Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

[SpurMeUp]

Look at it this way. If the EU is all about free trade with.those outside, what's the problem with leaving?


And an entire stack of regulatory overreach.

I'll ask again, because you haven't ever answered this one; Why should the EU have any say on the make up of a product or service I sell to Dubai?



Firstly, no it's not - people don't need a government to choose for them.

Secondly, if we accept the flawed premise that we need a nanny state, why do we need the EU to do it for us?


I wouldn't buy either any more than I'd buy sportswear or a Ford, but I don't plan on banning them.


I wouldn't. What a fudging stupid idea that is.

Why the hell would anyone want to regulate across a load of nations. Imagine the EU was just the trading bloc we joined - would you suggest this nonsense then? You'd be rightly laughed out of the room if you did.


The WTO is reducing the size of government overreach. Any organisation that works towards a smaller government is based on good principles.


If they can make whiskey better and cheaper than we can (they can't) then they absolutely deserve to take that trade from us.

At what point have I ever made a single suggestion or comment that makes you think I'm foolish enough to believe in propping up markets that can't survive by themselves? It's an entirely preposterous solution to a problem that doesn't exist.


I don't care if the farms survive or fail. Just about the only thing I care less about is what is done with the land if they do fail.

If you're concerned about food production during wartime, the simple answer is to have a nuclear deterrent and then it's no longer a problem.



You're right in saying that tax calculations aren't that simple, which is precisely why your suggestion that lowering tax would destroy the welfare state (I'll leave the fact that that's not a bad result for another discussion) entirely baseless.

What we can do, is use the best evidence available to us and that's the effect of the most recent tax cuts and the most recent regulation cuts. Both have resulted in improved tax takes and increased employment.


I think you've missed the point again.

The part of my post you quoted was in relation to a welfare state built in the post war era. We're in an entirely different situation now and no longer need such a millstone around our necks. The EU is just more waste piled on top of what we already had.

We need to extricate ourselves from the EU to get back to what was great, but it wasn't the EU that caused it - we did that damage to ourselves when we were floundering about after WWII and took the easy but wrong answer.

You can't argue that 0 tariff trade is good, then tell us that the one place in the world that has achieved it - Europe - is bad. Well you can and will, it's you, that is what you do. But your logic is undeniably contradictory.

The other flaw you have is you follow doctrine over logic. Adam Smith's free hand of the unregulated market is no doubt a useful simple base concept. But calm down, you can't apply it to everything. Smith was born in 1723. Don't you think you're a little out of date supposing that everything can be regulated by a market? Why did governments the world over have to bail out unregulated capitalism if the free hand of the market worked always? How would people know if chicken or beef was laced with chlorine or steroids without regulation to dictate it must be displayed?

"We need to extricate ourselves from the EU to get back to what was great but it wasn't the EU that caused it - we did that damage to ourselves when we were floundering about after WWII and took the easy but wrong answer."

What was great that you want to get back to? Obvious pre-EU so that would be the 1970s? Or are you aiming for something earlier?

 

[Legohamster]

That’s 4 years ago.

View attachment 7294

From a party that stands up and accuses people of language use this blokes on twitter promoting the fact Boris is being pelted with stuff.

 

[Legohamster]

Wow thanks for that.

See this is where I have huge issue, I don't wan't Corbyn to be the PM, far from it but I would have said he deserved more respect than being pelted with plastic balls or anything, I would also say anyone from the Tories applauding it and potentially motivating people was a prick. But the other side of the argument can't do that, no concessions given, its hugely blatent.

Its like this whole falsehood that Corbyn has never done wrong and anything he did was when he was 37 but Boris touching someones knee at a dinner years ago deserves further inspection, its a total hypocrisy.

I read the comments from Jo Cox husband and he actually took exception to both sides of the argument as they politicise her memory.

As for provocative terms, what about the labour party and others that have used provocative terms when mentioning Brexiteers? You don't think Lammy opens himself up with terms like Nazi's or John McDonnell saying "Lynch the bitch" and what about Jess Phillips and he past claims of knifing Corbyn? No? Only Boris that uses provacative terms?

Come on lets at least be balanced on all this.

I’m no Jezza fan, he’s made labour unelectable and is the Tories best MP

But do you not remember the last election, everywhere was about him and the IRA and terrorists.

Ironically the Tories then Joined forces with the DUP

 

[scaramanga]

I’m no Jezza fan, he’s made labour unelectable and is the Tories best MP

But do you not remember the last election, everywhere was about him and the IRA and terrorists.

Ironically the Tories then Joined forces with the DUP

Two piles of clam. At least the Conservatives picked the pile of clam that was on the side of the UK.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I’m no Jezza fan, he’s made labour unelectable and is the Tories best MP

But do you not remember the last election, everywhere was about him and the IRA and terrorists.

Ironically the Tories then Joined forces with the DUP

Does that not support Grays point? Neither side actually has a moral high ground to act as if they do is somewhat hypocritical...

 

[scaramanga]

You can't argue that 0 tariff trade is good, then tell us that the one place in the world that has achieved it - Europe - is bad. Well you can and will, it's you, that is what you do. But your logic is undeniably contradictory.

I'll try this one again as simply as I can put it. Tariff-free trade within external barriers is not free trade.

If the UK put up huge tariff and regulatory barriers on all of its borders, you wouldn't be able to describe businesses in London and Bristol as having free trade just because they can trade with each other (maybe you would, but you'd be wrong). The businesses in those cities are not free to trade because of the external barriers on the border. The EU is the same. That's not free trade when it's a closed shop, it's the polar opposite.

The other flaw you have is you follow doctrine over logic. Adam Smith's free hand of the unregulated market is no doubt a useful simple base concept. But calm down, you can't apply it to everything. Smith was born in 1723. Don't you think you're a little out of date supposing that everything can be regulated by a market? Why did governments the world over have to bail out unregulated capitalism if the free hand of the market worked always?

Governments didn't need to bail out banks, they chose to. They chose to act in the way they did against the logic of capitalism. Some banks should have failed. They deserved to fail, they needed to fail. Intervention has only served to keep the precise same problems in the system that were there before.

How would people know if chicken or beef was laced with chlorine or steroids without regulation to dictate it must be displayed?

I think the more important question is why would anyone give a fudge? You seem really, really animated over this and roaming charges for some reason - and it makes no sense.

If you're going to paint something as inherently bad, you're going to have to find some evidence (real, statistically sound evidence) to back up your claims. This is something that appears to bother you a hell of a lot more than anyone I know of - in fact, you're the only remainder I've discussed Brexit with who has even mentioned it. I think you're making a bit of a fuss over nothing at all.

"We need to extricate ourselves from the EU to get back to what was great but it wasn't the EU that caused it - we did that damage to ourselves when we were floundering about after WWII and took the easy but wrong answer."

What was great that you want to get back to? Obvious pre-EU so that would be the 1970s? Or are you aiming for something earlier?

Earlier (as I've already made clear in two separate posts).

After WWII our country was understandably unsure of its position and future. There had been a catastrophic, life-changing war, and people were rightly looking for some hope and some easy answers. Into that void stepped socialism and took advantage of the state of our country. They created what was, until recent developments in India and China the largest drain on public finance ever seen, they built a welfare state that was at least a factor of 10 larger than it needed to be. Instead of providing opportunity and motivation for those who need it the most, they saw it as an opportunity to create an army of dependent voters.

This cannot be reversed in a vacuum, this needs a full reworking of how we tax and spend - something that is simply impossible within the shackles of the EU.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Wow thanks for that.

See this is where I have huge issue, I don't wan't Corbyn to be the PM, far from it but I would have said he deserved more respect than being pelted with plastic balls or anything, I would also say anyone from the Tories applauding it and potentially motivating people was a prick. But the other side of the argument can't do that, no concessions given, its hugely blatent.

Its like this whole falsehood that Corbyn has never done wrong and anything he did was when he was 37 but Boris touching someones knee at a dinner years ago deserves further inspection, its a total hypocrisy.

I read the comments from Jo Cox husband and he actually took exception to both sides of the argument as they politicise her memory.

As for provocative terms, what about the labour party and others that have used provocative terms when mentioning Brexiteers? You don't think Lammy opens himself up with terms like Nazi's or John McDonnell saying "Lynch the bitch" and what about Jess Phillips and he past claims of knifing Corbyn? No? Only Boris that uses provacative terms?

Come on lets at least be balanced on all this.

Last time I checked, Johnson was the prime Minister, so maybe he needs to behave in a more dignified and appropriate way. More measured language is required of real statesmen. Like Trump, clearly he is not in that category. Female Labour MPS have had death threats from right wing nut jobs, the same types that murdered Cox and Johnson's rhetoric, i.e. describing them as 'betrayers' and 'traitors' eggs these wackos on and he knows it.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/news/chancellor-sajid-javid-vows-to-increase-the-national-living-wage-to-more-than-£10-per-hour-and-to-slash-the-age-threshold-from-25-to-21-as-he-makes-a-general-election-pitch-to-younger-voters/ar-AAI4b59?li=AAnZ9Ug

I need to get myself back up to speed with the jobs market, as I'd say there's a very decent likelihood this'll put my current employer out of business...

If he cannot pay his workers a legally sanctioned basic wage he has no business being in business. Workers are not meant to subsidize bosses' profits.

 

[Grays_1890]

Last time I checked, Johnson was the prime Minister, so maybe he needs to behave in a more dignified and appropriate way. More measured language is required of real statesmen. Like Trump, clearly he is not in that category. Female Labour MPS have had death threats from right wing nut jobs, the same types that murdered Cox and Johnson's rhetoric, i.e. describing them as 'betrayers' and 'traitors' eggs these wackos on and he knows it.

Yeh and I would say you are right 100% but surely its only right that Labour reel in their wording too? You could easily say that a number of them could equally be attacked for their own wording on the situation?

 

[Gutter Boy]

If he cannot pay his workers a legally sanctioned basic wage he has no business being in business. Workers are not meant to subsidize bosses' profits.

I think there's an argument for legally-enforced company wage ratios (e.g. lowest paid worker or contractor has to earn at least 1/15 of the highest paid), rather than the more blunt national minimum wage (lowest paid are 60% of national average).

They need to get rid of the age limits completely too - equal pay for equal work

 

[scaramanga]

If he cannot pay his workers a legally sanctioned basic wage he has no business being in business. Workers are not meant to subsidize bosses' profits.

That's not how markets work.

Workers are paid precisely what their value is to their employers - no more, no less. Then sometime a govt sticks its filthy nose in where it's not wanted and alters that perfect balance. Thanks to successive governments who can't understand market forces properly, his employer is already likely to be paying more than that employee is actually worth.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

That's not how markets work.

Workers are paid precisely what their value is to their employers - no more, no less. Then sometime a govt sticks its filthy nose in where it's not wanted and alters that perfect balance. Thanks to successive governments who can't understand market forces properly, his employer is already likely to be paying more than that employee is actually worth.

There are plenty of businesses particularly in hospitality that have made wage theft part of their business model. They can fudge right off!

 

[Rorschach]

fudge business, I heard someone say once.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I think there's an argument for legally-enforced company wage ratios (e.g. lowest paid worker or contractor has to earn at least 1/15 of the highest paid), rather than the more blunt national minimum wage (lowest paid are 60% of national average).

They need to get rid of the age limits completely too - equal pay for equal work

Totally agree with this, but then coming from a building site background that is always how it was.

 

[Parklaner81]

If he cannot pay his workers a legally sanctioned basic wage he has no business being in business. Workers are not meant to subsidize bosses' profits.

How is that supposed to work when the minimum wage is artificial, and everything else (more or less) is governed by market forces? Minimum wage increases have been outstripping pretty much everything else in our business for years - there was always going to come a breaking point and I fear this will be it.

But I'll pass your sentiments on to my co-workers if & when the time comes that they find themselves losing their jobs.

 

[Parklaner81]

I think there's an argument for legally-enforced company wage ratios (e.g. lowest paid worker or contractor has to earn at least 1/15 of the highest paid), rather than the more blunt national minimum wage (lowest paid are 60% of national average).

They need to get rid of the age limits completely too - equal pay for equal work

Respectfully disagree with this. I think there's something to be said for younger workers progressing up the scale as they accrue experience and standing in the work place.

By the way, the article I linked to yesterday seems to suggest that the minimum wage is being re-set to 67% of average earnings, which explains the latest hike (it's going to jump nearly 30% from where it is today over the next 5 years, and that's just on the tory proposals. Labour's are no doubt even more extreme).

 

[scaramanga]

There are plenty of businesses particularly in hospitality that have made wage theft part of their business model. They can fudge right off!

They pay what their staff are worth. That's not theft, that's having easily and readily replaceable skills.

Your comments amount to suggesting that those who purchase a Nissan Micra are taking part in theft because they're not paying the price of a Quattroporte for it.

 

[SpurMeUp]

What’s funny is you have a socialist backing Tory policy and a Tory dead against it. Guess it’s the Brexit party for Scara now.


Sitting on my porcelain throne using glory-glory.co.uk mobile app

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

How is that supposed to work when the minimum wage is artificial, and everything else (more or less) is governed by market forces? Minimum wage increases have been outstripping pretty much everything else in our business for years - there was always going to come a breaking point and I fear this will be it.

But I'll pass your sentiments on to my co-workers if & when the time comes that they find themselves losing their jobs.

That is one of the oldest Tory inspired arguments of all time. "You have to put up with paltry pay because if you get a pay rise you'll lose your job." Never seems to apply to corporate types though, those on astronomical salaries, set by themselves or their boardroom buddies. Even execs in failing companies still get paid millions of pounds. Oh no, that argument does not apply to them. Who are you kidding mate?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

They pay what their staff are worth. That's not theft, that's having easily and readily replaceable skills.

Your comments amount to suggesting that those who purchase a Nissan Micra are taking part in theft because they're not paying the price of a Quattroporte for it.

If that were true then execs in failing companies would not be receiving astronomical salaries, many times over the average wage. How come these plonkers are getting so much? The market doesn't decide their salaries, their little mates club set them. It's a case of everyone waiting their turn. Do you believe that there are fairies at the bottom of your garden too?