That sounds like the kind of statement that needs evidence. I can't for the life of me understand why it would be of any relevance to anyone whatsoever.
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)
- Thread starter SpurMeUp
- Start date
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Like the idea of early diagnosis, and check-ups. But that does mean a lot of people who don't need anything clogging up the system. I'd settle for the NHS and doctors simply having enough time to deal with the people who want a check-up and currently get 10 mins on the conveyor belt if they are lucky! Never used to be like that.
Growth equals more money. Growth stimulates the economy and gets money flowing. Stagnant money stops prosperity. That activity then generates money for our government to spend. If people are sitting on money, there is no tax on it. If things go backwards or stagnate then there is less money for the government to spend. What does that mean?
Just look at the financial crisis 10 years ago. Cuts to public spending. Teachers and nurses having their pay frozen. Less money to invest in health care in the UK. Less money for everything. I believe you can evolve the economy in some 'marxist-like' ways to create more free time, without taking the UK backwards and harming public services. France does a decent job of it for example. Since the pound was devalued their economy is larger than our own (just) but they work a lot less than we do.
But lets be clear, the slowing effects on our economy post brexit vote, have slowed tax receipts. Have slowed the amount of money our government has to spend. Borrowing has increased. Interest that tax payers are paying has increased (£40b a year we pay in interest each year!). Under Boris' plan, there is every indication that this trend would accelerate as we harm trade with the EU, and no evidence what so ever that we would generate more to make up for it. That translates as less money for nurses, hospitals, schools and everything else the governments spends on. How could anyone want that?
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
At least you acknowledge that Brexit is a barrier to free trade. When you say 15% or the world you mean trade with the EU? Obviously that is the part of the world we are in, and is the most relevant to us. The EU accounts for 46% of our exports, and we rely on the EU for the best possible imports. The EU is also the world's most affluent market. Most nations are eager to get access to it. It seems like we are eager to impair access to it!
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
Degrowth is meant to reduce the role of the state. By freeing people from being wage slaves, things like family and community return to their traditional roles.
Childcare and social care burdens would disappear for example, because that would be done within families.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
No health care? No public transport, bin collections? Lots of hippy communes?
Why not aspire to maintain success while evolving towards a greater focus on quality of life? For the past 100 years governments have focused on wealth creation. But only focusing on wealth without quality of life concerns is also a mistake. We need to rebalance that. Governments need to have a metric that encourages a greater focus on designing for improved living.
Take something like airports. Most of our airports are now owned by foreign private equity funds/pension groups. Do you think these entities care about how people are looked after? Or are they concerned with generating a profit for their investors? Step back. Why would we sell out our people who use these facilities? Why would we give them facilities that don't care about them, but only care about getting as much money from them as possible? The profits don't go back into the UK. Madness.
There is plenty that could be done to improve quality of life. That doesn't mean tearing up trade and prosperity that generations have fought for.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
I don't think there's been continuity over the last 100 years. Moving back towards the post-war consensus/Keynesianism would be a huge leap. Wealth creation, which never trickles down, is the great Washington Consensus myth. But Reaganomics is firmly embedded at the heart of the EU. It was Thatcher and Kohl's great triumph. We can't renationalise airports to give them back humanity, because EU level laying field laws forbids it
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
Sadly you are spreading lies. State ownership of transportation is fine in the EU. Almost all European nations have state-owned and run railways. EU state aid rules do not apply to transportation. European nations often subsidise ticket prices in Europe. Luxemburg subsidises its rail so much, it decided not to even bother collecting rail fairs! Furthermore, some UK airports are still owned by the state now - as we are within the EU.
Let's be clear, the UK has been a leader in privatisation, and we have shaped the EU to our model. The EU has some laws to encourage competition (private firms can bid for certain train lines, for example, to ensure state-run services are up to scratch).
Generally, some competition is a good thing. If governments go stale and don't run state-owned utilities well, there should be another option. The lessons from Communism are that competition is important, and wholly state-run enterprises are not a good thing. The EU is there to do well for its people. That is why it is so hard for anyone to point to an EU law that harms us. All are focused on trade, people's rights and environmental protection.
It is staggering that even after 3 years of this, the EU is not really understood. The strength of Leave is not understanding. Of seeing the EU as a meddling other who controls us. Sad really that positive complexity can be sold out by an elite who successfully manipulated people to their ends. And people lap it up because it is just too complex to get a handle on truth of it all. Even immigration doesn't really look more posistive for the UK under Brexit if you pull it apart in detail.
The truth of the matter? There are no Brexit positives. The EU gives us a lot. It takes away almost nothing that is important. I'd challenge anyone to prove otherwise.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Boris Johnson has said he will give MPs more time to debate his Brexit deal, but only if they agree to a 12 December general election.
The prime minister told the BBC he expected the EU to grant an extension to his 31 October deadline, even though he "really" did not want one.
He urged Labour to back an election in a vote he plans to hold next week.
EU leaders are expected to give their verdict on delaying Brexit for up to three months, on Friday.
Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg told MPs the government would on Monday table a motion calling for a general election.
Under the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act, two-thirds of MPs must vote for a general election before one can be held.
Shadow leader of the House Valerie Vaz said Labour would back an election "once no-deal is ruled out and if the extension allows".
Labour would offer the PM its support for a "proper timetable" for the Brexit bill to allow MPs to scrutinise and amend it, she added.
In a letter to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Johnson says his "preferred option" is a short Brexit postponement "say to 15 or 30 November".
In that case, he writes, he will try to get his deal through Parliament again, with Labour's support.
The prime minister adds that he "assumes" Mr Corbyn "will cooperate with me to get our new Brexit deal ratified, so we leave with a new deal rather than no deal".
If, as widely expected, the EU's Brexit delay is to the end of January, Mr Johnson says he will hold a Commons vote next week on a 12 December election.
If Labour agrees to this, the government says it will try to get its deal through before Parliament is dissolved for the campaign on 6 November.
The prime minister told the BBC he expected the EU to grant an extension to his 31 October deadline, even though he "really" did not want one.
He urged Labour to back an election in a vote he plans to hold next week.
EU leaders are expected to give their verdict on delaying Brexit for up to three months, on Friday.
Commons leader Jacob Rees-Mogg told MPs the government would on Monday table a motion calling for a general election.
Under the 2011 Fixed-Term Parliament Act, two-thirds of MPs must vote for a general election before one can be held.
Shadow leader of the House Valerie Vaz said Labour would back an election "once no-deal is ruled out and if the extension allows".
Labour would offer the PM its support for a "proper timetable" for the Brexit bill to allow MPs to scrutinise and amend it, she added.
In a letter to Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, Mr Johnson says his "preferred option" is a short Brexit postponement "say to 15 or 30 November".
In that case, he writes, he will try to get his deal through Parliament again, with Labour's support.
The prime minister adds that he "assumes" Mr Corbyn "will cooperate with me to get our new Brexit deal ratified, so we leave with a new deal rather than no deal".
If, as widely expected, the EU's Brexit delay is to the end of January, Mr Johnson says he will hold a Commons vote next week on a 12 December election.
If Labour agrees to this, the government says it will try to get its deal through before Parliament is dissolved for the campaign on 6 November.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
parklane1
Tony Galvin
He is a prick.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Because they are all a bunch of self-serving arseholes.
glorygloryeze
Tom Huddlestone
Ultimately, they want to cancel Brexit and string out the process to that end as LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG as possible...
StephenH
David Ginola
And the king of self-serving is Boris! He’s playing you like a fiddle
Last edited:
Pretty much this.
If they agree to an election then they'll lose (unless they can replace their leader with someone moderate). If they lose then they can't stop Brexit.
parklane1
Tony Galvin
Wrong again mate i am not a fan of any of them, as i said they are all a bunch of self serving arseholes.
Gutter Boy
Tim Sherwood
2022, or any time before that they aren't well behind in the polls
Rorschach
Sonny Walters
I think its funny people think getting a deal over the line is the end of brexit. That's the start of 10 fudging years of this exact same brick or worse. Austerity for a generation. Haggling over every inch gained. The end of the UK and what's left effectively ripped in two through division. Madness.
Last edited:
StephenH
David Ginola
I bet you vote Tory in the next election just to ‘get Brexit done’ and that’s what he wants, he don’t give a stuff about Brexit or anything he just wants Boris to win!
He will use any bandwagon to fulfil what ‘he’ believes is his destiny!
Vile character!
Last edited: