets.
Daily Heil is a bit of a stretch (although it isn't great), and the express really isn't that bad, unless there's a large body of terrible things the Express has said that I'm not aware of.
No they are not at all, after all they don't recommend trying to imply UK judges are our enemy after splashing their faces on the front page...
Spoiler:
or that we should fight them on the beaches...
Spoiler:
or perhaps undertake aggressive actions against those that think Remaining in the EU is a good idea..
Spoiler:
or just lie about immigration/EU to stir up racial tensions
Spoiler:
That you are not seeing it is probably most worrying though.
Yeah the Mail and Express are pretty much newspapers for an echo chamber of hatred and bigotry.
I may be mis remembering but before 'the imagrantz' wasnt the express' main preoccupation deifying Diana and reporting on evil machinations of Prince Philip?
That's not really correct, because it's not being specific about anyone. A cult generally benefits the person at the top who (or whom) exploit the 'cultists'. They are however persuaded (as all humans are apt to be by a dominating persona) that regardless of facts or figures their cult is right and will do anything to defend it. Wrexit is a lot like this, there are people that will support it (and their masters) until the end of the world.
We've gone from "Remainers are making up the (realistic) bad news" to:-
"It will only temporarily be an issue, we can still have all that we want and not have the bad bits", to
"It will be bad to start off with but it will get better after a short recession because of the weak £", to
"It will be better in the non-specified long term, whether that be 20 or 200 years" (basically in a time period so far in the distance that individuals saying it don't really have to worry about the consequences) , to
"If companies aren't making the most of the weak £ that is their fault" or alternatively "it's all the remainers fault they aren't pulling their weight"
It's basically shifting responsibility whilst still being in awe over the numb skulls that started and continue the whole fiasco.
I would point out that a lot of cults end with the cultists committing suicide. Now in this case I would argue that would be more metaphorically speaking in an economic and social sense when people get so invested and don't want to accept the problems that they are willing to give up their (or families) current aspirations, jobs, NHS etc just so that Wrexit can happen.
That's not really correct, because it's not being specific about anyone. A cult generally benefits the person at the top who (or whom) exploit the 'cultists'. They are however persuaded (as all humans are apt to be by a dominating persona) that regardless of facts or figures their cult is right and will do anything to defend it. Wrexit is a lot like this, there are people that will support it (and their masters) until the end of the world.
We've gone from "Remainers are making up the (realistic) bad news" to:- "It will only temporarily be an issue, we can still have all that we want and not have the bad bits", to "It will be bad to start off with but it will get better after a short recession because of the weak £", to "It will be better in the non-specified long term, whether that be 20 or 200 years" (basically in a time period so far in the distance that individuals saying it don't really have to worry about the consequences) , to "If companies aren't making the most of the weak £ that is their fault" or alternatively "it's all the remainers fault they aren't pulling their weight"
It's basically shifting responsibility whilst still being in awe over the numb skulls that started and continue the whole fiasco.
I would point out that a lot of cults end with the cultists committing suicide. Now in this case I would argue that would be more metaphorically speaking in an economic and social sense when people get so invested and don't want to accept the problems that they are willing to give up their (or families) current aspirations, jobs, NHS etc just so that Wrexit can happen.
Why should we get a fair share of the German manufacturing industry? How does this even make sense?
Stop pulling your punches and let us know what you really think. We're all thick bigoted knuckle dragging neanderthal cult followers who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
A week is a long time in politics, a year is an eternity.
A year is an eternity in politics. It's about two minutes in international state-level trade negotiations. And this is the latter.
The German car manufactures will come through for us. I have the utmost faith in them...
Wait, you want to Leave the EU, but want EU companies to stop us sliding into oblivion. This seems like just erh....a slight contradiction...
I assumed he was being sarcastic rather than clinging onto the notion that because we buy lots of German cars (3rd biggest market iirc) that they'll sway the German government and therefore the UK to get us our good deal.
Unfortunately the German car industry have made it clear that they aren't going to do that.
Stop pulling your punches and let us know what you really think. We're all thick bigoted knuckle dragging neanderthal cult followers who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
You've been lied to from the start and some of you still believe it or engaging full on cognate dissonance to avoid admitting you were fooled. There are some valid reasons to leave the EU; I'm not saying you were wrong to have those views, but you're going to be hugely disappointed when we actually leave becuase we'll make such a bad job of ut
Whirlwind wrote: Well strictly speaking by the English dictionary that would be cultists...GW do a line in these I believe.
When DINLT made a quip in a similar vein to this Motyak felt the need to repremand him. I highly doubt the same will happen to you though.
There was a question asked, and I answered the question. I also pointed out that GW make models for cultists (both Chaos and Genestealers, and they are good looking models too). I'm failing to see why I should be reprimanded for two facts? I'm not sure what interpretation has gone on here?
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Then German cars become less price competitive in the UK market due to tariffs and American or Asian cars become relatively more competitive.
Yup, and they'll get over it pretty quickly. Sales are already down and we haven't left yet.
That said; they are aspirational cars and usually in finance so I don't think the buyers are that price sensitive. In fact them getting 20% more expensive makes them better for showing up the Jones' next door.
Stop pulling your punches and let us know what you really think. We're all thick bigoted knuckle dragging neanderthal cult followers who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
You've been lied to from the start and some of you still believe it or engaging full on cognate dissonance to avoid admitting you were fooled. There are some valid reasons to leave the EU; I'm not saying you were wrong to have those views, but you're going to be hugely disappointed when we actually leave becuase we'll make such a bad job of ut
I paid very little attention to the Brexit campaigners.
I know the politicians were lying to us. So were the Remainers. I made my decision years before the Referendum and I voted on principle, I am fundamentally opposed to the establishment of a European super state which is the openly stated end game of the EU, so stop trying to undermine my agency and questioning my capacity to think for myself by suggesting I didn't know what I was doing and was hoodwinked.
I wasn't hoodwinked, I knew what I wanted a decade in advance and I voted for it, fully accepting the likely damage to the economy. I have no doubt that our politicians will make a mess of Brexit but I don't care. I'd still vote the same way. My principles haven't changed and won't change no matter how disastrous Brexit turns out to be.
Whirlwind wrote: Why should we get a fair share of the German manufacturing industry? How does this even make sense?
Um, it doesn't? Because I wasn't talking about that. Stop making gak up.
Maybe then it was a poorly timed response (in terms of when it was posting). The chain of responses was
DINLT made a comment on the German car industry.
I commented that it was contradictory to expect a foreign industry to help us out.
Minsc commented that it was it was having a cake and eating it philosophy.
You commented that if we pay we should have a slice of the cake.
Therefore I couldn't really understand why the UK should have a share of the German car industry and that it didn't make sense to?
Stop pulling your punches and let us know what you really think. We're all thick bigoted knuckle dragging neanderthal cult followers who shouldn't be allowed to vote?
When have I ever said that? If I was I'd be calling both my parents and youngest brother the same thing? That doesn't mean I don't argue points with them. I commented that some people are taking what could be classed as a cultist mentality to Wrexit. In that regardless of the damage it causes it must be completed. I didn't say anyone here was and I specifically attempted to word that some people were not "people here" for example. You only have to peruse the BBC comments section on pretty much any article on Wrexit. Some of them really are pretty appalling even after being moderated. However I would agree with the previous sentiment from red8n that for some Wrexit is garnering a type of cult recognition. Rational argument goes by the way side to get it done regardless of cost to people, families (noting there has been a survey on this). This is similar to a cult type mentality. There are a few high profile people that are pushing the agenda who are likely to get very wealthy from it. I do not think they care about those people struggling and will struggle even more because of Wrexit.
You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
And then there are those of you that don't care what happens as long as we leave the eu. No hardship to much to get away from what you think the eu is turning into. I've never been able to find out if you have a red line anywhere. Like "I'm glad we got out of the eu but maybe it wasn't worth giving up electricity for" or something.
Herzlos wrote: You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
Which is exactly what was and IS happening.
All our mainstream political parties with any real power are pro EU. They're all in favour of further EU integration. They don't represent my interests, so the only option I had was to vote to Leave. Our political leaders certainly weren't going to put a stop to EU integration.
Herzlos wrote: You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
Which is exactly what was and IS happening.
All our mainstream political parties with any real power are pro EU. They're all in favour of further EU integration. They don't represent my interests, so the only option I had was to vote to Leave. Our political leaders certainly weren't going to put a stop to EU integration.
Ah, so you're not trying to claim it's turning into a super state against its members wishes like DINLT does?
Maybe it's me but I don't see the problem if all members agree.
I covered this when I was talking about how the Lisbon treaty was signed. They went straight to Brown's government (who really were unelected. At least May has a referendum and an election for her mandate) and buttered them up to sign it. Us plebs had no say in it at all. So it's all well and good saying the super state won't happen without our consent, but the truth is they only need to bribe some of our top level politicians to get what they want.
I know the politicians were lying to us. So were the Remainers. I made my decision years before the Referendum and I voted on principle, I am fundamentally opposed to the establishment of a European super state which is the openly stated end game of the EU, so stop trying to undermine my agency and questioning my capacity to think for myself by suggesting I didn't know what I was doing and was hoodwinked.
I wasn't hoodwinked, I knew what I wanted a decade in advance and I voted for it, fully accepting the likely damage to the economy. I have no doubt that our politicians will make a mess of Brexit but I don't care. I'd still vote the same way. My principles haven't changed and won't change no matter how disastrous Brexit turns out to be.
Ermmmm. So regardless of what evidence is presented or happens you will always support Brexit because of fears over a superstate (not that this is on the cards at all anyway). But hypothetically speaking what is it about a superstate that you are so opposed to? Being opposed to it is fine, but EU superstate seems to get thrown around like candy but no one ever explains why they are opposed to it or why it is such a bad thing? The US for example could be considered a superstate?
Secondly are there absolutely no red lines that you would not cross (or expect the government not to do so) to ensure Wrexit is achieved. Hypothetically speaking again, suppose that after Wrexit we are poorer (generally expected now by all sides from the conversations); the government therefore cuts back on the NHS that leaves the poorest more exposed to illness. That conversely ends with large delays to treatment and in the end results in increased premature deaths (let us for example assume that because of the increased waiting times for cancer treatment that child mortality increases, lets suppose linked to poor air quality due to the government not having the ability to tackle it). Would this be a red line we shouldn't cross or do we have to accept this consequence?
Herzlos wrote: You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
Which is exactly what was and IS happening.
All our mainstream political parties with any real power are pro EU. They're all in favour of further EU integration. They don't represent my interests, so the only option I had was to vote to Leave. Our political leaders certainly weren't going to put a stop to EU integration.
Ah, so you're not trying to claim it's turning into a super state against its members wishes like DINLT does?
Maybe it's me but I don't see the problem if all members agree.
The politicians agree. I don't.
The problem is that our leaders' personal views do not align with the majority of voters views, as we saw in the referendum.
Future War Cultist wrote: I covered this when I was talking about how the Lisbon treaty was signed. They went straight to Brown's government (who really were unelected. At least May has a referendum and an election for her mandate) and buttered them up to sign it. Us plebs had no say in it at all. So it's all well and good saying the super state won't happen without our consent, but the truth is they only need to bribe some of our top level politicians to get what they want.
In what way are (or were) our politicians bribed? There is also an argument here that we could have then stopped further integration if we voted for different political parties, so why didn't we? Surely that was in our power to do so. This surely flies in the face of the argument that the EU just imposed laws on us and we had no say on the issue?
Herzlos wrote: You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
Which is exactly what was and IS happening.
All our mainstream political parties with any real power are pro EU. They're all in favour of further EU integration. They don't represent my interests, so the only option I had was to vote to Leave. Our political leaders certainly weren't going to put a stop to EU integration.
Ah, so you're not trying to claim it's turning into a super state against its members wishes like DINLT does?
Maybe it's me but I don't see the problem if all members agree.
The politicians agree. I don't.
The problem is that our leaders' personal views do not align with the majority of voters views, as we saw in the referendum.
That's not quite correct. 33% of the population voted against, 33% for and 33% we don't know about (or don't care enough to vote which we could assume means that they were fine as is). On that basis that means only 33% of people actually don't like being in the EU (or care enough about it) which in MPs terms is actually not that far from the number that actually supported Wrexit.
Herzlos wrote: You've been completely untouched by decades of anti eu press? Where do you get the information about the super stare from?
I'm not saying it's a conscious bias or buy in to the lies, but they are lies all the same. An EU superstate would only have happened if everyone let it.
Which is exactly what was and IS happening.
All our mainstream political parties with any real power are pro EU. They're all in favour of further EU integration. They don't represent my interests, so the only option I had was to vote to Leave. Our political leaders certainly weren't going to put a stop to EU integration.
Ah, so you're not trying to claim it's turning into a super state against its members wishes like DINLT does?
Maybe it's me but I don't see the problem if all members agree.
The politicians agree. I don't.
The problem is that our leaders' personal views do not align with the majority of voters views, as we saw in the referendum.
The politicians are elected representatives. If you don't like what they are doing then you petition or replace them. I'd that doesn't work maybe the majority doesn't agree with you.
You don't pull us out of our biggest and closest trading union because you don't like what your MP does, because your MP isn't going to change.
Herzlos wrote: You don't pull us out of our biggest and closest trading union because you don't like what your MP does, because your MP isn't going to change.
I can and I did. Deal with it.
But its not just a trading union is it? Its also a political union and a nascent state in its own right that is slowly developing all the organisations and instruments of a State.
If it was only just a trading union, I probably wouldn't have voted to leave it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: That's not quite correct. 33% of the population voted against, 33% for and 33% we don't know about (or don't care enough to vote which we could assume means that they were fine as is). On that basis that means only 33% of people actually don't like being in the EU (or care enough about it) which in MPs terms is actually not that far from the number that actually supported Wrexit.
Can't help but notice how you're fiddling those percentages in your favour. Probably rounding up and rounding, to square that round hole and make them match up.
I prefer hard facts.
16,141,241 people voted Remain. 17,410,742 people voted Leave.
Those numbers are not identical no matter how much you try to spin it.
33% we don't know about (or don't care enough to vote which we could assume means that they were fine as is).
Of the people who chose not to vote, I care not. They should have voted if they wanted their voices to be counted.
Ultimately we DON'T know, so we shouldn't be assuming ANYTHING about what they think. The fact that you're keen to assume they're "fine" with the status quo just shows your bias. I don't assume anything about what they think and neither should you.
What about those that can't vote? Should we care about them?
Our representatives need to take into account the lives of all their constituency and not just those that had the statistically insignificant majority.
However you present the numbers, just over a third of us voted out, just under a third voted in, about a third didn't vote.
I still don't know what you dislike so much about a notional superstate? And why you dislike it so much you're happy to watch the world burn.
How do you feel about a 2nd referendum if the feeling I'd the public mood has changed? Will of the people or subverting the will of the people?
It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....
Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).
Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.
Herzlos wrote: What about those that can't vote? Should we care about them?
Of course we should. Please take note of the specific language I used: "those who chose not to vote".
However you present the numbers, just over a third of us voted out, just under a third voted in, about a third didn't vote.
Exactly. The Leave number is bigger than the Remain number. Thats how democracy works, the majority vote wins.
I still don't know what you dislike so much about a notional superstate?
Because it will be so vast, and the uppermost echelons of Government will be so remote and detached from the people, that it will be unaccountable to the everyday man. Democracy works best when it is kept small, and power is close to the people and accessible. It does not work in vast empires.
And why you dislike it so much you're happy to watch the world burn.
The world? Hardly.
How do you feel about a 2nd referendum if the feeling I'd the public mood has changed? Will of the people or subverting the will of the people?
If Brexit had been planned and pitched as a 2 Referendum process from the very beginning, to gauge public Opinion on whether to Leave, and then again on the terms of our Leaving, sure. I'd be OK with it.
But thats not how the terms of the Brexit Referendum were presented to us, we were told that the people would decide in a Referendum, and then Cameron would carry out the will of the people. But he lied, and chose to resign instead of honouring his word.
Trying to hold a 2nd Referendum now to reverse Brexit is simply moving the goal posts. Its cheating, for lack of a better word, and its a deeply dishonest and underhanded way of reversing Brexit.
Put it this way: If Remain had won the Referendum, but afterwards the EU used that as an excuse and began pushing hard for complete integration and the forfeiture of our few remaining Opt-Outs and public opinion subsequently turned against the EU and back in favour of Leave...would YOU agree to a 2nd Referendum?
Can't help but notice how you're fiddling those percentages in your favour. Probably rounding up and rounding, to square that round hole and make them match up.
I prefer hard facts.
16,141,241 people voted Remain.
17,410,742 people voted Leave.
Those numbers are not identical no matter how much you try to spin it.
Within statistical uncertainty it is effectively and it is better to view that we had third equally between stay, leave, don't know or care enough to vote. The exact figures are 34%, 37%, 29%. 1.3m is really not a large number overall. The numbers aren't really conclusiveness to say either way. If you want to play with numbers...There are approximately 2m people in the country that were denied a vote, EU citizens (many that had been here a long time and to note will be entitled to vote once we leave according to May's plans). There are 1.5m UK citizens living in the EU and a lot were denied a vote. There are about 1.4m 16-18 year olds (half of which are now entitled to vote) that were denied a vote. Even excluding those that didn't vote there are large numbers of votes that were excluded that could have easily swayed the result to being more decisive one way or another.
Of the people who chose not to vote, I care not. They should have voted if they wanted their voices to be counted.
Is that really the attitude though. Our government and parliament are there to represent everyone whether they voted or not. Discounting them simply because they didn't vote is not a reason to then subsequently ignore them. People are entitled to be represented even if they didn't tick a box. If you stop caring about other people then they are likely to stop caring about you just as much. You might learn to regret that in time if the populace as a whole becomes more selfish because of it.
The fact that you're keen to assume they're "fine" with the status quo just shows your bias. I don't assume anything about what they think and neither should you.
Actually we can make a few assumptions and a hypothesis simply based on human nature. We don't generally tend to act on things if we are comfortable for example (a classic example is changing banks/energy companies) even if it is worthwhile doing something, it's just not enough to make us do so. We are intrinsically lazy like this. However those that get a 'bee under the bonnet' are indeed likely to take more proactive action (e.g. vote). Therefore I am comfortable in assuming that the non-voters are likely to be dominated by those who are happy with the status quo (students could easily fall in this category). As such when push comes to shove it is likely that they are more supportive of the remaining than leaving as that is simply staying 'as is' (or there are not enough reasons or arguments to actually make those people think a change is worthwhile). It is more likely that the leave vote captured a significant amount of those anti-EU because this was there chance. Therefore that third could quite easily be near the glass ceiling of the leave vote and the remain vote simply didn't get enough people out on the day (perhaps thinking the status quo would remain).
Put it this way: If Remain had won the Referendum, but afterwards the EU used that as an excuse and began pushing hard for complete integration and the forfeiture of our few remaining Opt-Outs and public opinion subsequently turned against the EU and back in favour of Leave...would YOU agree to a 2nd Referendum?
(Thats rhetorical btw, of course you wouldn't).
I have no fear of this. We should not consider ourselves 'special' in any way. The reality is referendums are a bad way of making decisions as complicated as this. We don't have this type of democracy (else all decisions should be held this way). What in effect we have potentially started is a referendum every 5 years or so just to check because otherwise the next generation never get their say and are rolled into a direction they neither want or asked for.
I'd argue that if we voted to remain and the mood changed to leave, then the democratic thing to do would be another referendum.
I also don't think referring to the will of the people is an underhand way to subvert the will of the people. I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.
Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....
Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).
Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.
The party is getting older with lower membership. These guys might not have gotten there by being any good; just being better than the rest of the dregs.
Herzlos wrote: I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.
Which is how I view demands for a 2nd Referendum. If we were ever going to have a 2nd Referendum, then that should have been agreed upon from the very start, not demanded after the fact. Its moving the goal posts.
Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?
Bloodshed.
I view Brexit as potentially our last chance to secede from the EU and retain our national independence. One day, if we wait too long, we'll be too closely integrated that we will no longer be able to leave without resorting to force.
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You don't even know what people voted for. You had "status quo" versus "something else". That's not how you make a proper vote. It's a joke.
It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?
Herzlos wrote: I'd argue that if we voted to remain and the mood changed to leave, then the democratic thing to do would be another referendum.
I also don't think referring to the will of the people is an underhand way to subvert the will of the people. I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.
Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....
Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).
Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.
The party is getting older with lower membership. These guys might not have gotten there by being any good; just being better than the rest of the dregs.
She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.
It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?
I'll admit I would. But then I'd question any vote where the win was so narrow because margin of error. Particularly when the winner then acts as though it were an overwhelming mandate.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?
Sure, because it wouldn't have resulted in this political no man's land situation. Things would have just kept going as before.
Imagine if you had gone to the same vacation spot for the last 20 years (it's your family's favourite hotel near the beach or something like that). A few weeks before your next trip you suddenly have a vote for the next vacation (because a few days before that grandpa wanted to win the vote that decided what new car to get). Half of the people like going to the same spot as before and the other half want something new.
If the "same old vacation" side had won nothing would have changed and you could have done the same you do every year (and even planned a different vacation for next year with enough time and thought) and just relaxed on the beach for now but if the "new experience" side won (meaning: Brexit) you now have to decide, rearrange, and book everything in a really short amount of time. That's a bit of added stress for everyone (in addition to the displeasure of the side that just wanted to go to to the same hotel and relax there).
Brexit is a haphazardly put together "new vacation" that created a lot of unneeded uncertain and stress in a relatively short time frame for those people. Why would they complain if things had just stayed the same? They didn't want the ambiguously defined referendum in the first place.
She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.
She seems adequately competent where she is now. I'd give her a junior ministerial portfolio and see how that goes before making any further judgements though. Being able to deliver a good brusque speech that doesn't make you seem like a posh Tory is a great asset, as is being able to hold your own in a political debate/the media ring (as she's shown with Sturgeon) and keep the local party in line. Being actually competent at administration/inventing policy though? Different kettle of a fish altogether. Blair was great at all the former, yet sucked at the latter, and how is he remembered, eh?
No, I'd say she's proven herself competent in some specific fields, but it in no way implies capability in the others. She may well be a future leader to watch for a decade from now (certainly, she appears a better prospect than sodding Priti Patel and miles ahead of Leadsom) but she's still green with little actual governing experience. She needs to get some of that under her belt before she can start playing with the heavyweights.That is however, precisely why I'd approve of her heading south and taking a portfolio or two; because it'll let me form a better of judgement of whether she's all bark and no bite or not.
She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.
She seems adequately competent where she is now. I'd give her a junior ministerial portfolio and see how that goes before making any further judgements though. Being able to deliver a good brusque speech that doesn't make you seem like a posh Tory is a great asset, as is being able to hold your own in a political debate/the media ring (as she's shown with Sturgeon) and keep the local party in line. Being actually competent at administration/inventing policy though? Different kettle of a fish altogether. Blair was great at all the former, yet sucked at the latter, and how is he remembered, eh?
No, I'd say she's proven herself competent in some specific fields, but it in no way implies capability in the others. She may well be a future leader to watch for a decade from now (certainly, she appears a better prospect than sodding Priti Patel and miles ahead of Leadsom) but she's still green with little actual governing experience. She needs to get some of that under her belt before she can start playing with the heavyweights.That is however, precisely why I'd approve of her heading south and taking a portfolio or two; because it'll let me form a better of judgement of whether she's all bark and no bite or not.
She seemed to handle a very difficult situation well, being a Tory north of border ain't easy.
Yes giving her one of thr lower minsterry jobs would be good. She could be a decent PM, she held her own against Sturgeon which is better than may could of managed I'd wager.
Also a Lesbian ex army reserves in tory well, that's bound to build a tough layer of amour that make London set have a hard time penetrating.
Not sure if all bite, but she weathered the referendum, sturgeon, so even for bite is abit green, her thick skin is pretty tempered in political fire.
Ketara wrote: It's like reading the first twenty pages over and over after Brexit was first proposed....
Meanwhile, the government appear to be (badly) showing their hand over their threat to leave without a deal. Namely, their lack of preparation for a hard Brexit in a year's time. Now I very much doubt that they're complete idiots (they wouldn't have reached Cabinet if they were), so what that tell us is that they're convinced that a transition agreement is not only necessary, but that they're reasonably convinced that whatever the final settlement of the Brexit issue, there will be a transitional agreement put in place for a few years. Which is of course, both good and bad (for different reasons depending on your perspective).
Meanwhile, there's been a lot of speculation over Ruth Davidson moving south of the border after 2021. I can't say I'd be too averse to seeing more of her in mainstream politics, There's something about an angry Scottish feminist ex-TA lesbian kickboxer that amuses and appeals to me.
No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.
jhe90 wrote: She got Tory seats in Scotland.. Id day that's a surprise and one not to underestimate.
She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.
That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).
AlmightyWalrus wrote: You don't even know what people voted for. You had "status quo" versus "something else". That's not how you make a proper vote. It's a joke.
It is a joke. But it is the vote we were given. Had we voted Remain, you wouldn't be questioning the legitimacy of the Referendum, would you?
Why is my hypothetical actions in an unrelated hypothetical situation relevant to my point? Stop deflecting.
Herzlos wrote: I disagree with re-running referendums until the correct answer is given though.
Which is how I view demands for a 2nd Referendum. If we were ever going to have a 2nd Referendum, then that should have been agreed upon from the very start, not demanded after the fact. Its moving the goal posts.
I'm not convinced. It's not a case of the government running the referendum until we vote Remain, but it's clear that it's still a very divisive issue and it's also not clear what the public actually want. Doing anything on a 52/48 majority is a joke.
Would I support another referendum if remain won? Yes and no. Yes because 52/48 is essentially a draw once you factor in any sort of error margin, you can't draw any conclusion on it apart from it being non-conclusive. You'd need something closer to 60/40 before you can genuinely claim any mandate (Scottish indyref was 55/45 and we thought that was too close so there's still a lot of interest in a re-run). No because the Remain position was clear - business as usual. Changin the status quo should require a slightly higher bar.
Since you don't want to watch the world burn you must have a red line for Brexit; where is it?
Bloodshed.
I view Brexit as potentially our last chance to secede from the EU and retain our national independence. One day, if we wait too long, we'll be too closely integrated that we will no longer be able to leave without resorting to force.
I'd argue we're already there - we've resisted integration for decades, so we're unlikely to have become any more integrated than we are now.
In terms of bloodshed, I think it's a real possibility once the masses realise how badly they've been screwed over for political gains. Those that voted Leave because their job was at risk and still lose their job, those that voted Leave to save the NHS to lose it anyway, those that voted Leave so that they could buy a house but still can't, those that voted Leave because they don't like foreigners, but immigration is unchanged. There were a lot of problems caused by poor governance that's been blamed on the EU for decades, and once it becomes apparent that it had nothing to do with the EU and we've trashed our economy to avoid blaming those responsible, I think there will be proper outrage from people who feel betrayed and have very little left to lose.
No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.
She's in an odd position where she has to defend anything that comes from the English Tories. It's hard to tell what she actually agrees with, but she's defended some pretty awful stuff.
She also promised that the Scottish members would vote in Scotlands interests, which vanished almost immediately. She also comes across as a properly nasty individual.
So an ideal Tory, but not a popular politician - just less awful as the rest of them due to having less exposure.
She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.
That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).
Exactly. Her entire campaign was how the SNP were bad, and Labour campaigning encouraged voting Tory to beat the SNP. Had people not been encouraged to vote strategically to beat the SNP I doubt they'd have done anything like as well as they did. Now that's become transparent their popularity has dropped back to nothing.
Essentially a draw is what wins in first past the post votes. Which is exactly what this country uses when voting for anything.
It doesn't matter in the end, if they wanted clarity they should have done so before the referendum took place, they did not because they thought we'd vote remain and they'd shut it down for another 30 years whilst we slowly merged into the larger European Community.
I am 100% certain, that if the vote was switched and remain won by 52/48 the public would not be going on about potential neverendums, how people didn't know what they were voting for etc etc etc. I'd put money on it, if I had a house I'd put that on it too.
Instead we just have a massive shambles because we jumped ship. We have a government that is more interested in internal squabbling instead of shutting up and doing their damn jobs. We have a general public that's still at odds with
one another because Remainers believe that all Leavers are racist bigots and all Leavers are convinced that all Remainers are having a massive paddy because the vote didn't go their way.
On the other hand if we voted remain we'd probably still have Cameron as PM, so this is still probably a better place to be in.
No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. She said:
" I think that it's right that child tax credits are limited to the first two children.
"I also think that it's right that if you are going to have that limit, that you have exceptions in exceptional cases.
"In terms of how that works on the ground, if there are issues with that, then I am completely open - if there are better ways of doing it - to reviewing that."
It was around cutting tax credits for children past the second one and how a specific exemption clause (that of rape) functioned. She didn't even deny that it should exist, she was talking about the mechanics of the law involved. If you're going to say that she's not a feminist for that, you might as well start saying anyone who ever supports any kind of cuts which affect women ever can't be a feminist, on account of the fact that they take services away from women who might have been raped.
I mean, think about it. NHS cuts? Oh no, they help people who've been raped! Anti-feminist! Police cuts? They investigate cases of rape! Housing support? People who've been raped live in those houses! The Army? Often when people go to war, opposing armies rape the civilians, so by cutting defence budgets you're increasing the possibility of rape! etcetc
It was a stupid headline devised by a Labour politician trying to find some way to sling some mud, and it was utterly ridiculous. If supporting a government policy for a minor (and it was minor, compared to something like the Atos debacle or the Universal Credit readjustment) benefits rule modification is the best someone can do for a character assassination? You're probably reasonably clean.
She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.
That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).
I don't disagree necessarily on the seat winning, but I'd challenge the idea that getting angry is necessarily a bad thing. Could you give more information on her explicitly endorsing racists? I haven't heard that before, and would be interested to see the evidence.
No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on.
...<snip>...
That's a real stretch. This is a change in legislation which has a specific clause that unduly penalises women who've been raped. You'd expect any womens rights advocate or feminist to be outraged by it.
I can see why it's there, but that doesn't make it OK.
There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.
That's a real stretch. This is a change in legislation which has a specific clause that unduly penalises women who've been raped. You'd expect any womens rights advocate or feminist to be outraged by it.
I can see why it's there, but that doesn't make it OK.
Firstly, feminists themselves can't even agree on who qualifies as a feminist half the time. Second generation ones are horrified by third generation ones.
Secondly, she never even said it should be removed. It was about a modification to the proposed rule; namely whether or not you should give someone a pile of public cash over eighteen years based on nothing but their word in a single meeting. The answer is possibly yes, and possibly no, and as Davidson herself said, things like that are 'difficult judgement calls'. Which they are. I repeat, you can extend that principle to practically any cut which affects women who may have been raped. It's a silly, laughable thing to lob around as an accusation relating to feminism, and I daresay 95% of all members of all British political houses have voted to do similar things at certain points in time over certain budgets.
The only reason Kezia Dugdale even said it was because she was desperately trying to find a rock to lob at the Tories to excuse her own poor performance, and she hoped that if she shouted the words 'Ruth Davidson' next to the words 'not a feminist' enough times in the headlines, some people might associate the two together without actually looking into it. Which is a standard enough political tactic, it gets used all over the world (Corbyn's been bitten massively by it). But in this case, it doesn't stand up to fifteen seconds of scrutiny as a serious allegation against the woman's feminist credentials.
There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.
Could you show me where Davidson was responsible for the DUP alliance in the Scottish Parliament? I wasn't aware the DUP were involved there.
That is, assuming you're nailing her for something she specifically did, and not just for being a Tory politician of some stripe (and therefore responsible in your eyes for anything any Tory does, including those more highly placed in a different chamber altogether to her).
There are plenty of other ways in which she's a hypocrit anyway, like the DUP arrangement.
Could you show me where Davidson was responsible for the DUP alliance in the Scottish Parliament? I wasn't aware the DUP were involved there.
That is, assuming you're nailing her for something she specifically did, and not just for being a Tory politician of some stripe (and therefore responsible in your eyes for anything any Tory does, including those more highly placed in a different chamber altogether to her).
She has a voice in the party, is present in downing street meetings etc. I'd have expected her to be outraged with the DUP deal and would have had enough sway to sink it. She didn't. I don't think she's publicly been anything but supportive of it.
She has a voice in the party, is present in downing street meetings etc. I'd have expected her to be outraged with the DUP deal and would have had enough sway to sink it. She didn't. I don't think she's publicly been anything but supportive of it.
So you think Davidson is morally culpable for not attempting to sabotage decisions made by the leader of her party in a completely separate chamber to that which she's involved in?
Okay. So your disagreement is essentially based upon 'She's a Tory' (since someone who did what you want wouldn't be one for long, if ever). That's fine, and totally a point of view you can have, but please don't be offended if others without that automatic distaste by association don't see the world the same way.
No my point is that whilst she seems to have strong convictions (which is a good thing, a politician that stands for something is what we want), she'll drop them in a heartbeat when told to (a bad thing).
No one who supports the rape clause is a feminist.
Pull the other one, it's got bells on. She said:
" I think that it's right that child tax credits are limited to the first two children.
"I also think that it's right that if you are going to have that limit, that you have exceptions in exceptional cases.
"In terms of how that works on the ground, if there are issues with that, then I am completely open - if there are better ways of doing it - to reviewing that."
It was around cutting tax credits for children past the second one and how a specific exemption clause (that of rape) functioned. She didn't even deny that it should exist, she was talking about the mechanics of the law involved. If you're going to say that she's not a feminist for that, you might as well start saying anyone who ever supports any kind of cuts which affect women ever can't be a feminist, on account of the fact that they take services away from women who might have been raped.
I mean, think about it. NHS cuts? Oh no, they help people who've been raped! Anti-feminist! Police cuts? They investigate cases of rape! Housing support? People who've been raped live in those houses! The Army? Often when people go to war, opposing armies rape the civilians, so by cutting defence budgets you're increasing the possibility of rape! etcetc
It was a stupid headline devised by a Labour politician trying to find some way to sling some mud, and it was utterly ridiculous. If supporting a government policy for a minor (and it was minor, compared to something like the Atos debacle or the Universal Credit readjustment) benefits rule modification is the best someone can do for a character assassination? You're probably reasonably clean.
You appear to be under the impression that 'Ruth Davidson supports the Rape Clause' is a Labour party smear derived from a single accusation - not her sticking up for forcing women through horrible processes in order to get child support for being forcibly impregnated literally dozens of times in interviews. It does help that she obviously think it's abhorrent, and looks like she wants to be sick every time she defends it, but she goes ahead and plugs the party line anyway.
She got Tory seats exclusively off the back of IndyRef2 fears. With that on the backburner, the Tories have already fallen straight back behind Labour. She has peaked here.
That said, she openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates, cracks and immediately angers under pressure, and explodes weekly at FMQs - she couldn't stand up to UK level press scrutiny for five minutes, so I don't think she'll be heading south (at least but for long!).
I don't disagree necessarily on the seat winning, but I'd challenge the idea that getting angry is necessarily a bad thing. Could you give more information on her explicitly endorsing racists? I haven't heard that before, and would be interested to see the evidence.
I'm pretty busy and don't really have time to go collecting links - but it's hardly a challenge: here's (right-leaning) Scotsman and (left-leaning) National takes on the most recent incident to get you started, alongside a (very pro-independence, and a walloper) WOS run down on Tory bigotry antics, but you can do some googling about OL and ex-BNP members standing for the Tories, have a look at her right hand man Murdo Fraser's tweets (esp. stuff about the Queen's 11), etc.
Herzlos wrote: No my point is that whilst she seems to have strong convictions (which is a good thing, a politician that stands for something is what we want), she'll drop them in a heartbeat when told to (a bad thing).
Err...yes? Because running Britain or the Tory Party isn't her department? I mean, seriously, think about what you're suggesting. You're saying that any politician who personally disagrees with the actions taken by the Prime Minister, or indeed, even the Minister of another department should immediately start briefing against them. In effect, you're asking that every politician should do what Bojo currently does.
I mean, how would that even work? The Minister for Agriculture doubtless has opinion on benefits. Should they start pushing their own ideas for that department and disagreeing with the Minister whose job it actually is? How do you get any kind of unified government in that sort of situation? Most politicians only join parties because they feel like they agree with the general philosophical thrust of that party, not because they expect that party to do absolutely everything they personally would like to see done. They don't just up and leave or start plotting every time the Minister of Defence gives a contract to a constituency different to that they'd have picked.
That's not how our system, or any political party within it functions. When you join a party, you knuckle under to the party line to an extent. If it starts to wildly diverge from that general philosophical approach, you might make a few public statements. It's only if it does it consistently that you'd leave or try some sort of mass internal reform/revolution. In this particular case, asking for more proof than somebody saying 'I pinky promise' before handing over a pile of public cash is hardly some massive sexist policy that would cause Davidson (or anyone else) to leave. It's not her job, not her pay grade, and not so vastly important/offensive as to push her into public protest.
When it comes to the DUP, she said, 'What I spoke to the Prime Minister about yesterday was the need for a categoric assurance that talking with the DUP would not result in any rollback of any LBGT rights in the rest of the UK. Because as the Conservative Party, we are the party of equal marriage, we introduced it to the House of Commons. And also we would use our influence to try and advance LGBT rights in Northern Ireland and they are the assurances that I got.”
So there you go. She clarified that LGBT rights would not be affected in any way, and pushed for them to be extended in Northern Ireland. I mean, what more do you want? A resignation? She also publicly disagreed with May over the process for leaving the ECHR, saying that ' I take a slightly different view from Theresa May - I think we should recognise that the ECHR was in large part drafted by people from Britain, and it's British values that are enshrined there.'
So frankly, I'm seeing someone who already speaks out more than is average for a party politician against the central line, but I'm aware also that it's only the uniqueness of her position (in a different house) that permits her to do so. Certainly, I'm not seeing someone who 'drops her beliefs in a heartbeat when told to'.
You appear to be under the impression that 'Ruth Davidson supports the Rape Clause' is a Labour party smear derived from a single accusation - not her sticking up for forcing women through horrible processes in order to get child support for being forcibly impregnated literally dozens of times in interviews. It does help that she obviously think it's abhorrent, and looks like she wants to be sick every time she defends it, but she goes ahead and plugs the party line anyway.
That's how politics and law work. It sounds to me like your issue is that laws can cut two ways, as opposed to anything to do with Davidson. Which sucks, but that really is life. You can't draft benefits laws on the basis of 'I pinky promise something happened, now please give me an exemption' in the same way you can't give someone disability payments or emergency housing just because they say they need them.
Right, let's look at the other stuff. Genuinely curious here.
So....A Tory councillor slagged off Sturgeon as being 'ugly' and broke Godwin's law on her Twitter. To which she apologised when challenged, and Davidson said afterwards '“These comments were clearly unacceptable. Ms Leslie apologised for them when they came to light and removed them from social media. I’ve made it clear that everyone representing the Scottish Conservatives must uphold the highest standards when in office.”
....Okay? That was supposed to prove she was endorsing racists? Kind of...well, proves the opposite? A little puzzled here. Next one.
So this one is about...another Tory councillor. Who apparently committed the heinous crime of...mentioning Operation Market Garden (a WW2 assault to free part of Europe) after asking why a Dutch person could support Scottish independence. Okay.
It also mentions a Tory candidate (not actually anyone in an official position) who called Sturgeon a 'cretin', 'a silly wee cow', and hoped that someone would leave her in a desert somewhere to shut her up about independence. Right. I mean, that's mildly offensive and sexist but....he literally isn't even a Tory official, and Davidson has likely never even heard of him before now. How is this supposed to prove that she endorses racists? Am I missing something?
Okay. So this one is a list of Tory candidates who said some mildly offensive things. There's a councillor who some accuse of having once been a member of the BNP...who got fired within 48 hours of becoming a councillor. A clearly racist girl who made racist comments on her personal blog that hoped to one day be a Tory councillor. Complaints that someone who was in UKIP joined the Tories to contest a council seat, the two mentioned earlier, a single Tory councillor who made some anonymous comments on the net about the size of his dick and a joke about Catholics beijng paedophiles. I could go on, but this is a pretty pathetic list, and virtually none of them even officially represent the Tory party.
Did you mean to just send me a list of nasty things some candidates for local Councils said online? Because I'm really not sure how this substantiates your accusation of Ruth Davidson personally endorsing racism, the SNP and Labour both have similar lists of mongs saying mildly offensive things at that level. You may need to explain the link to me here.
have a look at her right hand man Murdo Fraser's tweets (esp. stuff about the Queen's 11).
Apparently Murdo made a tongue in cheek statement about taking down statues. It's one I'd agree with, speaking with my professional historian hat on.He called the National Union of Students bigots; something again I wouldn't necessarily disagree with given their record on anti-semitism. He also said that a football team bringing home a cup would be a nice present for the Queen (which is apparently outrageous for mixing football and politics).
Again, I'm reeeeally not seeing the links here. Can I also just say that if this is the worst politics gets north of the border? You guys clearly have waaaay nicer politics than we get down here in England.
As I say, I'm very busy this week so I'm not going to do the research for you - you've got two random links from the top of page 1 of google there but I suggest you have a bit of a look about. Some of it might take a working knowledge of Scottish sectarianism: if why an elected official tweeting about the Queen's 11 is a serious and immediate problem doesn't immediately jump out there's a lot of background that needs read up on - this nonsense kills people.
NB; I didn't say Davidson endorses racism, I said she endorses racist and sectarian candidates/members. Have a look for her lying to the press about sending sectarians and racists that she brought back into the party for training with Show Racism the Red Card, for example.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: As I type this, I'm listening to a live feed of the Davis/Barnier press conference.
To nobody's surprise, Barnier says that not enough progress has been made.
Well, you could knock me down with a feather.
Well with UK wanting to have their cake and eat and assume EU hands down to every demand UK makes no surprises.
And the EU seem to think that Britain is some kind of magic money tree. I've always said that Britain has a duty to honour treaty obligations and pay any money that is owed.
The EU seem to be pulling numbers from thin air.
Personally, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it.
And the EU seem to think that Britain is some kind of magic money tree. I've always said that Britain has a duty to honour treaty obligations and pay any money that is owed.
The EU seem to be pulling numbers from thin air.
Personally, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it.
Did you just accuse the EU of pulling numbers from thin air, and then pull a number from thin air?
The EU gave us an estimate of what we owe, we've yet to provide any alternative between "go swivel" and "we're not paying". Why haven't we said "Well, our calculations make it $x, rather than the $y you want, and heres why".
nfe wrote: As I say, I'm very busy this week so I'm not going to do the research for you - you've got two random links from the top of page 1 of google there but I suggest you have a bit of a look about.
So I did as you said. I just waded through about four google pages of links after putting in the sorts of keywords you'd expect(racism, etc) along with her name. I discovered that she has apparently been in photographs with a person who it later turned out had made racist comments online. One of her MSP's said he was in favour of tougher restrictions on gypsy travellers (having lived near a site such travellers left behind once, I can sympathise). And she refused to boot out two councillors, one of which said something nasty about Catholics, and another who (in all fairness) seems to be a racist gakker. After this all came out:
Ms Davidson added: "I've been very strong in the past about wanting to change behaviour on social media and online.
"As well as a full disciplinary, as well as the sanction of being suspended, as well as a full and unreserved apology, both of the individuals indicated that they had a genuine wish to change their behaviour, and I've got a decision to make, then. Do I allow for that to happen, or not?
"I fully understand the criticism that's come in, but both have undertaken not only to do diversity training, but on top of that sitting down with Nil By Mouth, the anti-sectarian organisation."
Ms Davidson also said the councillors would be "out" if their behaviour did not change.
That's literally all I've been able to uncover. In all seriousness, if this is the best you've got to hate on her for, the woman's practically an angel for UK politics. Have you seen some of the people Corbyn has endorsed and stood next to over the years? Or the stuff the likes of Ken Livingstone/Jon McDonnell/Harriet Harman have said? Or some of the vitriol official SNP campaigners came out with during Indyref? Or the crap half the local Tory councillors down here have said before getting booted? Christ, Moggy's said/done far worse than this. As for the House of Lords, you should hear some of the almost racist stuff they come out with in the canteen (being mostly ancient).
Scottish politics seems downright pleasant compared to full on British politics.
Have a look for her lying to the press about sending sectarians and racists that she brought back into the party for training with Show Racism the Red Card, for example.
I looked into it. Apparently she mixed up which group she said she was sending them to in an interview by accident.
from their website wrote:While writing this article, we did get a phone call from the Conservative Press Office with Ruth Davidson passing on her apologies as she got our charity mixed up with Nil by Mouth. Nil by Mouth is one of our respected and esteemed partners and the work that they do is so valuable and we would like Majury to participate in anti-sectarian with them.
Not quite 'lying' is it? I'll be honest, with your constant reiterations of how she 'openly, and quite brazenly, backs racist and sectarian candidates', yet lack of tangible proof, I'm getting bored of this. I think I've done enough investigation now to say that there really appears to be little grounds for it.
Constant reiterations? What, twice in a couple months?
Glad you're catching up on the boredom. If someone's not going to bother to get au fait with exactly why it's an incredibly serious problem when people holding seats for political parties freely make sectarian jokes or belong to the Orange fething Lodge, and dismiss it as mildly offensive minutiae, then it's pretty tedious discussing it.
nfe wrote: Constant reiterations? What, twice in a couple months?
I'd say three posts on one page within 24 hours justifies the phrase 'constant reiterations'. Certainly it's more accurate than your use of the phrase 'brazenly and openly'.
Glad you're catching up on the boredom. If someone's not going to bother to get au fait with exactly why it's an incredibly serious problem when people holding seats for political parties freely make sectarian jokes or belong to the Orange fething Lodge, and dismiss it as mildly offensive minutiae, then it's pretty tedious discussing it.
Guv. I've spent about an hour so far today investigating every petty case of a Tory candidate being nasty on Twitter that you've cared to link to. I'm not Scottish, I don't care who sits in the metaphorical throne up there. I went in to research your claim with an open mind, Christ knows enough Tories have been caught saying racist things or endorsing those who do over the years it wouldn't surprise me. But after poking around in the places you told me to, I found no evidence of her 'openly and brazenly' endorsing any racist candidate; frankly all her statements directly said the complete opposite.
I've done my bit trying to look precisely where you told me. And I found jack to support your original statement. You even accused her of lying when she was clearly just having a bit of a brain fart and said the wrong name (which we all do). So either come up with something worth my time (because I'm done wasting mine googling about), or leave it alone.
nfe wrote: Constant reiterations? What, twice in a couple months?
I'd say three posts on one page within 24 hours justifies the phrase 'constant reiterations'. Certainly it's more accurate than your use of the phrase 'brazenly and openly'.
Two of them are replying to you talking about the first!
And the EU seem to think that Britain is some kind of magic money tree. I've always said that Britain has a duty to honour treaty obligations and pay any money that is owed.
The EU seem to be pulling numbers from thin air.
Personally, I'd put 25 billion on the table and tell the EU to take it or leave it.
Did you just accuse the EU of pulling numbers from thin air, and then pull a number from thin air?
The EU gave us an estimate of what we owe, we've yet to provide any alternative between "go swivel" and "we're not paying". Why haven't we said "Well, our calculations make it $x, rather than the $y you want, and heres why".
Anything else is posturing and wasting time.
My 25 billion is based on a reasonable estimate of what we pay now, up until 2019.
Barnier is banging on about deadlock, which is EU code for give us more money.
Like I keep saying, let's stop wasting time with this sham of a negotiation.
I'll take my chances with the Yanks and WTO terms.
International Trade Secretary Dr Liam Fox convenes a new Board of Trade to ensure the benefits of free trade are spread throughout the UK
Dr Liam Fox will convene a new Board of Trade which will bring together prominent business and political figures from each part of the UK
...
Case Studies
England
Cheltenham-based fragrance house Marmalade of London is celebrated success in Canada following 2 orders over the summer and anticipated sales of almost £1.4 million over the next 5 years
murder mystery company Red Herring Games of Grimsby is opening previously unreachable markets, with Amazon US predicting orders totalling £200,000 for the next 5 years
Scotland
Livingston-based company Highlander Outdoor secured a significant contract win with the United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR) in Geneva, providing reflective foam sleeping mats for humanitarian response efforts
Glasgow-based luxury knitwear company Green Thomas recently securing export wins in Japan, totalling 70% of the company’s order book
Wales
Cardiff and Vale College (CAVC), one of the largest colleges in the UK, is exploring plans to open its second International Centre of Education in Hefei, China
Welsh business Concrete Canvas is celebrating another record breaking year of exports, with 85% of turnover directly resulting from overseas sales
Northern Ireland
Northern Ireland manufacturer, BlueMAC, has seen their annual turnover increase by 50% since embarking on their exporting journey 3 years ago, going on to secure export wins in the UAE, Australia, France and China
... so what we're reading then is that trading whilst being a member of the EU is pretty good then....
best rush to make things more awkward as the tariffs hit.
Membership of the Board of Trade is restricted to Privy Councillors.
The only member is:
(i) Secretary of State for Department of International Trade and President of the Board of Trade (Chair)
can you actually have a board that consists of just a single person ...?
Still nice work if you can get it eh ?
.. betcha there's a nice little "expenses" top up there too.
Which is how I view demands for a 2nd Referendum. If we were ever going to have a 2nd Referendum, then that should have been agreed upon from the very start, not demanded after the fact. Its moving the goal posts.
You can't demand that because we live in an open and free society where we get democratic choice. Therefore people are entitled to change their minds, the next generation are entitled to have a vote. Having an absolute decision that once made can never be reconsidered for a generation or more goes against these principles. That's why we vote for our MPs every 5 years. The same democratic choice should apply for referendums if that is the type of democracy we want (it's not a good idea). And herein lies the problem. Unless there is an overwhelming result one way or the other with a large turn out (and even then) there is always going to be the argument that those that didn't or didn't have a choice should be a vote. A referendum just to change a decision is just as bad as getting the result you want and then refusing to have any more referendums on the issue in case it gets overturned.
Bloodshed.
I view Brexit as potentially our last chance to secede from the EU and retain our national independence. One day, if we wait too long, we'll be too closely integrated that we will no longer be able to leave without resorting to force.
Except all indicators are that the longer things go by the less likely it is that people want to leave (youngest are pro-EU, oldest are anti-EU generally), so the reality is that it would only be a minority that would be resorting to violence. However if this is the only red line it's slightly worrying. People can suffer way before this because of lack of money, social support etc that might all be an outcome of Wrexit. If there was an increase in suicides because of greater poverty and lack of social care would that be bloodshed or not?
My 25 billion is based on a reasonable estimate of what we pay now, up until 2019.
Barnier is banging on about deadlock, which is EU code for give us more money.
Like I keep saying, let's stop wasting time with this sham of a negotiation.
I'll take my chances with the Yanks and WTO terms.
I think there is a misconception here as to why the talks stalled. The UK agreed at the last meeting to bring figures to the EU as how much it wanted to pay and what the governments perspective of the value of these were. The UK negotiation team didn't bring any figures or financial information so they couldn't discuss this area. Ergo as the EU has made this a red line in that this has to be agreed before any trade talks start then they were never going to be able to progress beyond these talks and it was rather a waste of time thinking it was. The question you should be asking is why the UK government didn't do something they agreed to at the last meeting (answer: the current UK government is incompetent).
Having an absolute decision that once made can never be reconsidered for a generation or more goes against these principles.
Unless it's in favour of the eu right? Because I've heard from your camp that the referendum should never have occurred. So we should be bound forever by a decision made in 1975.
can you actually have a board that consists of just a single person ...?
Still nice work if you can get it eh ?
.. betcha there's a nice little "expenses" top up there too.
n
Historically speaking, the Board of Trade used to be reasonably important, back in the 18th and 19th century. Conducted a lot of business. With the demise of Empire and devolving of trade affairs to the EU however, its become pretty defunct over the last sixty years. Makes sense that they'd consider reviving it now, although I'd be interested to hear what sort of criteria they're planning for the members (other than being Liam Fox ).
Having an absolute decision that once made can never be reconsidered for a generation or more goes against these principles.
Unless it's in favour of the eu right? Because I've heard from your camp that the referendum should never have occurred. So we should be bound forever by a decision made in 1975.
I would argue that even the 1975 decision should have not been put forward as a referendum. They are bad ideas because they are too easy to manipulate by demagogues (e.g. Farage) proposing easy solutions to complex problems (e.g. immigration). They are also susceptible to whether the populace want to 'stick one in the eye' to the current government (for example Leave probably wouldn't have won in the noughties when the economy was generally going well and more people were benefiting). We have a parliamentary democracy where we vote in people to make these decisions on our behalf. We vote on the issues that are important and an individuals MPs views and on that basis decisions are made. We don't live in a direct democracy which is what referendums advocate. If we wanted that then we'd need to remove parliament and have votes on key issues every X number of years so that those decisions are also democratic and that everyone gets to have their say over time not just one group of people at a very specific time which may exclude significant parts of future or current people in the country.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ketara wrote: Makes sense that they'd consider reviving it now, although I'd be interested to hear what sort of criteria they're planning for the members (other than being Liam Fox ).
I'm sure he'll have a few of his friends lined up for positions...
The British economy is already suffering due to the "cloud of uncertainty" caused by Brexit, Chancellor Philip Hammond said today.
Hammond told the Treasury Select Committee that uncertainty over Brexit negotiations must end soon to prevent any further "dampening" of the UK's economic prospects.
"While the UK economy is fundamentally strong and in good shape, we are being affected by uncertainty over the negotiation process that we are engaged in at the moment," he told MPs.
"There's plenty of anecdotal evidence that business and consumers are waiting to see what the outcome is or at least what the direction of travel is before firming up investment decisions and consumption decisions."
He added that: "The cloud of uncertainty is acting as a temporary dampener and we need to remove it as soon as possible by making progress with the negotiation process."
Closed skies
Hammond also warned against a no-deal Brexit saying that it was "possible" that planes would no longer be able to fly in and out of the UK due to air traffic control arrangements coming to an end.
He told MPs that: "It is already conceivable that in a no deal scenario there will be no air traffic moving between the UK and the European Union on the 29th March 2019."
Flights between the UK and EU are currently managed under the Open Skies agreement, which would cease to apply if Britain leaves without a deal.
While Hammond said such a scenario was possible he added that: "I don't think anyone seriously believes that is where we will get to."
The Chancellor has been urged by some Tory MPs to make detailed plans for leaving the EU without a deal. While he said the Treasury was making some plans for all possible scenarios, he was not willing to set aside funds for an extreme exit from the EU until absolutely necessary.
Prime Minister Theresa May is facing calls from Brexit-supporting MPs to sack Hammond for what they claim is his "pessimistic" view of Brexit. In a speech to MPs this week, May said that she would prove the "doomsayers" on Brexit wrong and achieve a good deal for Britain.
Whilst Redwood, Lawson et al call for him to be sacked as his forecasts aren't optimistic enough.
"Do you believe in fairies? If you believe," Peter shouted at them, "clap your hands! Don't let Brexit die!"
@whirlwind. We, Britain, have been reminded on numerous occasions that we're leaving the 'golf club' and shouldn't be expecting to use the facilities for free when we've left etc etc which is fair enough.
But that works both ways - we're leaving, so why should we be responsible for setting club membership fees?
If I go to a restaurant for a meal, I don't expect to write up my own bill. That is for the management to tell me what I owe them, based on a price they set out before I ordered.
@reds8n. It is possible to talk down an economy and lower confidence with doom and gloom. Hammond is doing it now.
Hammond has all the persona of a man who would struggle to sell water to somebody dying of thirst.
He's got to go. His heart was never in Brexit. Cut him open, he'll bleed blue and yellow.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Hammond has all the persona of a man who would struggle to sell water to somebody dying of thirst.
He's got to go. His heart was never in Brexit. Cut him open, he'll bleed blue and yellow.
It pains me to say it, but if we're going through with this fething farce, we probably should have someone who actually believes it's a good thing running the show.
It'll ensure that when it blows up in their face, no one can try and blame anyone else for the feth up.
Unfortunately, they will try. There seems to be an enduring desire to blame everyone else for the woes of our Govts incompetence. We've been blaming the EU for everything for so long, they've become an automatic bogey man for a certain mindset.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:But that works both ways - we're leaving, so why should we be responsible for setting club membership fees?
Because the UK is renting golf clubs (in cooperation with some other EU countries) that it wants to keep using beyond the membership time while playing elsewhere. The UK didn't know that it would quit its membership early when it signed that contract and the contract is still valid. This makes the arrangement unexpectedly complicated. The clubs are a bit less useful for the UK as they can't be used on that golf course (so to speak).
EU countries (including the UK) have made long term projects (like academic research projects, or investments). Those will be "alive" beyond the date of Brexit and the question is: What will happen to those once Brexit is finalised and how will they be paid for? Some parts will probably be canceled (if they can't work with whatever policy arrangement UK/EU have) others will keep going. Now both sides have to find an acceptable middle ground how the UK pays for its part in projects that the UK agreed on (and what that part is, considering the circumstances).
The same goes for long term EU projects that were agreed upon and happen to take place in the UK. I don't think anybody wants those to just get cancelled because of Brexit if a solution can be found that is less destructive.
A lot of the big budget EU projects I've been to and experienced in my life have ended up being gigantic boondoggles. Not that the UK governments has never done that of course....
EG,
Somewhat flippant, not quite 100% true but realish hypothetical example: "EU Grants have enabled my <home towns> regeneration."
Result: Strange sculptures and a 15 foot long, 7 foot tall all weather jumbo vision television screen for <home town>'s population to watch while they stand in the queue waiting for the job centre to open to receive their dole money.
Compel wrote: A lot of the big budget EU projects I've been to and experienced in my life have ended up being gigantic boondoggles. Not that the UK governments has never done that of course....
EG,
Somewhat flippant, not quite 100% true but realish hypothetical example: "EU Grants have enabled my <home towns> regeneration."
Result: Strange sculptures and a 15 foot long, 7 foot tall all weather jumbo vision television screen for <home town>'s population to watch while they stand in the queue waiting for the job centre to open to receive their dole money.
No doubt loads of this goes on, but is it the EU's fault when they fund regeneration in a town and the council opts to spend it on the local welding artist and a monthly artisan craft fair in the expensive end of town?
Looks like Barnier has had the rug pulled from underneath his feet.
London preparing for a no deal scenario has clearly focused some minds in the European capitals.
What I wouldn't give for a Douglas Hurd or even a Robin Cook, to tour the European capitals and exploit some of those cracks, instead of that complete buffoon we have know
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:But that works both ways - we're leaving, so why should we be responsible for setting club membership fees?
Because the UK is renting golf clubs (in cooperation with some other EU countries) that it wants to keep using beyond the membership time while playing elsewhere. The UK didn't know that it would quit its membership early when it signed that contract and the contract is still valid. This makes the arrangement unexpectedly complicated. The clubs are a bit less useful for the UK as they can't be used on that golf course (so to speak).
EU countries (including the UK) have made long term projects (like academic research projects, or investments). Those will be "alive" beyond the date of Brexit and the question is: What will happen to those once Brexit is finalised and how will they be paid for? Some parts will probably be canceled (if they can't work with whatever policy arrangement UK/EU have) others will keep going. Now both sides have to find an acceptable middle ground how the UK pays for its part in projects that the UK agreed on (and what that part is, considering the circumstances).
The same goes for long term EU projects that were agreed upon and happen to take place in the UK. I don't think anybody wants those to just get cancelled because of Brexit if a solution can be found that is less destructive.
I have no problem with honouring our treaty obligations: this nation's honour demands we pay our bills, but not a penny more
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: ...Hammond has all the persona of a man who would struggle to sell water to somebody dying of thirst.
He's got to go. His heart was never in Brexit. Cut him open, he'll bleed blue and yellow.
It pains me to say it, but if we're going through with this fething farce, we probably should have someone who actually believes it's a good thing running the show.
It'll ensure that when it blows up in their face, no one can try and blame anyone else for the feth up.
Unfortunately, they will try. There seems to be an enduring desire to blame everyone else for the woes of our Govts incompetence. We've been blaming the EU for everything for so long, they've become an automatic bogey man for a certain mindset.
Looks like Barnier has had the rug pulled from underneath his feet.
London preparing for a no deal scenario has clearly focused some minds in the European capitals.
What I wouldn't give for a Douglas Hurd or even a Robin Cook, to tour the European capitals and exploit some of those cracks, instead of that complete buffoon we have know
So they are starting to come up with a position on trade, in preparation of us moving onto the next phase?
That's certainly good. I'm surprised they hadn't already done that.
It doesn't mean they'll let us talk trade any time soon though. Hopefully this carrot will be enough to get team UK to pull their finger out.
Looks like Barnier has had the rug pulled from underneath his feet.
London preparing for a no deal scenario has clearly focused some minds in the European capitals.
What I wouldn't give for a Douglas Hurd or even a Robin Cook, to tour the European capitals and exploit some of those cracks, instead of that complete buffoon we have know
So they are starting to come up with a position on trade, in preparation of us moving onto the next phase?
That's certainly good. I'm surprised they hadn't already done that.
It doesn't mean they'll let us talk trade any time soon though. Hopefully this carrot will be enough to get team UK to pull their finger out.
The realists in the EU are starting to flex their muscles and make their feelings known, which can only be good for the UK.
Barnier is tying himself in knots with his contradictions.
The realists in the EU are starting to flex their muscles and make their feelings known, which can only be good for the UK.
Which realists?
Barnier is tying himself in knots with his contradictions.
Which contradictions?
I understand you see everything as bad for the EU and good for us, but sometimes I need a bit of help to follow that line of though.
For the realists, this quote came from the article.
Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."
As for contradictions, Barnier talks about deadlock, and then the next day, the EU 27 are talking about a trade deal with Britain. Barnier has to know what's going on, hence my point about contradictions.
Add that to Juncker's madcap point about "28 beers" and you can see the EU are not getting it their own way
We've been told for months, mainly by pro-EU newspapers, that the EU have the upper hand, are running rings around Britain, the EU is better prepared etc etc
We've been told for months, mainly by pro-EU newspapers, that the EU have the upper hand, are running rings around Britain, the EU is better prepared etc etc
We now know that's concentrated bullgak!
No, we don't.
Funny how just making unspecific statements work for both sides.
We've been told for months, mainly by pro-EU newspapers, that the EU have the upper hand, are running rings around Britain, the EU is better prepared etc etc
We now know that's concentrated bullgak!
You're getting your EU news from eurosceptic MPs?
Good for you, I guess.
I couldn't help to giggle when I read this though.
We've been told for months, mainly by pro-EU newspapers, that the EU have the upper hand, are running rings around Britain, the EU is better prepared etc etc
We now know that's concentrated bullgak!
No, we don't.
Funny how just making unspecific statements work for both sides.
It's not unspecific. For weeks and months, all we've heard is this: no trade talks until Ireland, money, and citizens' rights are agreed on.
Now we know the EU are talking about and producing papers on a possible trade deal with the UK. That is hard facts, and hard evidence.
Again, I say to you sir, that we have been mislead by an agenda driven pro-EU media, that has been trying to convince us that the UK will be lucky to get anything from Brussels.
We've been told for months, mainly by pro-EU newspapers, that the EU have the upper hand, are running rings around Britain, the EU is better prepared etc etc
We now know that's concentrated bullgak!
You're getting your EU news from eurosceptic MPs?
Good for you, I guess.
I couldn't help to giggle when I read this though.
It's the EU saying that it's talking about trade with Britain, not me. I linked to hard evidence. What more do you need?
Automatically Appended Next Post: From the article I linked to:
The draft paper submitted to the 27 EU states by European Council president Donald Tusk, suggests free trade talks could open in December - should Prime Minister Theresa May improve her offer on what the UK pays when it leaves.
The implication of the older age voting brexit by and large, so I assume they're proving a point by saying they *probably* won't be dying any time soon due to age.
Someone posts: "Lets just wait for Brexiteers to die off from old age!"
Every Brexiteer in this thread: "We're not old...you'll be waiting a long time".
You: "What has your age got to do with it?"
Come on mate, this isn't a complicated line of logic to follow.
The implication of the older age voting brexit by and large, so I assume they're proving a point by saying they *probably* won't be dying any time soon due to age.
They don't need to. A couple of percent of the 65+ will skew things in favour of remain. Natural attrition means we've probably already crossed that line.
We know not all brexiteers are old, but the 65+ group was the only one with a majority for leave.
The realists in the EU are starting to flex their muscles and make their feelings known, which can only be good for the UK.
Which realists?
Barnier is tying himself in knots with his contradictions.
Which contradictions?
I understand you see everything as bad for the EU and good for us, but sometimes I need a bit of help to follow that line of though.
For the realists, this quote came from the article.
Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."
As for contradictions, Barnier talks about deadlock, and then the next day, the EU 27 are talking about a trade deal with Britain. Barnier has to know what's going on, hence my point about contradictions.
Add that to Juncker's madcap point about "28 beers" and you can see the EU are not getting it their own way
I still don't see a contradiction. He hasn't let us move onto trade talks yet and won't until we make progress. He's started establishing a formal EU27 position
AlmightyWalrus wrote: And I'd submit that, as evident by this very thread, you don't know what you're talking about.
Really?
In public, Barnier is talking about deadlock.
In private, Tusk is circulating a draft paper to the EU 27, suggesting that free trade talks might start in December...
And yet, we're constantly told that the British negotiating position is all over the shop...
There's no consistency issues. You're missing the condition in your own quote. The discussions will move on when the eu says we've made progress
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: By "making progress", I take it you (and Juncker) mean "Cave in to every monetary demand the EU makes of us".
I and the EU mean (I assume) come up with a satisfactory conclusion to the 3 road blocks set out at the start if negotiations. What team UK need to do was spelled out and agreed on months ago.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @whirlwind. We, Britain, have been reminded on numerous occasions that we're leaving the 'golf club' and shouldn't be expecting to use the facilities for free when we've left etc etc which is fair enough.
But that works both ways - we're leaving, so why should we be responsible for setting club membership fees?
If I go to a restaurant for a meal, I don't expect to write up my own bill. That is for the management to tell me what I owe them, based on a price they set out before I ordered.
That's not an apt comparison. The EU did provide their costings at the last meeting, which the UK said no to. So the EU asked the UK which things it wanted to keep (or if the costings needed to be revised). The UK didn't because they wanted to play games and try and force the EUs hand so they can hold monetary issues as a ransom tool if the UK don't allow free trade on something (lets say us selling idiot government ministers to EU countries as we have lots of them) - it was hence also the reason for the 'threat' from May just before this round to say that we would go full WTO if needed. However the EU basically told the UK where it can stick it's desire to hold the EU to ransom over monetary issues when talking trade. We also get money from schemes the EU run so it's not as simple as saying how much we are paying into things. For example in my local area there is a regional growth fund that is used to try and develop areas which are generally run down to try and bring forward growth investment and eventually improvement to the locality and the residents. This scheme will run until 2020 regardless of Wrexit simply because that is what is contracted to do. So if we leave the EU will still be funding the scheme and the UK will still be benefiting. The UK is contributing to this (which benefits all EU countries) and hence should continue to do so until 2020.
Looks like Barnier has had the rug pulled from underneath his feet.
London preparing for a no deal scenario has clearly focused some minds in the European capitals.
What I wouldn't give for a Douglas Hurd or even a Robin Cook, to tour the European capitals and exploit some of those cracks, instead of that complete buffoon we have know
So they are starting to come up with a position on trade, in preparation of us moving onto the next phase?
That's certainly good. I'm surprised they hadn't already done that.
It doesn't mean they'll let us talk trade any time soon though. Hopefully this carrot will be enough to get team UK to pull their finger out.
The realists in the EU are starting to flex their muscles and make their feelings known, which can only be good for the UK.
Barnier is tying himself in knots with his contradictions.
Not really. The EU have always had position statements and what they wanted before they actually sat down to talk about things (the same happened with the current set). It is logical that they will want to agree a position before they actually sit down. They are intending to go to the EU parliament in October to advise whether enough progress had been made to start Trade talks. As such they need to be prepared for either decision, that it is likely to be a no just means that they will wait until the next round of talks and so on. The EU like to be prepared and know what to discuss prior to those discussions (which makes sense when you have 27 member states all that need an input). This is unlike the UK governments David Davis approach which is more grunting "us wanz tradez" with no real idea of what they actually want in detail and making things up as they go along.
The implication of the older age voting brexit by and large, so I assume they're proving a point by saying they *probably* won't be dying any time soon due to age.
They don't need to. A couple of percent of the 65+ will skew things in favour of remain. Natural attrition means we've probably already crossed that line.
We know not all brexiteers are old, but the 65+ group was the only one with a majority for leave.
Not quite this quick simply on age profiles. I did some rough calculations previously. Based on current voting ratios (as not every young person supports the EU and not every old person is opposed) and that stays the same then it was between about 7-10 years. The irony being that by the time we have extracted ourselves from the EU the population will want back in again which is also likely to lead to an increasing large number of supportive MPs as well. Of course this doesn't take into account changing views and the swingometer is definitely heading towards being more pro-EU on that one. I think a lot of Wrexiters know this too hence the reason they want to force it through as quickly as possible, damage be damned.
Someone posts: "Lets just wait for Brexiteers to die off from old age!"
Every Brexiteer in this thread: "We're not old...you'll be waiting a long time".
You: "What has your age got to do with it?"
Come on mate, this isn't a complicated line of logic to follow.
It is, though, because the age of a few individual Brexit voters is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Brexit voters on average are older. You've yet again made a fundamental error of statistics.
In other news though it's probably not worth worrying about because Boris the Clown is being sent to Russia to talk about global security issues so by the end of it we'll all likely be ash.
I fully expect that he will make some fundamental error and he'll fly back stating that he has successfully started nuclear war between the two countries.
Whirlwind wrote: In other news though it's probably not worth worrying about because Boris the Clown is being sent to Russia to talk about global security issues so by the end of it we'll all likely be ash.
I fully expect that he will make some fundamental error and he'll fly back stating that he has successfully started nuclear war between the two countries.
Don't worry comrade. Mr. Johnson won't be starting nuclear wars. He will only be receiving new instructions regarding his mission to destabilise the decadent West. He is also to receive a reward for his past efforts. Mr. Johnson is a valued agent of the Motherland, you see.
It is, though, because the age of a few individual Brexit voters is entirely irrelevant to the fact that Brexit voters on average are older. You've yet again made a fundamental error of statistics.
It isn't actually age, but rather education levels that are more key (note to those worried about such things - it doesn't mean Wrexiters are stupid). A large fraction of the elderly didn't have great education and left school with little or no qualifications. Now we have vast numbers of people going to University. As such I'd expect that in 20 years or so the elderly will be more pro-EU as we get older. What is open to question is why this is, I suspect that it might not be education per se but rather it allows people to come into contact with people of different cultures and nationalities and there is evidence that shows that prejudices are higher in areas where social mix is low (whereas especially at Uni there is a high degree of mixing and increasing at the schooling level). For example this profile of voting for the far right vs areas of high immigration in the German elections was highest in areas with low immigration. The fear of the 'invader' can be strong in humans and people to vote this way, but in those areas where social mixing was high everyone just realised everyone else was just another person and hence that fear evaporates.
The implication of the older age voting brexit by and large, so I assume they're proving a point by saying they *probably* won't be dying any time soon due to age.
They don't need to. A couple of percent of the 65+ will skew things in favour of remain. Natural attrition means we've probably already crossed that line.
We know not all brexiteers are old, but the 65+ group was the only one with a majority for leave.
The realists in the EU are starting to flex their muscles and make their feelings known, which can only be good for the UK.
Which realists?
Barnier is tying himself in knots with his contradictions.
Which contradictions?
I understand you see everything as bad for the EU and good for us, but sometimes I need a bit of help to follow that line of though.
For the realists, this quote came from the article.
Anders Vistisen, a Danish Eurosceptic MEP and vice-chair of the EU Parliament's foreign affairs committee, agreed, adding: "The most integral thing is the future relationship. If we are making a bad trade deal for Britain we are also hurting ourselves."
As for contradictions, Barnier talks about deadlock, and then the next day, the EU 27 are talking about a trade deal with Britain. Barnier has to know what's going on, hence my point about contradictions.
Add that to Juncker's madcap point about "28 beers" and you can see the EU are not getting it their own way
I still don't see a contradiction. He hasn't let us move onto trade talks yet and won't until we make progress. He's started establishing a formal EU27 position
It's called being prepared. I know the UK public is currently being conditioned to think improvisation is the way international deals are done but, as Brexit supporters are fond of reminding us, it takes a while to set a common position.
Whirlwind wrote: , I suspect that it might not be education per se but rather it allows people to come into contact with people of different cultures and nationalities and there is evidence that shows that prejudices are higher in areas where social mix is low (whereas especially at Uni there is a high degree of mixing and increasing at the schooling level).
I'm not sure that going to University does necessarily give access to a greater cultural mix, as it depends quite heavily on where you go. I've hung around four universities with undergrads for extended periods of time (King's College, Warwick, Royal Holloway, and Kent). I've also spent lesser periods of time visiting the Universities of Exeter, Durham, Glasgow, and Cambridge, and observed much the same thing there. I've noticed that quite frankly, normally the undergrad ethnic mix tends to be....well, let's just say 'lacking in diversity'. There's usually a small sprinkling of European students (to a higher degree at Postgrad), and most have large contingents of Chinese students, but the latter tend to keep to themselves and only interact with each other (Heck, when I was doing undergrad there, Kent even used to house them separately). The vast bulk of the student population otherwise tend to be middle class white British kids.
My girlfriend recently started a postgrad at City University though (the one that literally just joined the UoL), and having spent a few days in their buildings at Northampton Square as a result, the difference between that place and the higher ranked institutes with their own campuses is like night and day. So many foreign students, different languages, headscarves, different skin colours, and so forth, the likes of which I've never seen at the other places. It's certainly made me reappraise the efficacy of the university institution as a social and class mobility tool.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that the Universities which tend to be filled with the kids who most likely voted to Remain (middle class liberal coffee drinking types) also would appear to be the least culturally diverse. So I'm not entirely sure I'd agree with the premise that it's the University environment which results in which way they vote or think. Frankly, given that 50% of young people go to University today, I'm not convinced education level really has any causative relationship with which way people voted. I think it's more of a general correlation; and I'd hesitate to try and hypothesize any relationship beyond that. Certainly, I've seen too many undergrads who can barely string a sentence together walk out with 2:1's to think that most of them are really any smarter or worldly when they leave than if they never showed up.
If I was to point to anything as a tool for introducing people to different cultures and concepts which wasn't available for older generations, it would be the internet. The web has given access to so much information for anyone who wants it, and permits conversations with people of so many other countries (as just being here on Dakka demonstrates) that I would imagine it has a natural effect of breaking down national borders.
Ketara wrote: . I think it's more of a general correlation; and I'd hesitate to try and hypothesize any relationship beyond that. Certainly, I've seen too many undergrads who can barely string a sentence together walk out with 2:1's to think that most of them are really any smarter or worldly when they leave than if they never showed up.
I wouldn't say smarter...however the correlation is too significant and transposes across age ranges as well (so even older better educated people are more likely to vote Remain than Leave etc) so there is a statistical significant result going on. The question is why and I'm a scientist so I want to know why? It might be multiple factors but it would be interested to know. For example if one effect is due to higher cultural mixing then perhaps Universities can be a better example of how to mix the populace as a whole and get everyone to integrate better.
If I was to point to anything as a tool for introducing people to different cultures and concepts which wasn't available for older generations, it would be the internet. The web has given access to so much information for anyone who wants it, and permits conversations with people of so many other countries (as just being here on Dakka demonstrates) that I would imagine it has a natural effect of breaking down national borders.
Yes this could indeed be true, more study needed, but then are educated people more likely to use the internet and if not why should that then have an effect on peoples voting preferences by education level?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: At least if we refuse to pay the "divorce" bill, then Farage and his wife won't get their EU pensions, so some good will have come of it all.
Ah ha. Suddenly I've realised why there is deadlock in the talks. Neither side wants to pay for Farage's pension... It's all so obvious now!
I don't think it's a case that more educated people believe in the EU than less educated people.
I think it's more a case of less educated people feel let down by the EU than the more educated ones.
I know a lot of guys who do not have amazing educations but are excellent manual workers, builders chippies and brickies etc. Like hundreds of people a day (it's my job serving these guys after all.) and a lot of them dislike the EU for flooding the market with cheap labour. It doesn't mean that the EU has done that, but they still don't like it.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't think it's a case that more educated people believe in the EU than less educated people.
I think it's more a case of less educated people feel let down by the EU than the more educated ones.
I know a lot of guys who do not have amazing educations but are excellent manual workers, builders chippies and brickies etc. Like hundreds of people a day (it's my job serving these guys after all.) and a lot of them dislike the EU for flooding the market with cheap labour. It doesn't mean that the EU has done that, but they still don't like it.
There definitely is a point in that, the same pattern is visible here in the Netherlands. Globalisation and labour migration hit less educated people much harder than highly educated people, as they are often easily set aside in favour of cheaper foreign labour. Highly educated people are much harder to replace in that way, since most labour migrants do not have the needed education.
Globalisation and labour migration hit less educated people much harder than highly educated people, as they are often easily set aside in favour of cheaper foreign labour. Highly educated people are much harder to replace in that way, since most labour migrants do not have the needed education.
I think it's more that academically well educated people have always found it easy to move for work whereas it's a relatively recent thing in fields needing less formal education so there hasn't been the same sudden burst. Not many academics complaining that 1 in 10 jobs is now held by a foreigner, because 5/10 have been for decades (numbers picked out the air but you take my meaning).
Edit: I don't think it's about diversity at universities: my own experience is similar to Ketara's. My university is overwhelmingly white Brits with pretty sizeable groups of Chinese students in certain subjects. I do teach a lot of non-Brits in my own department, but, depressingly, I can count the numbers of non-white and non-european students I've taught in three years on one hand.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Corbyn is going to talk about democratizing the economy, the rise of automation, and the digital age reforming work today. Prepare yourselves for 'meaningless buzzwords' accusations from the Tories and Lib Dems again.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't think it's a case that more educated people believe in the EU than less educated people.
I think it's more a case of less educated people feel let down by the EU than the more educated ones.
I know a lot of guys who do not have amazing educations but are excellent manual workers, builders chippies and brickies etc. Like hundreds of people a day (it's my job serving these guys after all.) and a lot of them dislike the EU for flooding the market with cheap labour. It doesn't mean that the EU has done that, but they still don't like it.
There definitely is a point in that, the same pattern is visible here in the Netherlands. Globalisation and labour migration hit less educated people much harder than highly educated people, as they are often easily set aside in favour of cheaper foreign labour. Highly educated people are much harder to replace in that way, since most labour migrants do not have the needed education.
Still the first ones to leave once you put up the not welcome sign are the educated ones.
Number of NHS nurses falls for first time since 2013 after 'significant drop' in EU staff
Significant reduction in EU nurses joining UK register since Brexit referendum and changes to language testing requirements are key reasons for the fall, according to the King's Fund
Future War Cultist wrote: So first we were called a Cult (by a mod) without hiderance and now we're being called idiots. It'll be interesting to see if any action is taken.
We had this discussion, the mod did not call you personally as part of a cult. Instead he called Brexit a cult because regardless of the facts and events that were happening, that in some areas, there is an unwavering view that it will be 'better in the end' without any evidence to support this (and when evidence comes against Wrexit it is either dismissed or because others didn't make the most of the situation). As we previously discussed this has the hallmarks of cult type behaviour where a minority at the top exploit a circumstance to benefit themselves (or their own ego). I didn't read the other comment, but it's been moderated so I accept that judgement. There is a difference between making an observation over the whole of society compared to making a personal attack.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't think it's a case that more educated people believe in the EU than less educated people.
I think it's more a case of less educated people feel let down by the EU than the more educated ones.
I know a lot of guys who do not have amazing educations but are excellent manual workers, builders chippies and brickies etc. Like hundreds of people a day (it's my job serving these guys after all.) and a lot of them dislike the EU for flooding the market with cheap labour. It doesn't mean that the EU has done that, but they still don't like it.
There definitely is a point in that, the same pattern is visible here in the Netherlands. Globalisation and labour migration hit less educated people much harder than highly educated people, as they are often easily set aside in favour of cheaper foreign labour. Highly educated people are much harder to replace in that way, since most labour migrants do not have the needed education.
Still the first ones to leave once you put up the not welcome sign are the educated ones.
Number of NHS nurses falls for first time since 2013 after 'significant drop' in EU staff
Significant reduction in EU nurses joining UK register since Brexit referendum and changes to language testing requirements are key reasons for the fall, according to the King's Fund
Again, I think this is along the lines of the poor being more affected.
A richer family can pick up and move elsewhere, a poorer family cannot. Harder job prospects in one area? That's okay, we have the money to move and try again somewhere else.
Future War Cultist wrote: So first we were called a Cult (by a mod) without hiderance and now we're being called idiots. It'll be interesting to see if any action is taken.
We had this discussion, the mod did not call you personally as part of a cult. Instead he called Brexit a cult because regardless of the facts and events that were happening, that in some areas, there is an unwavering view that it will be 'better in the end' without any evidence to support this (and when evidence comes against Wrexit it is either dismissed or because others didn't make the most of the situation). As we previously discussed this has the hallmarks of cult type behaviour where a minority at the top exploit a circumstance to benefit themselves (or their own ego). I didn't read the other comment, but it's been moderated so I accept that judgement. There is a difference between making an observation over the whole of society compared to making a personal attack.
By calling Brexit a 'cult', you are de-facto calling people in this thread who support Brexit cult followers.
No matter how accurate, I don't think this sort of rhetoric is conducive to a civil discussion so please refrain from it.
welshhoppo wrote: I don't think it's a case that more educated people believe in the EU than less educated people.
I think it's more a case of less educated people feel let down by the EU than the more educated ones.
I know a lot of guys who do not have amazing educations but are excellent manual workers, builders chippies and brickies etc. Like hundreds of people a day (it's my job serving these guys after all.) and a lot of them dislike the EU for flooding the market with cheap labour. It doesn't mean that the EU has done that, but they still don't like it.
This is likely to be another factor. However the blame in this case is misplaced. The EU provides opportunities (free movement etc) that people don't (or can't) because of social mobility issues etc is not an EU issue but rather a UK issue. However as a counter point to this argument we do know that the older you get the more likely to support leaving. At the same time the older generation are known to be in a better position than the younger generations. As such it can be argued that older generation have been the greater beneficiaries of being in the EU whereas the younger generation which is now struggling more and more because of house prices, inflation and so on. However the younger the population the more supportive of the EU they are. Therefore if cheap labour was the driving concern, where the younger the population, who are more vulnerable to cheaper labour, should be more opposed to the EU than the older generation. Yet we do not see this.
By calling Brexit a 'cult', you are de-facto calling people in this thread who support Brexit cult followers.
No matter how accurate, I don't think this sort of rhetoric is conducive to a civil discussion so please refrain from it.
I'd disagree. You can be for or against Wrexit but because of the evidence you have seen. That doesn't make you or anyone else a cult follower. A cause can however be acting as a whole or considered as a cult where facts start to lose any relevance and nothing can be said that detracts from that over-arching aim which those at the head want.
As another example I believe given the evidence to hand that unless the human race alters the way it exploits the resources of the world and the way it acts towards one another then we are likely to end up poisoning, 'starving' or otherwise killing each other because that is what happens when any animal species becomes too large for the environment to support. I am willing to accept that should new evidence come to light that shows we are changing our ways then we could perhaps avoid these issues. A doomsday cult believes a similar thing...but...will not accept any evidence that it is anything but inevitable. Hence I partially have similar views to a doomsday cult but it doesn't make me a cult follower. The semantics and context of the circumstances are important.
That depends on how people react to the a statement in that civil discussion. Stating for the purposes of an example only "This person on the forum is acting like a Brexit cultist" is to be opposed because it is a personal attack. Having a civil discussion as to whether Wrexit seems to be becoming more cult like is a reasonable debate to have because that bring awareness of what may be happening. It's only through such awareness that people can highlight there concerns. If you fail to do this, then if such circumstances are happening then silence allows it to grow and fester. It can also be used as a 'weapon' to silence dissidence on the issue because a statement is taken as a personal attack. Hurling abuse at each other isn't acceptable, stating concerns as to how an event is unfolding is OK even if it has bad connotations (for example a large part of the Jimmy Saville scandal and the fallout happened because people didn't discuss what was happening).
I've politely asked you several times to refrain from using insulting rhetoric tarring an entire movement and you're still persisting with it.
If you feel certain politicians are lying or are using the tactics of cult leaders , fine. Identify them and be specific in the people you are criticizing. Otherwise, please refrain from making big generalizations like "Brexit is a Cult" because its insulting to a lot of people in this thread.
If thats too much to ask, then you're going back on my ignore list because quite frankly I'm not inclined to listen to anything you have to say when you're using that sort of rhetoric.
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
With all due respect, that cuts both ways. I won't deny for a single minute that the Brexit side doesn't have its share of nutters, but that goes for Remain as well.
My opposition to the EU is well known on these boards, I wouldn't vote Remain even if you paid me a million quid, but on the other hand, neither do I consider the EU to be the root of all evil in this world.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts.
I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care,
...kinda spooky
...
The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
Well personally I'm all for it.
One more step towards a United Planet and one more step to us getting our collective acts together and going off into space to find things we ( probably) share no DNA with whatsoever .
... admittedly we'll then most probably either try to feth and/or kill -- maybe even both and not perhaps in that order -- them before swallowing them up into their own neat and tidy little ethnic subculture whose food and fashions we absorb into our mainstream culture but progress isn't always that even. Or swift.
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
Indeed.
Might want to take a long hard look at the shower of witches who are leading the Pro-Brexit movement, most/many of which we've all thrown our hands up in the air about XX times before -- and will again in all probability.
Whilst it makes for a lovely moment of shared community when we all despair at Bojo or try to puzzle out how it is even vaguely possible Hannan is seen as smart in any way shape or form .. and then there's Farage -- if you want the Leave camp to actually A be taken seriously and B actually turn out a result that we can live with it'd be dandy if you'd get your acts together and actually find some competent people to do it,.
Because if that doesn't happen what will happen is the UK will be a lot worse off.
And the last time we were that badly off we wound up crawling cap in hand to the IMF and the proto EU community, begging for help and/or to be let into the club.
And if we do wind going back into the EU/similar then I really don't think there'd be any practical way to ever pull out again.
And that's what's so frustrating :
If we're going to leave then let's at least have an actual workable plan other than blind faith and/or some claim to mystical greatness due to, I dunno, the strength of Albion's bloodline etc etc etc
As it stands we're soon looking at an interest rate rise, which is really going to punish the worse off, whilst the rich get richer and just sink their claws into more and more of the land whilst Joe Public gets bent.
...
... he typed whilst being fully aware, of course, that no one on here has any sway or real say in any of the respective camps.
It may be true that highly skilled workers find it easier to move around to different areas than lower skilled workers, so don't resent immigration as much, however the argument is that we've got too many lowly skilled Polish and Rumanian builders and so on coming to the UK, not that we've got too many professors and engineers. This does not seem to follow logically.
Of course, freedom of movement allows British builders and so on to go and establish careers abroad, as seen in TV programmes like Escape to the Chateu and New Life in the Sun.
It's not a discussion at all when one side freely admits to having made their minds up a decade+ in advance regardless of how this turns out.
Facts be damned and all.
If one's mind is already made up and no evidence is going to persuade you otherwise what is the point in one posting ?
It's literally like arguing with a religious fundamentalist.
With all due respect, that cuts both ways. I won't deny for a single minute that the Brexit side doesn't have its share of nutters, but that goes for Remain as well.
My opposition to the EU is well known on these boards, I wouldn't vote Remain even if you paid me a million quid, but on the other hand, neither do I consider the EU to be the root of all evil in this world.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
They don't really mean it, as though Macron was just some random guy in a pub with an opinion, and not the head of state of France.
How bout a million quid and Scottish independence?
And I agree, it's an influx of cheap labour not highly skilled labour that tends to bug people. But someone posted a great example of this a while ago, a lot of these people cannot afford to leave their families behind to work here cheaply. And it's a persons family that is the expensive thing to move around.
Then again, nearly every optician I've seen in the last 10 years has been polish. Kind of an odd thing when you think of it.
One charged that is often levelled against Brexit supporters like myself is that we don't listen to facts. That cuts both ways. The President of the EU Commission talks about an EU defence force. The President of France talks about an EU defence force, but the Remain response to this?
We've responded to this several times you draw this out. The EU force is not taking away countries powers to control their own armed forces. It will provide military support to any of the EU countries when they might need it. You are correct in your assertion that NATO is there to protect from Russian aggression if it ever should happen (but when we say protection we mean mutual annihilation). On the other hand NATO won't step in if there is volcanic eruption in Italy on scale of what happened to Vesuvius, or an magnitude 8.5 earthquake in Greece or Tsunami in the UK (has happened in the historical past). It allows for a co-ordinated response to a crisis where one individuals country may own resources may be stretched beyond its capacity to deal with it. Rather than having individual countries bumping into each other trying to help (e.g. all landing aid at the same airport with the affected country not able to transport it where it is needed) it allows a centralised effort to manage the event so that people are helped as effectively as possible by pooling resources. For example the Hurricanes in the Caribbean would have been far better served by islands under the jurisdiction of EU countries responded to in a co-ordinated way rather than each country sending the same thing to manage their own little area (of which the UK did several days later and then sent Boris the Clown instead of aid). I have however never seen an argument why it is a bad idea other than some nonsense about "the EU turning us into some superstate"
Well at least they should know how badly the population thinks they are making of the whole fiasco. Assuming of course they aren't just told to monitor the twitter feed "Brexit4ever" because the government don't want to hear anything bad about the process.
Tories can't win now. There is a growing momentum that Brexit is bad news and those that might have sitting on the fence and might have been persuaded one way or another are starting to realise the consequences of leaving and making a decision that it is best to be on the Remain side of the line. This means by the time they implement a full exit more than half the population will 'blame' the Tories and if the Tories backtrack then they lose the more fundamental supporters back to UKIP. That could perhaps but Tories out of government for 20 years or so. The only response I can say to this though is..."good".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:I'm not contesting the evidence and the facts. I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Then, like Whirlwind explained, you are not part of the Brexit cultists who believe in some magic pixie dust that will save the UK. You just share goals/opinions to a degree (like Whirlwind and the doomsday cult in that explanation). You don't have to feel included in that group (and attacked) just because it's a subgroup of Brexit supporters.
I don't want Brexit, you want it but in the end we both probably agree that now that it's going to happen it should also be done as quickly and painlessly as possible (for all sides). And even though we share that part we more or less completely disagree if it would be better for the UK to stay in the EU.
Well, I care very much. For the future of my children currently starting their GCSE's, and for my friends, family and colleagues who've worked hard for decades to provide for their families and improve themselves.
If perhaps you'd invested yourself as well, or even felt you had some stake in the future, then perhaps you'd care too?
Statements such as yours are more likely to antagonise others, harm your credibility as a serious commentator, and turn people away from the validity of your argument.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Whirlwind wrote: ... This means by the time they implement a full exit more than half the population will 'blame' the Tories and if the Tories backtrack then they lose the more fundamental supporters back to UKIP. That could perhaps but Tories out of government for 20 years or so. The only response I can say to this though is..."good".
This, to me, is perhaps the only upside. This whole episode has done what has been threatened to happen to the conservatives for the last 30 years, finally start to seriously fracture the party.
Whatever they do they know they're fethed, and they're thrashing around trying to save themselves. The only hope they have is that Brexit becomes an immediate, and palpable success thus vindicating their argument. Otherwise they are going to take a political beating for this for decades.
The other positive is that now I know for a fact who the bigoted gobshites are in my social circle. When they thought the tide was firmly in their favour they were crowing and mouthing off their rubbish all over social media. They've started to go quiet now, the tide is turning, and we all know the ones who've "liked" Britain First.
The Tories will get away with it somehow; people will blame the EU.
Most of them are independently wealthy anyway so worst case is they give up politics and go back to their estates. They are on the whole well insulated from any repercussions; they ain't going to jail and they ain't going to become unemployed or have to rely on all of the support they've cut away.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
Herzlos wrote: ...I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
I think that such people fall into a few categories. Political ideologues, those who have no stake in the economy, or those wealthy enough to weather an economic shitstorm.
Any political ideologue that ignores the economy completely in favour of any other more vaunted ideals displays a pretty poor grasp of basic politics. You have to be able to persuade people of your argument, and ensure that it is realistic and not just wish listing. Telling people you are willing to destroy, or damage their livelihoods, and their children's prospects is unlikely to garner much support. Even Jeremy Corbyn, who is pretty much as ideological as they come, had to ensure the Labour manifesto was credible and costed, otherwise he'd have gotten no where.
Those who have no stake in the economy, I have sympathy for them if they're just starting out. The Tory Govt of the last 7 years has effectively disenfranchised anyone in there 20s, leading to a raft of those kids still living at home, in poorly paid jobs getting no where thinking what's the point? I imagine they maybe thinking that they might as well burn it down and start from scratch as they personally have nothing to lose. Not a great attitude, but understandable, if a little childish.
The wealthy, insulated non-carers are just pricks. But tbh, I doubt there are too many of them.
People have said they'll accept some damage, but we don't know how much that will be. If you have feth all anyway, it's no big deal. But, if like me, and others you've worked hard, invested, and built a life for yourself and your family, such glib, immature statements are going to get short shrift. Especially if you disagreed with the decision in the first place.
Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
Herzlos wrote: ...I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
I think that such people fall into a few categories. Political ideologues, those who have no stake in the economy, or those wealthy enough to weather an economic shitstorm.
Any political ideologue that ignores the economy completely in favour of any other more vaunted ideals displays a pretty poor grasp of basic politics. You have to be able to persuade people of your argument, and ensure that it is realistic and not just wish listing. Telling people you are willing to destroy, or damage their livelihoods, and their children's prospects is unlikely to garner much support. Even Jeremy Corbyn, who is pretty much as ideological as they come, had to ensure the Labour manifesto was credible and costed, otherwise he'd have gotten no where.
Those who have no stake in the economy, I have sympathy for them if they're just starting out. The Tory Govt of the last 7 years has effectively disenfranchised anyone in there 20s, leading to a raft of those kids still living at home, in poorly paid jobs getting no where thinking what's the point? I imagine they maybe thinking that they might as well burn it down and start from scratch as they personally have nothing to lose. Not a great attitude, but understandable, if a little childish.
The wealthy, insulated non-carers are just pricks. But tbh, I doubt there are too many of them.
People have said they'll accept some damage, but we don't know how much that will be. If you have feth all anyway, it's no big deal. But, if like me, and others you've worked hard, invested, and built a life for yourself and your family, such glib, immature statements are going to get short shrift. Especially if you disagreed with the decision in the first place.
But even if you have gak all, unless you are completely off grid, are still affected by the economy. Benefits, health care, council and emergency services are all a function if the economy. It's those at the bottom that will get shafted hardest if it tanks.
Then there's cost of living; brexit will probably push that up.
Even renters will be affected; if your landlord has to sell you can be kicked out. If they can't afford to maintain the place then you're affected.
Literally every factor of day to day life us affected by Brexit, and a bad deal could have serious consequences across the board.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
Sure, if we end off communist or without tvs we might be happier in the long term. But we're currently capitalist and rely on a certain level of economic function.
I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
Yes this could indeed be true, more study needed, but then are educated people more likely to use the internet and if not why should that then have an effect on peoples voting preferences by education level?
The implication would be that it has nothing to do with education. More young people voted to remain, and more young people have higher levels of education, but then again more young people are likely to listen to the Scissor Sisters and shop at Claire's accessories. There's not necessarily any more of a link between the first and second facts, than there has to be between the first, third and fourth. Pure correlation, with little to link them beyond the fact that young people are more likely to have done these things than older people.
My hypothesis would be that young people are more likely to use the internet extensively than an older generation, along with several other activities (such as being more likely to go on holiday abroad, indulge in virtual gaming worlds with international playerbases, and so on) which likely grant one a more multicultural outlook than someone born fifty or sixty years ago. Contemporary young people are also (I would further hypothesize) less likely to remember a time when many things that they take for granted, such as frictionless travel or international purchasing, did not exist, and thus resent many things they regard as the 'norm' being taken away whereas older people can conceive of life without such privileges. Young 'uns also less likely to have been subjected to the indoctrination/suspicion of certain foreigners pumped out during the Cold War, as well as less generally susceptible to concerns regarding the national entity of the country as a whole due to not remembering a time when Britain did take independent actions/stances on things.
This is of course, on top of more general concerns involving the economy, European nationalism, and suchlike, but I wouldn't regard any such factors as being the exclusive preserve of the young; and therefore not particularly relevant when considering why young people were more likely to vote one way or t'other. I've no evidence, but nobody else has any in general either, so it's as good a set of inferences as any.
The flip side of the above diagnosis of course, is that assuming Brexit passes with an average recession at worst (which hits every decade anyway), there will be diminishing pressure to rejoin as those extraneous factors become quiescent (people adapt to the new 'normal' state of affairs, the economy levels back off, Britain visibly begins to function independently again, and so forth). We shall see, I suppose, whether or not I'm on the mark a decade down the line.
nfe wrote: I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
That misrepresents what was said. The argument wasn't about putting the economy first before everything else, it was bemusement about being willing to trash the economy by not giving it any priority at all. That's two different things.
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Can I vote directly against the likes of Jean Claude Juncker if I dislike his policies and decisions in office? Against Donald Tusk?
The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
For example,
the figure shows that in bilateral UK-EU trade, a tariff of 30-40% would be applied on wine and cheese
- two items for which the UK runs a significant deficit with the EU (net-imports of about 2,200 million
and 1,250 million euro respectively, see Figure 3.1). In addition, imports of several meat product
items would become subject to tariffs that could exceed 30% and might be even close to 70% or
90%, depending on the type of meat. All in all, the UK consumer will face higher prices for many items
that are imported, which will only alter, if the UK government negotiates preferential access with the
EU when leaving the Union.
However, under a hard Brexit, UK farmers exporting to Europe could face punishing tariffs despite continuing to meet the same strict rules. Skimmed milk exported into the EU from outside the single market attracts a tariff of 74 per cent, while butter is slapped with a 63 per cent tariff and cheddar an additional 43 per cent. A tariff of 53 per cent is levied on wheat exports. Red meat attracts the highest tariffs of all, with charges on frozen beef carcasses reaching 160 per cent of their value. “At those kinds of prices, it’s difficult to see many European customers being up for trade with the UK,” said Withers. He cited a working paper by economists at Trinity College Dublin which paints a bleak picture for food producers if the government fails to secure a trade deal or a transition towards one that takes effect the moment the UK leaves the EU. The paper, published by the Economic and Social Research Institute in Dublin, warns that trade in some food products “comes close to being wiped out” under modelling of the potential impact of WTO tariffs. Exports of red meat and cereals could be expected to fall by 90 per cent, according to economists Martina Lawless and Edgar Morgenroth.
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - aff boo they don't ask rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
I was just responding to that particular statement that it wasn't even a consideration. I've got no problem with people prioritising social justice, democracy and anything else they want over a healthy economy, but to disregard it as even relevant at all? I imagine such statements are just reactionary, and allow people who say such things to believe that they hold a higher moral authority, unconcerned with filthy lucre. Which, frankly, is bollocks.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
nfe wrote: Plenty of political perspectives fundamentally oppose our entire economic system. Plenty of people would prioritise a wealth of other issues before economic success - and no they don't all rely on economic success either - Cuba has excellent healthcare and Bhutan was the happiest place on earth until they got tvs, for instance. It really isn't difficult to place damage to a capitalist system very, very low on your list of political priorities. Stating this is neither glib nor immature. By contrast, calling it glib and immature is indicative of an inability to comprehend politics beyond the ultra-narrow centre-right system that you've been told is the only way. That's what's immature, I would suggest. At best, it's extraordinarily politically naive.
I was responding to a statement that the economy was not even a priority at all, that economic arguments are no factor whatsoever. Not that it's the lowest priority, which would indicate at least an understanding that the world needs an economy, and trade, to even function at all. You can't even have a working culture without a form of trade and economy, even if it is just bartering with pelts.
Someone who completely disregards such a fundemental part of society is akin to someone saying that justice, security, health care, schooling or any other of the essential parts of society are completely irrelevant in how the country should be run.
The economy is not a dirty word, like I stated earlier, even the most Left wing understand that a functioning economy is essential, it's just that they don't believe in neo-liberalism in order to construct that economy, but would rather run an economy based on socialism.
Ignoring it completely is utterly bemusing because it means that whoever is espousing an economy free society has probably spent a little bit too much time watching the Good Life, and getting toasted.
I think you're really extrapolating a bit much from what people have said. Do you genuinely think anyone meant that they think the economy is totally and utterly irrelevant to life rather than just below other issues in their list of priorities?
I was just responding to that particular statement that it wasn't even a consideration. I've got no problem with people prioritising social justice, democracy and anything else they want over a healthy economy, but to disregard it as even relevant at all? I imagine such statements are just reactionary, and allow people who say such things to believe that they hold a higher moral authority, unconcerned with filthy lucre. Which, frankly, is bollocks.
Whilst I don't want to speak for anyone, I'm pretty confident what was meant was that it wasn't a consideration compared to all the other issues they were concerned with. Essentially a RAI vs RAW problem, I think
nfe wrote: I'm making no arguments (currently) about the viability of instituting or pursuing other systems. I'm only noting that if you find someone putting other things before the economy so incomprehensible it may well be you that's ignorant, not them.
I understand prioritising stuff about the economy. I don't understand "I don't care about the economy ".
Shadow Captain Edithae wrote: I know Brexit may damage the economy. I simply don't care, I have different priorities to you. And as such, economic arguments do not sway me.
Why don't you care about the economy? Do you feel that you'll be unaffected by it? Somehow?
I very much care about the economy. It being healthy generates tax and jobs. We all rely on tax funded services and I want my kids to grow up in a country with jobs. If that has to be Germany then so be it.
I genuinely don't understand how someone can be so keen to get out of the eu they'll happily trash the economy.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Can I vote directly against the likes of Jean Claude Juncker if I dislike his policies and decisions in office? Against Donald Tusk?
Thanks. However I don't see any of that changing for the better. We're still going yo be beholden to the eu as our largest customer.
On the rather be poor and free; how poor? 10% reduced economy? 20? 30?
Worse case predictions for Hard brexit are the economy dropping by about 20%. That's savage cuts for services that are already struggling. Is Brexit worth losing hospitals for?
"Once [PSA] has enough visibility on the future trading relationship with the EU, and the plant competitiveness has been addressed, the company will be in a position to consider future investments."
(...)
"The depreciation of sterling since the Brexit vote has meant that the cost of importing components has gone up, so it's a more costly plant."
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU. 2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations. 3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources. 4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc. 5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Not for me its not.
What is it for you?
The Sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The only Government and political entity I want my country to be a member of is that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Westminster should be the highest authority, not subject to any foreign power (the EU).
I'd much prefer if the EU was purely an economic Union (i.e. single market) and not a Political Union with a European Parliament, Commission, Departments, etc...But its not. The economic union is irrevocably entwined with the political union and so the only option for me is to take it or leave it.
Kilkrazy wrote: The purpose of Brexit is to improve the economy by:
1. Enabling the UK to make trade deals outside the EU.
2. Freeing the UK from EU regulations.
3. Preventing EU citizens from easily coming to work in the UK and use up UK national resources.
4. Reducing the payment of fees for membership and CAP, etc.
5. Restoring the UK fishing industry by freeing it from the EU quota system.
Not for me its not.
What is it for you?
The Sovereignty of the Westminster Parliament. The only Government and political entity I want my country to be a member of is that of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland. Westminster should be the highest authority, not subject to any foreign power (the EU).
I'd much prefer if the EU was purely an economic Union (i.e. single market) and not a Political Union with a European Parliament, Commission, Departments, etc...But its not. The economic union is irrevocably entwined with the political union and so the only option for me is to take it or leave it.
I chose Leave it.
We should be free to have descison made in UK. Not EU.
Love or hate our parliament. It I UK citizens voting on UK matters. Not French, Spanish, Polish or anyone else.
Europe should have stuck to trade and kept out nations affairs. A trade partnership, not a army, not a parliamentary body. A trade body only.
But they want to forge a federal state.. Nope.
If be happy as trade member only. No freedom of movement.
We have good trade terms and sovereignty over own lands.
We trade. They trade. None of the political crap that goes with the EU and its labyrinthine of institutions and layers.
Because I have other priorities. Democracy, national self determination, small(er) Government. I'd rather be poor but free; than rich but not free living under the yoke of a foreign government that I have no democratic power to depose.
Are you implying that we are not free? That we are enslaved to another government? When did this happen. I'd point out that our own government in their own white paper after Brexit stated "[Parliament has] remained sovereign throughout our membership to the EU". It's a complete misconception and fabrication by some politicians to make us believe otherwise. We have just as much say as any of the other nations (and more so in reality). We will be less free after Brexit even from the simple fact that our ability to move where we want in the EU without paperwork is going to be severely curtailed.
What is missed though is that as most of our trade is with the EU (and that's not likely to change purely from logistical purposes) in effect we will have to comply with the EU rules anyway. So by leaving you are providing less freedom again simply because we will have no voice at the table but still have to comply.
Pretty sure our GDP is "alright" compared to the rest of the EU.
It's not as simple as this. There is a distance issue to consider which boosts costs anyway for some items. The US also has looser controls on a lot of products. For example chlorinated chicken is a high profile one or genetically modified crops. This is used in the US to extend the shelf life/increase profitability but is rejected in this country and the EU. However it does make things cheaper and there are concerns that our own industries will have to lower standards just to compete. It will then become a race to the bottom which in the end just exploits the environment until it is pretty much trashed (our environmental standards in the 60/70s was appalling for example, if you even looked at a river incorrectly you might come away with gills). Standardising environmental controls across the EU has improved the environment for everyone but people just see it as political *insert expletive*.
Question, why does the "freedom" bexiteers want always stop at Westminster? Shouldn't they all be in favour of Scottish independence? What about independence for all those parts of England that didn't vote for the Torys?
I think we can find a better way to phrase this please.
Ta.
Reds8n
hrrmm Okay then.
I listed all the descriptions of brexiteers put forth by remainders as a summary of what we've learned in this thread. It was sardonic and, I hope, made clear how irrationally remainers have been lashing out at brexiteers as a uniform group.
GoatboyBeta wrote: Question, why does the "freedom" bexiteers want always stop at Westminster? Shouldn't they all be in favour of Scottish independence? What about independence for all those parts of England that didn't vote for the Torys?
Because a lot of us view that Westminister is about "the right size" for a government to be operating at.
Some of us, like DINLT think that the ideal government should be over a smaller scale, hence why he's pro Scottish Independence.
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.) A larger government only works when it's built that way from the off, like how the US has developed over the years with the balance between Federal Government and the State Governments. I don't like the EU because it's trying to do it backwards, and it's bloody corrupt as hell.
Pretty sure our GDP is "alright" compared to the rest of the EU.
While Trump liked to congratulate the UK for its independence and "show his support" there were already statements from US politicians/bureaucrats that trade deals with the UK would be "low on the list of priorities" or something like that (alone, the UK is not as important as other, bigger entities). The reality of the situation is that the USA, like any other country, are limited in what they can achieve and must prioritise like everybody else. Some things can't be rushed just by increasing the number of workers [1]. And of course at a later point Trump made some statement along the lines of "the USA looking into exploiting the UKs weakened position when it comes to trade" (just in his own special wording).
Some tasks are less divisible; Brooks points out that while it takes one woman nine months to make one baby, "nine women can't make a baby in one month".
I don't like the EU because it's trying to do it backwards, and it's bloody corrupt as hell.
Is it any more corrupt than Westminster?
I like the EU because it results in a lot of cost saving (that we can't take advantage of now) and harmonisation across the union (that we're going yo have to adhere to anyway).
I don't feel it's any less connected or democratic than Westminster, and in fact produces the kind of policies that suit me as a lefty. Workers rights, environmental standards etc.
I think from a running government point of view supporting 500m isn't that different from supporting 70m. It's not even an order of magnitude and still a big number. It's very different from supporting 10k which is 2 orders of magnitude smaller.
It's not perfect by any stretch of the imagination but a lot better than leaving our government run without adult supervision.
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
I don't feel it's any less connected or democratic than Westminster, and in fact produces the kind of policies that suit me as a lefty. Workers rights, environmental standards etc.
Cant be a very good lefty if you cheer on the neo-liberal machine that is the EU
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
Well maybe you should have read the second half of my post.
I said a larger one can work when it starts off that way. In terms of area, China and India haven't really changed in hundreds of years. So you have the culture aspect.
Again, my issue with the EU is that is works backwards. It would only work if you removed the nation states entirely and eeforged them into smaller units of more equal size.
You can prove anything with history, but history is not an iron rule that controls the future.
Before the EU was built up out of many nation states, there was the Hapsburg Empire, the Holy Roman Empire, the Carolingian Empire and the Roman Empire, all spanning much of the same regions that split into different formations, coalesced again, split and re-coalesced.
The states that currently constitute the EU have populations between less than 500,000 and over 80 million. In all of these countries there are people who think the EU is a terrible disaster, and people who think it is best thing ever, whatever the size of the nation they happen to have been born in.
Despite this, all the countries in the EU are basically liberal democracies with the rule of law, etc. and I truly believe it would be hard to find an EU country to point at and seriously worry about their constitutional development. (That's why Turkey has not yet managed to get in, and won't the way it is going.)
One plus of membership is that if you think your own particular country is too large or small, or doesn't have a government that suits you, you can simply move somewhere else.
All signs and indications suggest the PM will roll up the white flag again.
Compromise suggests you get something back in return. we have had ZERO in return from the EU.
And now Remain MPs are trying to cobble something together in the Commons that will prevent a no deal scenario, and tus undercut our negotiating team x 1 million
what a bunch of stupid pieces of
Automatically Appended Next Post: I've said it until I'm blue in the face, but we're wasting our time with these people.
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
So despite Britain saying it would honour its financial commitments to the EU until 2019, we're still expected to bankroll Eastern Europe? Even after we've left?
I'm happy to strike a good deal with the EU, but not at any price
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.)
I'm pretty sure that an Irish person (a hair under 5 million) consider their government size to suit them fine. Probably the Chinese and Indians feel the same, too with a central government with several orders of magnitude more discretional powers than the EU will ever have, ruling over many more people.
People (middle-aged and older especially) love grumbling about change and will find a way to do it even when presented with evidence to the contrary. Statu quo, "the good times", "don't fix it if it ain't broken", etc. people are conditioned to think that way. Add the foreigner angle and that's when it gets messy.
Well maybe you should have read the second half of my post.
I said a larger one can work when it starts off that way. In terms of area, China and India haven't really changed in hundreds of years. So you have the culture aspect.
Again, my issue with the EU is that is works backwards. It would only work if you removed the nation states entirely and eeforged them into smaller units of more equal size.
China and India have changed several times and in many ways, at different points in history they were bigger, smaller, a number of smaller subdivisions, some other country colony and, in the case of India, even a larger state which had to be partitioned through a bloody war (India - Pakistan, and then again the two Pakistans into Pakistan and Bangladesh).
Plus integration into a larger form of government has worked in the past. That's how the modern Germany, Italy and Switzerland came into being.
Some American poster also took exception to someone using the USA as an example of a larger country working like that from the beginning. Power has shifted to and from the states (and smaller subdivisions) to the Federal government several times, it was not definitely by design that the modern USA is what it is today, and there was a bloody Civil war in the middle of the whole thing to align some of the different visions in the same direction.
If history tells you something is that there are no hard and fast rules to what form of government works best. Everything is a compromise, and history is always a work in progress.
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
No, its not. It only becomes a compromise when both sides make concessions.
What has the EU conceded so far? Are they going to reciprocate in any way, or just continue complaining that we're "not making progress" and demand even more concessions?
How many concessions do we have to make until the EU is satisfied and decides to meet us halfway?
Kilkrazy wrote: You don't get something in return until you have promised a concession or compromise. That's how things work.
No, its not. It only becomes a compromise when both sides make concessions.
What has the EU conceded so far? Are they going to reciprocate in any way, or just continue complaining that we're "not making progress" and demand even more concessions?
How many concessions do we have to make until the EU is satisfied and decides to meet us halfway?
Exactly what has the UK conceded on? A lot of buzzwords on striving and being creative and open-minded and let's all be friends together.
The situation needs focus and getting your hands dirty. The clock is ticking.
Regarding the money situation, the EU should know exactly what we owe them, and present the bill, instead of fething around.
If the EU turn around and say, Britain, you owe us 5 billion for UK/MEP pensions, 10 billion for budget contributions until 2019 and 3 billion for some wildlife park in Estonia you agreed to fund etc etc
then as I say, I have ZERO problem with honouring our financial commitments. I wouldn't like it, but national honour demands of us a payment.
Are the EU seriously saying they have no idea how much money goes in and out, and who owes what?
I don't believe that for a minute and the EU ain't fooling nobody.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Regarding the money situation, the EU should know exactly what we owe them, and present the bill, instead of fething around.
The EU has presented an itemised list.
That's as close to a bill as you'll get in international relations and they're still waiting a reply along the lines of "we'll pay for this but not for this", the numbers being freely available to the UK as a full member of the EU.
nfe wrote: I do love all the stamping of feet about concessions and the EU not playing fair.
If only someone had said they'd hold all the cards and pump us daft in the event of a leave vote, eh?
Except they don't hold the cards, especially with yesterday's election result and the eastern Europeans causing disunity. As for being pumped hard, it remains to be seen, although I wouldn't be surprised if things take a decade to recover from whatever the fallout actually ends up being.
In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.
Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.
Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.
Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...
Let the implication of that sink in for a minute, and remember that before wondering why people like me voted to leave the EU...
Let's also remember that the reason the EU reacted was because part of the government was a party with roots in neo-Nazism. I'd damn well expect the EU, and anyone else, to tell the Austrians that Nazism is a Bad Idea.
nfe wrote: I do love all the stamping of feet about concessions and the EU not playing fair.
If only someone had said they'd hold all the cards and pump us daft in the event of a leave vote, eh?
Except they don't hold the cards, especially with yesterday's election result and the eastern Europeans causing disunity.
Half our government and most Brexiteer commentators constantly bemoaning the EU's disinterest in compromising and stubbornness in sticking to their progression limits suggests otherwise.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.
Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.
Ehm... No. It has elected a right wing, pro-European party in the mould of the CDU and member of the European People's party like most Christian Democratic parties.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.
Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...
Could I suggest reading this about the leader of the Austrian Freedom Party and then compare to the current person that has just been elected...
One Government for about 70 millions people suits me quite fine, it's a fine good balance between a too local but weak government (like the old city states.) or a larger government when the Citizen is so far removed that there is no power in the citizen (like the EU size.) .
The problem with this size of government is that historically it has resulted in squabbles between neighbours as they fight over resources and 'power'. Nor can they solve larger global problems ranging from areas like climate change that will force ever growing migration issues to the state of the fish stocks (because fish don't give a damn about whether they cross a border or not). As our issues become wider and larger ranging we will need larger scale governments to handle the policies that are needed to implement them. You only need to look at trying to get the Paris agreement even started to be implemented to show the problems national countries can cause. The EU is perhaps the most progressive large group of nations in this regard simply because all the countries are working to the same goals and same conditions.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: In all the talk about money, and who owes what to who, it's worth remembering that there are more important things in life than business worries.
Austria has just elected a populist, right-wing, Eurosceptic government.
Back in 2000, when Austria did something similar, the EU sanctioned Austria. Indeed, it was the first time the EU had ever done this to a member state.
Basically, the EU told the Austrian people they didn't like who they had elected...
Let the implication of that sink in for a minute, and remember that before wondering why people like me voted to leave the EU...
So, wandering away from Brexit, I'd like to talk about Jacob Rees-Mogg.
Or rather, what he represents.
See, he's a man of faith, and fair enough. But, politicians of his stripe always worry me, because they place their faith (which they're perfectly entitled to) as the be-all-and-end-all of morality.
That concerns me very deeply. And it's not because I'm an atheist myself, but because Britain is a multicultural, secular society. So whilst you're free to inform your own morality on the basis of the faith of your choice, that needs to be kept out of Parliament.
The days of religion informing and influencing policy needs to end (and yes, that includes ending their voice in The Lords), not enhanced.
Now, Mr Rees-Mogg may well be sensible in that regard, and get that because he can't do X, doesn't mean nobody else should, or that X should be illegal. I'm just using him as a particularly well know example of someone who sticks to their faith.
And that pushback needs to begin now. Not later. I don't want us to end up with a Religious Right like other countries have.
If you yourself are of a religious persuasion, consider how you'd feel if say, a Muslim or Jewish MP tried to hammer policy round their faiths. Is that something you or anyone should simply accept?
Again, I'm not some kind of militant atheist demanding entirely secular laws. Different faiths bring different view points, and all need to be included in rational debate. But when someone decides their faith is the only one to have it right, only trouble will come from it.
The thing is, Rees-Mogg isn't trying to push his faith on other people. He's said he accepts that Parliament and modern society has decided to allow abortion.
Its a tricky balancing act for sure. Religion can seem be a regressive force in many areas these days, but it can still do(and does) a lot of good. I guess as with most things in politics its all about having the right checks and balances to prevent things lurching to far to one extreme or the other.
As for Mogg, while I dislike nearly everything about him. At least he's being pretty honest about who he is and what he thinks.
Obviously, Brexit isn't a contentious enough subject on its own, let's chuck a bit of religion in to spice things up.
Got to say, I'm not worried about a religious political coup.
Every politician of any stripe knows that it just won't fly over here. Other countries may have differing mileage, but in the UK, religious people make us uncomfortable, like a slightly racist grandparent, who gives you the occasional £5 on your birthday, and smells a bit damp. You're stuck with them, but tbh, you only pop in and see them a couple of times a year, and you're quite glad to have done your duty and can leave 40 minutes later.
We sent all our religious nutcases abroad to the colonies. Those of us who stayed were perfectly happy for them to practice the freedom of their religion, thousands of miles away, with an ocean in between us.
We need to get shot of the state church and its consequent Lords seats, but how can you take religion out of politics without banning religious individuals from politics? We have a representative democracy where we elect individuals to legislate (or oppose legislation) on our behalf. If someone's moral framework is built around their interpretation of their religion, then they're going to vote in accordance with (or informed by) that just as non-religious person will vote in accordance with their own moral ontology. Or at least both should - some will put it aside sometimes for various reasons.
It's not been an issue for bloody ages, why is everyone getting their knickers in a twist over Lord snooty?
As has been pointed out, he's not a threat, and the bishops in the Lords are pretty harmless.
Seems like a waste of time fanning about worrying about a total nin-threat when we have bigger fish to fry. We're literally playing the fiddle while Rome burns.
r_squared wrote: Obviously, Brexit isn't a contentious enough subject on its own, let's chuck a bit of religion in to spice things up.
Got to say, I'm not worried about a religious political coup.
Every politician of any stripe knows that it just won't fly over here. Other countries may have differing mileage, but in the UK, religious people make us uncomfortable, like a slightly racist grandparent, who gives you the occasional £5 on your birthday, and smells a bit damp. You're stuck with them, but tbh, you only pop in and see them a couple of times a year, and you're quite glad to have done your duty and can leave 40 minutes later.
It never does any harm to stay aware though. In this country it's more the subtleties and bias's that can be brought forward that are more problematic. Theresa May admitted that if she is unsure she asks 'God' what to do and is guided by the response rather than go out and gather more evidence. In reality it has nothing to do with what God says but more how she has been brought up and what she has been told is the right thing to do by a specific religion. This can result in subtle biases that can grow into greater problems over time. It also allows people to pass the buck when things go wrong so if May believes that the election result is because "god is testing her" making her blind to the impacts she really is having on people. It's for the same reason that I don't believe religion should be taught in any school as children are more impressionable and at that age you need to be teaching them how to look at the world objectively and you simply can't do that if everything is led by a religious undertone. Churches/Mosques etc are places where religion can be 'taught' not schools.
In other news it appears that they are pressing on with trying to change the electoral boundaries and unsurprisingly it will benefit the Conservatives (though Boris may lose his seat). If there is ever a time when proportional representation is needed then it is now...
And it appears that May's discussions with the EU have made great leaps forward.... They have agreed they need more talks which is really not a surprise to anyone.
By using the Airbus assembly facility in Alabama it will circumvent the Boeing-imposed tariffs. Airbus gains a 50% stake on a brand-new developed airliner without paying a single euro, and Bombardier keeps access to the US market.
Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
The other problem is that the reason for the inflation is outside of the BoE's control. With EU talks floundering because the UK won't commit to the red lines the EU have set for trade discussions then it is becoming more likely that a hard or semi-hard Wrexit will occur. That will drive down the £ further, forcing more increases in inflation on pretty much everything given the trade deficit. Interest rises might not even start to cap inflationary rises in such a case. Interest rises also means the debt people have grown will increase, further decreasing spending at a time when the economy is just about stuttering along (pretty much stagnant). A UK recession whilst the rest of the world grows will see us fall further behind and by the time things might start recovering and become rebalanced then we can reasonably expect a global recession which will take us back down again. It doesn't help the UK Government is opposed to any form of tax increases on middle to upper earners as a way to at least try and get some investment into the country.
Heaven help us is if we are in the middle of this and fuel prices skyrocket like they did 10 years ago as the rest of the world grows, then we would be in a complete mess.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
It’s not true that credit = bad/saving = good. The reason we have low interest rates is to get people to spen. Spending drives the economy. Saving keeps money out of the economy. It is highly questionable if we have irresponsible borrowing at the moment. There is also an issue that we have a structural problem in the UK with irresponsible saving. People sitting on large funds expecting them to provide an income, especially baby boomers. Private landlords and early retirees.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
It’s not true that credit = bad/saving = good. The reason we have low interest rates is to get people to spen. Spending drives the economy. Saving keeps money out of the economy. It is highly questionable if we have irresponsible borrowing at the moment. There is also an issue that we have a structural problem in the UK with irresponsible saving. People sitting on large funds expecting them to provide an income, especially baby boomers. Private landlords and early retirees.
Seems fair enough, spending and credit drives growth as money sloshes around the economy. But it does agitate the po-faced savers who feel they have a moral high ground, or something. Personally, I save money to have a contingency fund for emergencies, invest my money, and use credit when it's cheap enough. With interest rates as they are, saving is not the sensible option.
However, interest rates will start to rise again, and savers will start to get all moist over their return. Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the days of double digit interest, and a paucity of credit. It was gak.
Seems fair enough, spending and credit drives growth as money sloshes around the economy. But it does agitate the po-faced savers who feel they have a moral high ground, or something. Personally, I save money to have a contingency fund for emergencies, invest my money, and use credit when it's cheap enough. With interest rates as they are, saving is not the sensible option.
However, interest rates will start to rise again, and savers will start to get all moist over their return. Unfortunately I'm old enough to remember the days of double digit interest, and a paucity of credit. It was gak.
I've always wondered just how effective moving interest rates back and forth is when compared to wider global and local issues. In the early 2000s we had relatively high interest rates (compared to now) but inflation was relatively low starting at 1.5% and rising to just under 3% (pre-crash and changes to VAT). Yet during that time we weren't saving and the government introduced ISAs to encourage this. I think the populace as a whole is more savvy than is made out and that they move 'savings' to where it is most effective. For example this could be into housing; these have a likely much higher rate of return over a long period than a bank account.. It could be argued that this supports part of the economy but only part of it, but it can also lead to overcooked house prices and people investing as much money as possible into the housing market. That leaves less and less money for the 'high street' expenditure. This is what appears to be happening. I would fall into this category. Although I don't own a property I am saving as much as I can to get the largest deposit possible. This will lead to lower interest payments and long term will make me much better off. However it does mean that I am acutely aware of every luxury expenditure is less money to this cause. They can increase or decrease interest rates as much as they want it won't change the luxury expenditure. I know that the money in the bank won't accrue much interest, but that is not the primary aim. The actual investment will be the house. The problem is of course those on the lowest incomes that never have enough money either to save or invest for the long term.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
It’s not true that credit = bad/saving = good. The reason we have low interest rates is to get people to spen. Spending drives the economy. Saving keeps money out of the economy. It is highly questionable if we have irresponsible borrowing at the moment. There is also an issue that we have a structural problem in the UK with irresponsible saving. People sitting on large funds expecting them to provide an income, especially baby boomers. Private landlords and early retirees.
I didn't say credit is outright bad. The problem is the huge number of people who have several maxed out cards running into the thousands and only making minimum payments. It really concerns me that students I'm teaching now will go to Uni next year and be offered credit cards which they'll just use to buy expensive shoes because their skills at managing money are so poor.
TOTAL CREDIT CARD DEBT IN AUGUST 2017 WAS £68.8BN. PER HOUSEHOLD THIS IS £2,539
Not even the lowest incomes; probably most people in the bottom half.
My family is pretty average in terms of income but we have no savings as it makes sense to pay down (significant) debt instead. Why keep money @ 0.5% when you're paying 5%+?
Automatically Appended Next Post: We really need to cover basic finances at school; how credit cards work, mortgages, savings, billS and so on.
For instance after I graduated from uni I had no idea how to arrange and pay council tax.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
It’s not true that credit = bad/saving = good. The reason we have low interest rates is to get people to spen. Spending drives the economy. Saving keeps money out of the economy. It is highly questionable if we have irresponsible borrowing at the moment. There is also an issue that we have a structural problem in the UK with irresponsible saving. People sitting on large funds expecting them to provide an income, especially baby boomers. Private landlords and early retirees.
I didn't say credit is outright bad. The problem is the huge number of people who have several maxed out cards running into the thousands and only making minimum payments. It really concerns me that students I'm teaching now will go to Uni next year and be offered credit cards which they'll just use to buy expensive shoes because their skills at managing money are so poor.
TOTAL CREDIT CARD DEBT IN AUGUST 2017 WAS £68.8BN. PER HOUSEHOLD THIS IS £2,539
It looks like a time bomb to me, given that's only credit card debt alone.
But I don't expect much to be done. Payday loans companies with 2000% APR thrived under this government as they dragged their feet to do anything.
£2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Howard A Treesong wrote: Still financial groups clamour to warn against an interest rise when inflation is running at 3%. Still being told my wages will be held meaning they are worth less and less.
I understand the problems to many caused by an interest rise - the low rates have led to an enormous credit bill in this country that will cripple people's finances if the interest rate increases. We really need to look at this industry and people's attitudes towards credit, and why so many have to use it - maybe that soaring inflation and wage freezes has something to do with it.
Easy availability of cheap credit means widespread irresponsible borrowing, because while some use credit to cover household bills, many use it just to buy luxury goods. I've never owned a credit card, but the average debt on one is into the thousands. And savers now have to forgo the benefits of being responsible, to prop up irresponsibility. All the reward from banks is in borrowing not saving - and the dependence on credit in this country is a disgrace.
It’s not true that credit = bad/saving = good. The reason we have low interest rates is to get people to spen. Spending drives the economy. Saving keeps money out of the economy. It is highly questionable if we have irresponsible borrowing at the moment. There is also an issue that we have a structural problem in the UK with irresponsible saving. People sitting on large funds expecting them to provide an income, especially baby boomers. Private landlords and early retirees.
I didn't say credit is outright bad. The problem is the huge number of people who have several maxed out cards running into the thousands and only making minimum payments. It really concerns me that students I'm teaching now will go to Uni next year and be offered credit cards which they'll just use to buy expensive shoes because their skills at managing money are so poor.
TOTAL CREDIT CARD DEBT IN AUGUST 2017 WAS £68.8BN. PER HOUSEHOLD THIS IS £2,539
It looks like a time bomb to me, given that's only credit card debt alone.
But I don't expect much to be done. Payday loans companies with 2000% APR thrived under this government as they dragged their feet to do anything.
£2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Student debt plus mortgage debts.
That's alot higher than the credit card debt.
Students now alone your looking 30-40k per person. Scotland language degree can be 60-70k
Debt is only a problem if it is unmanageable. Mortgages and student loans are a fact of life for many people, and whilst the numbers appear large, if you have the income to pay those debts, and still live there is nothing wrong with that.
Being stuck paying off the minimum payments of a host of credit and store cards, is another thing altogether, as is having to rely on short term, high interest loans to supplement shortfalls.
Those loans are very very lucrative, which is why they tend to be easy to get, and like any other addiction, it's hard to get out of that cycle once you're in it.
Steve steveson wrote: £2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Student debt I get, but how do you figure that rising house prices can be controlled by the government.
To take a simplistic view of things, if I build, or own, something, why can I not sell it at the value I deem it to be worth?
Well for one, prices could be lowered if the Government committed to constructing or subsidising large numbers of council housing. Supply and demand. Houses are scarce, so they're expensive. Build more houses, and houses will be less scarce so prices go down.
Shadow, I think that there are a lot of pitfalls in that view. It, like my example is a bit simplistic. For example, where do we build these houses? Do we run the risk of creating slums or ghettos? Where do we get the money to build them?
The aim of making affordable housing is a laudable one, but I don't think that it is achievable by Governmental meddling and while past policies certainly have not helped the situation I don't think that is the solution.
Do we have to have yet another talk about how a Student Loan really isn't debt and is essentially a graduate tax that sometimes someone stops paying it before they retire?
Did I earn less than £21,000 in the last financial year?
No > I pay a percentage of my income towards my student loan. Probably taken out of my paycheck every month.
Yes > I don't pay any money
Has it been 30 years and I haven't paid off my student loan?
No > I continue to pay my student loan until I pay it off or it reaches 30 years.
Yes > Ok, your student loan is gone now. Just like that, gone, poof.
On top of that, according to the first article, that "£21,000" figure is actually changing, to £25,000. Which means that even less people will be needing to pay their loans back. OR will be paying substantially less.
The loan doesn't even have any real impact when it comes to, for example, applying for a mortgage.
The conversation would most likely go, "ok, do you have a student loan?" "Yup." "Everything going ok with it?" "Yup." "Ok then."
Now, I'm not saying that the government won't pull the rug out from under us at some point in the future but as it stands right now, all the hysteria the newspapers give about 'student loan debt owing half a million pounds per person' - Is just that. Hysteria. Ignorant hysteria designed to panic and outrage people in order to sell papers.
Pause on universal credit passes 299-0. Tories don't bother to vote.
Good for Angus Ross. Who, having campaigned on a 'my referring will never impact my parliamentary responsibilities' ticket was running the line for the Champions League.
nfe wrote: Pause on universal credit passes 299-0. Tories don't bother to vote.
Good for Angus Ross. Who, having campaigned on a 'my referring will never impact my parliamentary responsibilities' ticket was running the line for the Champions League.
1 conservative rebelled, and didn't abstain as requested. Unfortunately it's only "advisory", so I expect the government to immediately abandon UC following the "will of the people".
Or does that only work with stupid, ill-conceived ideas that will hurt the country and bolster the conservatives? Maybe Labour should paint it on the side of a bus.
So much for an ineffective opposition, they're certainly twisting Theresa's arm over these unpopular policies.
Steve steveson wrote: £2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Student debt I get, but how do you figure that rising house prices can be controlled by the government.
To take a simplistic view of things, if I build, or own, something, why can I not sell it at the value I deem it to be worth?
Cheers
Andrew
You can try and sell for what you want, but you will only get what the market deems it is worth. At the moment there is a serious under supply of housing in some areas due to lack of building. The government control planning law. As it stands planning law restricts building a lot, and cost of land is the vast majority of the cost of any new building. Around 70% of the cost of a new build is the land it is on, something which has little intrinsic value. The cost of a small field goes from about £50k if sold for paddocks or farming to £1million+ if sold with planning for houses, purely because of the lack of availability.
If the government wanted it could hugely reduce the planning process and free up land for large and small builders to build. For example, I would love to build my own house, I have about £100k in equity and if the planning laws were changed I could do that, but as it stands all of that and more would go in to buying a site which may or may not get planning permission.
Steve steveson wrote: £2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Student debt I get, but how do you figure that rising house prices can be controlled by the government.
To take a simplistic view of things, if I build, or own, something, why can I not sell it at the value I deem it to be worth?
Cheers
Andrew
Oh that one's easy.
1. BUILD SOCIAL HOUSING. Whilst Right To Buy was a nice idea (and it was), it was poorly executed. All those who benefitted got their house at a hefty discount - and the Government didn't reinvest the money they made. And local councils weren't allowed to use it to replenish their social housing stock.
2. Rent Caps. See the lack of social housing yeah? All those who in the past would've been put up in a council house, are now in privately owned accommodation, with the rent paid for by the tax payer. Great wheeze if you were lucky enough to get on the ladder when housing wasn't insane. Buy cheap, rent for whatever the hell you want because the councils have to pay it.
3. Tax on owning multiple residential properties. People run their portfolio as a business, but aren't taxed in the same way. Housing is not a commodity such as a nice corner sofa, but a necessity. Human's need shelter.
Seriously. It's easy. High demand needs high supply. Artificially restrict that supply, and price spiral.
No offence to Steve and Doc, but aren't you the ones complaining about the amount of interference and control the Govt have on our lives and you're both advocating that they interfere more in our personal lives by manipulating the market which surrounds the one major purchase in our lifetime.
Also rent caps. The only place I see which has major issues with rent raises is the London and London Catchment areas. The rest all pay a 'reasonable' but not excessive cost.
Businesses. Yes quite agree, its a business so tax accordingly.
Do you guys realise how much money we're continuing to piss away on Stormmount despite them being 'in crisis' since March. Hundreds of thousands of pounds on paying MLAs to not work:
It's sickening. And it really shows their warped mentality. No one else would be paid to not work. When I was out working, nobody was paying for my lunch. Politicians are...inhuman. They're warped, inhuman...sponges. That's what they are. Sponges that have crawled out of the sea and learnt to put on a suit and speak something that sounds vaguely human but isn't quite there.
Future War Cultist wrote: Do you guys realise how much money we're continuing to piss away on Stormmount despite them being 'in crisis' since March. Hundreds of thousands of pounds on paying MLAs to not work:
It's sickening. And it really shows their warped mentality. No one else would be paid to not work. When I was out working, nobody was paying for my lunch. Politicians are...inhuman. They're warped, inhuman...sponges. That's what they are. Sponges that have crawled out of the sea and learnt to put on a suit and speak something that sounds vaguely human but isn't quite there.
They are working. Just not in Stormont. They're definitely not fulfilling some of their responsibilities, but the bulk of their job is conducted in their constituencies (or should be - their main jobs are probably actually being done better than usual at the moment).
To be honest, I'm kind of not-terribly-secretly enjoying watching the bluster and lies of the hard right (all immigration is bad, Us First, can't trust johnny foreigner. That's just project fear they'll all be queuing up to do deals with us) fall away.
I mean, we're stuffed, so I'm not taking pleasure as such. But enjoying watching them flail about in their filth as a small consolation of the gak they've landed us in.
I don't complain about the control Government has. It's their inaction I find galling.
It's not market manipulation. It's market management. Banks are regulated. Building is regulated. Rental Market needs to be regulated as well.
And when MPs (of any party), vote down a bill to ensure all rental properties are fit for human habitation, you know the rot is in deep.
Agreed.
Disagree, at this stage any interference is going to be manipulation. Regulation going forward, in principle agreed. The rental market, ignoring London, regulates itself quite well. London gives the rest the bad name.
That is an absolute disgrace. However I believe that with the landlords registration mandatory here in Scotland there is no such issue.
Steve steveson wrote: £2600 is less than the average monthly household take home pay. It’s naff all in the grand scheme of things. The big increase in debt has come from rising house prices and student debt. Two things that the government can control, but chooses not to, and not things that can generally be called irresponsible borrowing.
Student debt I get, but how do you figure that rising house prices can be controlled by the government.
To take a simplistic view of things, if I build, or own, something, why can I not sell it at the value I deem it to be worth?
Cheers
Andrew
If there were 300,000 social dwellings built a year rather than 3,000, the supply side of the housng market would quickly drive down prices.
One, the creation of such a project would drive down the price so rapidly you would create an entire generation shackled by negative equity.
Two, where do you actually build these houses? It's not as if high rises are popular. And do we really want to build extensively across green belt and flood plain lands?
Three, even if we do build such a swath of houses, can you actually guarantee that those homes would reach those in need of them?
AndrewC wrote: Again, I feel that this is a simplistic view.
One, the creation of such a project would drive down the price so rapidly you would create an entire generation shackled by negative equity.
Two, where do you actually build these houses? It's not as if high rises are popular. And do we really want to build extensively across green belt and flood plain lands?
Three, even if we do build such a swath of houses, can you actually guarantee that those homes would reach those in need of them?
Cheers
Andrew
So whats your solution then? Not build houses, and let the housing crisis persist?
It should easily be possible to build them at a rate which allows existing house prices to drop gradually or remain largely constant; it's also worth noting that it's only those that bought relatively recently (say, within 10 years) that risk negative equity or issues with house prices. If they bought earlier then it's likely that even with a modest drop they'd still be worth more than they paid.
There's plenty of brownfield sites, villages to be expanded or low density sites that could be upgraded. I'd hope they'd be building lots of 1 or 2 bedroom apartments*, so you could easily replace a derelict house with a decent garden with, say, 5 or 6 apartments and a parking space each.
Getting them where needed is a different matter, but some research can go into it before starting to build.
Personally, I'd be all for the government running a webuyanyhouse type deal, where they'll buy houses in reasonable condition for, say, 75% of market rate to people that need to get rid (reposessions, quick sales), and turn them into social housing. Either directly by redecorating and renting it out, or by converting into smaller units.
*All the new building near me, with the exception of some council houses have been 3-5 bedroom 'luxury' housing at quite a high price premium. Not bad for a couple with some equity behind them and a small family, but totally useless for anyone starting out or own their own.
AndrewC wrote: Again, I feel that this is a simplistic view.
One, the creation of such a project would drive down the price so rapidly you would create an entire generation shackled by negative equity.
Two, where do you actually build these houses? It's not as if high rises are popular. And do we really want to build extensively across green belt and flood plain lands?
Three, even if we do build such a swath of houses, can you actually guarantee that those homes would reach those in need of them?
Cheers
Andrew
I agree your points have merit, however they do not refute the basic facts of my argument.
The UK currently has high housing prices because supply is much less than demand. If supply is increased the supply/demand curve will change. This is basic economics.
To address your points:
1. Negative equity is a matter of the current value of your property compared with the amount you owe. If your outstanding mortgage is more than the market price, you are in negative equity. The building of 300,000 new homes a year wouldn't ncessarily lead to this situation.
2. There are lots of brownfield sites in many areas. 300,000 homes is actually a fairly small percentage compared to the housing stock of the UK as a whole.
3. This could be guaranteed through the same system as council and social housing is currently allocated.
jouso wrote: So is May really asking EU citizens in UK to stay, pretty please?
After telling them you're not welcome, there's too many of you here, we want you to register, you're exploiting the system, etc.?
This takes double faced to another level.
May hasn't really said anything new though. There has always been a 'settled' status on the table but the details have never been fleshed out as to what that means. This is more recognition that the UK is unlikely to find every EU citizen in the UK anyway. This is a nice convenient way to exploit people's generosity to tell them where they are. She hasn't clarified anything about families (marry someone from the EU what can you do). If you don't register do you have the same rights. If you go back to your home EU country to look after a sick relative for 6 months can you still come back to the UK (or do you have to choose between family or location). In the end the message is if you are deemed useful to us you us we want you otherwise we don't. It's a type of colonial exploitation except and the resources are humans. In the end May wants to barcode every EU citizen, once we are out the EU and she knows where everyone lives that makes the governments job that much easier if they change their mind later (and given that the Tory party is full of right wing bigots if the they stay in for very long then almost certainly it will change).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Herzlos wrote: It should easily be possible to build them at a rate which allows existing house prices to drop gradually or remain largely constant; it's also worth noting that it's only those that bought relatively recently (say, within 10 years) that risk negative equity or issues with house prices. If they bought earlier then it's likely that even with a modest drop they'd still be worth more than they paid.
There's plenty of brownfield sites, villages to be expanded or low density sites that could be upgraded. I'd hope they'd be building lots of 1 or 2 bedroom apartments*, so you could easily replace a derelict house with a decent garden with, say, 5 or 6 apartments and a parking space each.
Getting them where needed is a different matter, but some research can go into it before starting to build.
Personally, I'd be all for the government running a webuyanyhouse type deal, where they'll buy houses in reasonable condition for, say, 75% of market rate to people that need to get rid (reposessions, quick sales), and turn them into social housing. Either directly by redecorating and renting it out, or by converting into smaller units.
*All the new building near me, with the exception of some council houses have been 3-5 bedroom 'luxury' housing at quite a high price premium. Not bad for a couple with some equity behind them and a small family, but totally useless for anyone starting out or own their own.
The housing crisis requires a lot of fixes and needs some radical overhaul to try and bring it back to a system where it is working for everyone. Builders will only build properties that maximise their profit. They know that first time buyers are increasingly struggling so there is less money there so its best to focus on those people that do have money. Not that I'd buy a new house after all the issues my brother has had with his. Older buildings seem stable by comparison. In the end I think regardless of how big the properties are they are built as cheap as possible and I wonder just how decent they will be in 10-20 years.
Still if you want to shake things up I would propose things like this:-
Builders can't charge more per square metre of on the ground space for the same type of house regardless of where the house is built. The same two bedroom semi-detached property should cost the same in the north of the UK as it does the south. The same £150000 house in Yorkshire should not cost £300000 in Kent as it is just blatant profiteering.
Properties of certain types all have to have a minimum ground floor space (to prevent social housing being rammed into a tiny corner).
Councils as part of their local plans are required to determine the ratio of the types of houses that are needed in the area (not just numbers). Planning Applications for housing developments that do not meet this are automatically refused. This allows the Councils to set the housing needs for the area and less risk of builders only developing 3 bed detached properties when you need starter homes.
Planning permission to be extended by a year. If developers have not brought forward a development in 2 years (excluding any entrance shenanigans) then a) either the Council can forcibly purchase the land for development (funded by a UK government backed mortgage type scheme) to build the houses and then sell on (for social or to help support the Council) or b) the developer has to sell off individual plots to householders. This tries to ensure that developers can't land bank.
The Government will provide a mortgage back scheme for self builders on the basis that only approved builders/architects are used. Getting funding for a self build can be difficult but could actually be more cost effective. It also provides an opportunity for local builders and architects that might not otherwise get a chance because of the clout large builders have. This should help local businesses. Additionally new developments might have a return of some character rather than being the crammed in red brick monstrosities they currently are (which is why I think a lot of people oppose developments).
AndrewC wrote: So net result is, we need houses but not all built at the one time.
We can't really decide where they should be built, how many and how quickly due to collateral effects on the economy and personal finances.
And we should perhaps leave this and get back to the original thread?
Andrew
The original thread is about UK Politics...the housing market is very much a political hot potato at the moment. So I don't really see the issue.
On the other hand here is an article on what has been left out of the Brexit Bill. The current fundamental concept of current environmental legislation in the EU is that the 'polluter pays' rather than placing the burden on other authorities.
The UK in the Wrexit Bill has completely left this element out of the legislation. This will mean that there will be a fundamental shift towards businesses not having to consider the environment. Of course this was predicted as part of Wrexit in that the UK would have to lower standards to compete...
AndrewC wrote: So net result is, we need houses but not all built at the one time.
We can't really decide where they should be built, how many and how quickly due to collateral effects on the economy and personal finances.
And we should perhaps leave this and get back to the original thread?
Andrew
The original thread is about UK Politics...the housing market is very much a political hot potato at the moment. So I don't really see the issue.
We also have a max build rate. There's only so many builders, so many workers, and a max on how many bricks and such can be churned out.
Yeah great, we cannot even build right now fast ernough to match demand yet alone exceed it.
That's not particularly true though. The demand is for lower cost affordable homes. The money is in expensive homes, which do you think are being built?
Whirlwind wrote: The original thread is about UK Politics...the housing market is very much a political hot potato at the moment. So I don't really see the issue.
Fair enough, I had thought that the thread had settled on how badly negotiations were going and discounted everthing else.
On the other hand here is an article on what has been left out of the Brexit Bill. The current fundamental concept of current environmental legislation in the EU is that the 'polluter pays' rather than placing the burden on other authorities.
The UK in the Wrexit Bill has completely left this element out of the legislation. This will mean that there will be a fundamental shift towards businesses not having to consider the environment. Of course this was predicted as part of Wrexit in that the UK would have to lower standards to compete...
On the other hand it could just be simple incompetence rather than a concerted effort to wreck the environment.
There was a quote I once heard, and I could be mangling it here but it went
"Never attribute to malice what could easily be explained as simple incompetence."
Right back to houses.
As to older buildings, as my ceiling just fell in this morning, there appears to be a happy medium for buildings. Mine is now too old.
Whirlwind, I really want to embrace your ideals here, but simple reality dictates that they will never happen. Do you honestly think that a house should cost the same regardless of where it is located? A 2 bedroom cottage facing the lake district costs the same as a 2 bedroom house looking over a rubbish tip? Governmental oversight of builders forcing them to only develop to the needs of the council and not their profits? That's like saying that GW can only produce starter sets and not individual sets as that's what you need to start playing.
I agree that there is a housing crisis and that there are not enough properties going around. Especially as most of the ones to get you on the ladder are held as portfolios to individuals looking for an income. I like the idea of the push for development, but that runs the risk of stagnation. Land will not sell if the developer cant move the completion forward quick enough to meet the deadlines, and it also simply runs the risk of the developer of simply selling the land as parcels at inflated prices. And that doesn't include the risk of leasehold sales or pavement access costs, which the developer could quite easily hold back as additional income.
Government mortgage. Nice idea, where do we get the money? Approved architects, guess where those contracts will go. You've complained about the nepotism of the Government before. I don't think any of these changes will do other than push the bottleneck up and down the line, but the poor first time buyer will still not be able to afford a home.
Also, I'd be worried about the impact of new housing on the insect population. They're already declining at an unbelievable rate, and once they're gone we are fethed. There's probably lots of reasons for this but the loss of land to housing (and farmland) is probably a contributing factor.
Future War Cultist wrote: Also, I'd be worried about the impact of new housing on the insect population. They're already declining at an unbelievable rate, and once they're gone we are fethed. There's probably lots of reasons for this but the loss of land to housing (and farmland) is probably a contributing factor.
There was a German study on BBC the other day (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-41670472) that seemed to suggest insect decline was happening in conservation areas too (i.e. not related to land use). Officially the scientists don't know why, but I'd bet good money that it related to air and water quality. There's a lot of crap still circulating in the environment.
Having read this and looked at the long history of declining wild flowers, birds, climate change, misuse of anti-biotics, and so on, makes me feel very gloomy for my daughter's future.
Whirlwind, I really want to embrace your ideals here, but simple reality dictates that they will never happen. Do you honestly think that a house should cost the same regardless of where it is located? A 2 bedroom cottage facing the lake district costs the same as a 2 bedroom house looking over a rubbish tip? Governmental oversight of builders forcing them to only develop to the needs of the council and not their profits? That's like saying that GW can only produce starter sets and not individual sets as that's what you need to start playing.
But there is a an idea here. Why should wealth be dictate whether you can afford to live in an area. If you are a young adult that has always worked in the lake district, has family there that you need to care for is it reasonable that this person simply cannot afford to live there because although it caters for the wealthy the employees that work there earn nowhere enough to be able to live there. It also discourages practices of putting the least wealthy in less attractive areas which hinders social mobility. The analogy with GW isn't really apt - a better comparison would be whether GW sold a box of Sigmarines for £15 in Yorkshire but £45 in London. There is no real difference in the manufacturing costs, the uplift is simply because they can get away with it.
I agree that there is a housing crisis and that there are not enough properties going around. Especially as most of the ones to get you on the ladder are held as portfolios to individuals looking for an income. I like the idea of the push for development, but that runs the risk of stagnation. Land will not sell if the developer cant move the completion forward quick enough to meet the deadlines, and it also simply runs the risk of the developer of simply selling the land as parcels at inflated prices. And that doesn't include the risk of leasehold sales or pavement access costs, which the developer could quite easily hold back as additional income.
You'd have a cap on the land value so they couldn't just sell it at inflated prices. I'm of the view that the housing market needs a much heavier hand from government to control price growth. I agree that this is not likely to happen especially with the Tories around; and even Labour would need a strong stomach because the builder confederations are powerful lobby groups.
Government mortgage. Nice idea, where do we get the money? Approved architects, guess where those contracts will go. You've complained about the nepotism of the Government before. I don't think any of these changes will do other than push the bottleneck up and down the line, but the poor first time buyer will still not be able to afford a home.
Actually government approved mortgages do work. One of my local councils invested in a similar idea. It does pay back over a 25 period (and the reality is if it didn't there wouldn't be mortgages at all). We aren't talking about no payback, we are talking about a controlled one where the individuals aren't profiteered from.
As to where the contracts go that depends on how you set things up. I'm not talking about government contracts but rather individual companies becoming registered having to meet certain conditions (think gas safe register) and then let member of public decide who they choose (so lets say they might prefer an architect that specialises in the energy efficiency etc).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote: Nicotinamide insecticides are know to affect bees. Why wouldn't they affect other kinds of insects, there's a clue in the name, of course...
Intensive farming, monoculture, pollution from cars, plastic micro-particles, it's all adding up.
The odd thing with the report though is that regardless of where the traps were located there was a decline. In areas where insecticides were more intensively used you would expect a larger decline and in large nature reserves you would expect less. But that isn't what has happened and hence would imply a wider issue at play. It's a bit of a mystery really and needs further study. Insecticides could be building up in insect populations but it's difficult to see how because unlike mercury in fish an individual bug isn't around for long enough to accumulate poisons like this. On the other hand if there is a slow aggregation of, for example neonicotinoids in soil then that might be making life for insects increasingly unpalatable. Alternatively perhaps it could be due to climate change. If weather patterns are becoming more extreme then hotter drier summers and colder winters might be causing less bugs to survive the winter and less able to breed in the summer (less water, more competition).
You are right to be worried about your children though. There is a train of thought that it won't be the obvious extinctions that kill the human race it will be the one we aren't monitoring because we think there are lots of them that knocks over our food chain. As the alpha predator of the world we are actually the most vulnerable to changes.
The thing about houses is that they don't move. GW and anyone else absolutely would charge treble in London if it weren't for the fact people would buy from the cheap north and move it.
Why shouldn't the more desirable place be more expensive or do you think we should have fixed house prices and a lottery system to see who gets it? Any way to ensure consistent property prices is open to abuse.
Say you insist that a house has to cost the same in London and Leeds. You'd assume the London price will go down but more likely is that the Leeds price goes up and doesn't sell. So they'll either not build there or have to drop the price until it sells.
Any other system will result in corruption. That house only costs £100k but you'll need to pay £400k for the carpets.
Herzlos wrote: The thing about houses is that they don't move. GW and anyone else absolutely would charge treble in London if it weren't for the fact people would buy from the cheap north and move it.
Why shouldn't the more desirable place be more expensive or do you think we should have fixed house prices and a lottery system to see who gets it? Any way to ensure consistent property prices is open to abuse.
But the principle is that this is part of a package of measures that also build enough where they are needed. There is no lottery system because there should be enough to meet demand. Also remember that it is not that it is not fixed across companies only within the company itself. So competitor X must put a 2 bed semi with the same ground space on the market for the same price but competitor Y does not have to put it on at that price.
Builders do not want to build sufficient houses to meet demand, why would they?
It's better for the industry to have a constant low level stream of expensive, but very saleable assets than to have a huge glut of cheap, affordable homes.
Leaving it to the markets guarantees low house building progress. Only a government enforced, and financed initiative to mass build homes will change the market and that is just not going to happen.
In reality what needs to change is people's perception of the need to own property. Until the 80s, everyone lived and was brought up in council housing, and renting was widespread and affordable with guarantees for tenancy. The only people who owned a hone were the professional classes.
However, Thatcher wanted to create a Tory supporting working class, and knew that home ownership was the way to do that, hence, right to buy.
She succeed, just look at the amount of working class tories kicking about, that's due primarily, to the cultural shift in perception she wrought. It needs to be undone if people are once again going to be able to have a place to call home, whether rented or bought.
Private rentals are not homes, merely temporary accommodation, no matter how long you've lived there.
Automatically Appended Next Post: This is an interesting article about cross party friendships. Having watched some political documentaries, it seems obvious that a politician that wants to actually achieve something must cultivate support, so why is partisanship apparently now so fierce?
I get that the Tories have implemented some pretty grotty things, and as a member of the Labour party, I'm not endorsing that, but I'm increasingly concerned about the tribalism that's emerging, and the abuse and language that is used to demonise Labour and Conservative MPS alike.
I know I've been guilty of some pretty gross generalisations in the past, but I intend to stop that myself in future. I think we need to be careful to not end up going the same way as they have done in the US.
She also makes a good point about supporting people who wittingly, or more likely un-wittingly support an ideology fundamentally opposed to your own ideas. I know that in my social media feeds, anti-tory sentiment is growing like wildfire, as is anti-corbynism.
However, at the moment, it's difficult to express an opinion at all without igniting some sort of shitstorm.
In reality what needs to change is people's perception of the need to own property. Until the 80s, everyone lived and was brought up in council housing, and renting was widespread and affordable with guarantees for tenancy. The only people who owned a hone were the professional classes.
However, Thatcher wanted to create a Tory supporting working class, and knew that home ownership was the way to do that, hence, right to buy.
She succeed, just look at the amount of working class tories kicking about, that's due primarily, to the cultural shift in perception she wrought. It needs to be undone if people are once again going to be able to have a place to call home, whether rented or bought.
Private rentals are not homes, merely temporary accommodation, no matter how long you've lived there.
I don’t think we need to build more council houses to fix the problem. I have no issue with building them, and I think it would be a good thing, but they are not the primary issue to me. The primary issue is small time, part time landlords who own a handful of properties, have no interest or ability to maintain them and rent out poorly converted houses. We need a change in the renting laws to encourage companies that are looking for long term stable tenants in purpose built flats or family homes, who have the means and employees to manage the property properly and give renters long term, good condition housing. Not people after a short term profits with little input.
Steve steveson wrote: [We need a change in the renting laws to encourage companies that are looking for long term stable tenants in purpose built flats or family homes, who have the means and employees to manage the property properly and give renters long term, good condition housing. Not people after a short term profits with little input.
Sounds a lot like how a council should run things to me
Herzlos wrote: The thing about houses is that they don't move. GW and anyone else absolutely would charge treble in London if it weren't for the fact people would buy from the cheap north and move it.
Why shouldn't the more desirable place be more expensive or do you think we should have fixed house prices and a lottery system to see who gets it? Any way to ensure consistent property prices is open to abuse.
But the principle is that this is part of a package of measures that also build enough where they are needed. There is no lottery system because there should be enough to meet demand. Also remember that it is not that it is not fixed across companies only within the company itself. So competitor X must put a 2 bed semi with the same ground space on the market for the same price but competitor Y does not have to put it on at that price.
So a return to the old manufacturers pricing? That got binned a long time ago to encourage market forces. Also how do you actually enforce it? While in theory you could put a limit on a company to sell a house at a capped level how do you enforce a private individual to sell a house at a capped cost? Because unless it is a compulsory sale to the government you will never be able to regulate prices. It will still be a lottery for properties, simply because the people that want these properties will, in all probability, be in employment and in a specific location. High areas of employment would result in a higher demand in houses. If housing is delegated to councils I Would be very surprised if a council could meet that sort of demand. Money is finite, especially in councils and the only way one council could finance that level of building is if a second has their funding cut.
Steve steveson wrote: [We need a change in the renting laws to encourage companies that are looking for long term stable tenants in purpose built flats or family homes, who have the means and employees to manage the property properly and give renters long term, good condition housing. Not people after a short term profits with little input.
Sounds a lot like how a council should run things to me
It is, but it does not have to be the council. There is no reason it could not be a private company, as it is in much of Europe and many blocks of 1920s and 30s flats in London. I know with the council there are some issues, restrictions and risks, but they are one possible owner, but not the only one.
So a return to the old manufacturers pricing? That got binned a long time ago to encourage market forces. Also how do you actually enforce it? While in theory you could put a limit on a company to sell a house at a capped level how do you enforce a private individual to sell a house at a capped cost? Because unless it is a compulsory sale to the government you will never be able to regulate prices. It will still be a lottery for properties, simply because the people that want these properties will, in all probability, be in employment and in a specific location. High areas of employment would result in a higher demand in houses. If housing is delegated to councils I Would be very surprised if a council could meet that sort of demand. Money is finite, especially in councils and the only way one council could finance that level of building is if a second has their funding cut.
Cheers
Andrew
Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I don't like the man, but Americans elected him as their President,and that should be respected, however....
You wait until the Tory party vote in Boris, then we'll have our own version. If the US votes in a clown as a president the world still sort of takes notice even if they roll their eyes when he does. If we vote in a blond clown then the rest of the world just laughs at us (even more so than they are doing now too!).
Whirlwind wrote: Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Reading this it may be very possible that we are talking about two entirely different things. The problem as I interpret it is that first time buyers simply cant get onto the property ladder because of the cost of the house. At the end of the day a house price is dictated by location, desirability and quality. And unfortunately the second two are purely subjective to the prospective buyer. I don't see how you can say that businesses should be competing against other businesses for property costs. They aren't selling to other businesses, they sell to the public, and yes that results in individuals competing against each other as to how much they are prepared to spend. There is nothing that can be done to regulate this short of a compulsory Government purchase scheme. If you cant constrain prices then you will never force house prices down. And if you do force prices down then it will affect every other householder in the area, who mortgaged at the higher level and are now in a negative equity, can not move and now massively in debt. I like the idea of a council backed construction company for social housing and seems like and ideal way forward.
I believe that Whirlwinds original post was that builders should have to charge the same for the building (construction) of identical plans, rather then the package (land/house/what you'd see in the realtors). He mentioned something about the cost of building being different between Yorkshire and Kent.
Farseer Anath'lan wrote: I believe that Whirlwinds original post was that builders should have to charge the same for the building (construction) of identical plans, rather then the package (land/house/what you'd see in the realtors). He mentioned something about the cost of building being different between Yorkshire and Kent.
Yes that's correct along with a number of other measures.
The issue we have at the moment is that a relative few number of builders control both the supply and the cost of new homes. As such they can constrain the supply in any area to ensure they maximise the profit on each build. There isn't an increase of significance that justifies the price differential to build these houses in different areas. For example my brother purchased a £300k house. They wanted to move to that area, because of road access, job, school etc. The sales pitch was if you don't buy this house now you'll lose because in the future these same houses will go in price. Which they did; the same style of house cost £40k more 6 months later than they did at that time, they forced the sale through manipulation of fear that you'll lose out. The reason for this is there is no competition in the market. The only competition is between private individuals trying to buy those houses. In a true open market businesses would be competing directly against each other which would make profiteering like this more difficult (it is the same as the railways an individual company can put up its prices regardless within the government limits because there is no competition).
As such the principle is to ensure that you force competition into the market by rather than approaching the housing market at a very local level, it has to be from a nationwide level. A company for the same building plan would have to put the house on the market at the same rate whether in Yorkshire or Kent, but at the same time also within an estate. The company then has to make a decision how it competes overall against private sales which can be put on the market at any price, and other builders who can put their own 2 bed semi on the market at a different price (but which must be the same throughout the country). If the land was then not brought forward then at that point the Council's / self builds can take over.
What we have to get away from is builders being able to control the supply of houses to ensure continued profits year on year simply because of their own implementation of how many houses they bring forward. The market needs to be opened up to greater competition.
When we've got sufficient stock, it takes people in social housing out of the 'think of a number' private rental market - that's a tab that we pick up as tax payers.
That makes the Buy To Let market far less attractive, meaning fewer one bedroom and starter homes snapped up by the already wealthy, leaving them more to those putting their feet on the first rung.
Yes, many will be trapped in negative equity - but then they were silly enough to buy at a massively overinflated price in the first place. And it only really becomes an issue when you want to move or remortgage.
Right now, negative equity is going to happen regardless, because sooner or later the market will crash anyway. It always does. It's a natural risk of the market. Every time you buy a house, you're gambling the market will keep going up. And we know that's far from guaranteed.
Thankfully, it's the Buy To Let cretins most at risk from this. They're the ones that can take out a mortgage, and then charge rent to cover it. When the bubble bursts and rents fall, they'll struggle to cover the mortgage. Repossessions will go up, and speculators will try to sell of their precious portfolios, likely at a loss.
And feth 'em. They rigged the market, and it's time they took their licks.
Sadly we've been waiting for a house price crash for many years and it hasn't happened yet. I started getting interested in the prospect back in 2008 just after the recession. I even started visiting a website called housepricecrash to keep up to date on the news and be ready for when it all fell down. It was always going to happen tomorrow, or next week.
Then the bail out happened. In the US smaller lending companies collapsed, first as people were unable to pay their mortgages then later as people refused to pay their mortgages until anybody could prove who owned the mortgage. As nobody could prove anything the whole market collapsed (walking through Las Vegas even 5 years after the crash was an eye opener into how bad some places were hit).
The UK refused to let that happen. After seeing what happened to Northern Rock it was decided that this could not be allowed to happen. And so the house price crash kept getting put off, and will keep being put off so long as it is in the interest of those that have the power to do something about it (plus most of those MPs have their own buy to let portfolios that they need to protect).
I don't see a crash happening. They won't let it happen.
Whirlwind wrote: ...Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I don't like the man, but Americans elected him as their President,and that should be respected, however....
You wait until the Tory party vote in Boris, then we'll have our own version. If the US votes in a clown as a president the world still sort of takes notice even if they roll their eyes when he does. If we vote in a blond clown then the rest of the world just laughs at us (even more so than they are doing now too!).
The thing is, much as I dislike Boris, he's not a patch on the genuinely unpleasant, ratings obsessed shower of gak that the Yanks have popped on top of their heap. I'd rather have Boris running the UK for the next 5 years than have to endure 5 days with that preening, narcissistic arsehole calling the shots.
I'm expecting to hear the news any day now that some nut job has slotted him. I imagine that there would be a huge collective sigh of relief that the insanity has been nipped in the bud, until Pence assumed office.
Whirlwind wrote: ...Never mentioned anything about restrictions on what individuals can sell houses for...it's only within an individual business the price should be fixed. The businesses should be competing against each other, whereas at the moment you have businesses making individuals compete against each other. This raises prices and forcing the poorest out of all but the poorest areas which greatly constrains social mobility. On the other hand it will reduce house prices because it brings back market competition (rather than individual competition) and of course there will be resistance to this, but is necessary to bring back housing to more manageable cost envelopes for all. If a business can manage to build thousands of properties and make a profit then so can a council. It should be easier for a council in fact as it doesn't have to worry about making a 15% shareholder profit mark up on every site. It is a misconception that a Council can't do this, something that is enforced by certain governments as if you have an organisation that doesn't have to worry about share holders then it can easily out compete an organisation that does.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
r_squared wrote: I don't like the man, but Americans elected him as their President,and that should be respected, however....
You wait until the Tory party vote in Boris, then we'll have our own version. If the US votes in a clown as a president the world still sort of takes notice even if they roll their eyes when he does. If we vote in a blond clown then the rest of the world just laughs at us (even more so than they are doing now too!).
The thing is, much as I dislike Boris, he's not a patch on the genuinely unpleasant, ratings obsessed shower of gak that the Yanks have popped on top of their heap. I'd rather have Boris running the UK for the next 5 years than have to endure 5 days with that preening, narcissistic arsehole calling the shots.
I'm expecting to hear the news any day now that some nut job has slotted him. I imagine that there would be a huge collective sigh of relief that the insanity has been nipped in the bud, until Pence assumed office.
At least that cu t stays off twitter.
Pence is genuinely more effective and skilled though. He a greater danger if you dislike republicans.
And Boris yes. He might have his faults and he is abit silly at times but I'd definitely take him over a Trump like figure.
Boris is abit silly. But he is not dangerous though.
I’m saying nothing about the US because I don’t want the thread locked.
With regards to BoJo, I think he would be a terrible PM, but I also think he is a seasoned politician and think he does have what he thinks are the best interests of the country at heart. He did a lot of good for London and worked for the best of the people of London. I think he would honestly try his best. I disagree with his ideology and think his buffoonery would make the UK look stupid, but I don’t think he would be wilful damaging or intentionally devisive for the sake of his own ego.
Steve steveson wrote: I’m saying nothing about the US because I don’t want the thread locked.
With regards to BoJo, I think he would be a terrible PM, but I also think he is a seasoned politician and think he does have what he thinks are the best interests of the country at heart. He did a lot of good for London and worked for the best of the people of London. I think he would honestly try his best. I disagree with his ideology and think his buffoonery would make the UK look stupid, but I don’t think he would be wilful damaging or intentionally devisive for the sake of his own ego.
Aye I doubt he mean harm to people.
He did make mistakes but yes he tried to do his best by London when he was in charge, and launched multiple ideas, some less successful than others.
However he did try. He did want to improve things.
IMO BoJo is a seasoned poltician who has his own best interests firmly at the centre of his policies. His mayoralty of London was a congeries of luck and opportunism with several notable failures in major initiatives and nothing important in policy being enacted,
Yeah, Boris isn't a Trump. He's almost kinda an anti-Trump in a few ways. In DnD terms, Boris probably has an equal Cha stat to Trump, a significantly higher Int stat, but a ridiculously low WIS. Trump, I feel is probably the other way round. Our Trump equivalent (aside from Farage), probably Andrea Leadsom?
Yes that's correct along with a number of other measures.
The issue we have at the moment is that a relative few number of builders control both the supply and the cost of new homes. As such they can constrain the supply in any area to ensure they maximise the profit on each build. There isn't an increase of significance that justifies the price differential to build these houses in different areas. For example my brother purchased a £300k house. They wanted to move to that area, because of road access, job, school etc. The sales pitch was if you don't buy this house now you'll lose because in the future these same houses will go in price. Which they did; the same style of house cost £40k more 6 months later than they did at that time, they forced the sale through manipulation of fear that you'll lose out. The reason for this is there is no competition in the market. The only competition is between private individuals trying to buy those houses. In a true open market businesses would be competing directly against each other which would make profiteering like this more difficult (it is the same as the railways an individual company can put up its prices regardless within the government limits because there is no competition).
As such the principle is to ensure that you force competition into the market by rather than approaching the housing market at a very local level, it has to be from a nationwide level. A company for the same building plan would have to put the house on the market at the same rate whether in Yorkshire or Kent, but at the same time also within an estate. The company then has to make a decision how it competes overall against private sales which can be put on the market at any price, and other builders who can put their own 2 bed semi on the market at a different price (but which must be the same throughout the country). If the land was then not brought forward then at that point the Council's / self builds can take over.
What we have to get away from is builders being able to control the supply of houses to ensure continued profits year on year simply because of their own implementation of how many houses they bring forward. The market needs to be opened up to greater competition.
Which won't/can't happen. Now that I know where you're coming from which is the £/m2 construction costs, those costs will never be equal across the country until such time as all builders and labourers are paid the same wage across the country. Wage differential will (is?) a significant factor in construction. For example (and this is about five years old, but I don't see it as having ever changed) scaffolders in Invernesshire were being paid app £3K more per annum that in Morayshire. These regions are adjacent to each other.
As the individual costs in each area are different so how do you calculate a national cost structure? And I'm sorry to ruin the illusion but profiteering in the manner you describe will still take place. For example you propose that construction companies are prohibited from selling a property above a certain cost, but individuals aren't? How about investment companies? Lets say an individual buys a tract of land, pays a construction company to build the property and then sells them on? With the system you propose as the speculator is not the builder they can charge whatever they want. It's a self build for profit. And the rules you outlined can't do anything about it.
I am sorry that your brother was charged more for his house than one in another shire, but I would presume that the area he was moving to contained a greater capacity for employment, education and socialising. Location is intrinsically linked to the value its worth. I recently moved from a 4 bed bungalow with front and back gardens, garage and driveway. That just covered the cost of a 3 bed flat in my new area. Am I feeling robbed? Not by the price I paid, I gained by an excellent school for the kids, and there are considerable benefits in available work and transportation networks that the previous area didn't.
Councils are already waking up to the buy to let market, especially with the changes to the mortgage tax relief, which is a start but not quite enough. I'd rather see a compulsory confiscation order for properties not deemed habitable. Serve notice on slum landlords with safety requirements, mandatory repairs, give them a set period of time to carry them out, failing that take possession of the property as an abandoned site and then carry them out and rent on as social housing.
It's, on a personal level, quite appalling that some people on here view us homeowners as some sort of parasite on society and we deserve to lose all our hard work at saving and budgeting in order to own our house, yet as I've seen in another thread there are many who are outraged at the thought that they lose their old figures that are no longer codex compliant.
Mad is right, we need more social housing rather than interfering with the housing market, but he is also flat out wrong to blame homeowners for owning their own properties. Negative equity does not become an issue when you want to move or re-mortgage, it also affects every attempt at gaining credit from any reputable firm as they will look at assets vs liabilities and consider them an extreme risk, leaving them open to the 2600% legal loan sharks on TV. And no, for the vast overwhelming majority, when you buy a property you are buying a home, not with a view to making a profit, but with the hope that the value doesn't go down.
Kilkrazy wrote: IMO BoJo is a seasoned poltician who has his own best interests firmly at the centre of his policies. His mayoralty of London was a congeries of luck and opportunism with several notable failures in major initiatives and nothing important in policy being enacted,
This. The Garden Bridge was a perfect example of a project that nobody wanted except Bojo, Osborne, the architect, their wife (who was a journalist, I believe), their wife's journalist friends, and the companies positioned to profit off it. I never read a single positive thing about the bloody thing from anyone who knew any detail about it that couldn't be traced back to one of those sources. Yet he still committed vast amounts of public funds to it in a period when cost cutting was rampant.
Bojo is out for Bojo. He's utterly self-centred, narcissistic, and sees himself as Churchill reborn.
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. The industry seems pretty dynamic and competitive, but I think there are a few differences between that and a lot of the other privatised industries. Infrastructure costs are probably lower and easier to build and there are genuine parallel networks (phone, cable companies, satellite and mobile networks).
Parcel freight too actually, when viewed in isolation, for pretty much the same reasons. The problem is that the government never recognised that the profit earning parcel traffic subsidised the whole of the rest of Royal Mail. Local post offices and door to door letter deliveries for a few pence is never going to be profitable, but it forms a vital social function. This was the mistake British Rail made under Beeching, they purely looked at the profitability of lines; no one could put a value on the contribution to the way people live their lives.
Thinking about it, that's also part of the argument around social housing. Everyone talks about prices and negative equity and retirement assets, but the primary function of a house is to be a home. But we don't seem to have any method for putting the value of a stable home into the equation, so we have millions of people living week-to-week in short term rented accommodation, unsuitable for their needs and suffering stress, depression and god knows what because of that.
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. .
What really gets my goat here, is that they're services paid for by the public purse, and then sold off on the cheap to private investors.
Most of it has occurred in my lifetime. And to think of it, I can't actually think of a single instance where bringing in a company with the inevitable profit motive has actually, genuinely driven prices down.
But, my perspective is limited. As a genuine question, can anyone explain where it's actually worked as intended, instead of simply handing pre-paid monopolies to private interests to charge whatevs?
I don't have any evidence to back it up, but I think telecommunications might have worked? If not from a sheer cost point of view, then from an innovation stand point. The industry seems pretty dynamic and competitive, but I think there are a few differences between that and a lot of the other privatised industries. Infrastructure costs are probably lower and easier to build and there are genuine parallel networks (phone, cable companies, satellite and mobile networks).
Parcel freight too actually, when viewed in isolation, for pretty much the same reasons. The problem is that the government never recognised that the profit earning parcel traffic subsidised the whole of the rest of Royal Mail. Local post offices and door to door letter deliveries for a few pence is never going to be profitable, but it forms a vital social function. This was the mistake British Rail made under Beeching, they purely looked at the profitability of lines; no one could put a value on the contribution to the way people live their lives.
Thinking about it, that's also part of the argument around social housing. Everyone talks about prices and negative equity and retirement assets, but the primary function of a house is to be a home. But we don't seem to have any method for putting the value of a stable home into the equation, so we have millions of people living week-to-week in short term rented accommodation, unsuitable for their needs and suffering stress, depression and god knows what because of that.
That is the problem that the conservatives have never been able to grasp, they know the cost of things, but struggle to understand their value. That is why they look cruel and callous.
All privatisation does is move the cost of the utility from the individual via taxation, to the individual via a profit motivated company. We still pay for it, just it always ends up that we pay more, especially when you consider that some of these industries continue to attract subsidies, like the railways. In those instances not only are we paying privately, but we're also paying via taxation.
It's actually frankly ludicrous to privatise any of these industries, and the only reason to do so is because of ideologically driven politics to create small government.
This is why I joined a revitalised Labour party. I may disagree with them on some things, but I am strongly in favour of reversing privatisation and reverting essential infrastructure into public hands. Every sell off has disgusted me tbh, people circle around our property to pluck off the cheapest and juiciest parts, leaving us with the expensive difficult bits, and then flip them back at us for more cash.
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Depressing, isn't it?
I can only think it's because we keep electing parliamentarians that are driven by ideological and short-term thinking.
A friend's dad was one of the engineers involved in the fibre project and he used to show us all sorts of stuff that blew our mind at the time. The decision to scrap it has set us back about three decades so far.
Why do we do that? Why do we always do that? We lead the way in a new technology and then we just shelf it, just because. Jets, rockets, computers, fibre optics. I dispair, I really do.
Depressing, isn't it?
I can only think it's because we keep electing parliamentarians that are driven by ideological and short-term thinking.
A friend's dad was one of the engineers involved in the fibre project and he used to show us all sorts of stuff that blew our mind at the time. The decision to scrap it has set us back about three decades so far.
So we could of been the South Korea, Japan of this world and we decided to be complete, utter pathetic morons...
We are run by utter idiots...
At this rate someone needs to run for government out of Dakka and fire half thr government etc and force them to invest and work on this tech and get it rolled out and any other tech in waiting.
What's worst of all is that anything we do now to rectify it will only be playing catch up. We had a head start and we lost it. No wait, we had a head start and we gave it up. For purely ideological reasons too.
Future War Cultist wrote: What's worst of all is that anything we do now to rectify it will only be playing catch up. We had a head start and we lost it. No wait, we had a head start and we gave it up. For purely ideological reasons too.
We had a 10-20 year head start.
Geez. We could be on South Korean 5G, downloading movies in seconds. Fully digital high speed data infrastructure and cloud networks that enable business and govement able to react in seconds and have massive productivity.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're of a certain age, you'll remember that the Tories did this to our nuclear power industry as well.
Which is why we're in the embarrassing position of having to get the French or the Chinese to build nuclear power plants for us
I have watched, agog and disgusted at every privatisation that has been forced through since the 80s. It's boggled my mind, but the propoganda that goes alongside supporting neo-liberalism is overwhelming, it even infected traditional socialist parties like Labour, hence "New" Labour. We have impoverished ourselves, and removed the levers of control from our own hands and handed them to others for no real tangible benefit. Unless you belive that the public sector being small and ineffectual is a benefit.
These changes are about attacking the people "for our own good", but they do not serve us. We need to truly take back control.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: If you're of a certain age, you'll remember that the Tories did this to our nuclear power industry as well.
Which is why we're in the embarrassing position of having to get the French or the Chinese to build nuclear power plants for us
I have watched, agog and disgusted at every privatisation that has been forced through since the 80s. It's boggled my mind, but the propoganda that goes alongside supporting neo-liberalism is overwhelming, it even infected traditional socialist parties like Labour, hence "New" Labour. We have impoverished ourselves, and removed the levers of control from our own hands and handed them to others for no real tangible benefit. Unless you belive that the public sector being small and ineffectual is a benefit.
These changes are about attacking the people "for our own good", but they do not serve us. We need to truly take back control.
You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
My background is that of a working man, and my political views have always been trying to stick up for working class men. My ideology and opposition to the EU is drawn from a time when the Labour party was very much anti-EEC/EU.
You obviously disagree, with me on that, but IMO, the free movement of money and goods, and the love towards the ECC/EU from big banks and business, has always set off alarm bells ringing for me.
These people are no friends of working class men never have been, and never will be.
That is why I have always been very suspicious and hostile to the European project. That and the disregard for democracy.
Never the less, we do have common ground on privitization in the UK. It has been a fething disaster
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Apologies for my mistake, but I thought you were old school Conservative?
I think that rushing to condemn the privatisation of various services over the last twenty to thirty years is somewhat misguided. Not because I disagree, but because it misses the wider context as to why it occurred, and why it was necessary that we got to this point. I'll elucidate.
If you go back to the nineteenth century, you'll see that the origins of most things we regard as being necessary for the public good (electricity, water, railways, etc) were reliant upon private development and exploitation (in the non-moral sense). Smaller companies were established for new inventions/innovations which sought out forms of venture capital and investment to further develop themselves.Often you might find that local governments had a stake in such companies at the time, and powerful/wealthy locals would also invest into them in order to cultivate/improve local services.
The problem with such a small scale growth and corresponding layout is that it's hideously inefficient. Furthermore, little legislation existed to regulate these services, and it was often difficult to raise the capital needed to properly establish/develop them. The State would occasionally intervene to establish a local service if it deemed it necessary for a specific project (see the Swansea and Mumbles Railway or the Royal Mail), but Parliamentary funds were considerably scarcer in the past. Taxation was less efficient and defence/empire were a much greater proportion of expenditure. Without the financial apparatus in place to support it, government initiated services would usually be farmed out to companies/individuals to run as a result (see the P&O mail deliveries). Even in the case of the Royal Mail more generally, it wasn't retained for the good of all mankind, but because it fulfilled specific governance needs.
It wasn't until the twentieth century that the idea that the State should be directing public services for the good of the people really took root, or indeed, was even particularly an option. After WW1, the government saw the advantages of more centralised planning, and began to consolidate industries into a smaller number of regional entities (See the Electricity Supply Act of 1919, or the Railways Act of 1921, undertaken by a majority Conservative government). It was a gradual change however, and they weren't intended to be nationalisations. It should be understood that for the most part, these services (RM as the exception) were funded and run by private companies quite successfully until this point, and if one collapsed another would spring up to replace it. The very multiplicity of smaller companies specialising in water and power kept competition open. The more consolidated cable/railway networks had sufficient other concerns (bus networks for example) to prevent any real issues.
In the immediate post WW2 period however, the Government began to nationalise industries. This was part of good ol' Atlee's reforms. British Rail was formed, some 625 electricity firms were nationalised and merged, Cable and Wireless were taken over, and so forth. Essentially, you saw what is currently being advocated in this thread occurring. The problem that this had however, was that it didn't work particularly well. Bureaucracies by their very nature tend to bloat and react poorly to market circumstances, leading to the government propping up many ailing industries which simply couldn't survive, or run effectively. I'm not even talking necessarily about the miners/steelworkers here, if you look up circumstances that led to the Beeching railway cuts in the 1960's, you'll see what I mean. By the time the water industry was privatised in the 80's, it had accumulated 5 billion pounds of debt (about 23 billion by today's reckoning). These sectors were leeching substantial sums of money from the exchequer at a time when the productivity of the country had never been lower and the public purse strings tighter.
Naturally, that led to questions being raised over why the taxpayer should be footing the bill for uncompetitive, bloated (and often horrendously inefficient) industries when the country was so poor that we were having to go to the IMF for loans. The reliance on the public purse also meant that as money was tight, there was little available for future investment; some of the rolling stock on the railways was functioning well past when it should have been decommissioned. This in turn contributed to further inefficiencies. The consequent idea of the 1980's was that privatising all these industries would breathe fresh life into them. Private capital would be injected to bring them up to date, public debt would be discharged, and competition would ensure efficiency. And to varying degrees, this has occurred. Certainly, the situation of the 1960's and 1970's was untenable, and a change of some kind had to be made. I don't believe it was necessarily the wrong decision to make at the time.
The problem however, is that it has revealed a host of alternative inadequacies intrinsic to the 'limited competition/franchises' model. Namely, that the greater efficiencies don't pay for future investment; that goes instead on dividends. The taxpayer still foots the cost for future investment through higher prices. Confuseopolies reign supreme, and when service begins to suffer the taxpayer has absolutely no recourse, as the competition is an illusion.
On the whole, I'd say it's better than what came before it, but not by much. The model has clearly failed. So I'm quite receptive to cries for re-nationalisation. The thing that bugs me however, is the lack of detail as to why it will be better this time than it was last time. I need to know, as a voter, what actions will be taken to mitigate the flaws revealed when we adopted the nationalised model beforehand. It is all well and good to espouse nationalisation, but I want to see some substance, some forward planning, something to show me that we're not doing it for vague ideological motives, but in order to produce a tangible improvement for the British taxpayer.
And that's something I just haven't seen from Corbyn,
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: You and I obviously disagree on EU membership, and you may find this hard to believe, but my political outlook is generally left-wing with a libertarian slant. Apologies to Shadow Captain and Future War
Why? I'm centre-libertarian myself, if you put any stock in those online political compass tests. And I voted for Phil Wilson MP (Lab) in the last election.
Apologies for my mistake, but I thought you were old school Conservative?
Looks like I got it wrong
Old School? Hardly. I'm only 26.
I'm the very definition of a floating voter. I voted Conservative, then UKIP, then Labour. I'm loyal to no party. I have never been a member of a political party. I have never donated to a political party. I simply have a lingering distrust and dislike of the Left thanks to the legacy of New Labour (the Government I grew up under), which has left me biased against Labour. I didn't vote for the Conservatives in 2010, I voted against New Labour.
But I'm fast developing a similar distrust and dislike for the Conservatives, and Corbyn is slowly rehabilitating Labour in my eyes.
@Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
So the question must be; how are these foreign nationalised system functioning as private companies to invest in our services to subsidise their own? Is it effective? Is it something indeed, that we could adopt? Rather than having privately owned services with a veneer of public interest, is it possible to have publicly owned services with a veneer of private interest? How do we keep access to private capital whilst retaining ownership?
I'm sure that there are ways that we can make this happen. I'm not a specialist, but I'm certain the goverment could easily retain a group of qualified people to look into it. It is clear that what this problem needs a clearheaded diagnosis of the available models, and the deliberate adoption of one that gives the results we're after. Simply crying for nationalisation is ultimately just as harmful here, I think, as adamantly sticking to privatisation due to corporate interests whispering in your ideologically biased ear (aka, the Tories). The real solution is quite clearly something in the halfway house between the two, and the best course of action needs to be carefully considered and adopted; instead of sliding from one extreme to the other. We need to learn from what has happened so far, and use that data to try and produce a workable solution. It might not be perfect, but even if it's only a minor improvement (as our current system is on that of yesteryear), then we can revisit the issue in thirty years with that additional data and refine it further.
if you look up circumstances that led to the Beeching railway cuts in the 1960's, you'll see what I mean.
I watched that Hislop documentary as well.
It wasn't until the twentieth century that the idea that the State should be directing public services for the good of the people really took root, or indeed, was even particularly an option.
really ?
Which empires was it who built those sewer systems, aqueducts, roads etc etc etc again ?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: @Ketara, a well thought out post as always, but this is what gets my goat:
The Tories are opposed to state owned rail and utilities.
But we have this absurd, and utterly fething ridiculous situation of state owned companies from abroad, snapping up our rail and utilities, with the end result that money flows out the nation.
British state owning electricity company = bad. Foreign state owning Brtish electricity company = good.
I cannot understand this contradiction.
I agree. If we're not going to have British nationalisation, then State owned foreign companies should be banned from owning British utilities too. We shouldn't have a double standard.
Ideally you want some sort of system where you have state owned utilities, but there is also the option for private companies to be involved as a way of keeping things vaguely competitive.
Utilities should be owned by the British state if anything, not foreign states.
