General election 2019

[Jones28]

I am very confused by this. Apparently Fife Hibees Post was offensive because he made an edgy joke that some people find in poor taste.

but when someone else uses language that might upset others, then that's ok.

Help me out, I'm missing the point, why is the first post so offensive compared to the second?

I'm not being arsey, I just don't get what separates them.

As I said, vegetables waste away, humans don't. There is a lot more to us than flesh and bone.

I saw my granny waste away. She went into hospital one day, came out after a week and gradually started to lose weight, mental capacity, conversational skills and everything that made her who she was. It slipped away over the 2 years from the day she went to hospital to the day she died.

[Future17]

I am very confused by this. Apparently Fife Hibees Post was offensive because he made an edgy joke that some people find in poor taste.

but when someone else uses language that might upset others, then that's ok.

Help me out, I'm missing the point, why is the first post so offensive compared to the second?

I'm not being arsey, I just don't get what separates them.

As I said, vegetables waste away, humans don't. There is a lot more to us than flesh and bone.

You're not the only one confused by this. Given some of the indefensible nonsense that Fife has posted on here over the months, I was quite surprised by the extreme negative reaction the relevant post provoked. I'm even more confused given the context of the subsequent posts.

[Cataplana]

You're not the only one confused by this. Given some of the indefensible nonsense that Fife has posted on here over the months, I was quite surprised by the extreme negative reaction the relevant post provoked. I'm even more confused given the context of the subsequent posts.

I don't know I'm stepping away from the computer here.

I dont want to upset people who have obviously been through a hard time. At the end of the day it's not my fight, so I'll keep my nose out.

[G B Young]

The :confused: wasn't aimed at your post, was more to say that Fife-Hibee's comment probably isn't far from the truth.

In what way is writing off anyone over 65 as 'care home' material and incapable mentally of making an informed choice on the ballot paper 'not far from the truth'?

Mind-boggling if you truly believe that. By that token Alex Salmond, who turns 65 next month, will be in a care home by Christmas and you must wonder how the 71-year-old Jeremy Corbyn finds his way out of his house in the mornings.

The comment was indefensible and the lack of a subsequent apology has, I see, resulted in the poster being launched.

[Cataplana]

I saw my granny waste away. She went into hospital one day, came out after a week and gradually started to lose weight, mental capacity, conversational skills and everything that made her who she was. It slipped away over the 2 years from the day she went to hospital to the day she died.

I've seen lots of people fade away too, and I can empathize with how distressing discussing what it's called can be to them.

[JeMeSouviens]

In what way is writing off anyone over 65 as 'care home' material and incapable mentally of making an informed choice on the ballot paper 'not far from the truth'?

Mind-boggling if you truly believe that. By that token Alex Salmond, who turns 65 next month, will be in a care home by Christmas and you must wonder how the 71-year-old Jeremy Corbyn finds his way out of his house in the mornings.

The comment was indefensible and the lack of a subsequent apology has, I see, resulted in the poster being launched.

I don't think that's what he meant. There have been allegations that vulnerable old folk in care homes have had their postal votes taken off them and "filled in for them" by unscrupulous party activists.

Not exactly expressed sensitively but I think that's what he was trying to get at.

[SHODAN]

If Corbyn has a blinder tonight and the polls STILL don't narrow, we're officially done here.

[Cataplana]

If Corbyn has a blinder tonight and the polls STILL don't narrow, we're officially done here.

In times of anxiety people don't like to entertain change. They will do everything they can to convince themselves their leaders will see them through.

[Betty Boop]

Mon Jezza team Momentum backing you all the way :flag:

[Jack Hackett]

Aaron Banks Twitter account pm's have been hacked

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-50474626

Pretty explosive according to some who've seen the messages.

The account was taken down, but the info's out there somewhere :greengrin

Only one I can find is a bit of a conversation with Raab

https://www.reddit.com/r/brexit/comments/dyk74i/aaron_banks_twitter_dms_leaked/

[Jones28]

If Corbyn has a blinder tonight and the polls STILL don't narrow, we're officially done here.

He won’t. He’s as useless as marzipan dildo - Tucker, Malcolm

[Bostonhibby]

He won’t. He’s as useless as marzipan dildo - Tucker, MalcolmSadly true, like being savaged by a sponge.

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[DaveF]

In what way is writing off anyone over 65 as 'care home' material and incapable mentally of making an informed choice on the ballot paper 'not far from the truth'?

Mind-boggling if you truly believe that. By that token Alex Salmond, who turns 65 next month, will be in a care home by Christmas and you must wonder how the 71-year-old Jeremy Corbyn finds his way out of his house in the mornings.

The comment was indefensible and the lack of a subsequent apology has, I see, resulted in the poster being launched.

No desire to see him launched but that's a decision for those who run the place.

Fife may well have been trying to make the point as JMS describes. If so, nothing a quick edit could have fixed, but sadly that wasn't done for whatever reason.

[DaveF]

I am very confused by this. Apparently Fife Hibees Post was offensive because he made an edgy joke that some people find in poor taste.

but when someone else uses language that might upset others, then that's ok.

Help me out, I'm missing the point, why is the first post so offensive compared to the second?

I'm not being arsey, I just don't get what separates them.

As I said, vegetables waste away, humans don't. There is a lot more to us than flesh and bone.

Just noticed this so I'll respond in brief. If you find my comment offensive then report it (if you haven't already)

You'll probably do me a favour if I'm banned.

[Cataplana]

Just noticed this so I'll respond in brief. If you find my comment offensive then report it (if you haven't already)

You'll probably do me a favour if I'm banned.

I wouldn't do that, im sorry I haven't been able to make my point better.

I'm also sorry if it's come across that I don't sympathise with what you've been through.

I said earlier, it wasn't my fight, and I wish I'd never got involved.

[DaveF]

I wouldn't do that, im sorry I haven't been able to make my point better.

I'm also sorry if it's come across that I don't sympathise with what you've been through.

I said earlier, it wasn't my fight, and I wish I'd never got involved.

Hey, I'm not looking for sympathy. I only wish Fife had worded it a little better.

This thread will fall off the page without him :greengrin

[Cataplana]

Hey, I'm not looking for sympathy. I only wish Fife had worded it a little better.

This thread will fall off the page without him :greengrin

I know, but it's a rotten thing to deal with all the same.

I said at the start, it wasn't his best joke.

[G B Young]

I don't think that's what he meant. There have been allegations that vulnerable old folk in care homes have had their postal votes taken off them and "filled in for them" by unscrupulous party activists.

Not exactly expressed sensitively but I think that's what he was trying to get at.

The implication (though that probably accords the post with a subtlety it didn't possess) was that he sees anyone over 65 as being past making any sort of meaningful contribution to society.

[Mon Dieu4]

This debate is annoying me already, Mr Corbyn, Mr Johnson

[Mon Dieu4]

Shocking that Sturgeon and the SNP are taking pelters here and not able to respond, she'd wipe the floor with this pair

[weecounty hibby]

It is a ****ing disgrace that they are now talking about a Scottish independence debate without the SNP or indeed any Scottish politician in attendance. The message there is **** off jocks we'll decide what's best for you and you'll just have to suck it up

[Ozyhibby]

Looks like Scotland’s future is being decided for us tonight.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Maybe it's my political leanings but Corbyn speaks far more sense than Johnson does in almost any topic

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Callum_62]

Looks like Scotland’s future is being decided for us tonight.[emoji35]


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkNO More Referendums! Screeches Johnson

We really are just a region

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[SHODAN]

Missed the first half hour, who's winning?

[patch1875]

Pity neither answer any of the questions.

[Callum_62]

Gonna be hilarious as we move on from. Brexit after the ad break

Johnson can't answer anything but brexit

Prince Andrew tho.... Oh, that might be interesting

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Mon Dieu4]

Missed the first half hour, who's winning?

Khazakstan

[allmodcons]

It is a ****ing disgrace that they are now talking about a Scottish independence debate without the SNP or indeed any Scottish politician in attendance. The message there is **** off jocks we'll decide what's best for you and you'll just have to suck it up

I refuse to watch it but you're right to be angry.

[Mon Dieu4]

Maybe it's my political leanings but Corbyn speaks far more sense than Johnson does in almost any topic

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Corbyn seem a decent guy and I have no doubts he has the best of intentions, I agree with many things he says but he's not got the patter or polish needed to run a country or party imo

[JeMeSouviens]

Stephen Bush of the New Statesman:


Half time thoughts
This is an utterly wretched debate. The audience questions are terrible and both Johnson and Corbyn have been allowed to escape tricky follow-up questions in order to move on to the next, equally terrible audience questions.

(I’m not watching, couldn’t stand it.)

[weecounty hibby]

I refuse to watch it but you're right to be angry.
It was either that or the football!! I've now turned both over to watch MasterChef as I was getting very angry at both 😆

[weecounty hibby]

Corbyn seem a decent guy and I have no doubts he has the best of intentions, I agree with many things he says but he's not got the patter or polish needed to run a country or party imo
Why not just answer the question about whether or not he would campaign for remain in a new EU referendum! He is utterly pathetic and that made him look weak in my opinion. Johnson and the MSM will latch in to that

[Mibbes Aye]

I don't think that's what he meant. There have been allegations that vulnerable old folk in care homes have had their postal votes taken off them and "filled in for them" by unscrupulous party activists.

Not exactly expressed sensitively but I think that's what he was trying to get at.

I know, and appreciate why, admins don’t allow discussion of why posters are mutually consented. I don’t want to get involved in that, it is a hard enough and voluntary job as it is.

All I would say is that the poster in question posted more contrivertible comment on other threads than this, and I suspect it is not all about this thread.

Anyway, back to the topic. Corbyn scoring when he gets it on to the NHS, but Johnson defending and making strong commitments. His Liam Byrne reference was shoddy though.

Johnson seems to lack the courage to demand Corbyn states whether he is Leave or Remain. Corbyn is weak on this and it doesn’t show leadership.

[Callum_62]

Why not just answer the question about whether or not he would campaign for remain in a new EU referendum! He is utterly pathetic and that made him look weak in my opinion. Johnson and the MSM will latch in to thatWhy would anyone need to campaign for anything?

Choice A

Choice B

Here's what they are - you choose

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[weecounty hibby]

Why would anyone need to campaign for anything?

Choice A

Choice B

Here's what they are - you choose

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk
Because he is meant to be a leader. It's what leaders do, they are meant to have a strong opinion on these things and it is why they stand for and are elected into parliament. Why not just out every government excision over to the people if that was the case. He looked weak, even more so than usual

[Mon Dieu4]

Why not just answer the question about whether or not he would campaign for remain in a new EU referendum! He is utterly pathetic and that made him look weak in my opinion. Johnson and the MSM will latch in to that

Because he doesn't want to admit that he has and always will be anti EU, would give Labour absolutely no chance in the election

I want Scottish Independence but until that happens I'd rather have Corbyn in charge genuinely trying to help some folk out rather than the other lot

[weecounty hibby]

Because he doesn't want to admit that he has and always will be anti EU, would give Labour absolutely no chance in the election

I want Scottish Independence but until that happens I'd rather have Corbyn in charge genuinely trying to help some folk out rather than the other lot
I can't argue with that to be honest. I just think he would be a really pish PM in the same way that Gordon Brown was. He would be destroyed by the media.

[Callum_62]

Because he is meant to be a leader. It's what leaders do, they are meant to have a strong opinion on these things and it is why they stand for and are elected into parliament. Why not just out every government excision over to the people if that was the case. He looked weak, even more so than usualMaybe I see brexit differently or just Referendums

They should be fact based and not spun by politics

We can now see the actual facts on brexit so politicing need not apply

Probably not why he avoided the question to be fair but just my take

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I have to say I think Corbyn performed the best there. Johnson was pretty poor. Not sure how it will be received elsewhere though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I know, and appreciate why, admins don’t allow discussion of why posters are mutually consented. I don’t want to get involved in that, it is a hard enough and voluntary job as it is.

All I would say is that the poster in question posted more contrivertible comment on other threads than this, and I suspect it is not all about this thread.

Anyway, back to the topic. Corbyn scoring when he gets it on to the NHS, but Johnson defending and making strong commitments. His Liam Byrne reference was shoddy though.

Johnson seems to lack the courage to demand Corbyn states whether he is Leave or Remain. Corbyn is weak on this and it doesn’t show leadership.

Moderating this must be a nightmare! The APs have a thankless task.

(Thanks though.)

[Callum_62]

I have to say I think Corbyn performed the best there. Johnson was pretty poor. Not sure how it will be received elsewhere though.


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkSurely a big chunk of folk found him constantly mentioning brexit on every question as annoying

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

Why would anyone need to campaign for anything?

Choice A

Choice B

Here's what they are - you choose

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

Or choice A is a better deal than Johnston’s terrible deal, but worse than our current deal (remain).

Therefore totally correct that he goes after a better deal then campaigns to remain.

J

[Vault Boy]

Was floored by this from the Conservative Press Office (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-debate-tory-fact-check-uk-twitter-boris-johnson-corbyn-a9209816.html%3famp).

Orwellian is a word that's often misused, but nothing fits it better.

[Moulin Yarns]

It is clear @theSNP won the debate tonight. Mentioned throughout and not even in the room. Imagine what @NicolaSturgeon would've done if she was actually present! Lucky escape for the stale males who want to be PM #ITVDebate

[JeMeSouviens]

Was floored by this from the Conservative Press Office (https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/election-debate-tory-fact-check-uk-twitter-boris-johnson-corbyn-a9209816.html%3famp).

Orwellian is a word that's often misused, but nothing fits it better.

Shameless *******s.

[lapsedhibee]

It was either that or the football!! I've now turned both over to watch MasterChef as I was getting very angry at both ��
Or a brilliant documentary about A Kestrel for a Knave. Proper politics!

[Pretty Boy]

1-0 Corbyn imo.

However I spent the whole debate wondering what a real heavyweight could have done with Johnson tonight. His limitations were there to be exposed. Nicola Sturgeon, love her or loathe her, will wipe the floor with him and Corbyn

[1 8 7 5]

Some top of the head things I took away ;

The Scotland chat was very poor.

The audience clapped everytime one of them opened their mouths. Stop clapping FFS! We might have had more time for more debate!

I dont care for either of them, but Boris came out of this debate the loser imo

[lapsedhibee]

1-0 Corbyn imo.

However I spent the whole debate wondering what a real heavyweight could have done with Johnson tonight. His limitations were there to be exposed. Nicola Sturgeon, love her or loathe her, will wipe the floor with him and Corbyn
Not getting the chance. When she's involved Johnson is sending a flunky to deputise for him.

[lord bunberry]

I’m really disappointed to see Fife Hibee has been booted. His post on this thread has some merit and has already been backed up by other posters testimonies. He may be a bit blunt at times, but if he’d been saying things people disagreed with about hibs it would be viewed as acceptable. Why is it because we’re talking about politics it’s deemed unacceptable? He states his opinion and mostly backs it up with reason. I hope the admins reconsider the decision.

[Hibrandenburg]

It is clear @theSNP won the debate tonight. Mentioned throughout and not even in the room. Imagine what @NicolaSturgeon would've done if she was actually present! Lucky escape for the stale males who want to be PM #ITVDebate

I hope so and I hope the sight of two cowardly Westminster MP's debating about Scotland's future without having the balls to do so with any representation from Scotland present is remembered by the Scottish electorate come the 12th of December.

[G B Young]

1-0 Corbyn imo.

However I spent the whole debate wondering what a real heavyweight could have done with Johnson tonight. His limitations were there to be exposed. Nicola Sturgeon, love her or loathe her, will wipe the floor with him and Corbyn

Dour 0-0 draw in the pundits' eyes apparently (I don't bother watching these awful events) which is all Johnson needed (ie just tread carefuly along tested lines and avoid making any unnecessary mistakes). Corbyn's inability to make any serious headway sums up how weak and uninspired a leader is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50482868

[Callum_62]

Dunno how anyone could say Johnson came out OK with that... Looked every bit the bumbling oaf, shouting over the presenter continually

It looked an easy win for Corbyn but someone with real debating skills would embarress both I think

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Alex Trager]

Dour 0-0 draw in the pundits' eyes apparently (I don't bother watching these awful events) which is all Johnson needed (ie just tread carefuly along tested lines and avoid making any unnecessary mistakes). Corbyn's inability to make any serious headway sums up how weak and uninspired a leader is:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2019-50482868

Quite interesting that you chose to bring an article by Kuennsberg into the thread, on a day that I stumble upon the opinion that she is a tory puppet.

She put out an article on twitter about the aberdeen tory that was a holocaust denier. At the same time she mentioned a labour chair who has stepped down.

The article - https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1196696208879865857?s=21 - does not mention the aberdeen MP.

She then went on tonight to mention that she does not think the fact that the tories changed their twitter name to ‘Factcheck’ is that big a deal.


Quite interesting to me btw..! I’ll keep an eye on her activity from now on.

[G B Young]

Quite interesting that you chose to bring an article by Kuennsberg into the thread, on a day that I stumble upon the opinion that she is a tory puppet. .

I only linked that article because it was less time consuming than linking all tomorrow's front pages, but it broadly reflects what they say. Most suggest a draw, with Johnson probably edging it.

[Smartie]

I didn't watch the programme but I guess you'll see what you want to see.

Over the weekend I was speaking to my mum and dad. My dad, I am sure, is a pretty solid SNP supporter but my mum is harder to read. When I was growing up she forced upon us the idea that talking politics was a bit taboo as it could be divisive and cause confrontation but that opinion has eased over time. She and many of her friends do not have a clue who they are going to vote for. They hate the SNP and the very idea of independence, they don't think of themselves as Tories and can't stand Johnson. They can't stand the idea of Corbyn as Prime Minister and don't really consider the Liberal Democrats to be serious. Basically I think they're a bunch of Tories who are in denial but that's another matter.

That's a pretty sizeable group of people who are politically engaged and totally undecided. I wonder how unusual their situation is, I wonder how many folk are like them around the UK?

I don't think this election is anything like as cut and dried as many people think and I reckon there is still everything to play for.

[Mibbes Aye]

It is clear @theSNP won the debate tonight. Mentioned throughout and not even in the room. Imagine what @NicolaSturgeon would've done if she was actually present! Lucky escape for the stale males who want to be PM #ITVDebate

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!

[Deansy]

I only linked that article because it was less time consuming than linking all tomorrow's front pages, but it broadly reflects what they say. Most suggest a draw, with Johnson probably edging it.

What'll appear on tomorrow's front-pages will have no connection with what actually happened or was said with 80+% of the UK print-media owned by the 1% !

[Mr Grieves]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!

That SNP crowd pure love Sturgeon but hate Swinson because she's a woman.....

[Mibbes Aye]

That SNP crowd pure love Sturgeon but hate Swinson because she's a woman.

I will let you make a serious point in your own time.

Sturgeon was weak and uncomfortable under questioning tonight. Swinson was reasonably solid. If you have been following the debate on this forum for the last couple of months you will have seen a huge amount of challenge about sexist criticism of Jo Swinson.

You don’t have to agree with it and it didn’t come from just me, it came from a number of posters. If you think it was wrong then feel free to post why, I would welcome that.

As for your response, you can surely do better than that. Read what I said and construct a proper reply, if you are capable.

[cabbageandribs1875]

I’m really disappointed to see Fife Hibee has been booted. His post on this thread has some merit and has already been backed up by other posters testimonies. He may be a bit blunt at times, but if he’d been saying things people disagreed with about hibs it would be viewed as acceptable. Why is it because we’re talking about politics it’s deemed unacceptable? He states his opinion and mostly backs it up with reason. I hope the admins reconsider the decision.


this, he was a very good poster, always informative and kept his cool in answering an individual who is always very provocative(you've probably noticed), conducted himself very well in not returning the pathetic derogatory comments he received, i doffed my hat to him on many occasions just for that alone :agree: haste ye back FF, haste ye back

[lapsedhibee]

Quite interesting that you chose to bring an article by Kuennsberg into the thread, on a day that I stumble upon the opinion that she is a tory puppet.

She put out an article on twitter about the aberdeen tory that was a holocaust denier. At the same time she mentioned a labour chair who has stepped down.

The article - https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1196696208879865857?s=21 - does not mention the aberdeen MP.

She then went on tonight to mention that she does not think the fact that the tories changed their twitter name to ‘Factcheck’ is that big a deal.

Quite interesting to me btw..! I’ll keep an eye on her activity from now on.

It's as if she's got a crush on Johnson. (In the same way that Tony Benn had a crush on Natasha Kaplinsky, before the Sexism Police come for me.)

[Curried]

this, he was a very good poster, always informative and kept his cool in answering an individual who is always very provocative(you've probably noticed), conducted himself very well in not returning the pathetic derogatory comments he received, i doffed my hat to him on many occasions just for that alone :agree: haste ye back FF, haste ye back

This 100%. The Admins need to have a good hard look at themselves for acceding to the bullying brays of a few disaffected Unionists re FH. I, and I'm sure many other .net posters, found nothing offensive in the post that he was kicked out for. Going forward, this sub-forum will be a much-diminished place for debate because of it.....Very poor form indeed.

[Since90+2]

This 100%. The Admins need to have a good hard look at themselves for acceding to the bullying brays of a few disaffected Unionists re FH. I, and I'm sure many other .net posters, found nothing offensive in the post that he was kicked out for. Going forward, this sub-forum will be a much-diminished place for debate because of it.....Very poor form indeed.

Agreed.

[Jones28]

This 100%. The Admins need to have a good hard look at themselves for acceding to the bullying brays of a few disaffected Unionists re FH. I, and I'm sure many other .net posters, found nothing offensive in the post that he was kicked out for. Going forward, this sub-forum will be a much-diminished place for debate because of it.....Very poor form indeed.

I wasn’t a fan of that post in question but I didn’t think it merited being kicked off the board.

[Mon Dieu4]

I will let you make a serious point in your own time.

Sturgeon was weak and uncomfortable under questioning tonight. Swinson was reasonably solid. If you have been following the debate on this forum for the last couple of months you will have seen a huge amount of challenge about sexist criticism of Jo Swinson.

You don’t have to agree with it and it didn’t come from just me, it came from a number of posters. If you think it was wrong then feel free to post why, I would welcome that.

As for your response, you can surely do better than that. Read what I said and construct a proper reply, if you are capable.

I like your posts as they are usually pretty well thought out and it's good to see an alternative view on the mainstream on here, but your insistence that people's issue with Swinson is because she's a female is a bit of a stretch, I can't think of many or any posts that have attacked her for being a woman, more so she is a hypocrite

[G B Young]

What'll appear on tomorrow's front-pages will have no connection with what actually happened or was said with 80+% of the UK print-media owned by the 1% !

Here's the round-up:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-50482722


Johnson generally deemed to have come through pretty much unscathed, with Corbyn's lack of clarity on Brexit very much counting against him. Mind you, Prince Andrew continues to grab a good deal of the headlines.

[Cataplana]

Love how the supporters of the different parties all think their leader did best. Neutrals appear to say it was a draw, but somehow those biased to a certain point of view can only see their side winning.

My feeling is that people with such closed minds should be nowhere near making decisions that effect others. At their worst, they come across as totalitarian.

FWIW I think Boris has it in the bag whatever he does. The latest one from middle England seems to be, "yeah you can't trust him, but can you trust any of them?"

[HNA12]

I’m really disappointed to see Fife Hibee has been booted. His post on this thread has some merit and has already been backed up by other posters testimonies. He may be a bit blunt at times, but if he’d been saying things people disagreed with about hibs it would be viewed as acceptable. Why is it because we’re talking about politics it’s deemed unacceptable? He states his opinion and mostly backs it up with reason. I hope the admins reconsider the decision.

We never discuss an individual on here , any posters who have been removed will have been given a reason.
What I can say though is that no poster was removed from here yesterday because of a single post. We have found ourselves recently spending an increasing amount of time dealing with issues arising within this part of the forum. Given that we are here to run a forum dedicated to discussing Hibernian Football Club it's hassle we can do without and more than one member of the Admin team has suggested doing away with an area for political discussion altogether. That's not going to happen for now but we will not let this place distract us from looking after the real reason we are here, discussing Hibs and football in general and that means we sometimes have decisions to make.

Anyway.......back to the General election.

[G B Young]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!

Just watched some of the later show and as you say Sturgeon was surprisingly poor. Not the best format, granted, and I imagine she'd have shown more fire if she'd been granted a spot on the main show, but she struck me as a bit world-weary.

[G B Young]

I didn't watch the programme but I guess you'll see what you want to see.

Over the weekend I was speaking to my mum and dad. My dad, I am sure, is a pretty solid SNP supporter but my mum is harder to read. When I was growing up she forced upon us the idea that talking politics was a bit taboo as it could be divisive and cause confrontation but that opinion has eased over time. She and many of her friends do not have a clue who they are going to vote for. They hate the SNP and the very idea of independence, they don't think of themselves as Tories and can't stand Johnson. They can't stand the idea of Corbyn as Prime Minister and don't really consider the Liberal Democrats to be serious. Basically I think they're a bunch of Tories who are in denial but that's another matter.

That's a pretty sizeable group of people who are politically engaged and totally undecided. I wonder how unusual their situation is, I wonder how many folk are like them around the UK?

I don't think this election is anything like as cut and dried as many people think and I reckon there is still everything to play for.

That's an interesting post and I think will ring true for a lot of people. What I think it will come down to, though, is Corbyn's utter ineffectiveness and the inability of all bar his devotees to warm to him. His failure to make headway at a time when the Tories have been in turmoil underlines that, because under better leadership Labour should have been all but nailed on to win this election. His disastrously vague stance on Brexit is also a turn-off for many. They may not, as you say, have any great love for Johnson but I suspect many will opt for him as the stronger leader. The Lib Dems have gambled on being the party of remain and that may yet yield some surprising results but you get the sense Swinson isn't quite doing it for a lot of voters.

[Hiber-nation]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.


What is the "SNP crowd"? Do you mean people who vote SNP? I have to say your comment about being threatened by a young woman is quite strange and I doubt it even warrants a response. I honestly struggle to believe a word that Jo Swinson says and if you think that is due to her age or sex then you've got this completely wrong. She comes across as very insincere in my opinion.

[lapsedhibee]

They may not, as you say, have any great love for Johnson but I suspect many will opt for him as the stronger leader.
Sorry but that's :faf:. He's a puppet as well as a muppet. You think endlessly repeating a three-word slogan makes him a strong leader?

[ronaldo7]

I don't think that's what he meant. There have been allegations that vulnerable old folk in care homes have had their postal votes taken off them and "filled in for them" by unscrupulous party activists.

Not exactly expressed sensitively but I think that's what he was trying to get at.

This is exactly what I thought of when I read his post. It's been mentioned on this forum many times, he just got the party wrong.

The hounding of him from one poster in particular has been difficult to read at times.

Lite touch bullying Imo.

[ronaldo7]

Love how the supporters of the different parties all think their leader did best. Neutrals appear to say it was a draw, but somehow those biased to a certain point of view can only see their side winning.

My feeling is that people with such closed minds should be nowhere near making decisions that effect others. At their worst, they come across as totalitarian.

FWIW I think Boris has it in the bag whatever he does. The latest one from middle England seems to be, "yeah you can't trust him, but can you trust any of them?"

I had it as a 0-0 draw. The questions were rather poor. The format of interviews later on was more informed. They at least answered the questions.

[CloudSquall]

They need to have these debates without the audience, the clapping and at times idiotic questions reduce it to a Punch and Judy show.

If the rest are similar formats the only leaders are the ones who don't participate.

[G B Young]

Sorry but that's :faf:. He's a puppet as well as a muppet. You think endlessly repeating a three-word slogan makes him a strong leader?

I'm just reading the polls, which are consistently indicating that voters see him as a significantly safer pair of hands than Corbyn. Whatever one's personal opinion of his Brexit mantra its strength lies in its simplicity. What does Corbyn bring to the table of similar cut-through clarity? His Brexit stance, like that on Scottish independence, is hopelessly muddled and makes him look weak and indecisive.

[SHODAN]

The question is what do Labour do when Corbyn steps down after the election defeat?

They could go for another candidate on the left - which the media will just smear to **** and bring out all the Marxist pish again - or a nice "normal" centrist type, which may stand a chance of winning in 2024 but will be utterly pointless as they won't do anything to reverse the inevitable slide towards a tax haven that Johnson will turn us into.

[weecounty hibby]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!
Interesting that you saw it that way. That well known supporter of Scottish Independence Piers Morgan tweeted that she is the most impressive leader of any party in the UK. That was after last night's shows. Your mask is beginning to slip. Perhaps you don't like her as she is a female. Or is that only aimed at folk who don't like Swinson? Perhaps you are in the Tory crowd, or the Labour crowd or do you just throw that at the SNP support. Again that mask is slipping. You used to be quite balanced and a good read but the balance is definitely tipping in one particular direction at the moment, which is totally fine by the way. But of course you will of course deny it.

[southsider]

I'm just reading the polls, which are consistently indicating that voters see him as a significantly safer pair of hands than Corbyn. Whatever one's personal opinion of his Brexit mantra its strength lies in its simplicity. What does Corbyn bring to the table of similar cut-through clarity? His Brexit stance, like that on Scottish independence, is hopelessly muddled and makes him look weak and indecisive.
The only reason that Labour are doing so poorly in the Polls is Corbyn. I watched the revised, undoctored interview with Keir Stammer. If he was leader Labour would win, imho.

[Smartie]

The question is what do Labour do when Corbyn steps down after the election defeat?

They could go for another candidate on the left - which the media will just smear to **** and bring out all the Marxist pish again - or a nice "normal" centrist type, which may stand a chance of winning in 2024 but will be utterly pointless as they won't do anything to reverse the inevitable slide towards a tax haven that Johnson will turn us into.

Whilst it is true that the media will gun harder for Labour leaders the further to the left that they go, I'm not convinced that the public will always fall for that.

Corbyn's problem is that he is a dither. He appears weak, indecisive and is never a leader.

Labour need someone who is a bit more streetwise, someone who is possibly a little but less principled but someone who understands opportunity in politics. Brexit was an opportunity and one that a competent party would have had a consistent position on from the very start.

In many ways the SNP have been an example to the Labour Party. Pick a position on a subject early on, rally your people behind and be consistent. The fact that they are a bit to the left is neither here nor there.

It's all about leadership.

If the public liked the leader they would get increasingly angry if the media were constantly gunning for them. Corbyn's problem is that he isn't liked enough, although it appears that he came over as more likeable than Johnson last night.

[Ozyhibby]

I thought Sturgeon performed well last night but it was a mistake not to travel to London (or wherever) to be in the studio. Same on Newsnight, the SNP guy was on a video link. Always better to be in the studio.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[southsider]

If they had done so then the Global Warming crowd would have had a field day. Any what about the Greens new rates bill for M&S in town up from £850,000 per year to £137 trillion. Yam economics.

[JeMeSouviens]

I will let you make a serious point in your own time.

Sturgeon was weak and uncomfortable under questioning tonight. Swinson was reasonably solid. If you have been following the debate on this forum for the last couple of months you will have seen a huge amount of challenge about sexist criticism of Jo Swinson.

You don’t have to agree with it and it didn’t come from just me, it came from a number of posters. If you think it was wrong then feel free to post why, I would welcome that.

As for your response, you can surely do better than that. Read what I said and construct a proper reply, if you are capable.

I didn't think either were troubled by a relatively softball set of questions? Maybe seeing what you wanted to?

Edit - I think it might have been a mistake on NS's part to use a videolink. Swinson's interview seemed slightly more natural because of the absence of the small delay.

[Green Man]

If they had done so then the Global Warming crowd would have had a field day. Any what about the Greens new rates bill for M&S in town up from £850,000 per year to £137 trillion. Yam economics.

Can you show your working for this figure of £137 trillion?

[Bristolhibby]

Sorry but that's :faf:. He's a puppet as well as a muppet. You think endlessly repeating a three-word slogan makes him a strong leader?

We are just a few words out from “Strong and Stable”.

J

[lapsedhibee]

I'm just reading the polls, which are consistently indicating that voters see him as a significantly safer pair of hands than Corbyn.

That's even more :faf:. I know you're not necessarily giving your own opinion here, but if it's a fact that voters see Johnson as a strong, safe pair of hands even compared to Corbyn then GB politics is just beyond satire, or any form of reason really.

[Pretty Boy]

The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. There also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.

[Cataplana]

The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. here also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.

You can say that again!

[matty_f]

The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. here also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

[JeMeSouviens]

The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. here also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.

Watch a wee bit of this and weep at what's happened to political discourse since ...


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_zBFh6bpcMo

[southsider]

Can you show your working for this figure of £137 trillion?

No mate just posted the figure that was in the paper. Pretty funny if true.

[lapsedhibee]

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

Not as much of a disgrace as Cleverly's attempted justification of it to Maitlis on Newsnight.

[Cataplana]

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

Its like Trump, who seems to get a kick from how much he can insult people, and they still eat out of his hand .

[matty_f]

Not as much of a disgrace as Cleverly's attempted justification of it to Maitlis on Newsnight.

True, and Dominic Raab saying "nobody gives a toss" about it as well.

That's alright then, eh?

I know this isn't the thread for independence talk, but the sooner we're in a position to get these tossers so far to ****, the better.

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191120/f412c6e39fe185f54316fa0d7ca8d701.jpg

When it finished last night I felt Corbyn had done better and it looks like he is just edging it. Still miles of ground for him to make up though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Green Man]

No mate just posted the figure that was in the paper. Pretty funny if true.

Ah, I’ve just seen it was in The Sun. Probably not true then.

[G B Young]

That's even more :faf:. I know you're not necessarily giving your own opinion here, but if it's a fact that voters see Johnson as a strong, safe pair of hands even compared to Corbyn then GB politics is just beyond satire, or any form of reason really.

It's not necessarily a fact, just what an observer would read into opinion polls - the key word there being opinion. As I said, the fact that Johnson polarises opinion to such and extent yet still leaves Corbyn in his slipstream in the polls shows how weak a figurehead Corbyn is for a main opposition party.

[G B Young]

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

Labour don't really have a leg to stand on here. They already have their own Twitter account purporting to be a "fact-checking" service. The@Insider_UK claims to give its users "facts, information and comment you can trust".

And as the Beeb media editor points out: "Twitter is a minority interest. Journalists are over-represented on this platform compared to other social media, creating a profound danger that they misinterpret what happens on Twitter as representative of the wider world."

[G B Young]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191120/f412c6e39fe185f54316fa0d7ca8d701.jpg

When it finished last night I felt Corbyn had done better and it looks like he is just edging it. Still miles of ground for him to make up though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Pretty much a draw when the wider poll is taken into account. As you say, Corbyn needs much more than that:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/uk-election-polls-boris-johnson-won-the-itv-debate-over-jeremy-corbyn-according-to-snap-opinion-poll-a4291301.html

[Hibrandenburg]

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

It's completely Orwellian. They obviously believe that the electorate are stupid enough to believe the propaganda they feed them as fact, unfortunately I think they might be right.

[JeMeSouviens]

Labour don't really have a leg to stand on here. They already have their own Twitter account purporting to be a "fact-checking" service. The@Insider_UK claims to give its users "facts, information and comment you can trust".

And as the Beeb media editor points out: "Twitter is a minority interest. Journalists are over-represented on this platform compared to other social media, creating a profound danger that they misinterpret what happens on Twitter as representative of the wider world."



Were you off the day your primary class did "2 wrongs don't make a right"? :wink:

[Future17]

The FactCheckUK thing is an absolute disgrace, it's almost like the Tories are making a game out of the election to see how much piss they can blatantly take out of the public and still get away with it.

It's also exposed the lack of knowledge held by a lot of politicians with regard to the role of the Electoral Commission. As with previous gripes about "campaigning", I've seen quite a few politicians suggesting the EC should investigate it, despite the EC having no remit to do so. If the country is being run by people who believe aspects of what they do are regulated by a body when that isn't true, what does that say about the state of our governance?


Labour don't really have a leg to stand on here. They already have their own Twitter account purporting to be a "fact-checking" service. The@Insider_UK claims to give its users "facts, information and comment you can trust".

And as the Beeb media editor points out: "Twitter is a minority interest. Journalists are over-represented on this platform compared to other social media, creating a profound danger that they misinterpret what happens on Twitter as representative of the wider world."



Perhaps in keeping with the theme of what is being discussed, I personally think its' a bit naughty of you to quote that selective comment from what he said, particularly when the very next word was "nevertheless"!

"Twitter is a minority interest. Journalists are over-represented on this platform compared to other social media, creating a profound danger that they misinterpret what happens on Twitter as representative of the wider world.

Nevertheless, an important threshold has now been repeatedly breached by Britain's party of government, and Twitter is the site where it happened.

It is perhaps arguable that, like the doctored video of Sir Keir Starmer a fortnight ago, the rebranding of Conservative Campaign HQ's account as a fact-checking service falls into the broad category known as satire.

But that is a stretch. The effect will have been to dupe many unknowing members of the public, who genuinely thought it was a fact-checking service when it gave opinions on Jeremy Corbyn.

This is not to patronise voters, who are wise. Rather, it is to recognise that, in a world of information overload, what cuts through are stunts.

Which is why, ironically, in CCHQ this morning there will be younger staff who chalk this up as a victory.

Journalists thus face a dilemma: call out disinformation, and you play to the worst of social media, distracting from questions of policy; but ignore it, and the truth recedes ever further from view."

[Cataplana]

It seems we have been slow to learn the lessons of the "Paul's Wife" video broadcast at the 2014 referendum.

It seems a large swathe of the electorate are more likely to be thinking about what is for tea tonight, or what bowls to serve the prawn cocktail in on Christmas Day, than about whether stepping off a cliff is more dangerous than looking over the edge.

Best to listen to that bloke on the telly, who seems alright and needs somebody to tuck his shirt tail in, compared to that other bloke on the telly that speaks in long sentences, and looks a bit like Albert Steptoe.

What was I just saying.....?

[Ozyhibby]

Pretty much a draw when the wider poll is taken into account. As you say, Corbyn needs much more than that:

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/uk-election-polls-boris-johnson-won-the-itv-debate-over-jeremy-corbyn-according-to-snap-opinion-poll-a4291301.html

A poll of undecideds is more important. If it’s a tie on the wider poll then that’s good for Corbyn considering how far in front the Tories are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[allmodcons]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!

Very disappointing post from someone who demands high standards of his fellow posters.

I would interested to know what you mean by the 'SNP crowd' and the inference that 'they' have an issue with gender? Who are these people? I'd also be intrigued to see some evidence in support of your claim that Jo Swinson is making a better case for remain than the SNP, but I guess that's just your own personal opinion?

I don't trust the Lib Dems. Their desperation to go in to coalition with the Tories in 2010 tells you all you need to know about them. They accept peerages so they "can make change from within" (lol) and they like a re-run of a referendum but only when it suits them, when the boot is on the other foot it's a "once in generation" vote.

I can imagine it's a difficult election for you. New Labour have gone. Corbyn is too far left. The Tories are too right wing. You despise the SNP. Doesn't leave you with many options so not surprised to see you talking up Jo Swinson.

[Alex Trager]

Whilst it is true that the media will gun harder for Labour leaders the further to the left that they go, I'm not convinced that the public will always fall for that.

Corbyn's problem is that he is a dither. He appears weak, indecisive and is never a leader.

Labour need someone who is a bit more streetwise, someone who is possibly a little but less principled but someone who understands opportunity in politics. Brexit was an opportunity and one that a competent party would have had a consistent position on from the very start.

In many ways the SNP have been an example to the Labour Party. Pick a position on a subject early on, rally your people behind and be consistent. The fact that they are a bit to the left is neither here nor there.

It's all about leadership.

If the public liked the leader they would get increasingly angry if the media were constantly gunning for them. Corbyn's problem is that he isn't liked enough, although it appears that he came over as more likeable than Johnson last night.


The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. There also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.

I think these two posts sum up the different attitudes in politics and society in general quite well.

You have one promoting taking a hard line and sticking to it and another promoting taking your time and then making your mind up.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, our politics is ruled by the first approach.

I can’t quite understand why people demand that politicians have answers immediately and another thing that I can’t ever understand is why politicians are held to things they’ve said or done 20 years ago.
My opinions on life continually change as I gain new experiences and meet new people.

[NAE NOOKIE]

Sturgeon was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Swinson came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the SNP crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the SNP leader is.

I thought Johnson shaded Corbyn, merely on bluster. Corbyn couldnt answer the question about whether he is Leave or Remain which makes him look weak. His NHS stuff helped but Johnson refuted him. I don’t necessarily believe Johnson but it was more effective than a serious contender for PM refusing to say whether he was pro-Leave or pro-Remain. Given the vast majority of his party is pro-Remain, FFS!!!

Perceptions eh. I thought Sturgeon was her usual assured self.

As for Jo Swinson: your comment about her sex is bordering on the bizarre, but that aside the only difference between her and Nicola Sturgeon is that Swinson wants to remain in the EU as part of the UK and Sturgeon ( obviously ) doesn't. If you are anti independence and anti Brexit then obviously for you her case is better than Sturgeon's.

I'm an ardent EU remainer .... But the Lib Dem's assertion that if they were in government they would immediately revoke article 50 is to my mind as utterly undemocratic a move by any political party as I can ever recall. No matter what you think of the referendum result, to say you will overturn it without putting the question back to the people in a 2nd referendum is an incredible stance to take ... I cant believe anybody would or could support such an affront to democracy and its perhaps the main reason the Lib Dems are slipping in the polls.

[Cataplana]

Perceptions eh. I thought Sturgeon was her usual assured self.

As for Jo Swinson: your comment about her sex is bordering on the bizarre, but that aside the only difference between her and Nicola Sturgeon is that Swinson wants to remain in the EU as part of the UK and Sturgeon ( obviously ) doesn't. If you are anti independence and anti Brexit then obviously for you her case is better than Sturgeon's.

I'm an ardent EU remainer .... But the Lib Dem's assertion that if they were in government they would immediately revoke article 50 is to my mind as utterly undemocratic a move by any political party as I can ever recall. No matter what you think of the referendum result, to say you will overturn it without putting the question back to the people in a 2nd referendum is an incredible stance to take ... I cant believe anybody would or could support such an affront to democracy and its perhaps the main reason the Lib Dems are slipping in the polls.

If they get voted in on that ticket it is not undemocratic.

There seems to be a collective blindness to the fact that democracy allows you to change your mind.

[Smartie]

I think these two posts sum up the different attitudes in politics and society in general quite well.

You have one promoting taking a hard line and sticking to it and another promoting taking your time and then making your mind up.

Unfortunately, in my opinion, our politics is ruled by the first approach.

I can’t quite understand why people demand that politicians have answers immediately and another thing that I can’t ever understand is why politicians are held to things they’ve said or done 20 years ago.
My opinions on life continually change as I gain new experiences and meet new people.

I think it's all about how and when you change your mind. I totally agree with your final paragraph and would suggest that the final sentence sums up my feelings and attitudes too. In politics I think you need to evaluate, "pick a side" and then be consistent with it for a period of time. There will be a chance to re-evaluate in future but this mustn't happen too often. It is also different for punters like you and me than how it is for the leader of a major party.

I also agree with the part of your post I have highlighted. I don't make the rules, I don't like it very much but I understand the cynical nature of the world in which we live and you have to play by the rules of the game and the game is a pretty murky one these days. Labour's position on Brexit is actually the most sensible and I understand exactly where they are coming from. The problem is, it is a difficult one to get a lot of people to relate to.
First past the post (which I must admit, I can't stand) is a popularity contest, a numbers game, and it is all about winning.

Over the years I've come to like Alastair Campbell more. He's a pragmatic character who understood that Labour could do more in power (whilst easing up on certain principles) than standing on the sidelines principled but unelectable. Whilst it is easy to admire the honourable nature of much of what certain figures within the Labour Party stand for, it has been useless whilst we've had nearly a decade of Tory rule and may well be set for much more.

[NAE NOOKIE]

If they get voted in on that ticket it is not undemocratic.

There seems to be a collective blindness to the fact that democracy allows you to change your mind.

No mate. Democracy is allowing you the 'opportunity' to change your mind, the decision whether or not to leave the EU was for better or worse ( stupidly IMO ) handed to the voting public to decide and that should be how that decision is reversed, by the people, not by the political dictate of a party no matter who that may be which will be put into power by far fewer of the voting public than voted to leave the EU.

Its like with indy ref 2 ... I firmly believe that an overwhelming victory by the SNP in Scotland in a UK or Scottish election gives them a mandate to hold a second referendum. As with Brexit the circumstances now are entirely different to what they were when the first referendums were held and I firmly believe in a second vote both outcomes will be different, especially the Brexit one. What it does not do is give the SNP the moral authority to declare independence, just as winning a UK election under a first past the post system does not give the Lib Dems the moral authority to cancel Brexit.

[Cataplana]

No mate. Democracy is allowing you the 'opportunity' to change your mind, the decision whether or not to leave the EU was for better or worse ( stupidly IMO ) handed to the voting public to decide and that should be how that decision is reversed, by the people, not by the political dictate of a party no matter who that may be which will be put into power by far fewer of the voting public than voted to leave the EU.

Its like with indy ref 2 ... I firmly believe that an overwhelming victory by the SNP in Scotland in a UK or Scottish election gives them a mandate to hold a second referendum. As with Brexit the circumstances now are entirely different to what they were when the first referendums were held and I firmly believe in a second vote both outcomes will be different, especially the Brexit one. What it does not do is give the SNP the moral authority to declare independence, just as winning a UK election under a first past the post system does not give the Lib Dems the moral authority to cancel Brexit.

I hear what you are saying, but I think it is within the remit of a political party to stand on the ticket that the referendum was an almighty balls up in its organisation, objectives and execution. They can then offer to correct that balls up.

[McD]

The trend for politicians to simply learn and repeat 'the lines' is depressing.

There was a Labour politician on BBC Breakfast last week talking about various policies from the manifesto launch, The presenter asked him a frankly idiotic question multiple times. She was challenging him as to whether John McDonells pledge of a 4 day week meant the NHS would only operate 4 days a week. Rather than explain that it's perfectly possible to have individuals within an organisation working a 4 day week whilst still providing a 7 day service he just kept repeating 'study into a 4 day week by 2030', 'saving the NHS starting 13th December'. It was excruciating to watch as it was so obvious he was just parroting a script rather than having any desire to answer the question or correct the misleading line of questioning. This morning there was a Tory on being asked about the Fact Check twitter nonsense and he managed to squeeze in about 10 'getting Brexit done' variations into a 5 minute interview. Totally irrelevant but that's the lines.

Of course it could be argued many people get the politicians they deserve. The Twitterisation of society means for many snappy soundbites play better than anything that requires a bit thought. There also seems to have been a loss of ability to listen to and understand an opposing point of view, whilst not having to agree with it. Many people want validation of their own views in quirky slogans and memes rather than a structured, balanced argument.


absolutely brilliant post :top marks especially the last paragraph

[Cataplana]

Yet another depressing news with working class people in Middle England saying Boris is the man that speaks for them.

[southsider]

Yet another depressing news with working class people in Middle England saying Boris is the man that speaks for them.

Yip, saw that. Can’t believe they can’t see through him. Who in their right mind votes for something that will make you poorer. Johnston has brainwashed England.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yet another depressing news with working class people in Middle England saying Boris is the man that speaks for them.

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's just bizarre that so many people seem willing to vote against their own best interests and vote for a Conservative Party that couldn't care less about them. It seems like a case of national Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps that, having been told for so long by the right wing dominated press that the Tories are their champion, many have come to believe it. Perhaps it's deference (still rife in Britain) that their natural 'betters' know best. It's difficult to fathom.

[Smartie]

Yet another depressing news with working class people in Middle England saying Boris is the man that speaks for them.

I was astonished to turn on the tv and see him making a speech from Middlesborough earlier.

Since when could Tories set foot in places like that without fear of being lynched?

[Scorrie]

Like I said earlier in the thread, it's just bizarre that so many people seem willing to vote against their own best interests and vote for a Conservative Party that couldn't care less about them. It seems like a case of national Stockholm Syndrome. Perhaps that, having been told for so long by the right wing dominated press that the Tories are their champion, many have come to believe it. Perhaps it's deference (still rife in Britain) that their natural 'betters' know best. It's difficult to fathom.

I live in England, well Liverpool, and outwith Liverpool there has been a considerable rise in English nationalism and anti welfare “scroungers” pumped up by English media for about 20 years now. I think what we are seeing in many working class places is the result of this and the Tories are playing it well. This is an English nationalist vote and it is crazy as these areas have been shafted by the Tories for years but nationalism overcomes the economic argument as the scapegoats are the welfare scroungers and the EU (immigrants), not government economic policies

[Alex Trager]

I live in England, well Liverpool, and outwith Liverpool there has been a considerable rise in English nationalism and anti welfare “scroungers” pumped up by English media for about 20 years now. I think what we are seeing in many working class places is the result of this and the Tories are playing it well. This is an English nationalist vote and it is crazy as these areas have been shafted by the Tories for years but nationalism overcomes the economic argument as the scapegoats are the welfare scroungers and the EU (immigrants), not government economic policies

George Osborne tweeted today that he was backing a ‘Homeless Fund’ today.

George Osborne.

[Andy Bee]

I listened to an interview with Sam Gyimah of the Lib Dems, previously conservative tonight. He was questioned on the costings of the latest Lib Dem free child care pledge. When asked the cost he couldn't answer, after being pushed by a caller he thought it was around £4.5bn, when asked if that was over 1 or 5 years he said 5, he then got a text during the break and changed his answer to £14bn, when pushed he said that figure was over 5 years (the text obviously didn't include the timeframe). Eddie Mair then got information from a reliable source that the figure was £13.5bn a year. What an absolute car crash, parties seem to be able to just pick ideas out of thin air and promise the earth just to try and gain seats. They're now hinting that if the Conservatives would pin on another referendum onto their Brexit deal which includes remain they could work with them, so the "lets get Brexit done" party and the "stop Brexit at all cost" party can seemingly work together. :confused:

The sooner we're out of this quagmire the better.

[Hibrandenburg]

I live in England, well Liverpool, and outwith Liverpool there has been a considerable rise in English nationalism and anti welfare “scroungers” pumped up by English media for about 20 years now. I think what we are seeing in many working class places is the result of this and the Tories are playing it well. This is an English nationalist vote and it is crazy as these areas have been shafted by the Tories for years but nationalism overcomes the economic argument as the scapegoats are the welfare scroungers and the EU (immigrants), not government economic policies

That's what I'm seeing amongst ex military vets, contrary to what most people would think, ex soldiers mostly come from working class backgrounds and were politically neutral as a whole but that has changed in the last 10 years. Seeing a massive rise in homeless veterans and untreated mental health issues under the Tories, you'd think they would be more open to labour's socialist policies but it's gone the other way. They don't trust labour who in their eyes started the illegal wars that they served in and left them at the mercy of a heartless Tory government. Many have been seduced by the extreme right promises of prioritizing looking after British born nationals before immigrants. Playing the weak against the weakest would appear to still work well in the 21st century.

[Hibernia&Alba]

That "little pip squeak of a man", as big Tam Watson famously called Gove, on Channel 4 News last night. One of the worst performances in political interviews I've ever seen. Unable to account for his own words, Gove immediately goes for the oldest tactic of calling the interviewer biased. Car crash stuff.


https://youtu.be/NO2zT9-B2X4

[Cataplana]

That's what I'm seeing amongst ex military vets, contrary to what most people would think, ex soldiers mostly come from working class backgrounds and were politically neutral as a whole but that has changed in the last 10 years. Seeing a massive rise in homeless veterans and untreated mental health issues under the Tories, you'd think they would be more open to labour's socialist policies but it's gone the other way. They don't trust labour who in their eyes started the illegal wars that they served in and left them at the mercy of a heartless Tory government. Many have been seduced by the extreme right promises of prioritizing looking after British born nationals before immigrants. Playing the weak against the weakest would appear to still work well in the 21st century.

This is an interesting book about the increase in diagnosis of mental illness, Cracked: Why Psychiatry is Doing More Harm Than Good James Davies

It had as much to do with psychiatry as it does to do with Tory Policies.

At one time a rise in English nationalism would be reflected in more votes for nationalist parties. But as the Tories have stolen their clothes it is more difficult to quantify.

Likewise people have gotten very adept at masking what they mean. Immigration is not mentioned as much as it used to be, instead we get people talking about abstracts like "let's get back to how we were."

I so wish they would go the whole hog and declare independence.

[CloudSquall]

Swinson was really uncomfortable in the later show with Nina Hussein. I thought Sturgeon came across well but I fully expect that won’t go down well with the Lib Dem crowd who feel threatened by a young woman who is making a better case for Remain than the Lib Dem leader is.


What would your thoughts be to the above post?

In all seriousness why do you believe the "SNP Crowd" have a problem with Swinson solely because she is a young woman when at the same time they are so much behind Sturgeon, a woman who at 49 is relatively young also?

[Alex Trager]

What are peoples thoughts on the tax breaks that the tories are offering?

Do you see them as positive?

Do you look at the tax breaks and the promise to build 40 new hospitals and introduce 20K new police and ask how is that possible?

I can’t understand why people see tax cuts as a good thing, instead of paying less tax, let’s get higher wages.

Tax cuts benefit one section of society only.

[Hibernia&Alba]

What are peoples thoughts on the tax breaks that the tories are offering?

Do you see them as positive?

Do you look at the tax breaks and the promise to build 40 new hospitals and introduce 20K new police and ask how is that possible?

I can’t understand why people see tax cuts as a good thing, instead of paying less tax, let’s get higher wages.

Tax cuts benefit one section of society only.

See the Gove interview above. There aren't going to be forty new hospitals; no way, not ever. As for 20,000 extra police officers, great, but 40,000 have been cut across the UK since 2008.

[Jones28]

What are peoples thoughts on the tax breaks that the tories are offering?

Do you see them as positive?

Do you look at the tax breaks and the promise to build 40 new hospitals and introduce 20K new police and ask how is that possible?

I can’t understand why people see tax cuts as a good thing, instead of paying less tax, let’s get higher wages.

Tax cuts benefit one section of society only.

The 20K police are to replace the 20 or so thousand that they cut from the forces during the austerity programme. They’re dressing it up as new. It’s the same with the hospitals they say they’re building - 6 of those are refurbished facilities and the rest are having millions spent on the planning of new hospitals.

I will NEVER put faith in anything theses *******s say.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The 20K police are to replace the 20 or so thousand that they cut from the forces during the austerity programme. They’re dressing it up as new. It’s the same with the hospitals they say they’re building - 6 of those are refurbished facilities and the rest are having millions spent on the planning of new hospitals.

I will NEVER put faith in anything theses *******s say.

The problem is public confidence in political parties is destroyed when they play with numbers and exaggerate promises. They all do it, in order to show their policies in the best possible light, particularly at election time; but it's one of the factors which causes the public to lose interest. Boris Johnson is particularly prone to this kind of sleight of hand misinformation, only to glibly pretend he never said it later on.

[Andy Bee]

What are peoples thoughts on the tax breaks that the tories are offering?

Do you see them as positive?

Do you look at the tax breaks and the promise to build 40 new hospitals and introduce 20K new police and ask how is that possible?

I can’t understand why people see tax cuts as a good thing, instead of paying less tax, let’s get higher wages.

Tax cuts benefit one section of society only.


The tax cuts are dubious at best, raising the threshold to £9500 from £8628 in the first budget with the "ambition" of raising it to £12500, that's not a pledge. The first raise will see an extra £85 a year for everyone above the threshold. So instead of targeting the poor and low paid he's giving the cut to everyone using this method, it's pointless and a waste of money that could be targeted in better ways.

The 20k police officers is worth looking at as well, he's pledged £750m for them which apparently pays for only 6000 new officers. I listened to an ex police commissioner I think and he stated that to employ 20,000 new officers they'd need around 500,000 candidates applying for the jobs, he also stated that on average 7000 police officers leave the force every year through retirement etc so over 3 years with the extra 20k they're going to need 41k new officers, is that doable?

[JeMeSouviens]

Lab manifesto out today:

5% pay rise for all public sector workers.

Capital gains tax moves to income tax rates.
Tax rises on top earners and corporation tax.
Windfall tax on oil companies.

Bold. Will it move the dial?

[JeMeSouviens]

Meanwhile the shameless Tory *******s in shameless Tory ******* land are doubling down. They've registered the domain labourmanifesto.co.uk and have installed attack ads on it. :rolleyes:

[Pretty Boy]

Meanwhile the shameless Tory *******s in shameless Tory ******* land are doubling down. They've registered the domain labourmanifesto.co.uk and have installed attack ads on it. :rolleyes:

I take it it's that Cummings oddball who is behind all this nonsense?

[JeMeSouviens]

I take it it's that Cummings oddball who is behind all this nonsense?

Most probably. Classic Dom. :rolleyes:

[Hibernia&Alba]

Lab manifesto out today:

5% pay rise for all public sector workers.

Capital gains tax moves to income tax rates.
Tax rises on top earners and corporation tax.
Windfall tax on oil companies.

Bold. Will it move the dial?

All excellent proposals, which again will benefit the majority.

[JeMeSouviens]

All excellent proposals, which again will benefit the majority.

Yes, I agree. The pay erosion in the public sector over the austerity decade has been disgraceful.

[Just_Jimmy]

The tax cuts are dubious at best, raising the threshold to £9500 from £8628 in the first budget with the "ambition" of raising it to £12500, that's not a pledge. The first raise will see an extra £85 a year for everyone above the threshold. So instead of targeting the poor and low paid he's giving the cut to everyone using this method, it's pointless and a waste of money that could be targeted in better ways.

The 20k police officers is worth looking at as well, he's pledged £750m for them which apparently pays for only 6000 new officers. I listened to an ex police commissioner I think and he stated that to employ 20,000 new officers they'd need around 500,000 candidates applying for the jobs, he also stated that on average 7000 police officers leave the force every year through retirement etc so over 3 years with the extra 20k they're going to need 41k new officers, is that doable?The issues isn't just officers, it's the fact theres also been lost 20k staff in that time which leaves a monumental amount of admin work for people who could be out on the street or investigating crime.

7k of this new 20k is going to NCA too which means 13k between the rest of the forces.

It's not enough and it's not been thought through. The Tories have destroyed policing in this country.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk

[WeeRussell]

this, he was a very good poster, always informative and kept his cool in answering an individual who is always very provocative(you've probably noticed), conducted himself very well in not returning the pathetic derogatory comments he received, i doffed my hat to him on many occasions just for that alone :agree: haste ye back FF, haste ye back

I concur. The good die young :dunno:

[Cataplana]

All excellent proposals, which again will benefit the majority.

Providing its an immediate 5% rise.

[Cataplana]

Andrew Neil: Liz Truss, how many starter homes have you built since your manifesto commitment five years ago?
Truss: I can't remember the figure.
Andrew Neil: It should be an easy figure to remember, because it is zero.

And they will still win.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Andrew Neil: Liz Truss, how many starter homes have you built since your manifesto commitment five years ago?
Truss: I can't remember the figure.
Andrew Neil: It should be an easy figure to remember, because it is zero.

And they will still win.

Accountability doesn't seem to matter any longer, and the election manifestos are never mentioned again after the election. News changes so fast nowadays that things promised five years ago might as well have been said a century ago. Short term sensationalism dominates.

[One Day Soon]

This is a great thread. Genuinely.

I don't venture much on to the Holy Ground these days but this thread has been worth it.

The toxic mix of an electorate, political leaders, political parties and a media that are all not fit for purpose means that currently every democratic event is largely a car crash of uninformed bad decision making.

I blame social media - everybody is in their own echo chamber reinforcing their own prejudice and mainlining on confirmation bias.

We have a political class north and south of the border that has given up on seeking to inform and illuminate discussion - the You Tube video up the thread of Benn and Jenkins debating underlines that. Instead all the politicians just hold up mirrors to the electorate with the sole ambition of reflecting back to them the bits of their images that make them most angry, scared or insecure to try to coralle votes on that basis. And it's all so depressingly short-term and spin-led.

The loss of consensus and the emphasis on black and white extremes is so profound that it seems irrecoverable. Maybe that's just what you have in a world where consumers can have whatever they want, in whatever shape, size or colour they want and they can have it right away. Everything is about me and personalised to the me. Not much room for objectivity in a subjectivity world.

[Ozyhibby]

Just seen Labours tax proposals. I’m afraid there is enough pain in there for me to say **** them, I’d rather have brexit. I was going to vote SNP but will need to consider that if there is a chance they prop up Corbyn.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

This is a great thread. Genuinely.

I don't venture much on to the Holy Ground these days but this thread has been worth it.

The toxic mix of an electorate, political leaders, political parties and a media that are all not fit for purpose means that currently every democratic event is largely a car crash of uninformed bad decision making.

I blame social media - everybody is in their own echo chamber reinforcing their own prejudice and mainlining on confirmation bias.

We have a political class north and south of the border that has given up on seeking to inform and illuminate discussion - the You Tube video up the thread of Benn and Jenkins debating underlines that. Instead all the politicians just hold up mirrors to the electorate with the sole ambition of reflecting back to them the bits of their images that make them most angry, scared or insecure to try to coralle votes on that basis. And it's all so depressingly short-term and spin-led.

The loss of consensus and the emphasis on black and white extremes is so profound that it seems irrecoverable. Maybe that's just what you have in a world where consumers can have whatever they want, in whatever shape, size or colour they want and they can have it right away. Everything is about me and personalised to the me. Not much room for objectivity in a subjectivity world.

I think you make several good points, particularly in relation to social media and its impact upon proper debate; also our modern world of people being consumers more than citizens. That's four decades of neoliberalism at work!

[Alex Trager]

All excellent proposals, which again will benefit the majority.

Who will vote against it

[Smartie]

Who will vote against it

I'm not so sure.

Free money or "get Brexit done"?

Boris runs the risk of his Brexit only message losing impact.

If the Labour Party can maintain any sort of credibility then they might surprise folk.

Might.

Probably won't.

[Alex Trager]

Just seen Labours tax proposals. I’m afraid there is enough pain in there for me to say **** them, I’d rather have brexit. I was going to vote SNP but will need to consider that if there is a chance they prop up Corbyn.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Enough pain in there?

[Cataplana]

Who will vote against it

Thatcher's children are not the sharpest tools in the box.

[Onceinawhile]

Enough pain in there?

The top 5% of earners will pay more tax. That's anyone earning over £70,000.

[RyeSloan]

The top 5% of earners will pay more tax. That's anyone earning over £70,000.

I read recently that the top 5% already pay half the income tax receipt.

Anyone earning over 100k to 125k already pay 60% (or 61% in Scotland)

Basically you have to wonder how much more juice is left to squeeze there.

And it’s certainly nothing like what’s in the Labour manifesto which is nothing short of a long list of false promises based on humungous borrowing....credibility doesn’t come into it.

Not that any of the rest of them have anything coherent either right enough! A bigger pile of garbage I have never seen.

[Pretty Boy]

The top 5% of earners will pay more tax. That's anyone earning over £70,000.

In real monetary terms what does that mean?

Is a 1, 2 or even 5% tax increase really massively painful to someone earning, as a minimun, in the region of £5900 per month before tax? Bearing in mind many in the £70K plus bracket will be earning several times that figure.

[Alex Trager]

See the Gove interview above. There aren't going to be forty new hospitals; no way, not ever. As for 20,000 extra police officers, great, but 40,000 have been cut across the UK since 2008.


The 20K police are to replace the 20 or so thousand that they cut from the forces during the austerity programme. They’re dressing it up as new. It’s the same with the hospitals they say they’re building - 6 of those are refurbished facilities and the rest are having millions spent on the planning of new hospitals.

I will NEVER put faith in anything theses *******s say.


The tax cuts are dubious at best, raising the threshold to £9500 from £8628 in the first budget with the "ambition" of raising it to £12500, that's not a pledge. The first raise will see an extra £85 a year for everyone above the threshold. So instead of targeting the poor and low paid he's giving the cut to everyone using this method, it's pointless and a waste of money that could be targeted in better ways.

The 20k police officers is worth looking at as well, he's pledged £750m for them which apparently pays for only 6000 new officers. I listened to an ex police commissioner I think and he stated that to employ 20,000 new officers they'd need around 500,000 candidates applying for the jobs, he also stated that on average 7000 police officers leave the force every year through retirement etc so over 3 years with the extra 20k they're going to need 41k new officers, is that doable?

I appreciate the replies but I was more looking to garner people’s opinions on tax cuts.

Do they work?

Have they ever worked for ‘us’ - the working class?

Would it not be better to increase wages instead of tax cuts?

I simply cannot see how tax cuts enable a country, like ours, to work.

If the lowest in society were to be paid an actual wage instead of the tuppence they are, then they would no longer look upon tax cuts as the holy grail.

These are the people that need a functioning NHS, they can’t afford private healthcare. They surely can’t be pro tax cut.

The tories have won. They have won the war.

They have decimated unions - our ability to bargain.
That has left us open to shocking wages and shocking terms, zero hour contracts..
They have made it extremely hard for a union to hold the employer to account.
‘Join the union’ ‘why, it’s weak, it does nothing for me’ too true.

We had people saying ‘why should McDonalds workers get £15 an hour, when NHS workers get next to nothing’ last week.
What kind of non sense is that? Why do people only care about themselves? Because the tories have won. Why do they think it is either NHS workers or McDonalds workers or plumbers that can get a proper wage? Why can’t all of us be paid an actual wage?

So instead of a huge amount of support for these workers we have the working classes turning on them ‘mate I’m a spark and I don’t get £15 p/h’. Can these folk not see the irony there?

I seen someone saying they don’t ‘deserve’ that kind of wage.
We are doing the tories work for them, they have won.

My generation, I am 27, is all about ‘I’.

And as long as that continues then the tories have won.

I am not sure on the stats exactly but since they have been in power the gap between the rich and poor has grown so greatly it is frightening.

What a world we live in.

[JeMeSouviens]

In real monetary terms what does that mean?

Is a 1, 2 or even 5% tax increase really massively painful to someone earning, as a minimun, in the region of £5900 per month before tax?

5% would be I'm sure. Everyone ends up matching their outgoings to their income. High earners take on private school fees, large mortgages etc and will be in pain if you take away the means to fund them. That doesn't mean it's not worth doing though.

[Alex Trager]

The top 5% of earners will pay more tax. That's anyone earning over £70,000.

What’s wrong with that?

[Hibernia&Alba]

I read recently that the top 5% already pay half the income tax receipt.

Anyone earning over 100k to 125k already pay 60% (or 61% in Scotland)

Basically you have to wonder how much more juice is left to squeeze there.

And it’s certainly nothing like what’s in the Labour manifesto which is nothing short of a long list of false promises based on humungous borrowing....credibility doesn’t come into it.

Not that any of the rest of them have anything coherent either right enough! A bigger pile of garbage I have never seen.

But that's because the highest earners now take a much larger share of national income than ever before, and the higher you go, the more disproportionate it becomes. Growing inequality will mean those who benefit most from that will inevitably pay a larger proportion of total taxation.

[Pretty Boy]

I appreciate the replies but I was more looking to garner people’s opinions on tax cuts.

Do they work?

Have they ever worked for ‘us’ - the working class?

Would it not be better to increase wages instead of tax cuts?

I simply cannot see how tax cuts enable a country, like ours, to work.

If the lowest in society were to be paid an actual wage instead of the tuppence they are, then they would no longer look upon tax cuts as the holy grail.

These are the people that need a functioning NHS, they can’t afford private healthcare. They surely can’t be pro tax cut.

The tories have won. They have won the war.

They have decimated unions - our ability to bargain.
That has left us open to shocking wages and shocking terms, zero hour contracts..
They have made it extremely hard for a union to hold the employer to account.
‘Join the union’ ‘why, it’s weak, it does nothing for me’ too true.

We had people saying ‘why should McDonalds workers get £15 an hour, when NHS workers get next to nothing’ last week.
What kind of non sense is that? Why do people only care about themselves? Because the tories have won. Why do they think it is either NHS workers or McDonalds workers or plumbers that can get a proper wage? Why can’t all of us be paid an actual wage?

So instead of a huge amount of support for these workers we have the working classes turning on them ‘mate I’m a spark and I don’t get £15 p/h’. Can these folk not see the irony there?

I seen someone saying they don’t ‘deserve’ that kind of wage.
We are doing the tories work for them, they have won.

My generation, I am 27, is all about ‘I’.

And as long as that continues then the tories have won.

I am not sure on the stats exactly but since they have been in power the gap between the rich and poor has grown so greatly it is frightening.

What a world we live in.

I've always thought targeted tax cuts could work in tandem with an increase in wages.

In my line of work I often see jobs in hospitality advertised at a salary of £8.21 an hour. Based on a 40 hour week that's a wage before tax of £1313.60 a month. Given that needs tax and NI taken off, then Edinburgh rent to be paid, then council tax, then heating and food, then TV license and so on it's not going far.

There must be a way to increase the minimum wage to say £11 an hour, that's £1760 before tax on a 40 hour week, whilst balancing the impact on small and medium businesses with a tax cut for them. Suddenly a whole load of people have a lot more disposable income to spend which increases spending across a lot of areas and stimulates growth.

It certainly seems to make more sense, on a simplistic level, than handing a tax cut to someone earning £100K a year.

[Hibernia&Alba]

I appreciate the replies but I was more looking to garner people’s opinions on tax cuts.

Do they work?

Have they ever worked for ‘us’ - the working class?

Would it not be better to increase wages instead of tax cuts?

I simply cannot see how tax cuts enable a country, like ours, to work.

If the lowest in society were to be paid an actual wage instead of the tuppence they are, then they would no longer look upon tax cuts as the holy grail.

These are the people that need a functioning NHS, they can’t afford private healthcare. They surely can’t be pro tax cut.

The tories have won. They have won the war.

They have decimated unions - our ability to bargain.
That has left us open to shocking wages and shocking terms, zero hour contracts..
They have made it extremely hard for a union to hold the employer to account.
‘Join the union’ ‘why, it’s weak, it does nothing for me’ too true.

We had people saying ‘why should McDonalds workers get £15 an hour, when NHS workers get next to nothing’ last week.
What kind of non sense is that? Why do people only care about themselves? Because the tories have won. Why do they think it is either NHS workers or McDonalds workers or plumbers that can get a proper wage? Why can’t all of us be paid an actual wage?

So instead of a huge amount of support for these workers we have the working classes turning on them ‘mate I’m a spark and I don’t get £15 p/h’. Can these folk not see the irony there?

I seen someone saying they don’t ‘deserve’ that kind of wage.
We are doing the tories work for them, they have won.

My generation, I am 27, is all about ‘I’.

And as long as that continues then the tories have won.

I am not sure on the stats exactly but since they have been in power the gap between the rich and poor has grown so greatly it is frightening.

What a world we live in.

No, they haven't. Trickledown economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics/Thatcherism, The Austrian School; call it what you will, but it has never delivered what it promised. It's a self-serving nonsense designed to legitimise greed and massive inequality:


https://youtu.be/OBy0huIP27A

[Hibernia&Alba]

And a wee bit more:


https://youtu.be/No67351EDKk

[southsider]

I heard recently Johnston sold the London home he shared with his now ex-wife. Did he pay capital gains on the profit or did he get some spiv lawyer to wash it through same tax haven ? A question that needs to be asked because there is one tax law for us (paye) and another for them wi their fancy dan accountants.

[Cataplana]

I heard recently Johnston sold the London home he shared with his now ex-wife. Did he pay capital gains on the profit or did he get some spiv lawyer to wash it through same tax haven ? A question that needs to be asked because there is one tax law for us (paye) and another for them wi their fancy dan accountants.

I think your principle place of residence is exempt from CGT.

[Ozyhibby]

The top 5% of earners will pay more tax. That's anyone earning over £70,000.

I’m certainly not in that bracket but the decision to charge VAT on school fees is unaffordable to me. I am not a high earner and have to watch every penny so my kids can go to the schools they do. It means I drive a very average car and haven’t been abroad for a couple of years now. This would hit me very hard. I guess it would be the same for other people if they were threatening to increase the cost of cars or holidays by 20% then people may decide they would not vote for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

I heard recently Johnston sold the London home he shared with his now ex-wife. Did he pay capital gains on the profit or did he get some spiv lawyer to wash it through same tax haven ? A question that needs to be asked because there is one tax law for us (paye) and another for them wi their fancy dan accountants.

If it was the house he lived in then no capital gains tax would be due at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Smartie]

I'm open to Labour's ideas.

What I notice in my line of work is that there is an older cohort of people who seem to have very valuable houses and pots of disposable income. They tend to be a bit more canny with their money but will spend it if they have to/ want to. We have a few products/ services targeted at this age group but we also have a significant premium product targeted at those in their twenties, who are generally skint and very difficult to get money out of, as they don't have it.

I really feel for youngsters these days who struggle. Any sort of movement that sees some sort of distribution of wealth into their pockets so they can go out and spend it, I'd be up for. I think part of the problem with our whole economy is that we have created a system where it is harder than ever for youngsters to succeed and we have everything playing into the hands of older folk.

Basically - I'd be more than happy to pay a significantly higher rate of tax, if I thought for a minute it was going to be tax on a higher income and surely we all should?

I find it funny how folk immediately recoil at the very mention of tax increases or cuts before hearing detail and working out how they might actually work in practice because of their own set of values (whilst acknowledging that the likes of Ozy has perfectly justified reasons for holding the opinions that they do).

[southsider]

If it was the house he lived in then no capital gains tax would be due at all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Afasik ex-wife has been living in the house. Where has he been staying? A bought house ? One of Daddy’s ! Wi some lassie ? Rented penthouse ?

[Alex Trager]

https://twitter.com/krishgm/status/1197206336439799810?s=21

This is the full video of Gove yesterday saying that it is fine for a political party to pose as an independent fact checking source

[Cataplana]

Afasik ex-wife has been living in the house. Where has he been staying? A bought house ? One of Daddy’s ! Wi some lassie ? Rented penthouse ?

Probably why he was so desperate to get a job with a free house.

[lapsedhibee]

I read recently that the top 5% already pay half the income tax receipt.

Anyone earning over 100k to 125k already pay 60% (or 61% in Scotland)

How do these rich people pay 60% income tax when the top rate is 45%? :dunno:

[danhibees1875]

How do these rich people pay 60% income tax when the top rate is 45%? :dunno:

I think, including NI, someone on 125k would pay 41% out in tax overall.

For what it's worth, I think systems works better when most people are contributing - and benefiting - and so I'm not entirely convinced by raising tax free allowances and placing more burden on an ever smaller population of high earners. But I do believe in progressive taxation and that higher earners should shoulder more of the burden.

I'm not sure exactly how you begin to shift towards such a system but I think an introduction of a lower tax band (10%) which didn't move much for a few years while wage improvement policies helped drive people's wages up to the point where more people were earning and contributing a little would be a possible solution.

[RyeSloan]

How do these rich people pay 60% income tax when the top rate is 45%? :dunno:

The personal allowance taper which is applied at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k. The effect of that when the personal allowance is £12.5k is the marginal rate on those earnings from £100k - £125k is 61%.

[Hibernia&Alba]

The personal allowance taper which is applied at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k. The effect of that when the personal allowance is £12.5k is the marginal rate on those earnings from £100k - £125k is 61%.

What percentage of the Scottish population are earning over 100K per annum?

[RyeSloan]

What percentage of the Scottish population are earning over 100K per annum?

Dunno. But, as per my original point, probably not nearly enough to pay for the Labour wish list.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Dunno. But, as per my original point, probably not nearly enough to pay for the Labour wish list.

As I said earlier in the thread, that isn't how public spending works. Governments, having a monopoly on money supply via a sovereign currency (other than private banks under licence, but that's another story I have discussed before) do not work like households, as they do not operate under the same limitations. They don't need to say "we need ten billion for this, so how do we raise the taxation to fund it". This seems to be an almost universal belief, but it's wrong. For example, in 2008 where did the 180 billion appear from overnight which bailed out the banks? The 'pocketbook spending' Thatcher preached was a nonsense.

[One Day Soon]

As I said earlier in the thread, that isn't how public spending works. Governments, having a monopoly on money supply via a sovereign currency (other than private banks under licence, but that's another story I have discussed before) do not work like households, as they do not operate under the same limitations. They don't need to say "we need ten billion for this, so how do we raise the taxation to fund it". This seems to be an almost universal belief, but it's wrong. For example, in 2008 where did the 180 billion appear from overnight which bailed out the banks? The 'pocketbook spending' Thatcher preached was a nonsense.

It doesn't matter whether it is the Tories or Labour jacking up public expenditure, it has to be paid for. If it's revenue spend on more police, nurses, teachers then we pay for it with taxes. If it's more capital spend on roads, HS2, hospitals then we pay for it in taxes which service the debt and debt interest we've incurred to build them.

[lapsedhibee]

The personal allowance taper which is applied at a rate of £1 for every £2 earned over £100k. The effect of that when the personal allowance is £12.5k is the marginal rate on those earnings from £100k - £125k is 61%.

Ah. You didn't mention you were talking about marginal rates.

[Callum_62]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[G B Young]

How do these rich people pay 60% income tax when the top rate is 45%? :dunno:

60% is a drop in the ocean compared to the 1970s, when under Labour the top rate of income tax was ane eye-bleeding 95%.

As for today's manifesto, I saw it well summed up as 'lots of free stuff'.

[CloudSquall]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/tory-fake-labour-manifesto-website-fact-check-general-election-a9212076.html

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

I was about to write that they've went balls to the walls with US presidential tactics but it's even worse, I'd expect this type of pish in a quasi communist / fascist state.

[Hibernia&Alba]

It doesn't matter whether it is the Tories or Labour jacking up public expenditure, it has to be paid for. If it's revenue spend on more police, nurses, teachers then we pay for it with taxes. If it's more capital spend on roads, HS2, hospitals then we pay for it in taxes which service the debt and debt interest we've incurred to build them.

That is wrong, mate. When a government has a monopoly of producing a sovereign currency, it doesn't need taxation to spend. Why would it, when we can only use the money they themselves create? They own the game, make the rules, and decide how big the game is. Why would they need to take back that which they already own and control? A government could, if it wished, tax zero and still fund everything it wished. That would have dire consequences for inflation - hence taxation to avert that - and would have serious social consequences in terms of inequality and social mobility, but they could do it. This is the reality in era of FIAT money, which is based upon nothing but mutual trust.

When the banks were bailed out, someone in the treasury typed the number 180 billion into a computer, thus bringing it into existence. Before that moment there was no 180 billion pounds sitting in a vault, nor did they borrow it from a commercial bank. The government said it now exists, hence it does exist. "Ah but that 180 billion will have to be re-paid", you may say. But re-paid by whom to whom? I didn't write a cheque to HMRC or make an electronic transfer to re-pay my share of the 180 billion, did you? No, because, having a sovereign currency, the government owes this money to itself. Thus, if a government owes itself 180 billion, is it in debt? If I owe myself one hundred pounds, am I in debt? So why all the austerity to re-pay this huge deficit created by the bailout? A very good question.....

It's all rather metaphysical. The reality is different from what we have accepted as reality. As Christopher Cross said in Arthur's Theme, "I know it's crazy, but it's true". Watch the Professor Stephanie Kelton video I posted earlier in the thread. Her books are very good too, but she isn't the only economist discussing this, though I think the clearest.

[Ozyhibby]

That is wrong, mate. When a government has a monopoly of producing a sovereign currency, it doesn't need taxation to spend. Why would it, when we can only use the money they themselves create? They own the game, make the rules, and decide how big the game is. Why would they need to take back that which they already own and control? A government could, if it wished, tax zero and still fund everything it wished. That would have dire consequences for inflation - hence taxation to avert that - and would have serious social consequences in terms of inequality and social mobility, but they could do it. this is the reality in era of FIAT money, which is based upon nothing but mutual trust.

When the banks were bailed out, someone in the treasury typed the number 180 billion into a computer, thus bringing it into existence. Before that moment there was no 180 billion pounds sitting in a vault, nor did they borrow it from a commercial bank. The government said it now exists, hence it does exist. "Ah but that 180 billion will have to be re-paid", you may say. But re-paid by whom to whom? I didn't write a cheque to HMRC or make an electronic transfer to re-pay my share of the 180 billion, did you? No, because, having a sovereign currency, the government owes this money to itself. Thus, if a government owes itself 180 billion, is it in debt? If I owe myself one hundred pounds, am I in debt? So why all the austerity to re-pay this huge deficit created by the bailout? A very good question.....

It's all rather metaphysical. The reality is different from what we have accepted as reality. As Christopher Cross said in Arthur's Theme, "I know it's crazy, but it's true". Watch the professor Stephanie Kelton video I posted earlier in the thread. Her books are very good too, but she isn't the only economist discussing this, though I think the clearest.

If everything you say is true (it’s not) why are we paying tax at all? This is an outrage. We have our own currency so we should just be able to create the money we need?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Bostonhibby]

If everything you say is true (it’s not) why are we paying tax at all? This is an outrage. We have our own currency so we should just be able to create the money we need?


Sent from my iPhone using TapatalkYamanomics[emoji6]

Sent from my SM-A750FN using Tapatalk

[Bristolhibby]

If everything you say is true (it’s not) why are we paying tax at all? This is an outrage. We have our own currency so we should just be able to create the money we need?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

He mentioned it. Inflation.

It would be like Weimar Germany.

Ultimately a country’s wealth is its resources and it’s people. Everything else is made up.

You can’t eat a lump of Gold.

J

[Hibernia&Alba]

If everything you say is true (it’s not) why are we paying tax at all? This is an outrage. We have our own currency so we should just be able to create the money we need?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As said, taxation is both necessary and desirable, but not for the reason we are always told i.e. to fund government spending. That is a total misconception. Remember at the last election when Theresa May kept robotically repeating "there is no magic money tree". She was never once asked to explain that statement with reference to money creation and public spending, yet a magic money tree IS exactly what governments which have a monopoly on a sovereign currently have. They literally create money from nothing and allow commercial banks to do the same under licence. The UK government demands the right to be a monopoly issuer of all currency in pounds sterling; no other entity in the world can manufacture it. This, ironically, does actually provide it with a magic money tree, as the bank bailouts of 2008 proved. It also explains why the argument that governments must manage their finances in the way households do is totally erroneous. You and I cannot issue our own currency, make everyone else use it and decide how much of it should exist.

[Hibernia&Alba]

He mentioned it. Inflation.

It would be like Weimar Germany.

Ultimately a country’s wealth is its resources and it’s people. Everything else is made up.

You can’t eat a lump of Gold.

J

:agree:

And in the era of FIAT money, in which the currency isn't even loosely tied to gold prices, the currency itself has no intrinsic value at all. It can only be sustained by mutual trust amongst those exchanging it.

[Ozyhibby]

That is wrong, mate. When a government has a monopoly of producing a sovereign currency, it doesn't need taxation to spend. Why would it, when we can only use the money they themselves create? They own the game, make the rules, and decide how big the game is. Why would they need to take back that which they already own and control? A government could, if it wished, tax zero and still fund everything it wished. That would have dire consequences for inflation - hence taxation to avert that - and would have serious social consequences in terms of inequality and social mobility, but they could do it. This is the reality in era of FIAT money, which is based upon nothing but mutual trust.

When the banks were bailed out, someone in the treasury typed the number 180 billion into a computer, thus bringing it into existence. Before that moment there was no 180 billion pounds sitting in a vault, nor did they borrow it from a commercial bank. The government said it now exists, hence it does exist. "Ah but that 180 billion will have to be re-paid", you may say. But re-paid by whom to whom? I didn't write a cheque to HMRC or make an electronic transfer to re-pay my share of the 180 billion, did you? No, because, having a sovereign currency, the government owes this money to itself. Thus, if a government owes itself 180 billion, is it in debt? If I owe myself one hundred pounds, am I in debt? So why all the austerity to re-pay this huge deficit created by the bailout? A very good question.....

It's all rather metaphysical. The reality is different from what we have accepted as reality. As Christopher Cross said in Arthur's Theme, "I know it's crazy, but it's true". Watch the Professor Stephanie Kelton video I posted earlier in the thread. Her books are very good too, but she isn't the only economist discussing this, though I think the clearest.

When the govt pressed that button to create that £180bn every single person who has real wealth in the economy became poorer to the tune of £180bn combined.
Labours plan risks massive inflation unless they can raise taxes to pay for it. You admit the system is based on trust. That plan will see a rapid erosion of trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

When the govt pressed that button to create that £180bn every single person who has real wealth in the economy became poorer to the tune of £180bn combined.
Labours plan risks massive inflation unless they can raise taxes to pay for it. You admit the system is based on trust. That plan will see a rapid erosion of trust.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What do you mean by 'real wealth' and how did they become poorer?

Also, do you agree that being able to create 180 billion from nothing is pretty damn close to being a magic money tree, by any definition? Never once was May asked to explain her statement.

"Labours plan risks massive inflation unless they can raise taxes to pay for it" Taxation and spending and taxation and inflation are separate issues. Their plans do not rely upon taxation to fund them, but taxation will control inflation, plus have enormous social benefits in terms of preventing wealth (and thus power) being in too few hands, which is always a threat to democracy.

[One Day Soon]

That is wrong, mate. When a government has a monopoly of producing a sovereign currency, it doesn't need taxation to spend. Why would it, when we can only use the money they themselves create? They own the game, make the rules, and decide how big the game is. Why would they need to take back that which they already own and control? A government could, if it wished, tax zero and still fund everything it wished. That would have dire consequences for inflation - hence taxation to avert that - and would have serious social consequences in terms of inequality and social mobility, but they could do it. This is the reality in era of FIAT money, which is based upon nothing but mutual trust.

When the banks were bailed out, someone in the treasury typed the number 180 billion into a computer, thus bringing it into existence. Before that moment there was no 180 billion pounds sitting in a vault, nor did they borrow it from a commercial bank. The government said it now exists, hence it does exist. "Ah but that 180 billion will have to be re-paid", you may say. But re-paid by whom to whom? I didn't write a cheque to HMRC or make an electronic transfer to re-pay my share of the 180 billion, did you? No, because, having a sovereign currency, the government owes this money to itself. Thus, if a government owes itself 180 billion, is it in debt? If I owe myself one hundred pounds, am I in debt? So why all the austerity to re-pay this huge deficit created by the bailout? A very good question.....

It's all rather metaphysical. The reality is different from what we have accepted as reality. As Christopher Cross said in Arthur's Theme, "I know it's crazy, but it's true". Watch the Professor Stephanie Kelton video I posted earlier in the thread. Her books are very good too, but she isn't the only economist discussing this, though I think the clearest.


Controlling a sovereign currency is absolutely not the equivalent of having a magic money tree. All debt has to be paid for one way or another because the clue is in the name - it is debt. And virtually all debt comes with interest. If a government simply prints money the effect is to devalue the currency which both causes inflation and makes the cost of borrowing even more expensive as money markets - lenders and speculators - circle a weakened currency by betting against it and charging a much higher rate on all borrowing by that country.

In other words there is no consequence free way to 'make-up' more money. If there was Zimbabwe would be in a different position. The fact that money is essentially of itself worthless and only acts as interchangeable tokens - in cash, credit or digital form - does not mean the same thing as saying that you can just invent more money in a cost free manner.

Our taxes absolutely pay for the wages of public sector workers and for the intertest on UK government debt. If we employ more workers, raise their wages or borrow to build more things we can only fund that from taxation in the short, the medium and the long term through a variety of instruments. But we do have to pay for it in tax. Unless we are advocating borrowing capital to fund revenue expenditure in which case pass the drink and set everything alight because that's a fast way to become Greece.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Controlling a sovereign currency is absolutely not the equivalent of having a magic money tree. All debt has to be paid for one way or another because the clue is in the name - it is debt. And virtually all debt comes with interest. If a government simply prints money the effect is to devalue the currency which both causes inflation and makes the cost of borrowing even more expensive as money markets - lenders and speculators - circle a weakened currency by betting against it and charging a much higher rate on all borrowing by that country.

In other words there is no consequence free way to 'make-up' more money. If there was Zimbabwe would be in a different position. The fact that money is essentially of itself worthless and only acts as interchangeable tokens - in cash, credit or digital form - does not mean the same thing as saying that you can just invent more money in a cost free manner.

Our taxes absolutely pay for the wages of public sector workers and for the intertest on UK government debt. If we employ more workers, raise their wages or borrow to build more things we can only fund that from taxation in the short, the medium and the long term through a variety of instruments. But we do have to pay for it in tax. Unless we are advocating borrowing capital to fund revenue expenditure in which case pass the drink and set everything alight because that's a fast way to become Greece.

Whose debt is it when the government runs a deficit? To whom does the government owe that debt?

Greece was sunk by the Euro. It gave up its right to a sovereign currency and had to work as if it was a household.

[heretoday]

Good for Labour coming out with a socialist manifesto - just about.
If the voters don't go for it they don't know what's good for them.

[Ozyhibby]

What do you mean by 'real wealth' and how did they become poorer?



Anyone with a pound in their pocket. The minute that money was created, the purchasing power of that pound dropped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

Good for Labour coming out with a socialist manifesto - just about.
If the voters don't go for it they don't know what's good for them.

Socialists always think they know what’s best for people.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Anyone with a pound in their pocket. The minute that money was created, the purchasing power of that pound dropped.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So inflation?
And by much did inflation rise in the months following the bailout anyway? Taxes can be used to keep inflation down, as can increasing interest rates if that's your top priority. Did the government raise any taxes or raise interest after the bailout? I can't remember now. All of this is a different thing from the 'pocketbook economics' of Thatcher and her Austrian school pals who presented an erroneous image of governments being unable to spend more on public services than was raised in taxes. Those two issues are very separate.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Socialists always think they know what’s best for people.[emoji23]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't all political parties think they know what's best for people, hence they want to be in government?

[Frankhfc]

So inflation?
And by much did inflation rise in the months following the bailout anyway?
Taxes can be used to keep inflation down, as can increasing interest rates if that's your top priority. Did the government raise any taxes or raise interest after the bailout? I can't remember now. All of this is a different thing from the 'pocketbook economics' of Thatcher and her Austrian school pals who presented an erroneous image of governments being unable to spend more on public services than was raised in taxes. Those two issues are very separate.

Didn't the tories have to cut back on national spending in an effort to balance the books which has since been named austerity. Because at the end of the day that is what it is all about, balancing the books. National Government has quite a few economic levers at its disposal to try to control inflation, overheating of the economy and ensuring capital is available for public services and infrastructure while at the same time retaining international credit worthiness.

Its a complex field that requires huge number of experts across the spectrum who can focus on the bigger picture and decipher what is taking place in order to run a modern country within existing and emerging economic markets.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Didn't the tories have to cut back on national spending in an effort to balance the books which has since been named austerity. Because at the end of the day that is what it is all about, balancing the books. National Government has quite a few economic levers at its disposal to try to control inflation, overheating of the economy and ensuring capital is available for public services and infrastructure while at the same time retaining international credit worthiness.

Its a complex field that requires huge number of experts across the spectrum who can focus on the bigger picture and decipher what is taking place in order to run a modern country within existing and emerging economic markets.

The key words here, Frank, are 'have to cut back on national spending...'. No they absolutely did not have to. Once again that was the public narrative the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition gave, but it was not economically necessary. It was in fact a political decision to shrink the state, using the fig leaf of the deficit created by the bailout. Remember George Osborne going on about "the national credit card". What a nonsense analogy. If said bailout had to be re-paid, it could have been done by telling the banks that, in return for saving them, their profits would be used to pay off their bailout until it was cleared plus interest, for example.

[Frankhfc]

The key words here, Frank, are 'have to cut back on national spending...'. No they absolutely did not have to. Once again that was the public narrative the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition gave, but it was not economically necessary. It was in fact a political decision to shrink the state, using the fig leaf of the deficit created by the bailout. Remember George Osborne going on about "the national credit card". What a nonsense analogy. If said bailout had to be re-paid, it could have been done by telling the banks that, in return for saving them, their profits would be used to pay off their bailout until it was cleared plus interest, for example.

I agree there were other options available and they 'chose' the austerity route. Wasn't there an economist who advocated spending their way out of a recession, Keynes?

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191121/bb2af625cc3e4e24a2981f11e1578bc2.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

I agree there were other options available and they 'chose' the austerity route. Wasn't there an economist who advocated spending their way out of a recession, Keynes?

FDR did it in America of course and turned the country around. The key thing to remember is that much of what is described as economically necessary is actually political ideology. It all serves particular interest groups; there is no objective empirical economic method which is best for all people at all times. Economics is not a science; all so called economic laws can be broken, thus they are theories. The question is who benefits and who suffers when these ideologies are put into practice?

[CloudSquall]

I agree there were other options available and they 'chose' the austerity route. Wasn't there an economist who advocated spending their way out of a recession, Keynes?

Yes John Maynard Keynes, the policy has been carried out in Japan since the 90s, named since 2012 "Abenomics" after the prime minister Shinzo Abe.

Essentially you spend your way out of the recession and cut back government spending when the private sector is strong enough again.

Countries like Sweden and Poland managed to avoid the problems a lot of the south of Europe had by managing to devalue their currency and could deficit spending necessary.

[Hibernia&Alba]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191121/bb2af625cc3e4e24a2981f11e1578bc2.png


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

As someone who voted No in the independence referendum, should the Tories win a majority next month, I will be demanding independence the next day. Enough is enough; if people refuse to help themselves, at some point you have to say they are on their own.

[Frankhfc]

FDR did it in America of course and turned the country around. The key thing to remember is that much of what is described as economically necessary is actually political ideology. It all serves particular interest groups; there is no objective empirical economic method which is best for all people at all times. Economics is not a science; all so called economic laws can be broken, thus they are theories. The question is who benefits and who suffers when these ideologies are put into practice?

Good points. You obviously think a lot about the subject matter.

[Frankhfc]

Yes John Maynard Keynes, the policy has been carried out in Japan since the 90s, named since 2012 "Abenomics" after the prime minister Shinzo Abe.

Essentially you spend your way out of the recession and cut back government spending when the private sector is strong enough again.

Countries like Sweden and Poland managed to avoid the problems a lot of the south of Europe had by managing to devalue their currency and could deficit spending necessary.

:aok:

its a risky strategy but then most financial strategies carry risk as cutting back too much on spending can lead to prolonged stagnation or even lengthy depression which no-one really benefits from and many ultimately suffer.

[degenerated]

I listened to an interview with Sam Gyimah of the Lib Dems, previously conservative tonight. He was questioned on the costings of the latest Lib Dem free child care pledge. When asked the cost he couldn't answer, after being pushed by a caller he thought it was around £4.5bn, when asked if that was over 1 or 5 years he said 5, he then got a text during the break and changed his answer to £14bn, when pushed he said that figure was over 5 years (the text obviously didn't include the timeframe). Eddie Mair then got information from a reliable source that the figure was £13.5bn a year. What an absolute car crash, parties seem to be able to just pick ideas out of thin air and promise the earth just to try and gain seats. They're now hinting that if the Conservatives would pin on another referendum onto their Brexit deal which includes remain they could work with them, so the "lets get Brexit done" party and the "stop Brexit at all cost" party can seemingly work together. :confused:

The sooner we're out of this quagmire the better.Hold my pint, said Alistair Carmichael after hearing that interview........

https://amp.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenters/tom-swarbrick/lib-dems-suffer-second-car-crash-lbc-interview/?__twitter_impression=true

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

[RyeSloan]

The key words here, Frank, are 'have to cut back on national spending...'. No they absolutely did not have to. Once again that was the public narrative the Conservative/Lib Dem coalition gave, but it was not economically necessary. It was in fact a political decision to shrink the state, using the fig leaf of the deficit created by the bailout. Remember George Osborne going on about "the national credit card". What a nonsense analogy. If said bailout had to be re-paid, it could have been done by telling the banks that, in return for saving them, their profits would be used to pay off their bailout until it was cleared plus interest, for example.

Yet the banks did pay back the vast majority of the bail out funds, some of it with interest.

The net cost is estimated to have been around £27bn...probably due to the seemingly permanent loss on RBS.

As for shrinking the state....government spending is currently around 40% of GDP. The average level from the last 50 years or so....39.5%. So the reality is that the state in that sense really hasn’t been shrunk at all and is around about its long term average.

[Callum_62]

Why do we, and the Govt use the term austerity then if spending is aligned to an average of the last 50 years?

Sent from my VOG-L29 using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yet the banks did pay back the vast majority of the bail out funds, some of it with interest.

The net cost is estimated to have been around £27bn...probably due to the seemingly permanent loss on RBS.

As for shrinking the state....government spending is currently around 40% of GDP. The average level from the last 50 years or so....39.5%. So the reality is that the state in that sense really hasn’t been shrunk at all and is around about its long term average.

They did? So why the need for the ten years of austerity which, we were told, was required due to the deficit created by the bailout?

And I'm sure George Osborne (AKA James Hunt) when Chancellor shrank state spending to its lowest proportion of GDP since the 1930s....

[lapsedhibee]

60% is a drop in the ocean compared to the 1970s, when under Labour the top rate of income tax was ane eye-bleeding 95%.


Indeed, and The Beatles memorialised the fact in song
:music: There's one for you, nineteen for me :music:

Were there beggars on Princes Street at that time?

[CloudSquall]

That "little pip squeak of a man", as big Tam Watson famously called Gove, on Channel 4 News last night. One of the worst performances in political interviews I've ever seen. Unable to account for his own words, Gove immediately goes for the oldest tactic of calling the interviewer biased. Car crash stuff.


https://youtu.be/NO2zT9-B2X4

All the more cringeworthy as he actually believes he is some sort of debate dynamite after getting pats on the back from the Tories for that one time he went up against Corbyn at the dispatch box in Westminster almost a year ago.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Wasn't the highest marginal income tax rate in the Wilson/Callaghan years 83 per cent?

Incidentally, in America under President Eisenhower (a Republican after all) the top rate of income tax was 91 per cent. This coincided with the greatest period of economic expansion and increase in living standards in the West in history. Since the 1980s progressive taxation has become synonymous with negative economic impact, thanks to Thatcher and Reagan. I wonder who benefitted most from that idea...:hmmm:

[Ozyhibby]

Indeed, and The Beatles memorialised the fact in song
:music: There's one for you, nineteen for me :music:

Were there beggars on Princes Street at that time?

Which is why they all left Britain. And we got no tax money from Bowie, Jagger, Lennon etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Hibernia&Alba]

Indeed, and The Beatles memorialised the fact in song
:music: There's one for you, nineteen for me :music:

Were there beggars on Princes Street at that time?

I'm sure a tiny number of people who were earning millions per year even in the 1960s, such as The Beatles, were subject to a marginal rate of up to 98 per cent at the top of their earnings. Of course it affected only a handful of people at the time.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Which is why they all left Britain. And we got no tax money from Bowie, Jagger, Lennon etc.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't know about Jagger and Bowie, but John Lennon definitely didn't leave the UK for tax purposes. He went to the USA in 1971 when, even under the Republican Richard Nixon, the top rate of income tax was around 80 per cent.

[lapsedhibee]

Which is why they all left Britain.
Don't think McCartney did. He's a leftie.

[Hibrandenburg]

I was about to write that they've went balls to the walls with US presidential tactics but it's even worse, I'd expect this type of pish in a quasi communist / fascist state.

It's why we have, Brexit,Trump as president and are likely to be lumbered with Boris for a while.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Don't think McCartney did. He's a leftie.

No, Paul McCartney and George Harrison remained in the UK; and though John and Ringo both moved to America, it wasn't for tax purposes.

[RyeSloan]

They did? So why the need for the ten years of austerity which, we were told, was required due to the deficit created by the bailout?

And I'm sure George Osborne (AKA James Hunt) when Chancellor shrank state spending to its lowest proportion of GDP since the 1930s....

The defect wasn’t caused by the bail out it was the reduction in tax income caused by the recession allied to increased social security spending...you know that tax n spend thing that doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

And the austerity was ‘merely’ reducing the state spending level back to its long term average while at the same time reducing the deficit. Something that’s proven to be rather difficult due to the much lower trajectory of growth and a total lack of productivity gains....the reasons for which have been debated far and wide but are surely partly caused by QE and falsely low rates, policies of course which the central bank overlords assure us are actually meant to be doing the opposite!

The deficit removal of course is a job that has still not been achieved...the deficit is much narrower but hey looks like the spending taps are back on before we’ve even managed to turn a surplus for even a single year.

Again we seem to be getting promised that splurging hundreds of billions will lead to some sort of nirvana and higher prosperity in the future. Must admit the evidence of such approaches to date is not exactly compelling.

And finally no state spending as percentage of GDP was lowest in ‘89 and 2000 when it touched 34/35%...Gideon of course would have wet himself with excitement to have achieved that!

[G B Young]

Just seen Labours tax proposals. I’m afraid there is enough pain in there for me to say **** them, I’d rather have brexit. I was going to vote SNP but will need to consider that if there is a chance they prop up Corbyn.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

IFS reaction to Labour's tax proposals:



Labour’s proposed income tax rise for those with incomes above £80,000 would affect only the highest-income 3% of adults. But this accounts for less than a tenth of the additional revenue Labour says it would raise.
About three-quarters of the revenue comes from increasing taxes on companies and their shareholders. It would be a mistake to think of this as falling entirely on ‘the rich’.
To the extent that corporation tax falls on company shareholders, that includes everyone with a defined contribution pension. And in practice much of the burden will be passed on to companies’ employees through lower wages, and customers through higher prices – and that means all of us.
Labour proposes to raise the main rate of corporation tax to 26% and reintroduce a small profits rate at 21%. In terms of headline tax rate, that would move the UK from one of the lowest headline rates in the OECD to above average. Alongside other corporation tax increases proposed, this would move the UK from raising an average share of national income in corporation tax to the highest in the G7 (see chart below) – if the reform raises the revenue Labour hopes.
In the short run, the increase in the rate of corporation tax might bring in the £20 billion Labour says. In the long run it would bring in less, as a less competitive rate would reduce investment, and therefore productivity and wages, in the UK.
Labour’s proposed reforms to the taxation of capital gains and dividends could represent moves in the right direction; its proposal for a financial transactions tax much less so.

Stuart Adam, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Labour claims its measures would raise £80 billion in 2023–24, with most of this coming from increasing taxes on companies and their shareholders. This would imply the UK raising more in corporation tax than any other G7 country. The biggest tax rise is an increase in corporation tax rates, which is unlikely to bring in as much revenue as Labour hopes, at least in the longer term. Increases in corporation tax would affect far more than the very rich: much of the burden would ultimately be felt by employees and customers.”

[Hibernia&Alba]

The defect wasn’t caused by the bail out it was the reduction in tax income caused by the recession allied to increased social security spending...you know that tax n spend thing that doesn’t seem to matter anymore.

And the austerity was ‘merely’ reducing the state spending level back to its long term average while at the same time reducing the deficit. Something that’s proven to be rather difficult due to the much lower trajectory of growth and a total lack of productivity gains....the reasons for which have been debated far and wide but are surely partly caused by QE and falsely low rates, policies of course which the central bank overlords assure us are actually meant to be doing the opposite!

The deficit removal of course is a job that has still not been achieved...the deficit is much narrower but hey looks like the spending taps are back on before we’ve even managed to turn a surplus for even a single year.

Again we seem to be getting promised that splurging hundreds of billions will lead to some sort of nirvana and higher prosperity in the future. Must admit the evidence of such approaches to date is not exactly compelling.

And finally no state spending as percentage of GDP was lowest in ‘89 and 2000 when it touched 34/35%...Gideon of course would have wet himself with excitement to have achieved that!

Which wasn't the reason stated at all at the time, and which, in any case, was erroneous. We were told the financial crisis of 2008 and the consequent global recession necessitated unprecedented cuts in public expenditure. In fact austerity was a political choice driven by ideological motives: cut welfare and public services and so shrink the state. It was not an economic necessity. The bailout was a fig leaf, citing the old mantra that governments must balance tax revenues and public spending, which is a nonsense.

Again, the deficit does not need to be addressed by spending cuts, as cited in previous posts. There is absolutely no economic need to eradicate public spending deficits; on the contrary, this may do enormous damage. No government with a sovereign currency and a monopoly of control over said currency can ever bankrupt itself. It's impossible, as a government owing money (which it has itself created) to itself is not debt.

I come back to the point that economic policy is ideological and not empirical. It is deliberately designed to benefit some groups to the detriment of others and is then given intellectual pretensions of economic theories. Fundamentally it comes down to the type of society we wish to have. Economies are not forces of scientific objectivity beyond our control; they can be created to achieve whatever ends we wish. They are entirely man made.

[RyeSloan]

Which wasn't the reason stated at all at the time, and which, in any case, was erroneous. We were told the financial crisis of 2008 and the consequent global recession necessitated unprecedented cuts in public expenditure. In fact austerity was a political choice driven by ideological motives: cut welfare and public services and so shrink the state. It was not an economic necessity. The bailout was a fig leaf, citing the old mantra that governments must balance tax revenues and public spending, which is a nonsense.

Again, the deficit does not need to be addressed by spending cuts, as cited in previous posts. There is absolutely no economic need to eradicate public spending deficits; on the contrary, this may do enormous damage. No government with a sovereign currency and a monopoly of control over said currency can ever bankrupt itself. It's impossible, as a government owing money (which it has itself created) to itself is not debt.

I come back to the point that economic policy is ideological and not empirical. It is deliberately designed to benefit some groups to the detriment of others and is then given intellectual pretensions of economic theories. Fundamentally it comes down to the type of society we wish to have. Economies are not forces of scientific objectivity beyond our control; they can be created to achieve whatever ends we wish. They are entirely man made.

Fair enough, you’ve kind of went full circle on this one though.

But of course economies are man made, they are by their nature the result of human activity. I’m not though believing for one minute that means they are entirely (or even substantially!) within man’s control...that maybe the biggest fallacy of all! And why of course command economies tend to fail worst of all.

[JeMeSouviens]

They did? So why the need for the ten years of austerity which, we were told, was required due to the deficit created by the bailout?

And I'm sure George Osborne (AKA James Hunt) when Chancellor shrank state spending to its lowest proportion of GDP since the 1930s....

2 different things. The bailout was emergency one off borrowing to effectively nationalise the banks (see, large scale nationalisation can be done folks :wink:).

The economic slowdown associated with the aftermath of the banking crisis also reduced tax revenue and hence government borrowing grew to cover the shortfall. Hence the large deficit and reason/excuse for austerity.

[Hibernia&Alba]

IFS reaction to Labour's tax proposals:



Labour’s proposed income tax rise for those with incomes above £80,000 would affect only the highest-income 3% of adults. But this accounts for less than a tenth of the additional revenue Labour says it would raise. And, so what?
About three-quarters of the revenue comes from increasing taxes on companies and their shareholders. It would be a mistake to think of this as falling entirely on ‘the rich’. So what proportion does fall on 'the rich' then?
To the extent that corporation tax falls on company shareholders, that includes everyone with a defined contribution pension. And in practice much of the burden will be passed on to companies’ employees through lower wages, and customers through higher prices – and that means all of us. Those who use shares as a form of income are entirely different from those who have a work pension. Lower wages? Explain, particularly in light of an improved living wage policy.
Labour proposes to raise the main rate of corporation tax to 26% and reintroduce a small profits rate at 21%. In terms of headline tax rate, that would move the UK from one of the lowest headline rates in the OECD to above average. Alongside other corporation tax increases proposed, this would move the UK from raising an average share of national income in corporation tax to the highest in the G7 (see chart below) – if the reform raises the revenue Labour hopes. And why would that be so bad?
In the short run, the increase in the rate of corporation tax might bring in the £20 billion Labour says. In the long run it would bring in less, as a less competitive rate would reduce investment, and therefore productivity and wages, in the UK. No it wouldn't bring in less, plus the inference here is that it's a race to the bottom: if other countries reduce their corporation tax to one per cent, we must do the same, otherwise we are 'uncompetitive'. A neoliberal nonsense. Amazon will still remain in Ireland unless you cut corporation tax to less than ten per cent. No thanks.
Labour’s proposed reforms to the taxation of capital gains and dividends could represent moves in the right direction; its proposal for a financial transactions tax much less so.

Stuart Adam, a senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said: “Labour claims its measures would raise £80 billion in 2023–24, with most of this coming from increasing taxes on companies and their shareholders. This would imply the UK raising more in corporation tax than any other G7 country. The biggest tax rise is an increase in corporation tax rates, which is unlikely to bring in as much revenue as Labour hopes, at least in the longer term. Increases in corporation tax would affect far more than the very rich: much of the burden would ultimately be felt by employees and customers.”

With amendments.

[JeMeSouviens]

Which wasn't the reason stated at all at the time, and which, in any case, was erroneous. We were told the financial crisis of 2008 and the consequent global recession necessitated unprecedented cuts in public expenditure. In fact austerity was a political choice driven by ideological motives: cut welfare and public services and so shrink the state. It was not an economic necessity. The bailout was a fig leaf, citing the old mantra that governments must balance tax revenues and public spending, which is a nonsense.

Again, the deficit does not need to be addressed by spending cuts, as cited in previous posts. There is absolutely no economic need to eradicate public spending deficits; on the contrary, this may do enormous damage. No government with a sovereign currency and a monopoly of control over said currency can ever bankrupt itself. It's impossible, as a government owing money (which it has itself created) to itself is not debt.

I come back to the point that economic policy is ideological and not empirical. It is deliberately designed to benefit some groups to the detriment of others and is then given intellectual pretensions of economic theories. Fundamentally it comes down to the type of society we wish to have. Economies are not forces of scientific objectivity beyond our control; they can be created to achieve whatever ends we wish. They are entirely man made.

Government debt isn’t owed “to itself”, it’s owed to whoever buys gilts (pension funds, investors etc). You’re right that the govt can magic money into existence but it’s an effective dilution of the tax base’s ability to sustain things. A well you can only go to so many times.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Fair enough, you’ve kind of went full circle on this one though.

But of course economies are man made, they are by their nature the result of human activity. I’m not though believing for one minute that means they are entirely (or even substantially!) within man’s control...that maybe the biggest fallacy of all! And why of course command economies tend to fail worst of all.

Of course all economies are within man's control, whichever way you slice it. No human beings means no economy; we are the only animals in history which have complex, indeed international, economies. Thus we can direct the resources we have in any way we wish to whatever ends we wish. The system by which we allocate resources is a choice, a choice which can be altered. Economies are not living sentient beings which control us - just the opposite. It's no good shirking responsibility and saying "well that's the market, we must accept being blown around by them like leaves in the wind". Governments regulate how markets operate; who decided that supply and demand should be infallible? Why not prioritise other factors? Because supply and demand benefits the powerful most of all and entrenches their power, that's why. It is all a choice; the goal of the free market fundamentalists has been to depict markets as the natural state of humanity, when this isn't the case at all.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Government debt isn’t owed “to itself”, it’s owed to whoever buys gilts (pension funds, investors etc). You’re right that the govt can magic money into existence but it’s an effective dilution of the tax base’s ability to sustain things. A well you can only go to so many times.

Then don't sell gilts, treasury bonds etc to fill a deficit, when it's a choice and is entirely unnecessary. There is no economic reason a government must sell such things to offset spending. The only effect would be that those who buy them wouldn't receive the interest. Nothing else would change.

[lord bunberry]

I’m certainly not in that bracket but the decision to charge VAT on school fees is unaffordable to me. I am not a high earner and have to watch every penny so my kids can go to the schools they do. It means I drive a very average car and haven’t been abroad for a couple of years now. This would hit me very hard. I guess it would be the same for other people if they were threatening to increase the cost of cars or holidays by 20% then people may decide they would not vote for them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I’m 100% against private schools, why should a child receive a better quality of education just because their parents can afford it? Even if you’re having to make sacrifices in other areas you’re contributing to the inequality that is a scourge on this country. I completely understand the desire of parents to want to give their children the best chance in life, but that shouldn’t be at the expense of kids from poorer backgrounds.

[Colr]

So Labour using Scottish oil as a slush fund just like all previous UK governments whilst Norway used its oil to build a substantial sovereign wealth fund.

[Ozyhibby]

I’m 100% against private schools, why should a child receive a better quality of education just because their parents can afford it? Even if you’re having to make sacrifices in other areas you’re contributing to the inequality that is a scourge on this country. I completely understand the desire of parents to want to give their children the best chance in life, but that shouldn’t be at the expense of kids from poorer backgrounds.

What about all the other advantages a child may have? I left school at 15 and Mrs Ozyhibby at 16. Are my children coming home to the same learning environment as a kid going home to parents who are lawyers and doctors? I have long since been unable to help my eldest with his maths homework because he’s now beyond the level I got to. Should I just accept my kid will get lower scores than another kid who’s mum teaches math and can help with his homework?
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not even within the state sector. Why are semi detached houses in Buckstone more expensive than bigger bungalows the other side of Comiston road? Because Buckstone is in the Boroughmuir catchment and the other side of the road is Firhill.
Is getting a tutor in to help your kid at exam time increasing inequality? Not everyone can afford that after all but more than half the kids out there are getting one.
Getting rid of private school would increase the cost of state education and we would all be poorer for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ballengeich]

Government debt isn’t owed “to itself”, it’s owed to whoever buys gilts (pension funds, investors etc). You’re right that the govt can magic money into existence but it’s an effective dilution of the tax base’s ability to sustain things. A well you can only go to so many times.

Doesn't the effect of creating more money depend on the underlying economic environment. Keynes' idea was that in a time of recession governments should keep spending in order to absorb spare economic capacity i.e keep people and machinery producing rather than sitting idle. If you create more money without increasing production you'll get inflation. At a time when unemployment is fairly low, albeit there's a lot of part-time work, I'm not sure how much whether pumping money in is appropriate.

Another thing to look at is how additional consumption will affect international trade. We run a deficit on goods, so if people are buying more much of any resultant stimulus will increase that, leading at some point to the pound losing value against other currencies.

[cabbageandribs1875]

So Labour using Scottish oil as a slush fund just like all previous UK governments whilst Norway used its oil to build a substantial sovereign wealth fund.


and over half of voters in 2014 wanted westminster to carry on the theft

22715

:rolleyes:

[JeMeSouviens]

Doesn't the effect of creating more money depend on the underlying economic environment. Keynes' idea was that in a time of recession governments should keep spending in order to absorb spare economic capacity i.e keep people and machinery producing rather than sitting idle. If you create more money without increasing production you'll get inflation. At a time when unemployment is fairly low, albeit there's a lot of part-time work, I'm not sure how much whether pumping money in is appropriate.

Another thing to look at is how additional consumption will affect international trade. We run a deficit on goods, so if people are buying more much of any resultant stimulus will increase that, leading at some point to the pound losing value against other currencies.

Yes, I think that's right, although like most people I only understand this a little and find the bits I do know mind boggling! We *have* been printing a load of money over the last decade (quantitative easing).

btw, I can recomment this as a readable intro to this kind of stuff. It also covers a lot of the "why" we've ended up with the mechanisms we have, as much as it does the "how" they work.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41PzTKK8fEL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

[Peevemor]

Ian Blackford out campaigning in his green bunnet. https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191122/83d7f9caa74e1a778ec695b40f4bb238.jpg

[lord bunberry]

What about all the other advantages a child may have? I left school at 15 and Mrs Ozyhibby at 16. Are my children coming home to the same learning environment as a kid going home to parents who are lawyers and doctors? I have long since been unable to help my eldest with his maths homework because he’s now beyond the level I got to. Should I just accept my kid will get lower scores than another kid who’s mum teaches math and can help with his homework?
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not even within the state sector. Why are semi detached houses in Buckstone more expensive than bigger bungalows the other side of Comiston road? Because Buckstone is in the Boroughmuir catchment and the other side of the road is Firhill.
Is getting a tutor in to help your kid at exam time increasing inequality? Not everyone can afford that after all but more than half the kids out there are getting one.
Getting rid of private school would increase the cost of state education and we would all be poorer for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
As I said I completely understand that people will want to give their kids the best chance in life. I won’t be sending my daughter to a private school for the reasons I stated earlier.

[lapsedhibee]

What about all the other advantages a child may have? I left school at 15 and Mrs Ozyhibby at 16. Are my children coming home to the same learning environment as a kid going home to parents who are lawyers and doctors? I have long since been unable to help my eldest with his maths homework because he’s now beyond the level I got to. Should I just accept my kid will get lower scores than another kid who’s mum teaches math and can help with his homework?
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not even within the state sector. Why are semi detached houses in Buckstone more expensive than bigger bungalows the other side of Comiston road? Because Buckstone is in the Boroughmuir catchment and the other side of the road is Firhill.
Is getting a tutor in to help your kid at exam time increasing inequality? Not everyone can afford that after all but more than half the kids out there are getting one.
Getting rid of private school would increase the cost of state education and we would all be poorer for it.


Very well put, though it would be a shame if your desire to do the best for your children drove you into voting for a party who don't appear to give a toss about state education, or a party willing to enable them.

[Hibernia&Alba]

Yes, I think that's right, although like most people I only understand this a little and find the bits I do know mind boggling! We *have* been printing a load of money over the last decade (quantitative easing).

btw, I can recomment this as a readable intro to this kind of stuff. It also covers a lot of the "why" we've ended up with the mechanisms we have, as much as it does the "how" they work.

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/41PzTKK8fEL._SX324_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

Varoufakis is a brilliant man (is it three Ph D's he has?) but of course he's way outside the mainstream of the neoliberal consensus which now dominates the global economy. The economics departments of the universities are filled with trickledown economists, sponsored by the multinational corporations who donate to faculties, such as the Chicago School. Their view of the world has become the accepted version, with academics like Varoufakis regarded as eccentrics. Richard Wolfe is well worth watching on You Tube: an American economics professor who is a Marxist! Not many of them around :greengrin

[NAE NOOKIE]

As someone who voted No in the independence referendum, should the Tories win a majority next month, I will be demanding independence the next day. Enough is enough; if people refuse to help themselves, at some point you have to say they are on their own.

If you are a person who believes Britain is a single country and not a union of countries then those figures are a 'so what?' situation. If the UK votes in a hard right Tory government or any Tory government for that matter then so be it .. thats what the UK wants and as a region of that state we have to accept it.

If like me you believe that UK is made up of 4 countries all of whom retain the right to remove themselves from that union if the people of those countries think its the right thing to do then those figures are extremely depressing and should be pushing people towards thinking the way you are.

For decades now Scotland has practically never got the government it has voted for ... even the Labour government we did get was elected by appealing to the Tory vote in England rather than by pushing the socialist policies Scottish voters had always understood Labour to stand for. We are now in a position where the north of England, which was the powerhouse of Labour in any general election, is not only swinging towards Conservatism but hard right Conservatism at that ... in the guise of a Tory party which has stolen the clothes of the Brexit party and delights in appealing to the most base emotions of the proletariat.

In the current situation far from Scotland getting what it constantly votes for politically we are further away from it than we have ever been ... how can any part of the world claiming to be a 'country' tolerate such a state of affairs I just dont understand it.

[G B Young]

What about all the other advantages a child may have? I left school at 15 and Mrs Ozyhibby at 16. Are my children coming home to the same learning environment as a kid going home to parents who are lawyers and doctors? I have long since been unable to help my eldest with his maths homework because he’s now beyond the level I got to. Should I just accept my kid will get lower scores than another kid who’s mum teaches math and can help with his homework?
There is no such thing as a level playing field, not even within the state sector. Why are semi detached houses in Buckstone more expensive than bigger bungalows the other side of Comiston road? Because Buckstone is in the Boroughmuir catchment and the other side of the road is Firhill.
Is getting a tutor in to help your kid at exam time increasing inequality? Not everyone can afford that after all but more than half the kids out there are getting one.
Getting rid of private school would increase the cost of state education and we would all be poorer for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

A good post which illustrates much of what sticks in the craw about Corbyn and his cohorts. As you rightly illustrate, everyone's individual circumstances are different yet a totalitarian like Corbyn is utterly disinterested in the lives of individuals. He cares only about factions and classes.

[Hibernia&Alba]

If you are a person who believes Britain is a single country and not a union of countries then those figures are a 'so what?' situation. If the UK votes in a hard right Tory government or any Tory government for that matter then so be it .. thats what the UK wants and as a region of that state we have to accept it.

If like me you believe that UK is made up of 4 countries all of whom retain the right to remove themselves from that union if the people of those countries think its the right thing to do then those figures are extremely depressing and should be pushing people towards thinking the way you are.

For decades now Scotland has practically never got the government it has voted for ... even the Labour government we did get was elected by appealing to the Tory vote in England rather than by pushing the socialist policies Scottish voters had always understood Labour to stand for. We are now in a position where the north of England, which was the powerhouse of Labour in any general election, is not only swinging towards Conservatism but hard right Conservatism at that ... in the guise of a Tory party which has stolen the clothes of the Brexit party and delights in appealing to the most base emotions of the proletariat.

In the current situation far from Scotland getting what it constantly votes for politically we are further away from it than we have ever been ... how can any part of the world claiming to be a 'country' tolerate such a state of affairs I just dont understand it.

Yes, I think a Boris Johnson majority and the subsequent hard Brexit could be the end of the UK in its current guise. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it tipped the balance towards independence, due to the democratic deficit you mention. Not getting governments we vote for is problem enough, but add Brexit and the prospect of another five years of Tory government, and I think it might be too much for most in Scotland. To be honest, Brexit had already changed my mind on independence; a Tory majority would be the final nail in the coffin. The disconnect between England and Scotland seems to be unbridgeable now. We shall see, but I think Brexit was a game changer.

[G B Young]

If you are a person who believes Britain is a single country and not a union of countries then those figures are a 'so what?' situation. If the UK votes in a hard right Tory government or any Tory government for that matter then so be it .. thats what the UK wants and as a region of that state we have to accept it.

If like me you believe that UK is made up of 4 countries all of whom retain the right to remove themselves from that union if the people of those countries think its the right thing to do then those figures are extremely depressing and should be pushing people towards thinking the way you are.

For decades now Scotland has practically never got the government it has voted for ... even the Labour government we did get was elected by appealing to the Tory vote in England rather than by pushing the socialist policies Scottish voters had always understood Labour to stand for. We are now in a position where the north of England, which was the powerhouse of Labour in any general election, is not only swinging towards Conservatism but hard right Conservatism at that ... in the guise of a Tory party which has stolen the clothes of the Brexit party and delights in appealing to the most base emotions of the proletariat.

In the current situation far from Scotland getting what it constantly votes for politically we are further away from it than we have ever been ... how can any part of the world claiming to be a 'country' tolerate such a state of affairs I just dont understand it.

We got devolution. We didn't get indepedence. Both in accordance with what we voted for. As you point out, when it comes to general elections (or Brexit) we vote as one nation so we get what the nation voted for as a whole. I don't have a problem with that, particularly as thanks to a heavily devolved parliament much of our legislation is governed by Holyrood. Personally I think the balance is about right, but that's just my view.

[JeMeSouviens]

We got devolution. We didn't get indepedence. Both in accordance with what we voted for. As you point out, when it comes to general elections (or Brexit) we vote as one nation so we get what the nation voted for as a whole. I don't have a problem with that, particularly as thanks to a heavily devolved parliament much of our legislation is governed by Holyrood. Personally I think the balance is about right, but that's just my view.

It's funny actually that if you follow the Scottish Attitudes Survey thing that Prof Curtice's mob do every so often then consistently the most popular option for Scotland has been devo-max, ie. everything other than defence, foreign affairs and monetary policy resting at Holyrood. However, no party has ever put it forward. Salmond and some of the SNP wanted it on the 2014 ballot as a second prize but they didn't want to own it.

It's funny to think how we might have ended up if it had been properly fleshed out and voted on a decade ago.

[Ozyhibby]

It's funny actually that if you follow the Scottish Attitudes Survey thing that Prof Curtice's mob do every so often then consistently the most popular option for Scotland has been devo-max, ie. everything other than defence, foreign affairs and monetary policy resting at Holyrood. However, no party has ever put it forward. Salmond and some of the SNP wanted it on the 2014 ballot as a second prize but they didn't want to own it.

It's funny to think how we might have ended up if it had been properly fleshed out and voted on a decade ago.

I’m pro independence but could easily live with proper devo max. All taxes collected in Scotland and the money paid towards the shared services we have with rUK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JeMeSouviens]

I’m pro independence but could easily live with proper devo max. All taxes collected in Scotland and the money paid towards the shared services we have with rUK.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

With everybody in the EU I could live with it as a compromise notwithstanding that I think Trident is the ultimate colossal waste of money. Everybody in the EU is a fading prospect though.

[Smartie]

It's funny actually that if you follow the Scottish Attitudes Survey thing that Prof Curtice's mob do every so often then consistently the most popular option for Scotland has been devo-max, ie. everything other than defence, foreign affairs and monetary policy resting at Holyrood. However, no party has ever put it forward. Salmond and some of the SNP wanted it on the 2014 ballot as a second prize but they didn't want to own it.

It's funny to think how we might have ended up if it had been properly fleshed out and voted on a decade ago.

How does that differ from what we have?

I thought we had everything apart from immigration, foreign policy and fiscal autonomy already?

Obviously Brexit threatens to send some of the European stuff back to Westminster.

[JeMeSouviens]

How does that differ from what we have?

I thought we had everything apart from immigration, foreign policy and fiscal autonomy already?

Obviously Brexit threatens to send some of the European stuff back to Westminster.

This is the list of reseved powers - devo max would see most if not all of the "specific reservations" going to Holyrood.


Reserved matters in Scotland

Under Schedule 5 of the Scotland Act 1998 (as amended in 2012 and
2016), reserved matters are subdivided into two categories, general
reservations and specific reservations. The general reservations
are:
• aspects of the constitution, including the Crown, the Union, the
UK Parliament, the existence of the (criminal) High Court of
Justiciary and the existence of the (civil) Court of Session;
• the registration and funding of political parties;
• international relations, including with territories outside the UK
and the European Union, international development and the
regulation of international trade;
• the Home Civil Service;
• defence of the realm;
• treason.

Specific reservations cover particular areas of social and economic
policy reserved to Westminster. These are listed under 11 “Heads”:

• Head A – Financial and Economic Matters (fiscal – except devolved
taxes – economic and monetary policy, currency, financial services,
financial markets, money laundering);

• Head B – Home Affairs (misuse of drugs, data protection and
access to information, elections to the House of Commons,
firearms – except air weapons – entertainment, immigration and
nationality, scientific procedures on live animals, national security,
official secrets and terrorism, betting, gaming and lotteries,
emergency powers, extradition, lieutenancies and access to nonScottish public bodies);

• Head C – Trade and Industry (business associations, insolvency,
competition, intellectual property, import and export control, sea
fishing outside the Scottish zone, consumer protection, product
standards, safety and liability, weights and measures,
telecommunications, postal services, research councils,
designation of assisted areas, industrial development and
protection of trading and economic interests);

• Head D – Energy (electricity, oil and gas, coal, nuclear energy and
energy conservation);

• Head E – Transport (road transport, marine transport and air
transport);

• Head F – Social Security (non-devolved social security schemes,
child support and pensions);

• Head G – Regulation of the Professions (architects, health
professions and auditors);

• Head H – Employment (employment and industrial relations,
health and safety, non-devolved job search and support);
14 Reserved matters in the United Kingdom

• Head J – Health and Medicines (xenotransplantation, embryology,
surrogacy and genetics, medicines, medical supplies and poisons,
welfare foods);

• Head K – Media and Culture (broadcasting, public lending right,
government indemnity scheme and property accepted in
satisfaction of tax);

• Head L – Miscellaneous (judicial remuneration, non-Scottish public
body equal opportunities, control of weapons, Ordnance survey,
time, outer space and Antarctica).

[CloudSquall]

It's funny actually that if you follow the Scottish Attitudes Survey thing that Prof Curtice's mob do every so often then consistently the most popular option for Scotland has been devo-max, ie. everything other than defence, foreign affairs and monetary policy resting at Holyrood. However, no party has ever put it forward. Salmond and some of the SNP wanted it on the 2014 ballot as a second prize but they didn't want to own it.

It's funny to think how we might have ended up if it had been properly fleshed out and voted on a decade ago.

I'll never understand why Scottish Labour didn't become the party of Devo Max / Home Rule instead of trying to out union the Conservatives which was a battle they are never going to win.

[JeMeSouviens]

I'll never understand why Scottish Labour didn't become the party of Devo Max / Home Rule instead of trying to out union the Conservatives which was a battle they are never going to win.

Well Lab historically has very strong centralising tendencies but I think it was mostly about what they perceived their party advantage to be and their personal political ambitions. They were fiercely protective of the status of Scottish MPs at Westminster because it gave them a solid block of dozens of MPs they thought they could never lose. Plus most Lab politicians viewed Holyrood as somewhere to retire to or a stepping stone to London not somewhere to actually pursue a political career. So a Devo max arrangement that would potentially involve reconfiguring Westminster to mostly be a parliament for rUK was anathema to them.

That worked out well. :wink:

[Bristolhibby]

Yes, I think a Boris Johnson majority and the subsequent hard Brexit could be the end of the UK in its current guise. I wouldn't be at all surprised if it tipped the balance towards independence, due to the democratic deficit you mention. Not getting governments we vote for is problem enough, but add Brexit and the prospect of another five years of Tory government, and I think it might be too much for most in Scotland. To be honest, Brexit had already changed my mind on independence; a Tory majority would be the final nail in the coffin. The disconnect between England and Scotland seems to be unbridgeable now. We shall see, but I think Brexit was a game changer.

Aye, but Boris won’t let us have a referendum.

J

[NAE NOOKIE]

We got devolution. We didn't get indepedence. Both in accordance with what we voted for. As you point out, when it comes to general elections (or Brexit) we vote as one nation so we get what the nation voted for as a whole. I don't have a problem with that, particularly as thanks to a heavily devolved parliament much of our legislation is governed by Holyrood. Personally I think the balance is about right, but that's just my view.

As I said that is where I do have a problem. No matter if you are a devoted Scottish nationalist or a devoted unionist trotting out the 'proud to be British and Scottish line, you cant deny that accepting that state of affairs makes the Scottish political outlook subservient to the prevailing political wind in England ... I don't know the answer myself, but I would be interested to see how often the Tories or Labour have won a UK general election without winning in England to do it irrespective of the Scottish vote .. not often I would be willing to guess. IE how many times has England gotten a government it didn't vote for because of Scotland's vote compared to the number of times Scotland has been handed a government it didn't want because of how England voted.

That's why this 'one nation' stuff doesn't impress me much ... If you accept it then what you say is that in 1707 and even in 2014 Scotland gave up its right to be a country and voted to become little more than a region of England .. call it Britain to cover up that fact, but as a very famous Englishman once observed ... "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"

I'm not really a fan of devolution either ... If you ask me it allows Scotland just enough leeway to get the blame when things go wrong here without all the levers, economic and social, it needs in order to function properly as a normal nation state would .. to me it's become nothing more than a trap for nationalists that we have been forced to walk into.

[G B Young]

As I said that is where I do have a problem. No matter if you are a devoted Scottish nationalist or a devoted unionist trotting out the 'proud to be British and Scottish line, you cant deny that accepting that state of affairs makes the Scottish political outlook subservient to the prevailing political wind in England ... I don't know the answer myself, but I would be interested to see how often the Tories or Labour have won a UK general election without winning in England to do it irrespective of the Scottish vote .. not often I would be willing to guess. IE how many times has England gotten a government it didn't vote for because of Scotland's vote compared to the number of times Scotland has been handed a government it didn't want because of how England voted.

That's why this 'one nation' stuff doesn't impress me much ... If you accept it then what you say is that in 1707 and even in 2014 Scotland gave up its right to be a country and voted to become little more than a region of England .. call it Britain to cover up that fact, but as a very famous Englishman once observed ... "a rose by any other name would smell just as sweet"

I'm not really a fan of devolution either ... If you ask me it allows Scotland just enough leeway to get the blame when things go wrong here without all the levers, economic and social, it needs in order to function properly as a normal nation state would .. to me it's become nothing more than a trap for nationalists that we have been forced to walk into.

Do you have to be one or the other? I don't necessarily feel 'pride' in being Scottish and British. It's simply what I feel comfortable with and always have done. I don't think that makes me a 'devoted unionist', just somebody who doesn't feel a sense of burning injustice about the political make-up of the UK. I venture to suggest that the majority of those who voted no in 2014 are of similar mind and not Union Jack-waving Rangers fans.

As for whether Labour or the Tories have ever won an election by not winning in England I don't know but Labour's wipeout in Scotland has undoubtedly hit their hopes of ever winning an election again very hard.

[weecounty hibby]

Why do you think that those who support an independent Scotland have a burning sense of injustice? I certainly don't, I just happen to believe that Scotland's best interests will be best served by decision making being carried out in Scotland by people who live in Scotland.

[Ozyhibby]

Why do you think that those who support an independent Scotland have a burning sense of injustice? I certainly don't, I just happen to believe that Scotland's best interests will be best served by decision making being carried out in Scotland by people who live in Scotland.

That’s where I am which is why I hate all the freedom banners, stickers etc. We are already free, which is why we had a referendum. If Westminster turns down the next request then the situation changes but right now we have a democratic route to independence. It’s a choice for us but we are not being held against our will.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ozyhibby]

https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20191122/a5c3638672cd59c6ceba35fcd6cce863.jpg
Lib Dem’s getting squeezed now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk