UK Politics Thread XI: Boris' Big Bombastic Brexit Bash

[Celritannia]

The 140,000 dead people isn't a lie dude. It wasn't stated by a politician. It was by a medical journal based on tracking death rates among populations and so on. It's not a number Labour just plucked out of the air like the Tories and their 1.2 trillion lie.

It’s bullshit statistical manipulation with the sole intention of propagating an agenda.

Sorry? What? Couldn't hear you over all this evidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ppr-report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 57306.html

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/he ... n-england/ (<-- This one is medical fact based)

[Hydesland]

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.

I definitely don't expect any radical shift on nukes or NATO either, as I said it's the incremental things that matter - I think foreign policy under Corbyn will overall be less belligerent towards Russia than otherwise, whether through our approach to Syria, or Ukraine, the extent of our cooperation with the USA, or sanctions on various vaguely Russia aligned states etc... I don't necessarily oppose any of these things per se by the way, but if I were Putin I would probably view Corbyn as less of an obstacle/threat to my foreign policy agenda, except for with regards to Brexit chaos that Johnson could cause, that makes it more of a toss up.

[Dooom35796821595]

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.

And why is nationalisation so key in making these changes? Just regulate them to make them improve costs, and fine them when they cut corners.

Your missing the part about having to buy these companies in the first place, then manage them effectively which isn’t something governments are very good at. So the government ends up throwing more money at the problem, while still having to invest in infrastructure upgrades and you end up with a massive amount of debt. Just look at the suggested
“free broadband” idea, taxing people for a service everyone can use, but not considering some people need more then others, and are willing to pay more.
Instead of say paying for infrastructure upgrades and charging service providers a reasonable amount for access, then letting competition keep prices down.

[Celritannia]

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.

And why is nationalisation so key in making these changes? Just regulate them to make them improve costs, and fine them when they cut corners.

Your missing the part about having to buy these companies in the first place, then manage them effectively which isn’t something governments are very good at. So the government ends up throwing more money at the problem, while still having to invest in infrastructure upgrades and you end up with a massive amount of debt. Just look at the suggested
“free broadband” idea, taxing people for a service everyone can use, but not considering some people need more then others, and are willing to pay more.
Instead of say paying for infrastructure upgrades and charging service providers a reasonable amount for access, then letting competition keep prices down.

And the Private companies haven't done well with a lot of upkeep for services like trains.
Not to mention the cost of tickets.

[Dooom35796821595]

It’s bullshit statistical manipulation with the sole intention of propagating an agenda.

Sorry? What? Couldn't hear you over all this evidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ppr-report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 57306.html

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/he ... n-england/ (<-- This one is medical fact based)

The papers’ senior author and a researcher at UCL, Dr Ben Maruthappu, said that while the paper “can’t prove cause and effect” it shows an association.

“This is an observational study, so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect“

Evidence, right. Observational, with no conclusions on cause and effect.

And this isn’t arguments against austerity, it’s shows that more consideration needs to be done before making cuts, something the Conservatives aren’t very good at. But on the other hand, Labour needs to put more consideration into where it spends money, and who it taxes to do so, something they’re not very good at.

[SD_Film Artists]

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?

You've already said that and I've already accepted it. The problem is that Labour- being a non-remain party- keep adding caveats to any efforts to placate its remain Labour voters. For example with that "handing the decision back to the people", it's only if they win the election; there has been no promice to vote for a 2nd referendum in the event of a hung parliament or any simular initiative. Again, Corbyn is only using it as ballast in his ballancing act rather than wearing his heart on his sleave.

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

Again, are the IFS not economists?

3. And yet:
[snip]
The panel shows are left wing on the BBC yes, but the News is right wing.

The article in the Independant was mostly talking about the Daily Mail etc, which I already know is biased against Corbyn. Also some of the articles have raised good questions which are in the public interest, such as his IRA , Hezbollah links.

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?

There's a difference between talking with an enemy and getting chummy with them.

Really, you just hate Corbyn for no reason.

I've already mentioned several reasons; whether you agree with them or not is another matter. Also I think "hate" is too strong a term, more like "pity and dislike"

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

A lot of things aren't covered in schools because there's only so many classes with so many hours. Still I doubt that the school system is whitewashing history.

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

https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan

They have a section on ending rough sleeping as well as other social reforms. And even if they didn't, I still don't see where you're getting this "single issue" stuff from.

[Celritannia]

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?

You've already said that and I've already accepted it. The problem is that Labour- being a non-remain party- keep adding caveats to any efforts to placate its remain Labour voters. For example with that "handing the decision back to the people", it's only if they win the election; there has been no promice to vote for a 2nd referendum in the event of a hung parliament or any simular initiative. Again, Corbyn is only using it as ballast in his ballancing act rather than wearing his heart on his sleave.

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

Again, are the IFS not economists?

3. And yet:
[snip]
The panel shows are left wing on the BBC yes, but the News is right wing.

The article in the Independant was mostly talking about the Daily Mail etc, which I already know is biased against Corbyn. Also some of the articles have raised good questions which are in the public interest, such as his IRA , Hezbollah links.

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?

There's a difference between talking with an enemy and getting chummy with them.

Really, you just hate Corbyn for no reason.

I've already mentioned several reasons; whether you agree with them or not is another matter. Also I think "hate" is too strong a term, more like "pity and dislike"

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

A lot of things aren't covered in schools because there's only so many classes with so many hours. Still I doubt that the school system is whitewashing history.

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

https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan

They have a section on ending rough sleeping as well as other social reforms. And even if they didn't, I still don't see where you're getting this "single issue" stuff from.

I give up.
You are plainly not understanding the Labour aspect at all, and think Corbyn is friends with terrorists when there is no evidence to prove it except a few photos taken out of context.

[Celritannia]

Sorry? What? Couldn't hear you over all this evidence:

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ppr-report

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... 57306.html

https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/he ... n-england/ (<-- This one is medical fact based)

The papers’ senior author and a researcher at UCL, Dr Ben Maruthappu, said that while the paper “can’t prove cause and effect” it shows an association.

“This is an observational study, so no firm conclusions can be drawn about cause and effect“

Evidence, right. Observational, with no conclusions on cause and effect.

And this isn’t arguments against austerity, it’s shows that more consideration needs to be done before making cuts, something the Conservatives aren’t very good at. But on the other hand, Labour needs to put more consideration into where it spends money, and who it taxes to do so, something they’re not very good at.

IT has caused 130,00 deaths.

It it arguments against austerity. The Tory Government cut public services, and the people are suffering.

Labour has put consideration into where it is putting their money, their Manifesto is quite clear.

[Salandriagado]

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

Uh no it's not, that's been the case in almost every country hit by the crisis, especially in Europe.

Or it was: austerity isn't really a thing now, neither party is (seriously) proposing austerity right now as far as I'm aware.

I mean, the Tories are still pushing austerity, they're just not being honest about it.

[Gormwood]

As for who the Russians would favour, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that they'd be very pleased with someone who wants to dismantle NATO, blames western expansionism for the Ukraine crisis (rather than Russia) and wants to seek warmer diplomatic ties with Russia (as well as being a lifelong eurosceptic who probably won't campaign against Brexit). I'm sure they'd also be pleased with the chaos candidate determined to take us out of Europe, though they wouldn't be pleased with the rest of his NATO friendly foreign policy. Either is plausible.

So Nigel?

[Hydesland]

Uh no it's not, that's been the case in almost every country hit by the crisis, especially in Europe.

Or it was: austerity isn't really a thing now, neither party is (seriously) proposing austerity right now as far as I'm aware.

I mean, the Tories are still pushing austerity, they're just not being honest about it.

I've mainly seen the opposite, i..e. other institutions like the IMF accusing the Tories of being dishonest about how little they'll reduce the deficit.

[The Notorious Mad Jack]

It seems the Tories are so scared of potentially losing East Devon, Johnson himself paid us a visit last week, promising extra investment and like a 138 new police officers in Devon and Cornwall.

Doesn't make up for the 500 or so we've lost since 2010 though...

[SD_Film Artists]

You've already said that and I've already accepted it. The problem is that Labour- being a non-remain party- keep adding caveats to any efforts to placate its remain Labour voters. For example with that "handing the decision back to the people", it's only if they win the election; there has been no promice to vote for a 2nd referendum in the event of a hung parliament or any simular initiative. Again, Corbyn is only using it as ballast in his ballancing act rather than wearing his heart on his sleave.



Again, are the IFS not economists?



The article in the Independant was mostly talking about the Daily Mail etc, which I already know is biased against Corbyn. Also some of the articles have raised good questions which are in the public interest, such as his IRA , Hezbollah links.



There's a difference between talking with an enemy and getting chummy with them.



I've already mentioned several reasons; whether you agree with them or not is another matter. Also I think "hate" is too strong a term, more like "pity and dislike"



A lot of things aren't covered in schools because there's only so many classes with so many hours. Still I doubt that the school system is whitewashing history.



https://www.libdems.org.uk/plan

They have a section on ending rough sleeping as well as other social reforms. And even if they didn't, I still don't see where you're getting this "single issue" stuff from.

I give up.
You are plainly not understanding the Labour aspect at all

Please, do show me where Labour are going to join other pro-remain parties (not necessarily in a formal coalition) by voting on bills regardles of whether Corbyn is PM or not, because they're apparently a pro-remain party. Or you could just keep talking about the referendum, which as I've already said is conditional, just like the rest of Corbyn's Brexit policies; caveats everywhere. Or you could just keep talking about how you're voting for Labour because of their other policies, which is your right, but doesn't address anything that I've said.

and think Corbyn is friends with terrorists when there is no evidence to prove it except a few photos taken out of context.

And the inaction on anti-semitism (though I don't believe that Corbyn is actualy an anti-semite himself, he just cozies up to people who are) or how he kept giving grovelling half-answers and deflections when David Cameron asked him if Hezbollah were Corbyn's friends when he could have just said "No, they never were and they never will be."

[SD_Film Artists]

It seems the Tories are so scared of potentially losing East Devon, Johnson himself paid us a visit last week

He who controles the custard controles the universe.

[Vassenor]

It seems the Tories are so scared of potentially losing East Devon, Johnson himself paid us a visit last week, promising extra investment and like a 138 new police officers in Devon and Cornwall.

Doesn't make up for the 500 or so we've lost since 2010 though...

But you're getting more and should be grateful for that. Just ignore the fact it's still a net loss and all those other inconvenient details and just revel in the generosity.

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

As for who the Russians would favour, I'm not sure, but I'm pretty confident that they'd be very pleased with someone who wants to dismantle NATO, blames western expansionism for the Ukraine crisis (rather than Russia) and wants to seek warmer diplomatic ties with Russia (as well as being a lifelong eurosceptic who probably won't campaign against Brexit). I'm sure they'd also be pleased with the chaos candidate determined to take us out of Europe, though they wouldn't be pleased with the rest of his NATO friendly foreign policy. Either is plausible.

If I was a Gru operative I think my favoured options for a chaotic destabilised UK would be a hung parliament, or a hard Brexit from a Conservative majority.

[Salandriagado]

I mean, the Tories are still pushing austerity, they're just not being honest about it.

I've mainly seen the opposite, i..e. other institutions like the IMF accusing the Tories of being dishonest about how little they'll reduce the deficit.

I'm comparing their manifesto pledges to what they're actually likely to do. The IMF is analysing what they actually did previously. Totally different things.

[Vassenor]

So on the one hand, child poverty is set to reach record highs by the end of the parliament if the conservatives win.

On the other hand Corbs admitted he doesn't religiously watch the Queen's speech every Christmas.

Guess what the papers are more incensed about this morning.

[Greater Loegria]

So on the one hand, child poverty is set to reach record highs by the end of the parliament if the conservatives win.

On the other hand Corbs admitted he doesn't religiously watch the Queen's speech every Christmas.

Guess what the papers are more incensed about this morning.

It’s Corbyn’s sentiment that is concerning. He does himself few favours by morally chiselling away at things deemed to be particularly British.

[Fartsniffage]

So on the one hand, child poverty is set to reach record highs by the end of the parliament if the conservatives win.

On the other hand Corbs admitted he doesn't religiously watch the Queen's speech every Christmas.

Guess what the papers are more incensed about this morning.

It’s Corbyn’s sentiment that is concerning. He does himself few favours by morally chiselling away at things deemed to be particularly British.

I don't think I've ever watched the Queens speech. Not sure why that would matter?

[An Alan Smithee Nation]

Three MEPs quit the Brexit Party. [Edit: 3 according to the BBC, 4 according to Reuters]

Not surprising really, Farage's decision not to stand against the Conservatives was the kiss of death for the party.

[Vassenor]

So on the one hand, child poverty is set to reach record highs by the end of the parliament if the conservatives win.

On the other hand Corbs admitted he doesn't religiously watch the Queen's speech every Christmas.

Guess what the papers are more incensed about this morning.

It’s Corbyn’s sentiment that is concerning. He does himself few favours by morally chiselling away at things deemed to be particularly British.

I've never watched the QS. When am I being deported?

[Vassenor]

And for bonus points, he doesn't watch because he spends the day volunteering at a homeless shelter. The fiend.

[Ifreann]

And for bonus points, he doesn't watch because he spends the day volunteering at a homeless shelter. The fiend.

How thoroughly un-British.

[SD_Film Artists]

It’s Corbyn’s sentiment that is concerning. He does himself few favours by morally chiselling away at things deemed to be particularly British.

I've never watched the QS. When am I being deported?

I think it's Corbyn's pattern of behaviour that is at fault rather than simply that he didn't watch the Queen's speech.