Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?

What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?

What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?

The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.

Of course I would support the miners, our dead textile and dying manufacturing industries. The loss of these and our reliance on London banking and finance is a major problem. One I fear will spread to agriculture. But one that will never be sorted within the context of the EU. The loss of these industries has abandoned vast swathes of people to zero hours contracts, the dole queue and call centres.
A thriving country needs jobs for the people, people producing goods. For home consumption mostly and export too.

You really think the Government give a monkey’s?

Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.

That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?

Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.

When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.

You're right about the trade deals in the sense that while a member of the EU, the UK can't negotiate a separate deal at all, so to be able to negotiate a deal is easier than it being impossible.

I don't think it's going to be easy to negotiate these deals, though. We're abandoning the deals we are part of by being in the EU -- the new Japan deal has just been agreed, for instance.

I also don't see why we think we will be better at negotiating deals than the EU already is.

As for standards, the way to deal with that is to be a member of the EU and use our significant weight as one of the most important countries, to make the EU apply equal standards to the Dutch.

We're not going to manage it better from outside the EU.

The deals won’t be easy no. But that’s why a long transition period is essential.

We will be able to negotiate better deals because we can more flexible. The EU because of its nature is inflexible. We will always have trade between the UK and Europe it’s crazy to suggest otherwise. Business within the EU will never turn its back on any market.

As for farming/supermarkets/EU/UK gov I know we can’t keep going. I know governments in the first world care little for rural dwellers and rural industry. It’s all about the cities now, that’s not changing anytime soon. The best we can hope for is a more flexible approach to rules, which should improve standard here and hopefully a more protectionist market within the UK will develop.
I’m not sure we’re you got the idea i believe in free market capitalism? Personally I think globalisation has been the worst thing to happen the UK, I like market protection, home grown industry and jobs at home. Local markets are safe markets. Globalisation has destroyed industry. Strangely this was very much the view of Corbyn until he realised he could ride the popularism of the anti Brexit tsunami. But that’s politics!

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You really think the Government give a monkey’s?

Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.

That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?

Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.

When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.

It is the EUs doing.

If you're paying for something and you find out that if you pay less, someone else will cover the loss what do you do?

You pay less obviously. They are using the system to save money.

 welshhoppo wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
You really think the Government give a monkey’s?

Under their financial idiocy, the power lies with Supermarkets, not producers. They donate to the Tories, and the Tories protect their interests, and you and other farmers can go to hell.

That’s....that’s not the EU’s doing?

Then there’s the blame on the consumer, the end user. All the time they’re told buying two chickens for a couple of quid is normal, you’re stuffed. All the time they can get their food cheaper via imports, you’re stuffed.

When it comes to negotiating trade deals, you’ll be an afterthought at best. You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.

It is the EUs doing.

If you're paying for something and you find out that if you pay less, someone else will cover the loss what do you do?

You pay less obviously. They are using the system to save money.

Absolutely, we can bemoan supermarkets all we like. But they are purely doing what any business would do, exploiting a loophole in costs. I might not like it but it’s a commercial reality.

Just as an aside. The modern left forget it was Maggie Thatcher who took us into Europe fully and embraced it as a tool for global capitalism. And guess what that’s what it still is. The modern right has by and large recognised their mistake and are backtracking.

We have here a once in a generation chance to sort out our economy so let’s get stuck in. Warts and all. Don’t let the extremists on left or right ruin this with an age old power struggle.

Globalisation is a good thing overall. The problem is that the fruits have not been fairly distributed.

 Knockagh wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?

What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?

The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.

Supermarkets pay market rates (slightly above actually). Those rates are generally fixed around world prices because there are quotas on how much of X you can bring from abroad.

Big food distro lobbies for higher quotas, farmers lobby for lower quotas.

Britain on its own would devastate British farming in a couple years as long as they open the floodgates of foreign produce.

And yes, Britain would have to open their doors to foreign stuff because otherwise they won't open theirs to British services and high-tech manufacturing.

The EU and the US are the only two markets that have managed to keep a significant degree of farming protectionism because of sheer size and thus leverage in negotiations.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Globalisation is a good thing overall. The problem is that the fruits have not been fairly distributed.

It doesn't happen often, but I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Economists have been saying it for years.

However,who's going to change the system? And if you're at the top, why would you change something that works so well for you?

It's only likely to get worse. We know from the paradise/Panama papers that the rich actively hide and evade paying tax (whilst getting their media lackeys to continually spout the bollocks of trickle down economics) so they won't be much help. Corporate giants are on the rise, robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.

Then of course you have climate change, concerns over antibiotics, and maybe even zombies on the loose.

Tough times are ahead for us, even if we stayed in the EU.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

jouso wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Did you have any sympathy or empathy for miners or other industrial areas when their industries suffered from free market capitalism?

What role do British Supermarkets play in your misfortunes?

The supermarkets exploit the subsidy system. Why wouldn’t they? In their mind the subsidy pays what they should, so why bother paying market price.

Supermarkets pay market rates (slightly above actually). Those rates are generally fixed around world prices because there are quotas on how much of X you can bring from abroad.

Big food distro lobbies for higher quotas, farmers lobby for lower quotas.

Britain on its own would devastate British farming in a couple years as long as they open the floodgates of foreign produce.

And yes, Britain would have to open their doors to foreign stuff because otherwise they won't open theirs to British services and high-tech manufacturing.

The EU and the US are the only two markets that have managed to keep a significant degree of farming protectionism because of sheer size and thus leverage in negotiations.

CAP can't continue indefinitely without even some modest reform. Something will have to give somewhere along the line, and I can't see the French government taking on their farmers again. It will be kicked into long grass as always. But the problem won't go away

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:


CAP can't continue indefinitely without even some modest reform.

CAP has been substantially modified several times. The last one as recently as 2013 and the next coming (most likely) in 2020.

CAP also takes up about 30% of the EUs budget.

Of the 39 billion we are giving. About 13 billion is going into CAP.

And ten years ago that was 50%, and it's not because the budget has expanded explosively. The worst excesses are being curbed, with more reform coming.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Globalisation is a good thing overall. The problem is that the fruits have not been fairly distributed.

It doesn't happen often, but I'm in complete agreement with you on this. Economists have been saying it for years.

However,who's going to change the system? And if you're at the top, why would you change something that works so well for you?

It's only likely to get worse. We know from the paradise/Panama papers that the rich actively hide and evade paying tax (whilst getting their media lackeys to continually spout the bollocks of trickle down economics) so they won't be much help. Corporate giants are on the rise, robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.

Then of course you have climate change, concerns over antibiotics, and maybe even zombies on the loose.

Tough times are ahead for us, even if we stayed in the EU.

Globalisation would be a good thing if it distributed wealth more evenly but it doesn’t it does the opposite it allows capital to find its cheapest option and exploit it, which it will always do. I do wonder when people talk of wealth distribution from a western perspective do they realise this means they themselves will have less?

Point on anti biotics. I produce chicken which is virtually anti biotic free. The last half million chickens I produced about 30000 will have needed a small dose of anti biotics. They are free range and slow grown. Inside the sheds I put half the number of birds I could put in if they were Tesco willow farm or value ranges. They are expensive to grow but I believe ethically grown and produced. The premium I get does compensate me for the smaller numbers produced. BUT this type of chicken accounts for around 1.5% of the UK market. Most people don’t give a rats ass about anti biotics, welfare or food security. I think though my 1.5% customer base will remain loyal to high quality British produced meat. As farmers we need to educate the other 98.5%!

Here’s me today getting out of the cab just before typing this! Up the farmers!!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
And ten years ago that was 50%, and it's not because the budget has expanded explosively. The worst excesses are being curbed, with more reform coming.

And 30 years ago it was >70% CAP spending now is at the same level it was in 1992, but now accounts for many more farmers after the eastwards expansion

In the meantime milk quotas have been abolished entirely (after a long phase out) payments now reward environmental practices instead of overproduction.... It's a long way but it's getting somewhere.

This has been at the expense of many small farmers, and mostly though concentration.... But that's what the XXI century has in store for you, go big (or niche) or go bust.

There are many criticisms to be leveled at the CAP, but please let's not pretend this is still the 80s.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Knockagh wrote:

Point on anti biotics. I produce chicken which is virtually anti biotic free.

What will you do if the US starts flooding the UK post-Brexit with chicken treated with massive doses of antibiotics.

Not for coccidiosis or a anything else, but as a growth regulator which results in chickens being something like 10% heavier? Then bleached, which is much cheaper than maintaining proper farm hygiene?

I will do what businesses do. Get better. If people want chlorinated chicken I can do it too. I don’t want to and believe there will always be a market for high quality meat, that’s were I want to be.

The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci! Cocci inhibitors though are used in the UK already maxiban being the most common. It’s not classed as an anti biotic and only has a 24 hour meat withdrawal. Anti biotics used in the states are fed everyday through the feed. Although the strain used is not used for humans so the argument is they cannot cause immunity. In the UK they are only used preventatively, but they are statins shares by humans.... what’s best? I believe in avoidance, I use pro biotics and good water ph to keep the gut right anti biotics are the last last resort. But if the animal is sick, they get it. My beef and lamb rarely get it, but one thing they do get i steroids, common in the states.

Jouso has it right, go big or go niche

 Knockagh wrote:

The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!

My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)

jouso wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!

My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)

You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!

The tenuous position that the glyphosate industry are in with the EU is putting severe strain on farmers and the agrochemical industry. An independent UK will hopefully be able to inject some reason into the glyphosate argument

 Knockagh wrote:
I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food.

There's the small issue of not having had sufficient arable land thirty years ago for the UK to support itself. I doubt that the islands will expand in size until they can just to support Brexit.

That and if you expect the British government to make things better, remember that millions starved in Ireland so that the food prices in London didn't rise. To say that the UK has always had a messed up relationship with it's farmers would be an understatement.

 BaronIveagh wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:
I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food.

There's the small issue of not having had sufficient arable land thirty years ago for the UK to support itself. I doubt that the islands will expand in size until they can just to support Brexit.

That and if you expect the British government to make things better, remember that millions starved in Ireland so that the food prices in London didn't rise. To say that the UK has always had a messed up relationship with it's farmers would be an understatement.

I agree. Although I think the relationship with farmers is the same the (first) world over. The split between urban and rural workers (not dwellers) has become a massive cultural gulf. Sadly I have no answer to that but better education. It’s something farmers talk a lot about but are unable to stimulate any interest in return. Countryfile is probably are best advocate! And it does a fine job, but it’s not compulsory viewing.

Maybe if Corbyn gets in he could make it his first decree as dictator of the proletariat.

As for arable land, there are optione in modern grains, ones that should be explored away from the hysteria of the press... but yes we will need soya and others that our climate doesn’t suit, so trade deals will always be necessary.

Knockagh wrote:
Sorry yes easy is probably too flippant a word to use but it will be much easier to negotiate deals from the outside as it’s actually impossible from the inside.

On the inside we help set policy. On the outside we take one of the options given. Unless you mean deals outside the eu? In which case we'll be able to close on deals much quicker, but they'll be poorer deals for us than we could get via the eu.

 Knockagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!

My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)

You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!

The cost of registering a new agrochemical active matter runs into the six figures. After that, I can get mutual recognition from other EU countries (usually there are two reporter countries, one in the Southern and one in the Central zone, no one bothers with the Northern zone) for 4-figure cost.

If the UK doesn't have mutual recognition rules for EU-registered agrochemicals we'll need to be spending 5 figures (rough estimate, but that's where it's usually at in 3rd countries) for that to be registered only in the UK. It may make sense for a few choice things, but for sure not most.

It's called the Brussels effect
https://www.ft.com/content/7059dbf8-a82a-11e7-ab66-21cc87a2edde

There's a Washington effect, too, but for the most part applies in the Americas.

jouso wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

jouso wrote:

 Knockagh wrote:

The use of anti biotics in the states is more complicated than most think. I’m impressed you know about cocci!

My company for the most part does agrochemicals, but we have a small catalogue of vet products (though for the most part for developing countries only, our last registration in the EU expired 4 years ago IIRC)

You may well benefit then from an independent UK not held to EU licensing laws!

The cost of registering a new agrochemical active matter runs into the six figures. After that, I can get mutual recognition from other EU countries (usually there are two reporter countries, one in the Southern and one in the Central zone, no one bothers with the Northern zone) for 4-figure cost.

If the UK doesn't have mutual recognition rules for EU-registered agrochemicals we'll need to be spending 5 figures (rough estimate, but that's where it's usually at in 3rd countries) for that to be registered only in the UK. It may make sense for a few choice things, but for sure not most.

It's called the Brussels effect
https://www.ft.com/content/7059dbf8-a82a-11e7-ab66-21cc87a2edde

There's a Washington effect, too, but for the most part applies in the Americas.

Admit, that makes sense.

Although the few that something can be done about are a positive.

 Knockagh wrote:
Well I can only speak from my own experience in business. The EU has destroyed farming in the UK. It’s left us working for cost price and reliant on subsidies like beggars to make a wage. The most basic and valuable commodity, food, is produced at cost price. It’s obscene. Our workforce face dangers, harsher working conditions and longer hours than 90% of industry and yet most have to make do on minimum wage.
It’s imposed impossible restrictions that are unworkable. This year alone has seen the slurry ban cause chaos across the UK. The wet summer and autumn means farmers have gone into the winter with slurry storage full to capacity and no legal route to get round it until the spring. It’s an environmental catastrophe waiting to happen and all because of rules made by people in Brussels to suit farmers in drier warmer climates. Farmers are only getting through because local uk authorities are turning a blind eye to spreading but if there is an incident, the farmer will be liable for prosecution. A farmer local to me threw himself off a motorway bridge two years ago after a prosecution for slurry pollution, due to unavoidable weather conditions. We aren’t allowed to spread during dry periods when it’s outside season but can spread when it’s wet and in season.
Our standards are some of he highest within Europe, welfare standards much higher than EU legislation and we must compete with cheaper meats within the EU. Dutch chicken has obscene stocking densities that went out in the UK decades ago, halving their production costs. Their anti biotic usage is massively in excess of ours and yet they can import over us with no restrictions. I know some are saying Brexit will bring cheaper foods again but there is another way, we should I believe be aiming for self sufficiency in food. That’s why we must take things slowly, think about our future and what we want. A race to the bottom? Or a Slow climb to the top, which will involve hard work and determination, with rough times.

But in the end I believe we couldn’t keep going the way we were.

That's not really practical though because we'd be limited to sprouts and winter cabbage for Christmas dinners, bread would be hard to come by after December, there would be no such thing as strawberries in the winter and so on. It's not just out direct intake as well, it's all the cake/biscuit/fruit pie manufacturers and so on would have to close down for three months of a year.

The ban on slurry has been in the works for years. The problem with spreading slurry is that it isn't stable. It both has a carbon impact to the atmosphere and in heavy rain it washes into watercourses polluting them and there is a lesser known issue of nitrogen pollution of the ground which is slowly degrading land quality. The solution has been for a number of years to invest in Anaerobic digestion facilities for slurry. Not only can be used to create energy but they can also take other materials such as food waste from businesses (and actually helps them be more efficient). The government has known about the issue for a while and originally there were grants or low interest loans (e.g. the green bank) to try and encourage people to invest in these. What you get out of it is a stabilized fertiliser, a stabilised mulch and gas (burnt for energy). There are plenty of farms in our area that have invested in this technology.

Always good to have knowledgeable people on a thread.

Slightly changing the subject. Last night there was a BBC news article about migrants crossing the Alps in the dead of winter to get from to France from Italy. Godonly knows why, but some of them wanted to get to Britain.

They were Sub-Saharan Africans mostly, and they attempted this arduous trek in nothing more than trainers and normal coats.

Sadly, some of them got frostbite and one or two had to get feet amputated when the French mountain rescue got them to the hospital.

But migrants is obviously a problem for the EU and will continue to be a problem with climate change. Why? Water.

Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.

Sub-Saharan African is suffering a chronic lack of water, and it will only get worse. The Middle East has this problem too. Forget Jerusalem, the next conflict in that area is likely to be over water. They've already had water wars in the past.

In short, people are likely to head north because of this, and if the last migrant crisis is any judge, the EU won't have their work cut out.

Why do you think I'm hanging around here n North Scotland? Fresh water is every where up here, and could end up being the new oil one day...

 Knockagh wrote:

As for arable land, there are optione in modern grains, ones that should be explored away from the hysteria of the press... but yes we will need soya and others that our climate doesn’t suit, so trade deals will always be necessary.

The problem with GM isn't what happens to the food itself. Studies have shown that the modified genes tend to get into wild plants because of cross pollination. An insect resistant/repellent gene that got into the wild plant population could be particularly devastating (more so than neonicotinoids). Hence care needs to be taken. It's not the impact on humans that is the problem (the food is perfectly safe), it's the wider potential impacts that haven't been fully explored.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 welshhoppo wrote:
CAP also takes up about 30% of the EUs budget.

Of the 39 billion we are giving. About 13 billion is going into CAP.

There's a reason for the CAP, because without it free trade deals would mean out own food supplies wouldn't compete. That can have long term unanticipated impacts - for example the plan to increase biofuels in petrol was fine in practice but resulted in increased logging of rainforest just to gtrow grass, as farmers switched to a more profitable crop.

The US subsidies it's farmers, other countries have wages that are pence compared to the EUs. The subsidies actually protect EU farmers being overwhelmed with cheap food because of free trade deals. This is likely to happen to sugar beet farmers vs cane sugar, it might be cheap food but Wrexit will damage the farming industry. The CAP is basically there to allow companies to compete, but not to the extent that you can make a profit from it (think the NIA heating scheme).

My personal view is that goods such be taxed at levels dependent on the social/environmental impacts of the country growing them so that if you pay your countries employees pittance then you are taxed appropriately so that it balances out that we have better standards. It also drives those countries to better standards so they have less duties. Subsidies just maintain the status quo whilst costing money to support those that simply couldn't compete otherwise.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
Always good to have knowledgeable people on a thread.

Slightly changing the subject. Last night there was a BBC news article about migrants crossing the Alps in the dead of winter to get from to France from Italy. Godonly knows why, but some of them wanted to get to Britain.

They were Sub-Saharan Africans mostly, and they attempted this arduous trek in nothing more than trainers and normal coats.

Sadly, some of them got frostbite and one or two had to get feet amputated when the French mountain rescue got them to the hospital.

But migrants is obviously a problem for the EU and will continue to be a problem with climate change. Why? Water.

Water water everywhere and not a drop to drink.

Sub-Saharan African is suffering a chronic lack of water, and it will only get worse. The Middle East has this problem too. Forget Jerusalem, the next conflict in that area is likely to be over water. They've already had water wars in the past.

In short, people are likely to head north because of this, and if the last migrant crisis is any judge, the EU won't have their work cut out.

Why do you think I'm hanging around here n North Scotland? Fresh water is every where up here, and could end up being the new oil one day...

But Migrants are only here because evil reasons.

Nigel Farage said so. So did Gove and Johnson. And it’s not like they’ve ever lied to anyone ever.

Brillant to see so many thinking seriously about solutions to our food and agri industries. The ideas being floated, including my own, have been knocked around for decades now. Its important at this time we get national consensus on this. The media often sensationalise farming and food using bad science frankly nonsense. (Daily Mail thats you) solutions aren’t easy but we can make this better.

Migrant crisis continues to be a tragedy. We need to get better at helping people in their country of origin if we are ever to get long term solutions.

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:The current Tory brand of capitalism has solely benefited those lucky enough to jump on the gravy train when it first pulled away.

The Tories aren't capitalists. They're corporatists. They care only about their own nice little earners and those of their mates, families and donors. They care nothing for the hairdresser, corner shop owner, white van man etc, except when it incidentally aligns with their corporate interests. There's a tremendous difference between true capitalism and what the tories are right now.

As I’ve repeatedly said, privatisation has utterly failed. Rail costs rising above wages. Electric, Gas and Water Companies charging ‘think of a number’ prices. Hell, in my local area, the council wants to cut funding to public transport, whilst granting themselves a 15% pay rise?

Until the Chinese started dumping steel onto the international market the UK steel industry was producing more steel than it ever had before, and was doing so at a fraction of the historical cost, due to privatisation. When properly exposed to free market forces, privatisation performs immensely better than nationalised industries. Rail suffers because a) it's not exposed to proper market forces due to government subsidy, b) because the franchises are utterly reliant on a separate organisation to fix their tracks for them (a government owned body that is generally recognised as the worst performing part of the rail system), and c) because their franchise agreements force them into running trains and stations that have long ceased to be profitable. There's also the elephant in the room that rail is a somewhat outdated mode of transport for all but some very specific journey requirements, a good portion of which are for the benefit of people working well paid jobs in London. There's a substantial body of evidence to suggest that rail fares should be significantly more expensive, with the cost borne by the people that benefit the most from it rather than requiring the public to subsidise it.

We’ve got a completely clueless government in bed with some truly worrying types - worrying types they had to bribe with money we’d just been told doesn’t actually exist - except when the Tories need to pull their balls from the fire. We’ve got a Health Service on its knees and being quietly privatised.

And the scary thing about all of that is that it's small fry compared to the damage comrade Corbyn would let loose on the economy. If you think the generation coming to adulthood now have it bad, spare a thought for what their kids will have to endure if Corbyn and McDonnell gets anywhere the treasury.

Whirlwind wrote: Neo-liberalism can arguably be stated as the causes for such disasters as Grenfell (indirectly) as the state has allowed the watering down of legislation and allowing the controls to be decided by businesses which took the 'lowest reasonable cost' option.

The legislation is actually pretty tight (tighter than the EU requires I believe). It was the local government who approved the use of cladding that didn't meet the standard required in order to save themselves cash (tory council I think). So much for the benefits of state protection...

Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote: You’ll lose the cheap labour you rely upon, and will likely see no replacement for any subsidy you may currently receive.

Maybe I'm not following the thread properly, as such forgive me if I've misread this, but are you not in this case advocating for someone else to have to work on a low salary, combined with subsidies provided by the rest of the taxpayers, just so that farmers can have a comfortable income? That seems a little odd to me. One of the reasons there are so few British people working in agriculture is partly because the jobs are seldom advertised over here (recruiters looking directly overseas for the cheap labour), but in large part because farms don't pay an atractive wage for what is required.

Kilkrazy wrote:I also don't see why we think we will be better at negotiating deals than the EU already is... As for standards, the way to deal with that is to be a member of the EU

Generally smaller countries have an easier time negotiating deals because they have less vested interests snapping at their heels at every turn. It takes the US and the EU such a long time to get deals done because they're effectively negotiating for an entire continents worth of economic factors. The UK on its own doesn't really care much about needing to protect orange growers or olive farms. The EU/US does. The key for Britain is to focus on a very narrow range of interests.

Knockagh wrote: and hopefully a more protectionist market within the UK will develop.

A more protectionist market is the worst thing that could happen to the UK. Escaping the protectionism of the EU is one of the major advantages of Brexit in the long run.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:.. robots, AI and automation are on the way, and Western political leadership is as bad as it's ever been.

Robots, automation and AI (of sorts) have been prevelant in our economy for decades. I'm surprised how often people forget this. Their presence is usually associated with significant productivity gains that help to make industries perform much better both domestically and on the international market.


Also, apologys if I've mis-attributed quotes amongst all that, was dealing with multi-quotes and quotes within quotes. Let me know if I need to change any attribution.

Oh dear.

Oh dear oh dear.

Corbyn will make a worse mess?

Kids not having to pay for university. Employees receiving at lead the same favour as their employers. A properly funded NHS. THE LIKES OF VODAFONE NOT SIMPLY LET OFF MULTI BILLION POUND TAX BILLS WILL THIS MADNESS NEVER END?????

Seriously. This is the real world calling. Ain’t nobody saying Corbyn’s plans will be free. Just an awful lot of people sick to the back teeth of having to carry the can for the lucky and the wealthy to give *them* low taxes, whils they continue to take the piss.