UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:21 am

To recap. Filled.

Not filled.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:32 am

James Brokenshire is Northern Ireland Secretary.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:41 am

Greg Clarke is Business and Energy Secretary.

Priti Patel is International Development Secretary.

by **Vassenor** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:47 am

Philip Hammond confirms UK will leave single market following Brexit

Well, guess we can kiss the economy goodbye.

by **Mike the Progressive** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:47 am

Imperializt Russia wrote:
Mike the Progressive wrote:
Heh. tell me how your 'real' Labour is doing. In favor of some sort of "purism" you've rejected the map to electoral success.

Refreshing, is what.

No, seriously. What's the point in ditching half of the ideology, to the point you no longer truly oppose the government, just to chase elections, even when it's plainly evident that it won't win you elections?
Genuinely asking.

Lesser of two evils? Democracy is normally selecting the less shittier option. Not the most ideal one. I suspect a lot of people would prefer Blair over Cameron or May.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:48 am

Vassenor wrote:Philip Hammond confirms UK will leave single market following Brexit

Well, guess we can kiss the economy goodbye.

But in the article he says "I would like to see us negotiating access to the single market".

by **Imperializt Russia** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:51 am

Mike the Progressive wrote:
Imperializt Russia wrote:Refreshing, is what.

No, seriously. What's the point in ditching half of the ideology, to the point you no longer truly oppose the government, just to chase elections, even when it's plainly evident that it won't win you elections?
Genuinely asking.

Lesser of two evils? Democracy is normally selecting the less shittier option. Not the most ideal one. I suspect a lot of people would prefer Blair over Cameron or May.

Well we've had thirty years of "selecting the less shittier option" and it really hasn't worked out.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:51 am

Alun Cairns is Welsh Secretary, Karen Bradley is Culture Secretary. We're nearing the end.

by **The Huskar Social Union** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:52 am

Freefall11111 wrote:James Brokenshire is Northern Ireland Secretary.

I know nothing about this man, must google.

by **MERIZoC** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:56 am

Freefall11111 wrote:James Brokenshire is Northern Ireland Secretary.

Why sack Villiers? Or did she step down?

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 7:57 am

Merizoc wrote:
Freefall11111 wrote:James Brokenshire is Northern Ireland Secretary.

Why sack Villiers? Or did she step down?

She was offered another job and rejected it, then resigned.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:02 am

To recap. Filled.

Not filled.

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:02 am

Vassenor wrote:Philip Hammond confirms UK will leave single market following Brexit

Well, guess we can kiss the economy goodbye.

Yeah, Britain was a third world country before 1973.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:04 am

Questers wrote:
Vassenor wrote:Philip Hammond confirms UK will leave single market following Brexit

Well, guess we can kiss the economy goodbye.
Yeah, Britain was a third world country before 1973.

"If it worked in the past, we can just go back to it" is such a shit line of argument and you know it.

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:06 am

Freefall11111 wrote:
Questers wrote: Yeah, Britain was a third world country before 1973.

"If it worked in the past, we can just go back to it" is such a shit line of argument and you know it.

Yes, but: "we won't have an economy without the single market" is not true and you know it.

One can claim, quite truly, that our economy will suffer. But hyperbole in this situation is unwarranted, and stupid.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:07 am

Questers wrote:
Freefall11111 wrote:"If it worked in the past, we can just go back to it" is such a shit line of argument and you know it.
Yes, but: "we won't have an economy without the single market" is not true and you know it.

One can claim, quite truly, that our economy will suffer. But hyperbole in this situation is unwarranted, and stupid.

Whataboutism isn't a valid response.

by **Vassenor** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:07 am

Brexiteer Lord Wolfson warns over cuts to immigration

One of the business world's most prominent campaigners for Brexit has told the BBC that a big reduction in immigration will damage the UK economy.

Lord Wolfson, chief executive of Next, said: "Any move to reduce immigration to the tens of thousands would be very dangerous for the economy."

It sounds, at first, like a curious thing for a Leave voter to say.

But Lord Wolfson insists that immigration was NOT the key issue for many who wanted out of the EU.

We have to wonder if he actually talked to people about their reasons for voting as they did.

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:07 am

Like let's say we have -5% economic growth next year. That makes us as poor as Japan, and richer than South Korea and Italy. We have room to not hit the panic button, our country isn't going to implode.

by **Vassenor** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:08 am

Questers wrote:Like let's say we have -5% economic growth next year. That makes us as poor as Japan, and richer than South Korea and Italy. We have room to not hit the panic button, our country isn't going to implode.

Wasn't the last recession caused by -1% growth?

by **Alvecia** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:08 am

Questers wrote:Like let's say we have -5% economic growth next year. That makes us as poor as Japan, and richer than South Korea and Italy. We have room to not hit the panic button, our country isn't going to implode.

"Look at all this room we have to fail" doesn't sound very comforting.

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:08 am

Vassenor wrote:
Questers wrote:Like let's say we have -5% economic growth next year. That makes us as poor as Japan, and richer than South Korea and Italy. We have room to not hit the panic button, our country isn't going to implode.

Wasn't the last recession caused by -1% growth?

Yes, something like that. So if you think that leaving the single market would be 5x worse than the banking crisis, we would only be as poor as Japan, and still be richer than Italy and South Korea.

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:09 am

Alvecia wrote:
Questers wrote:Like let's say we have -5% economic growth next year. That makes us as poor as Japan, and richer than South Korea and Italy. We have room to not hit the panic button, our country isn't going to implode.

"Look at all this room we have to fail" doesn't sound very comforting.

Looks like someone's never taken a risk before.

by **Freefall11111** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:10 am

Questers wrote:
Alvecia wrote:"Look at all this room we have to fail" doesn't sound very comforting.

Looks like someone's never taken a risk before.

You don't coordinate macro-econ policy by taking risks.

by **Alvecia** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:11 am

Freefall11111 wrote:
Questers wrote:Looks like someone's never taken a risk before.

You don't coordinate macro-econ policy by taking risks.

I was under the impression that macro-economics was somewhat risk averse. Was I wrong?

by **Questers** » Thu Jul 14, 2016 8:12 am

Everything involved with economy and business views risk as a negative, and stability and certainty as an incredible positive.

Nevertheless, polities sometimes take risks. Individuals sometimes take risks. A life without risk is not a life at all.

All I am saying is that if we have another recession the country won't implode or become a third world turdhole. We are actually much wealthier than we think we are (or more realistically, the rest of the developed world is much poorer than we think it is.)

UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

So who do we want leading the Labour Party?

Who is online