Brexited | the worst threads live the longest

Do you think there will be a Deal or No Deal?

  • Total voters
    194
  • Poll closed .
I am about to spend £265 on VED for a car that won't be driven more than 2K miles in the next 12 months, where as people are paying half that or less and driving 5, 10, 20 times more miles than me.

So I agree that you should pay for what you use, via fuel duty, that way foreign hauliers and tourists also pay their share for the upkeep of the roads.

However, the reality is that VED, and fuel duty, doesn't even get spent on the roads.
 
finneh said:
If I ran a vote every year on staff pay rises every single one would tick the maximum box. What they don't realise is by doing that they are literally voting for themselves to be unemployed.
Click to expand...
And, yet, the likes of John Lewis Partnership, whose employees have a stake and a say, seem pretty successful. Employees occasionally sacrifice pay rises for the long-term good.

Your assumption that everyone is a myopic, short-term oriented idiot, who cannot see beyond the next few months, is insulting, especially to your employees.
 
finneh said:
As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.
Click to expand...

Are you serious? Private roads just enrich the private companies who own them. Governments could borrow the money for new roads they deem necessary at almost zero interest and if they then put a toll on the road until the debt is paid off so be it but private ownership is as disastrous shit show everywhere it happens.
 
RedChip said:
And, yet, the likes of John Lewis Partnership, whose employees have a stake and a say, seem pretty successful. Employees occasionally sacrifice pay rises for the long-term good.

Your assumption that everyone is a myopic, short-term oriented idiot, who cannot see beyond the next few months, is insulting, especially to your employees.
Click to expand...

That's completely different. If the workers own a stake they have an interest in the long term prospects and a share of the profitability. Of course those turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas.

There's a huge difference between that and them merely voting on their own salary increase.

Wibble said:
Are you serious? Private roads just enrich the private companies who own them. Governments could borrow the money for new roads they deem necessary at almost zero interest and if they then put a toll on the road until the debt is paid off so be it but private ownership is as disastrous shit show everywhere it happens.
Click to expand...

The problem is that government is inheritantly inefficient as it has no incentive to be efficient.

If my business had literally no competition we'd have no reason to be run efficiently. The only thing that keeps us on ours toes is the threat of another business usurping us and putting us out of business. We have to stay one step ahead.

This is the reason for monopoly law. Why people think monopolies should be banned in the private sector but embraced in the public sector is beyond me. In both sectors they're terrible and the only person who loses out is the consumer.

Private roads would enrich their owners, if they were ran very well. You'd see busy roads getting expanded instantly as the profits would be based on traffic flow. Rather than having thousands of miles of car parks in rush hour.

They'd be well maintained as people would take other routes if they weren't. In areas where only one route were an option you'd see competing businesses building competing road networks.

What you're saying was also said about the water system in the UK. Without government involvement we've almost eradicated droughts, hose pipe bans are an absolute rarely and record levels of investment is going in. It's also cheaper as a % of GDP than it was under government ownership, despite profits to the owners. This is obvious of course as there was no incentive for the government to invest in water, firstly as it isn't sexy to voters like the NHS and secondly because there was no disincentive to implementing a house pipe ban. For private industry the disincentive is huge: they make less profit it they demand people use less of their product.

To all in this thread I'd urge you to watch a few YouTube videos where Milton Friedman talks about freedom, free markets, capitalism and Libertarianism is general.

I'll bow out at this point though as this conversation could comfortably absorb half my weekend and I'm unlikely to convince people (Friedman might though).
 
I have a lot of time for that Rory Stewart bloke. He won't get in because he doesn't want a hard / no deal Brexit but I guess he's a necessary voice to balance things out.
 
finneh said:
That's completely different. If the workers own a stake they have an interest in the long term prospects and a share of the profitability. Of course those turkeys aren't going to vote for Christmas.

There's a huge difference between that and them merely voting on their own salary increase.
Click to expand...
Nah, it isn't all that different. If you don't assume your employees are idiots and explain to them there is a trade off between a huge pay rise and a secure job for the forseeble future, it is very unlikely they won't see the sense in sacrificing a huge pay rise to secure their jobs.

This isnt even about altruism or even the common good. It is just rational self-interest. There are many cases where this happens and in most instances the workers have no material stake but just see the sense of sustaining a business. You could, of course, assure even more coperative behaviour by giving your employees a stake in the business!
 
Last edited:
GDaly95 said:
I have a lot of time for that Rory Stewart bloke. He won't get in because he doesn't want a hard / no deal Brexit but I guess he's a necessary voice to balance things out.
Click to expand...
he may be the only one that can save the torys from self destruction so I hope he does not get in, I want to see the party extinguished.
 
GDaly95 said:
I have a lot of time for that Rory Stewart bloke. He won't get in because he doesn't want a hard / no deal Brexit but I guess he's a necessary voice to balance things out.
Click to expand...

They called him a ‘live action Gollum’ on Have I got News for you.

It’s strange to see a Tory that seems to take their job very seriously and that doesn’t seem to be using it as a vehicle solely for self-aggrandisation and/or self-enrichment
 
Not sure if this has been posted here. The Remain case in a nutshell.

 
Ubik said:
It's true, but a losing argument in the current climate.
Click to expand...

Only for those with their fingers in their ears. Fortunately, we don't need all the 51.9% to see sense.

Blair, as much as I dislike some of what he did, is bang on here. And it's far from the only argument against brexit.
 
Blair's argument was probably my biggest reason for being a Remain supporter. The only way 'we' can compete against the superpowers of America, China, Russia, India etc is as a united European bloc.
 
You heard Trump. Just walk away! Kickstart the glorious end to the EU. A dream where every state stands for itself.
 
Kill 'em all said:
You heard Trump. Just walk away! Kickstart the glorious end to the EU. A dream where every state stands for itself.
Click to expand...

And they all become the bitches of the economic behemoths present and future. The US, China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Russia (?)

Why the hell do you think that Trump wants the EU to break up?

Because the US can't dominate it.
 
Kill 'em all said:
You heard Trump. Just walk away! Kickstart the glorious end to the EU. A dream where every state stands for itself.
Click to expand...
Of course Trump (and the Russians) would prefer to break up the EU. It’s much easier for them to economically bully smaller countries. If anyone thinks that Trump will consider a “special relationship” when it comes to trade, they are living in cloud cuckoo land
 
Kill 'em all said:
You heard Trump. Just walk away! Kickstart the glorious end to the EU. A dream where every state stands for itself.
Click to expand...

That's an amusing idea when the US are literally a federation of states that do not stand for themselves. They created a political and economic giant by unifying small and medium size states.
 
Paul the Wolf said:
The EU/EEC never has been just a trading bloc.

The UK were in a trading bloc from 1960 till 1973 - that's why they joined the EEC.
Click to expand...

Yes indeed, much has been made of the so called 'lies' told in 2016 about the EU/Brexit etc., but many would argue the first big lie presented to the UK public concerning what is now the EU, was the idea then that we were joining a trading block only, the 'common market'. The fine print from the Treaty of Rome was not spelled out, except by such as Tony Benn and he was seen as a radical left wing nutter, "don't listen to him" the establishment said and we didn't.

Telling lies about the EEC/EU is par for the course and hasn't finished yet!
 
finneh said:
I'd pay less for roads because the money is spent awfully. Instead of resurfacing they constantly patch, which is a ridiculous false economy. They also pay the lowest cost to resurface because they don't pay an extra few for them to bee done quickly, which is a false economy as the commercial impact is far greater than the extra cost. I'd contribute to roads if the decision makers weren't commercially illiterate idiots.

As a business owner I'd privatise the roads. Pay for what you use and they roads would be immaculate as otherwise they'd lose the business. The M6 toll road is the best road on the road, because the profits are reinvested instead of squandered.

Address the point rather than making ideological platitudes. The primary point being: how are we paying for this pyramid/ponzi scheme?



I'm more of a Singapore and pre-Chinese involved Hong Kong man myself (but no did not see it). Happy to debate any point you think I would disagree with that was "ignorant".

If you want to have a greater insight into some of my views (not all) I'd suggest watching Nobel prize winning economist Milton Friedman videos on YouTube.
Click to expand...
Yes because privatisation has worked out so well for railways, schools, health services etc.
 
Fingeredmouse said:
Right. How on Earth would this work?

Firstly, road choices don't operate on free market principles. They are literally physical paths between locations. They are needed to allow people to travel between destinations.

What happens if a single business monopolises a particular area? How is that policed? What exactly do you do if the road still isn't well maintained but there's no option? I assume the government bails out "National Roads" due to the inherent unprofitability of maintaining an entire countries road network as occurs on the train network? Do we only privatise the profitable roads?What if you live in a rural area, or is that the stupid fault of the people who live there? Etc, etc.

A country cannot be run on the same principles as a business. The country is not a business, and, thankfully, is not yet entirely run in that manner. Nor are the finances of a country remotely comparable to household income and expenditure management.
Click to expand...
Great points, well made.
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes indeed, much has been made of the so called 'lies' told in 2016 about the EU/Brexit etc., but many would argue the first big lie presented to the UK public concerning what is now the EU, was the idea then that we were joining a trading block only, the 'common market'. The fine print from the Treaty of Rome was not spelled out, except by such as Tony Benn and he was seen as a radical left wing nutter, "don't listen to him" the establishment said and we didn't.

Telling lies about the EEC/EU is par for the course and hasn't finished yet!
Click to expand...

The fine prints were in the preamble of the treaty and not really hidden, it's arguably the easiest thing to see. Also there is a reason why accession act was named the European Communities Act 1972, community is plural because the EEC(common market) was only one of three communities, the others being EURATOM and the ECSC(treaty of Rome).
 
Maticmaker said:
Yes indeed, much has been made of the so called 'lies' told in 2016 about the EU/Brexit etc., but many would argue the first big lie presented to the UK public concerning what is now the EU, was the idea then that we were joining a trading block only, the 'common market'.
Click to expand...
It's not true - it is a convenient fiction. You can see the original campaign materials here and the debate that was held at the time: https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/brexit/1975
 
nickm said:
It's not true - it is a convenient fiction. You can see the original campaign materials here and the debate that was held at the time: https://digital.library.lse.ac.uk/collections/brexit/1975
Click to expand...

Its not at all a convenient fiction, the same approaches of outright lies, of a project fear (at one time about Russia/communism/nuclear war etc), every point of view expressed subject to exaggeration and in some cases near farce, were as much in evidence (on both sides) then through leaflets (some anonymous)and other media (although not Social media) as in 2016. All this all clouded the issue, in that case the remain vote won because at that time the implications for staying in were multifaceted and the country had little experience of being in the EEC but generally most people thought it was a 'good idea'. The implications of coming out were related directly and indirectly to the dark days of strikes, 3 day weeks, unchecked Trade Union power, "reds under the bed" etc.

My point was that just as in 2016 the first casualty of the referendum propaganda was the truth.
 
:lol:

The comments about US food didn't exactly thrill me either, mate.
 
finneh said:
This is why democracy doesn't work in the current form. It caters to short term idiotic vote winning platitudes like "£350m a week" or "free student fees and all debt wiped out". When I give my staff a pay rise it's because it's sustainable long term. If my business barely breaks even the previous year, I get paid minimum wage and my staff have no pay rises. If we do well they get pay rises and I get a dividend.

If my business' turnover stays identical (with inflation) my salary stays the same and my staff get no pay rise, our business doesn't collapse! If the economy grows 1%, every single government department demands a 5% increase and because of short term political pressure some will get it (NHS/securities particularly).

If I ran a vote every year on staff pay rises every single one would tick the maximum box. What they don't realise is by doing that they are literally voting for themselves to be unemployed.
Click to expand...

Nothing that you exposed here has nothing to do with the sentence that you quote. I repeat, if you don't like the system, change it via protest, via vote. I don't like the concept of democracy not because your reasons but because is corrupt. Just a note: raising salaries should be according the general economy, but as well to the individual situation of the companies, not only in the case that you expose, but as well when companies have those insane benefits.

finneh said:
What you don't get is that business owners merely pass costs into the consumer. You ask me to pay a £20 minimum wage, that's fantastic... I increase the price of my products by a correlating x% and everyone celebrating more money suddenly pays much more for everything they want to buy.

If someone said I pay 35% corporation tax tomorrow I'd put my prices up as would all my competitiors. I still need to earn my £x salary and also need to declare a £x dividend. You add £250k to my CT bill, I add the same net value to my product prices and my competitors all do the same.

If you read my previous post or understood the issue in question... That a ponzi/pyramid scheme has no bearing on tax, money or peoples willingness to contribute or otherwise. This kind of scheme is destined to fail irrespective of ethics, morals, finance or willpower. It's predisposed on there being an everlasting source of young tax earners to pay for the aging population.

5m elderly people getting paid for by 10m youngsters is great. But what happens when those 10m youngsters become elderley? You need 20m youngsters to pay for them. When they're elderly you need 40m to pay for them, then 80m, then 160m, then 320m.

Do you believe that the only problem with that business model is the willingness of people to pay taxes?
Click to expand...

Of course I understand than any rise in costs is past on the consumers. But the funny thing is that it only transfers in full when the costs raises. When it lowers, if we are lucky only small part. If you have different taxes in europe, a company can go to one place, lets say 25% taxes to one that has 10%. This 15% of gain, there is no way that it reflects on the prices in full, specially in none perfect competitive markets. Causing the individuals losing money because they might pay a bit less, but they will not enjoy the whole 15% through lowering + taxes.

The business money has so many problems, because the inequality gap is growing and the superich and rich could contribute much more than what they do closing the gap.

The tax system had been working for decades and now with the old age population, needs to be twiched with unpopular measures that in some countries are already applying. Raising the retiring age. We arrive healthier to older ages than before. IMO shouldn't happen in old professions. Is not the same working in construction than in an office. Also, depending in which kind of vulnerability an individual would find themselves. Also, a person that amassed a more than enough sum of money to live comfortable, shouldn't receive the insane amount of money per month perpetuating the growing gap

NO system last forever without changes, education changes, health system changes. Other things should change. But privatizing systems where the most vulnerable would suffer would not be the solution. That if you are not an insensitive cnut
 
SteveJ said:
This was the arrangement all along, IMO: a money-grab by Johnson, Farage, Trump & others:

US wants access to NHS in post-Brexit deal, says Trump ally
Before president’s visit, US Ambassador to the UK says every area of UK economy up for discussion

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...nhs-in-post-brexit-deal-ambassador-to-uk-says
Click to expand...
Scary, isn't it?

Sometimes I wish the ultra Brexiteers would get their way just so people can see for themselves what the true intentions of Brexit are. But it is kind of like wishing people would get seriously hurt so that they can see the foolishness of their choices; I am ashamed to think it.
 
RedChip said:
Scary, isn't it?

Sometimes I wish the ultra Brexiteers would get their way just so people can see for themselves what the true intentions of Brexit are. But it is kind of like wishing people would get seriously hurt so that they can see the foolishness of their choices; I am ashamed to think it.
Click to expand...

If it only affected them I'd be for it but it affects everyone.
 
Any chance of Brexit removing Klopp and Guardiola's right to live and work in the UK?

There might be a silver lining after all
 
RedChip said:
Scary, isn't it?

Sometimes I wish the ultra Brexiteers would get their way just so people can see for themselves what the true intentions of Brexit are. But it is kind of like wishing people would get seriously hurt so that they can see the foolishness of their choices; I am ashamed to think it.
Click to expand...
No matter how bad things go they will never admit it's their fault.

At least in this country people have a real problem understanding the effects their votes can have on the rest of the country. And its not just leave voters, it's been rather clear that this country since the mid 2000's has been slowly going down a right wing path(I think I'm right in saying the BNP got two European seats in 2009), yet for a lot of people Brexit and leaving the EU has come as some sort of shock.
 
Sweet Square said:
No matter how bad things go they will never admit it's their fault.

At least in this country people have a real problem understanding the effects their votes can have on the rest of the country. And its not just leave voters, it's been rather clear that this country since the mid 2000's has been slowly going down a right wing path(I think I'm right in saying the BNP got two European seats in 2009), yet for a lot of people Brexit and leaving the EU has come as some sort of shock.
Click to expand...

Chris Patten was talking on Radio 4 yesterday (World at 1?) and he said exactly that, he particularly fears for the Conservative Party going down this route, which has nothing whatsoever to do with Conservatism.

Edit: Found it, and an interesting read:

"Smaller, older, whiter, more right-wing than it used to be." ~ Chris Patten talking about what the Conservative Party has become
renderTimingPixel.png

Interview from The World This Weekend, Radio 4, 02/06/19

Mark Mardell: I discussed the leadership race with one of the grandest of Tory grandees, former party chairman and cabinet minister Chris Patten, and I asked Lord Patten how he would characterise the Conservative Party today.

Chris Patten: Smaller, older, whiter, more right-wing than it used to be. I think the numbers of Conservative activists have been subject to considerable demographic change to put it politely. There has, to be fair, been some increase in the numbers in the last few months I think, which people put down to entryism from Brexiteers. By and large the Conservative Party activists are less like the centre ground in British politics than has been the case for years. You still find redoubts of good sense but I think we're heading towards rather nasty right-wing English nationalism.

MM: And on the subject of Brexit a party that is very firmly, if one believes the polls and surveys, committed to the idea of leaving without a deal if that's what it comes to.

CP: Yes, absolutely. I think that the polls suggest that something like three quarters think we should leave without a deal without having the faintest idea what it means. I hear people banging on about leaving on WTO terms. They wouldn't know what WTO terms were if they came up and punched them on the nose. It's a real humiliation. A lot of lies and a lot of self-delusion and I'm afraid it would be very damaging at home. The likeliest outcome is that the parliamentary party would forward two candidates as they must and that the party and the country choose whichever is the more outlandishly right-wing on the issue of Brexit.

MM: Let's talk about some of them if we could in terms of....

CP: There are too many, we haven't got time... :lol::nervous:

MM: Let's just choose a few. In terms of what you might call the centrist, Rory Stewart, Jeremy Hunt. Do you find either of them convincing?

CP: I think both Matt Hancock and Rory Stewart would in time by perfectly sensible as Conservative Prime Ministers and I think that Rory Stewart is particularly good. I think he's got an incredible CV and he says very sensible things about the need for honesty in dealing with Brexit and honesty includes not thinking we can waltz off to Brussels and persuade Brussels to give us things which they weren't prepared to give to Mrs May.

MM: I notice you left Jeremy Hunt off that list.

CP: Well I'm never quite sure what side of the argument he's on. He made a speech at a party conference, I think it was last year, comparing the EU to the Soviet Union. Now, he must know that's profoundly foolish because he's actually a clever guy but it sort of suggests that he moves backwards and forwards according to how the wind's blowing.

MM: What about the three front runners of those who adopt the harder line, Dominic Raab, Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.

CP: I don't know Dominic Raab but he doesn't seem to have been a spectacular success as Brexit secretary of state and I think his views on other issues would be rather further to the right than my own.

Boris Johnson, we all know, has a rather [pause] elastic relationship with the truth. He hasn't proved to be terribly competent. It's possible, since he's changed his mind on everything from time to time, that between now and the election of a new Tory leader he'll be wildly in favour of us playing a central role in the EU. On the other hand he could be in favour of us making war with the French. You don't know from one Daily Telegraph column to the other.

Michael Gove is a genuine Brexiteer. He's a very competent minister. While I don't care much for his views on foreign policy, he was very neo-con, it was said of him on one occasion that there was no country in the world that he wouldn't go to war with [laughing]. That may be unfair but I think it was said by one of his colleagues. But I think he is capable of understanding that the biggest task of a new Prime Minister is to try to bring the country together. And that means trying to assemble a consensus and accommodations which have not been very apparent in the last year or two.
MM: Lets project ourselves forward to the moment when someone new takes over. And assume that it is somebody who has promised Conservative Party members that they will take the Britain out of EU without a deal if that's what it comes to, can you see a way through for them at that stage?

CP: No I can't. I think when they try to open a negotiation with Brussels to change the Withdrawal Agreement they'll get a pretty dusty answer.

MM: Well I suppose that raises the possibility that whoever it is comes back and asks the Commons if they can come out without a deal and the Commons says no, and we have a General Election, which brings us back to - what kind of Conservative Party would be fighting that election?

CP: I don't think the EU is going to budge and give us any better deal than we've got at the moment. I don't think the House of Commons is going to budge in its refusal to accept a no deal Brexit. I don't think it will change it's opposition to the deal or the sort of deal which Mrs May negotiated over the months. So in those circumstances it seems to me more likely than ever that we either have a General Election or, I don't like referendums, but it may be that the only way of sorting this terrible, humiliating mess out is by asking people for a second opinion. And it's not undemocratic to do that for heaven's sake.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m0005mfy
Click to expand...

https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics...ler_older_whiter_more_rightwing_than_it_used/
 
horsechoker said:
Any chance of Brexit removing Klopp and Guardiola's right to live and work in the UK?

There might be a silver lining after all
Click to expand...
Careful what you wish for or you’ll have Big Sam on the phone to Woodward.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.