• 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)

Gutter Boy said:
You can't force companies to pay higher wages when they can circumvent it by importing cheaper labour from abroad. So stopping social dumping (freedom of movement) allows us to stop wages being undercut (if/when a government decides it wants to do that)
Click to expand...
The government can force companies into paying more simply by upping the minimum wage. Nothing pre or post Brexit stops the government doing that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DTA
Finney Is Back said:
Cue every reasonable sized private organisation exiting the country and zero investment inwards…. and that’s before you consider the implications on the financial markets where numerous funds (including the bug pension funds) see massive devaluations. ‘Nationalize it’ is a great sound bite but just doesn’t work in the real World. The only nationalisation that can take place is full bail outs of collapsed companies or those at last knockings of trying to restructure their debt and the capital markets deeming it too high a risk. Labor’s idea of a new Green Energy company is an excellent one and I’m a big advocate of this sort of thing but, even here, you would have to be very careful on how and how much you subsidise it.
Click to expand...
It would need to stand on it own two feet which is realistic IMO, providing it’s only renewables. You could end up with the big energy companies buying from it to meet their own requirements
 
Bedfordspurs said:
It would need to stand on it own two feet which is realistic IMO, providing it’s only renewables. You could end up with the big energy companies buying from it to meet their own requirements
Click to expand...
Renewables…. Absolutely. Personally I would’ve created a state Nuclear energy company instead of the folly that was HS2. Who cares about getting to Manchester an hour faster in this day and age when one can work on the train?

Creating new state companies to compete in industries is fine, that’s very different to the ‘nationalise it’ cries that you hear that would have large repercussions across the financial industry and to pension funds.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Renewables…. Absolutely. Personally I would’ve created a state Nuclear energy company instead of the folly that was HS2. Who cares about getting to Manchester an hour faster in this day and age when one can work on the train?

Creating new state companies to compete in industries is fine, that’s very different to the ‘nationalise it’ cries that you hear that would have large repercussions across the financial industry and to pension funds.
Click to expand...
I’d be interested to know what institutions have invested on the utilities companies, knowing most are foreign owned entities
 
Lost Mango said:
They wouldn't. It is another of those throw away 'financial' comments, like all the City would flee to X location if taxes go up. There has never been any evidence (anywhere including here and USA) to support these sorts of melodramatic statements that regularly get circulated when people suggest semi-radical moves against the ironically called 'free' market.

Re-nationalisation of failed monopolies such as power, water and transport could be a major attraction to investment and lure companies here with the the promise of low-cost (or at least competitive) and stable infrastructure.
Click to expand...

Even if it did happen, which it would not, there would be plenty of companies who would rush in to fill the vacuum. Imagine the investment opportunities?
 
Only cranks of the highest order conflate the perfectly rationale approach of taking utilities and transport under public ownership and the idea that the government would want to dod the same with Sainsburys. You know, people like Scara...;)
 
They rolled back on tax, need to do the same with Brexit. The pound would power through, and we'd all be richer for being part of the freedoms and collaboration.
 
johnola said:
Brexit was opposed by the government. It was chosen by the people.
Click to expand...

It was chosen by a statistically insignificant margin of people. You wouldn't take an aspirin on the basis of a drug trial that rendered such results yet some people would base a whole economic and political strategy on such a meaningless outcome. Go figure.
 
Rorschach said:
This is positive
https://twitter.com/x/status/1576890933257244672
Click to expand...

Seems a lot of mood change about Ireland this week, e.g.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63094415
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-ireland-and-eu-for-behaviour-during-brexit
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-warns-northern-ireland-snap-election-dup-wont-share-power/

Hopefully the DUP will just get sidelined, the Protocol will be implemented and everyone can just move steadily on towards reunification.
 
Lost Mango said:
It was chosen by a statistically insignificant margin of people. You wouldn't take an aspirin on the basis of a drug trial that rendered such results yet some people would base a whole economic and political strategy on such a meaningless outcome. Go figure.
Click to expand...

SpurMeUp said:
Which Brexit was chosen? This one we got?
Click to expand...

I did not intend to trigger you guys with a statement of fact that David Cameron’s government opposed Brexit. I am not going to indulge you here.
 
johnola said:
I did not intend to trigger you guys with a statement of fact that David Cameron’s government opposed Brexit. I am not going to indulge you here.
Click to expand...

What was the relevance of their opposition?

I think it is an important point, “Brexit” could have been so many different things. The ‘Norway model’ was often socialised by the Leave campaign which is vastly different to what was served up. Which begs the question, which version of Brexit did you vote for, and is the one we have got in your name?
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
Seems a lot of mood change about Ireland this week, e.g.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-63094415
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...to-ireland-and-eu-for-behaviour-during-brexit
https://www.politico.eu/article/uk-warns-northern-ireland-snap-election-dup-wont-share-power/

Hopefully the DUP will just get sidelined, the Protocol will be implemented and everyone can just move steadily on towards reunification.
Click to expand...
There is noise about a deal on the protocol being done behind the scenes but Tony C. poured cold water on it. I suspect there has been some movement, but we'll have to wait and see. It is certainly a fight that Truss needs to avoid if she has any sense. A trade war with the EU at this juncture would be tantamount to economic suicide.
 
johnola said:
I did not intend to trigger you guys with a statement of fact that David Cameron’s government opposed Brexit. I am not going to indulge you here.
Click to expand...

Fair enough.
I do get triggered by the lazy journalism (not your intention) that don't challenge the 'will of the people' BS about Brexit, about representation in the house of commons, huge majorities, who has a manifesto mandate etc etc (even 'the Tories got all the big calls right' spoutings that haven't been shot down)

The holes in our democratic principles are massive but manageable if we actually acknowledge them rather than allow trite populist nonsense to be regurgitated and allowed to breath. This Brexit isn't a thing that was voted for - just a vague construct on leaving rather than staying and it wasn't a statistically meaningful vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back