Thatcher did a lot to make us competitive against other nations - especially in her work regarding unions. I'd say she made a huge difference in reducing overpayment for labour.
-
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
- Thread starter markysimmo
- Start date
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Youre a red. Youve bought the T-Shirt. Should I expect a different response? No.
Another view is Corbyn is using the party to enact his childhood fantasies upon the UK. Ideas he came across 40 years ago when he thought he was edgy and cool. He isnt working for the party, he is using it. He has his own agenda.
The Tories? Certainly no better.
markysimmo
Johnny nice-tits
Lets be honest, they all are, MPs couldnt give a fudge about anything other than what they will gain personally from situations
and she went no where near your model, there is a reason why no one is championing it - the public will not vote it in.
https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/04/how-public-spending-rose-under-thatcher
despite the rhetoric of "rolling back the state", Margaret Thatcher was less successful in cutting public spending than many of her supporters (and opponents) like to believe. As the IFS graph below shows, real-terms spending rose in every year of her premiership apart from two. Only in 1985-86 and 1989-90 did spending fall, by 1.1 per cent in the former and 2.3 per cent in the latter. On average, it increased by 1.1 per cent a year. Under the coalition, by contrast, it is forecast to fall by an average of 0.4% a year in real terms (departmental spending is being cut by 11% but debt interest and high unemployment mean the total reduction is far smaller).
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
Which is, in a nutshell, my fundamental issue with Politics/Politicians in this country.
StephenH
David Ginola
It would be unjust to say all are like this.
I rather like the above.
You don't have to become a smaller government to win business, you just have to be smaller than the competition. Being less intrusive and less taxy than the EU is a fairly simple target.
" the ECJ will likely land on the side of it being legal, just as they did with their ruling that the EU cannot force Euro trading to be within the EU."
two point on this - are you talking about Clearing or Trading? If the former the ruling was they could not force it away from a member within the single market, no issue with keeping it in the EU - if the later do you have a link?
Second point - the ECJ interprets EU law, the EU without the UK can pass new laws on trading if it decides to.
"Most countries in Africa already export all over the world"
most African countries enjoy duty-free and quota-free access to the EU market, we do not apply tariffs so they will not be cheaper.
https://eeas.europa.eu/sites/eeas/files/eu_-_africa_trade_2017.pdf
"Massively reduced labour costs are the natural outcome of not restricting immigration to a handful of countries. There are skilled workers all around the world who would work for a fraction of what EU workers will."
Unlimited immigration ? cant see that being a vote winner. Most immigration is from outside the EU anyway and the vote was largely to reduce immigration.
"having spoken to the people that are part of the decision making process for this, they are not concernedTheir legal advice is that the EU may try to fight brass plating, but the ECJ will likely land on the side of it being legal, just as they did with their ruling that the EU cannot force Euro trading to be within the EU." - Some people, do you think you are mixing with like minded and as before ECJ interpret EU law, updating the law once the UK leave is likely.
My reading is that the ECJ simply ruled that clearing cannot be forced to be within the Eurozone. Yes, they could change that if they wanted, they could do that with the UK as part of the EU though so that doesn't change.
Africa wasn't my example it was @SpurMeUp 's. He was making the (oft made) mistake of assuming that just because a country is not in the EU, it couldn't possibly adhere to trading standards.
Unlimited immigration? We've had this discussion before, but we don't need any increase in immigration to reduce wage costs, just switch EU immigration for that from places less wealthy.
No, these people are not friends, they're not the people I choose to associate with. They're people who have positions of responsibility in banking, insurance, etc. who have voted Remain because it makes their lives easier. Our discussions (through business, organised event attendance or through chance meetings in clubs, etc.) have all followed the same theme - that Remain would be less arseache and far simpler, but that a no deal Leave can be worked around like all obstacles in business. Not one works for an organisation that is making any serious plans to move significant parts of their business overseas under any kind of Brexit.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Yes that is another view.... a delusional one. One proposed by supporters of the right wing neo liberal economic agenda. One made by people who are diametrically opposed to Labour. Should I expect anything else?
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
So you and @nayimfromthehalfwayline voted to Remain? I think you know in your heads (if not hearts) that Brexit doesn't make economic sense and poses significant risks to the UK. Sentimentally you're still attached to the Brexit ideology, and that drives the rhetoric possibly. As does the Telegraph and Spectator, where the brexit ideologs whip themselves into a ferver denying most logic and appealing to each others traditional patriotic zeal.
I keep an eye on the Torygraph, and just looked up the Spectator. Both traditionally strong pubications with execellent journalism. But not on Brexit. Why is that? On brexit both lose rationality and become dogmatic, swayed in one very obvious direction. No other publications are like this, even the Sun has shunted Brexit away from the front pages. What could be the reason for their bias? It's simple, both the Spectator and Telegraph are owned by the Barclays Brothers. Their editors are told by the owners to be pro Brexit and its become a place for the centre right to back each other up, and quite simply delude each other.
Your economic assertions are so full of holes you could drive a truck full of Swiss Cheese through them. Where to start? Food from the EU is cheap and of good quality. Where would you get our food from? Africa is not looking so viable, where are the goods going to come from? Obviously the EU.
We agree London will remain a fiancial hub, but I think it would decline in prominance with a hard brexit, you don't. One question, why would Credit Swiss leave Zuric and setup its HQ in London? Zuric has been a banking capital of Europe, right in the center of the continent, and has been the place for the rich to stash their cash, why did Swiss banks move to London? Moreover why wouldn't the same banks move again - in time - to Paris? Or French banks for that matter.
You seem to accept losing manufacturing as part of Brexit now. Rather than subsidising it. "The UK motor vehicle manufacturing industry contributed £15.2 billion to the economy in 2017. The industry employed 162,000 people across Great Britain in 2016. 1.75 million vehicles were produced in the UK in 2017, 80% of which were exported." What will replace these jobs if they move into the EU?
I do believe there would be oppotunity among hard brexit chaos. That's why it appeals to the elite rich. Their money is safe offshore. They have possibly had a punt on the pound's decline, and will hoover up post Brexit using the cheaper currency to buy up the nation. There will be oppotunty for others too, but not much, and where will it come from? What new fresh industries will be created and how? And why aren't we doing it already?
You and Nayim were right to vote to stay in, Brexit is high risk, low reward. It's not even revolution, it's downgrading the UK, making it more peripheral for no meaningful advantage. If there was an advantage to Brexit, people would be able to articulate it. And the logic would stand up to scrunity. The complex truth is it doesn't stand up to scrunity.
Last edited:
parklane1
Tony Galvin
I don't know how to use the like button.
I voted to remain because I didn't want any short term turmoil. I also didn't trust Cameron to deliver a decent Brexit, I trust May even less.
That doesn't make Brexit bad in itself, neither does it mean it can't work. It just means that Brexit in the hands of Cameron or May will not be what it can be.
Replace Telegraph with BBC and Spectator with the FT and you have summed up my point perfectly. Sources that are usually balanced and accurate taking an incredibly biased view on Brexit.
EU food isn't cheap and it's not always good. Have you ever spent any time in Germany? Their food is fudging awful.
EU food is expensive because it lacks competition, has a protectionist racket around it and is over-regulated. The only thing that keeps it even vaguely close to anywhere else in price is massive subsidies (which come from our pockets). You may not see that cost quite as directly but it's there. It's also worse than being in the cost of food because it doesn't scale with need, it scales with earnings.
Quite literally anywhere.
Why not?
Again, quite literally anywhere. Including some from the EU.
Zurich was never the banking capital of Europe. London has always been the centre of finance in the West. New York put up a good show for a while but it's always been London in the end.
Swiss banks and insurers work in London because everyone else does. It pays to be next to the services you rely on - often it's helpful to be near your competitors too as you can all gain from the reduced cost of the resources needed to operate.
You may think that London will decline as a centre for banking, I can tell you that in private, those who hold the cards in financial services don't. I trust them with my investments and my son's future - I think it's safe to rely on them here.
I think you've misunderstood my point. I don't think many of those jobs will move. After all, the UK is a large market and if the EU insist on tariffs then car manufacturers will have to build in the UK to avoid them.
But I don't think any industry should be propped up if it can't compete. Those costs all eventually come from our pockets. Just like mining had to be shut down in the 80s, some industries will not be able to compete. As the world (via the WTO and external treaties) moves towards low to no tariffs, this will happen the world over.
Mainly because we can't sign trade agreements and trade properly with the rest of the world from behind the EU's protectionist barriers. Everyone laughs at Trump when he insists protectionism is good, but somehow not at the EU.
And a devalued pound is already reaping benefits. Our overseas trade has increased significantly. Without the need to apply EU regulation to non-EU products that will improve further - as will margins.
Currently it's high(er) risk and high reward IMO. When the inevitable end result of disparate economies sharing a single currency and trying to harmonise fiscal and social policy transpires, then being outside the EU will be very low risk indeed in comparison.
SpurMeUp
Les Howe
The old its the people at fault not Brexit itself argument. Why is it compentent people are unable to 'do Brexit'? Have you considered that Brexit is doing them? That Brexit is an impossibility to deliver, whoever is administering it? After all there were a succession of Leave Brexit secrtries who failed miserably to deliver anything at all. You only have to look at the quotes from David Davis to see how incompetant and deluded he was.
“Within minutes of a vote for Brexit the CEO’s of Mercedes, BMW, VW and Audi will be knocking down Chancellor Merkel’s door demanding that there be no barriers to German access to the British market.” Davis
I believe you mirrored this opinion yourself on here. Care to hold hands up that it wasn't perfectly so?
I agree Remain is just as biased, and that the BBC and others can't always help their bias seeping in. But it is quire differnt from the Telegraph and Spectator where an owner has dictated editorial approach. The great thing about money is it doesn't have bias, there is profit or loss, growth or decline. The FT put money first, and see that hampering free trade is a bad. As almost every economics book or professor outlines. The FT is biased only in that sense, not in the same fashion the Telegrph is.
The quality is far better than the US, where chlorine, a certain amount of rat hair, antibiotics and hormones at pretty high levels are all permissable.
Simplified it sounds good! Anywhere, great! Where? Fresh food. It comes in everyday, seamlessly from the EU. Get it from Morocco you have to transport it, and as R-U-X outlined, it won't be cheaper post Brexit, the EU barly puts any tarrifs on Africa. ALL countries trade most with neighbouring nations.
France is rubbing its hands together. Paris is well positioned to pick up from our mess. It won't happen overnight, but there has already been some jobs go, a hard brexit would see many more follow.
One page back you're suggesting we pay for companies by taxing EU imports (was suprising as its against your ideologies). An EU-UK trade deal would avoid or reduce tarrifs, but who holds more cards in negotiations us or the EU?
Another myth. What will trade deals do to create new industry? Give an example. Germany export masses more than the UK to the rest of the world - from within the EU. How could they do that? Your logic is warped here.
At least here I can see some reasons for you to back Brexit. There is logic in it for you. Which is good.
Brexit comes with higher risk, absolutely. The reward for most people has yet to be identified. And make no mistake, that's not becuase it hasn't been designed yet, that's becuase there is very little obvious benifit. There are obvious losses however.
nayimfromthehalfwayline
Andy Thompson
I dont have an economic agenda/ideal. I am not diametrically opposed to Labour. Have stated many times, Ive no affiliation at all.
I do apologise, reading that post again its a rather aggressive tone, that wasnt my intent.
My point is, its much like religion. Once you choose a faith your view is forever tainted/tilted/informed by it.
Youre a red, as I said, so every thing you put in here is for the cause. Not necessarily the most objective view.
@SpurMeUp - you are failing to consider that for many (read millions) they know and accept some of these things but ideologically prefer to live in a country that has full independence, makes their own laws, controls their borders etc and to them being slightly worse off because of it doesn't bother them.
You also have to remember there's millions of people who have a low standard of living, aren't receiving pay rises, see barriers to housing, high immigration etc have been in the EU for 40 years and just don't see what it's doing for them so they'd rather try something else. Perhaps the failure here is that remain aren't able to successfully make their case as despite all the analysis about people being worse off the leave percentage has held up pretty well and certainly more than you'd expect.
The other thing is populism, the main public backers of remain are also the same people that generally aren't very popular at the moment. The same elite they consider to have been lecturing them for years telling them how great remain is. It falls on deaf ears, they don't care about some politician or multi millionaire moaning about having their earnings knocked.
You also have to remember there's millions of people who have a low standard of living, aren't receiving pay rises, see barriers to housing, high immigration etc have been in the EU for 40 years and just don't see what it's doing for them so they'd rather try something else. Perhaps the failure here is that remain aren't able to successfully make their case as despite all the analysis about people being worse off the leave percentage has held up pretty well and certainly more than you'd expect.
The other thing is populism, the main public backers of remain are also the same people that generally aren't very popular at the moment. The same elite they consider to have been lecturing them for years telling them how great remain is. It falls on deaf ears, they don't care about some politician or multi millionaire moaning about having their earnings knocked.