UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Dooom35796821595]

So...the debt is 90% of GDP and growing. And you think throwing money at it will fix things?

If we look at it another way, if our debt wasn’t so high, we’d have a lot more money to spend on important issues like the NHS and defence. But the more massive borrowing that happens just limits the money available in the future, which with an ageing population is going to increase.

Raising taxes and investing in the economy is the solution. I'm also okay with raising the retirement age personally given the expanding lifespans and better quality of life among the elderly that functioning modern healthcare provides.

Raising taxes on who? The rich? And when that’s not enough?

That’s always the problem, you have the reckless tax and spend in Labour, that then gets countered by the radical tax cut and spending cutters in the Conservatives. If both sides would take a more moderate position we would be in a far better position.

[Hydesland]

Any individual member of the Labour party is going to have some wacky shit. But they're reigned in by the wisdom of crowds and the rest of the party into broadly acceptable policies. Their individual wackiness is equated, for some bizarre reason, to the systemic group failings of the conservative party. Despite having no impact on party policy.

Obviously Corbyn wont have unlimited political capital when he forms a government, but I'm not sure why you're so convinced that there will be absolutely no marginal change in foreign policy that Russia would find favourable - and again Russia plays the long game, they'll take any incremental change they can. Your gamble is that he would be completely reigned in, but a Corbyn election would be a massive change in that 'overton window' as you like to invoke, and given the pressure from labour members via momentum etc... what makes you think the PLP, now having won a big surprise victory, wouldn't shift along with it?

[Hirota]

Austerity has been the guiding principle of economic policy in the UK since the global financial crisis hit.

That is weird. The is the literal opposite of most places.

Thats simply not true - certainly not in the Eurozone. Although we are perhaps late to the change in policy. I imagine something else was distracting us ;-)

And before someone tries to claim it's the Tories fault, Labour was pledging just as harsh austerity measures in 2010. It was only the Lib Dems who stood on a platform opposing Austerity.

His 40 odd years of advocating for leaving the EU for a start.

I've talked about this in the incarnations of UK politics thread on NSG: Corbyn is a life-long Eurosceptic.

So it's difficult to understand why someone with such long-held values and alleged integrity is willing to turn his back on that.

Because he's running for Prime Minister, not President. His views may not match the parties views on all things.

This was a decent counter, apart the fact Corbyn has literally advocated for a republic.

Moreover, it reads like your claim is the complete opposite of what you think it is. Prime Minister in a parliamentary system typically represents the largest party in parliament and is chosen as leader by that party. It would be like a henhouse voting for a fox to be their leader - completely counter to the likely political leanings of the hens - such as meat free meals I imagine. Maybe the fox has a decent plan on other areas...I don't know if that would override the chickens concern of being eaten.

On top of that, a president is frequently almost ceremonial and above day-to-day politics (the US being the notable exception). Corbs intention as acting as something akin to a neutral facilitator in a proposed brexit2 is more presidential then prime ministerial.

[Ostroeuropa]

Any individual member of the Labour party is going to have some wacky shit. But they're reigned in by the wisdom of crowds and the rest of the party into broadly acceptable policies. Their individual wackiness is equated, for some bizarre reason, to the systemic group failings of the conservative party. Despite having no impact on party policy.

Obviously Corbyn wont have unlimited political capital when he forms a government, but I'm not sure why you're so convinced that there will be absolutely no marginal change in foreign policy that Russia would find favourable - and again Russia plays the long game, they'll take any incremental change they can. Your gamble is that he would be completely reigned in, but a Corbyn election would be a massive change in that 'overton window' as you like to invoke, and given the pressure from labour members via momentum etc... what makes you think the PLP, now having won a big surprise victory, wouldn't shift along with it?

Momentum is not pro-Corbyn for the sake of it. There's substantial disagreement with him over issues like nuclear and foreign policy. It's not like the party isn't aware these are the aspects of Corbyn that are needed to be reigned in.

[Ostroeuropa]

Raising taxes and investing in the economy is the solution. I'm also okay with raising the retirement age personally given the expanding lifespans and better quality of life among the elderly that functioning modern healthcare provides.

Raising taxes on who? The rich? And when that’s not enough?

That’s always the problem, you have the reckless tax and spend in Labour, that then gets countered by the radical tax cut and spending cutters in the Conservatives. If both sides would take a more moderate position we would be in a far better position.

Primarily the rich, but i'm fine with raising taxes on everyone provided we tackle the cost of living crisis by nationalizing utilities.

We only need to increase revenue by 5% to eliminate the deficit and begin paying off the debt.

[Hirota]

Ever notice how we don't have a culture of seeing a member of the british upper classes and thinking "Yeah they're probably a pedo. We need laws to keep them away from schools. Should probably take their kids off them too, just to be safe", but we have people saying that kind of shit about Muslims and terrorism?

Imagine forgetting about Operation Midland.

[Dooom35796821595]

Raising taxes on who? The rich? And when that’s not enough?

That’s always the problem, you have the reckless tax and spend in Labour, that then gets countered by the radical tax cut and spending cutters in the Conservatives. If both sides would take a more moderate position we would be in a far better position.

Primarily the rich, but i'm fine with raising taxes on everyone provided we tackle the cost of living crisis by nationalizing utilities.

We only need to increase revenue by 5% to eliminate the deficit and begin paying off the debt.

So your going to help people, by taxing them more and using that money to nationalise industries so you can provide subsidised utilities that they otherwise would have paid for.

So basically, you believe the state knows better then normal people on how to best spend their money?

Yeah, until Labour find a new reason to spend money in stupid ways. Like that WASPI BS, that wasn’t reducing the deficit.

[Ostroeuropa]

Primarily the rich, but i'm fine with raising taxes on everyone provided we tackle the cost of living crisis by nationalizing utilities.

We only need to increase revenue by 5% to eliminate the deficit and begin paying off the debt.

So your going to help people, by taxing them more and using that money to nationalise industries so you can provide subsidised utilities that they otherwise would have paid for.

So basically, you believe the state knows better then normal people on how to best spend their money?

Yeah, until Labour find a new reason to spend money in stupid ways. Like that WASPI BS, that wasn’t reducing the deficit.

Taxing them more to eliminate the deficit and increase public spending.
Nationalizing utilities to lower costs and prevent rentierism and profiteering, not to subsidize their operating or expansion costs which will still be borne by the consumer, but overall consumers will pay less.

Collective action often saves people money and allows greater opportunities if that money is invested in improving their incomes and so on.
I don't support the WASPI shit personally.

[Hirota]

Momentum is not pro-Corbyn for the sake of it. There's substantial disagreement with him over issues like nuclear and foreign policy. It's not like the party isn't aware these are the aspects of Corbyn that are needed to be reigned in.

Curious. I think I'd actually be more likely to vote Labour without momentum thinking the old man and his silly ideas need to be kept reigned in.

[Ostroeuropa]

Momentum is not pro-Corbyn for the sake of it. There's substantial disagreement with him over issues like nuclear and foreign policy. It's not like the party isn't aware these are the aspects of Corbyn that are needed to be reigned in.

Curious. I think I'd actually be more likely to vote Labour without momentum thinking the old man and his silly ideas need to be kept reigned in.

Party policy is decided at conference, not by the leader. Those members who support corbyns policies can argue for them at conference.

Corbyn was free to provoke a vote on the parties nuclear weapons policy as a member and a delegate at conference. He was defeated in a total wipeout and the party stuck to the current nuclear policy. Local parties send delegates to conference. If momentum has a strong showing in a local party, they will form a bloc to send one of themselves as one or all of the delegates, dependent on their numbers.

For instance, for my constituency, Momentum is outnumbered by about 2 to 1. We achieved about a quarter of delegates, they got about half, and the rest were compromisers and single issue folk. Nothing gets into the manifesto without 2/3rds support.

[Celritannia]

1. Austerity is a far more important issue currently, and Labour are the only ones putting policies forward to it.

2. So? At least Economists are backing labour's manifesto. It shows they have achievable policies.

3. The BBC have attacked Labour more than any other party. There is actual evidence to show Corbyn is the most attacked politician out of every other party leader.

No, but schools tend to teach mainly British subjects. and teaching about the horrors of the Empire is necessary. There isn't an in depth aspect into how far they are going into the atrocities of the Empire.
Also, to call it unpatriotic is stupid.

4. Then you are only blinded by a single issue.

1. Cool, and how does that address my point that Labour isn't a remain party?

2. The IFS are also economists are they not? Or do we only count pro-Labour economists?

3. The Tories say that the BBC are too left-wing, the Lib Dems say they don't give them a proportionate amount of air time, and Labour says that the BBC are criticising Jeremy Corbyn, and to be fair to the BBC they're only using the ammuntion that Corbyn gives them. It's the Daily Mail, Daily Express etc who are doing the real cherry-picking against Corbyn.

Is further teaching on that really necessery? I mean are there millenials and gen Zs who know nothing about slavery? Is this somekind of secret that we've suppressed? It instead sounds more like Labour wants to flagellate Britain for its sins. I think it's very umpatriotic, and that's not even counting Corbyn rubbing shoulders with the IRA, Hezbollah and others who wouldn't want him to be big on defence.

4. Would you care to explain why? Caring about the EU doens't mean that you don't care about any other policies. The Lib Dems are a pro-remain party yet they are not a single-issue party.

1. Labour may not be either leave or remain, but they are giving the decision back to the people. How is it so hard to understand this? I mean really? How much more explaining does someone have to do to show you Labour will have another referendum with remain and a Labour Deal on the ballot papers?

2. The economists are neither pro labour or pro-remain. Yet they have given support to the Labour manifesto.

3. And yet:
https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/opini ... ory/18/07/

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/je ... 44381.html

novaramedia.com/2019/11/06/the-media-is-biased-against-jeremy-corbyn-but-does-that-even-matter-in-this-election/

http://www.lse.ac.uk/media-and-communic ... emy-corbyn

The panel shows are left wing on the BBC yes, but the News is right wing.

The Tories have rubbed soldiers with IRA and other terrorist groups too.
But how do you achieve piece if you don;t open up negotiations?

Really, you just hate Corbyn for no reason.

The Empire have 300 years of history in which a lot is not covered by schools.

4. I have yet to see a highly detailed Lib-Dem manifesto on tackling the public services, homelessness, etc.

[Gravlen]

I'll just add that I don't see any reason to wait, when we have reports from multiple intelligence agencies both in the US and Europe all saying the same. This is common knowledge within the intelligence communities.

Maybe I remember the last time multiple intelligence agencies all said the same thing, and why I'm sceptical nowadays.

<shrugs>

Curious, I remember vocal disagreements. It's worth mentioning that the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the aftermath, found that "substantial disagreements [...] existed in the intelligence community", and that French and German intelligence rejected the conclusions concerning Iraq's WMD capability.

Oh well.

[Celritannia]

Raising taxes and investing in the economy is the solution. I'm also okay with raising the retirement age personally given the expanding lifespans and better quality of life among the elderly that functioning modern healthcare provides.

Raising taxes on who? The rich? And when that’s not enough?

That’s always the problem, you have the reckless tax and spend in Labour, that then gets countered by the radical tax cut and spending cutters in the Conservatives. If both sides would take a more moderate position we would be in a far better position.

Who else can you tax when more people are using foodbanks and people are getting wrongfully sanctioned at DWP meetings?

[Major-Tom]

Some of these polls have been giving me optimism. It's just gonna make me more disappointed come the 12th lmao.

[Vassenor]

Maybe I remember the last time multiple intelligence agencies all said the same thing, and why I'm sceptical nowadays.

<shrugs>

Curious, I remember vocal disagreements. It's worth mentioning that the Senate Intelligence Committee, in the aftermath, found that "substantial disagreements [...] existed in the intelligence community", and that French and German intelligence rejected the conclusions concerning Iraq's WMD capability.

Oh well.

Yes, but you have to remember that BUT IRAQ is pretty much the go-to response to any reference to the intelligence agencies pointing out Russia meddled.

[Celritannia]

They voted leave, not remain which is what Labour is trying to pull.

On the same basis, we could describe the bulk of the people who voted remain as preferring a good deal over a hard exit, so the best all round option would be to negotiate a cross party leave agreement that is in the best interest of the UK.

Actually, no. BEcause the majority of people that voted to remain, wanted to remain.

Only a small minority of Leave Voters wanted a hard Brexit. In fact, the Leave Campaign promised the UK would have a deal and would not leave without a deal.

The Leave side was vague, not many knew what the EU was or how it functioned when they voted to leave. Or, those that voted to leave wanted to leave the EU but become a member of the EEA and ETA.

[Vassenor]

I think it's safe to say that, at least at the time, the people who voted to remain voted to remain. Many people who voted leave however did not want a hard/no deal.

Actually, no. BEcause the majority of people that voted to remain, wanted to remain.

Only a small minority of Leave Voters wanted a hard Brexit. In fact, the Leave Campaign promised the UK would have a deal and would not leave without a deal.

The Leave side was vague, not many knew what the EU was or how it functioned when they voted to leave. Or, those that voted to leave wanted to leave the EU but become a member of the EEA and ETA.

Understatement of the century.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Some of these polls have been giving me optimism. It's just gonna make me more disappointed come the 12th lmao.

Hope is but the first step on the road to disappointment.


I will admit tho, i have a sliver of hope for the local results in the general election, if the DUP lost both South and North Belfast i would explode like a fucking roman candle of victory and joy.

[Ostroeuropa]

Corbyn governs through personal authority. He can refer to his majority support among membership to force the cabinet and MPs to back him. This evaporates when he is pursuing an agenda they do not support. So no, there will not be a shift of the overton window on issues like nukes or NATO or Russia if Corbyn is elected. He has been thoroughly overruled on those topics.

Not understanding how the Labour party works is the reason these arguments exist.

[Major-Tom]

Some of these polls have been giving me optimism. It's just gonna make me more disappointed come the 12th lmao.

Hope is but the first step on the road to disappointment.

In the slim chance Corbyn is able to form a government, I will personally buy champagne for each and every person on this forum.

[Dooom35796821595]

So your going to help people, by taxing them more and using that money to nationalise industries so you can provide subsidised utilities that they otherwise would have paid for.

So basically, you believe the state knows better then normal people on how to best spend their money?

Yeah, until Labour find a new reason to spend money in stupid ways. Like that WASPI BS, that wasn’t reducing the deficit.

Taxing them more to eliminate the deficit and increase public spending.
Nationalizing utilities to lower costs and prevent rentierism and profiteering, not to subsidize their operating or expansion costs which will still be borne by the consumer, but overall consumers will pay less.

Collective action often saves people money and allows greater opportunities if that money is invested in improving their incomes and so on.
I don't support the WASPI shit personally.

Except those two are opposed, you can’t be about reducing the debt if you’re spending all the money re-nationalising industries so you can run them at a loss. A better solution would be better regulation of free market companies and increasing competition while paying for infrastructure improvements that the companies have to pay to use. Balance of government spending and free market competitiveness. And people then get to keep more of their own money to spend in the economy the way they want to.

But Corbin does, and it’s exactly the sort of reckless spending that mirrors the Conservatives reckless cuts.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Hope is but the first step on the road to disappointment.

In the slim chance Corbyn is able to form a government, I will personally buy champagne for each and every person on this forum.

Cider please, cant stand that stuff.

[Celritannia]

I think it's safe to say that, at least at the time, the people who voted to remain voted to remain. Many people who voted leave however did not want a hard/no deal.

Which is why negotiating a deal that would achieve the objectives of both sides would be the best outcome for all parties, including the EU. But vocal sects of the remainer group are as vocal as the no deal sects of the leave group, drowning out any reasonable chance of compromise.

Please tell me how leaving the EU benefits the UK.

[Major-Tom]

In the slim chance Corbyn is able to form a government, I will personally buy champagne for each and every person on this forum.

Cider please, cant stand that stuff.

Even better.

[Ostroeuropa]

Taxing them more to eliminate the deficit and increase public spending.
Nationalizing utilities to lower costs and prevent rentierism and profiteering, not to subsidize their operating or expansion costs which will still be borne by the consumer, but overall consumers will pay less.

Collective action often saves people money and allows greater opportunities if that money is invested in improving their incomes and so on.
I don't support the WASPI shit personally.

Except those two are opposed, you can’t be about reducing the debt if you’re spending all the money re-nationalising industries so you can run them at a loss. A better solution would be better regulation of free market companies and increasing competition while paying for infrastructure improvements that the companies have to pay to use. Balance of government spending and free market competitiveness. And people then get to keep more of their own money to spend in the economy the way they want to.

But Corbin does, and it’s exactly the sort of reckless spending that mirrors the Conservatives reckless cuts.

Running them at reduced profit /=/ running them at a loss. In addition with lower costs you can relax on welfare increases for a while due to reduced cost of living, so instead of handing people money to hand to energy companies to hand to their shareholders, you just use that money to pay down the debt.