Please don't talk economics. It makes my head hurt.
UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
- Status
Please don't talk economics. It makes my head hurt.
You've given absolutely zero evidence to support your claim.
Well tbf, of course it does because that's what they're aiming to achieve. I've never seen a political party in any country also outline the potential negatives of anything they're going to try and implement. I mean, you never seen the Leave campaign highlighting how much of a clusterfeck Brexit would be and how we could get totally shafted by it all.
But to answer "what then?", I honestly don't know. Does anyone know anything about Brexit any more? There's far too many uncertainties with the whole thing. Again, though, those uncertainties aren't exclusive to Labour.
no it’s not! utterly ridiculous - you can’t even make a good analogy because there in not one. labour have a leader who doesn’t know what he would do if they got into power. It’s a difficult decision he needs to make, but he’s afraid of upsetting some parts of the electorate and so won’t make a decision.
he implements the winner of the vote after he takes the deal with full facts or remain. it doesn't matter that he doesn't campaign one way or the other because he is simply implementing the winner of the vote.
This really isn't hard to understand.
Obviously he'll negotiate the leave with a deal.
Mainly because the other 2 options (remain or no deal leave) require no negotiation.
Of course he is, which deal would that be then, the one that the EU won't agree to. Boris managed to negotiate a worse deal in 3 months, can Corbyn do the same. You assume that the EU will agree a deal different to what's already been negotiated.
Imagine if the referendum ended up as Boris's deal vs Remain - and that was the best deal Corbyn could negotiate. We'll never find out though so he can fantasise all he likes.
I'm sorry, but this takes primary school level comprehension skills.
What evidence would help? I could talk about the 70s, Venezuela, Mitterand etc. but I imagine you know all the examples, and just don't think it applies to the modern United Kingdom, which is fair enough. I think differently, I think these are real risks to which many in our country have become complacent.
The main problem I have is with the tone of the discussion. Believing that doesn't make me, or anyone else who believes it selfish, evil or any other negative word you care to throw. Its an opinion, and the point of democracy is that we all share our opinion, and that the government of the day is based on that opinion. We can then watch what happens, learn, and maybe change our vote for the next time. If you want someone to change their position, you have to engage, there is too little of that is current political discourse.
Debating with you is like debating with a climate denier - first you dismiss the evidence based on who's collected it, then you dismiss the evidence based on personal incredulity, then you dismiss the evidence on the grounds of conspiracy. At no point do you show any willingness to address the evidence itself.
What you have to remember is that the best case scenario for the EU is remaining. The next best scenario is a soft Brexit where Britain and the EU maintain close trade relations. This is much more in line with Labour's stance on Brexit than a hard Brexit, making the negotiations a lot easier.
Worst case scenario is that he can't negotiate a deal, at which point it's Boris' deal vs remain.
But if he is negotiating this amazing deal surely it's not too much to expect him to tell voters what he will try to do about
1. Single market and 4 indivisible freedoms ... Will he accept all 4 or not to retain market access.
2. Remain in the customs union or a bespoke union and what's his red lines on this bespoke customs union (can we access existing deals and negotiate our own or has he accepted this crosses the EU red lines)
3. European law and courts involvement in the UK
4. Irish border... If we have a bespoke customs union what are the border arrangements he proposes
5. Will freedom of movement continue
6. Is European state aid / subsidies a red line in negotiations
7. If a new deal can not be negotiated and the EU will not extend would he prefer no deal or the Boris deal or Mays deal
8. What format will the referendum take (2 options or more?) And who will be allowed to vote in it
I mean as a minimum you would think people should be told those kind of details as to if they want him to renegotiate or not
I read a really interesting article on Venezuela this morning.
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/socialism-blame-venezuelas-crisis-180530095418091.html
Incredible. Instead of providing any evidence, you bring up Venezuela. That's when you know you're not having a conversation in good faith. There are many social democracies in Europe that are very successful and far more similar to the changes Labour have set out in their manifesto.
Every process needs an independent adjudicator otherwise it's unfairly balanced towards one side. Seriously, why does Corbyn need to come out and say "I'd campaign to leave or I'd campaign to remain?". His party members will be doing both as will every other politician. You need - NEED - someone who can remain in the centre of any process.
It was bias that caused this divide in the nation to begin with. Leavers making things up, Remainers fudging numbers, and on and on we go. Even on this forum where we probably agree on 99% of things in life, it's that 1% that's making us go for each others throats.
Take emotion out of it, have someone in a position where they are simply there to implement the will of the people. Having a dude at the top who openly announces which way he's going just screams of someone who will enforce whatever they want. Cameron couldn't even do it - he lost and then fecked off which resulted in the last two PMs who are utterly atrocious. And, yes, I'm actually calling Cameron a good statesman there.
What is it about those things that have something to do with Corbyn?
why would he give away any negotiating stance before entering the negotiations though? Although just by asking that question i'm aware that his stance on No deal off the table did exactly that.
I never claimed it would be an amazing deal, i truthfully have no idea, but i do think that no matter what the deal he will publish it in full and then give voters a choice between that deal or remain. I personally think that is very sensible, but it seems i am in the minority on this subject.
Because he is asking people to vote him in to negotiate this new deal... I think it's a minimum to expect he would be prepared to say what his aims of this negotiation are... I'd say it's straight talking honest politics to do so
Sometimes I wish we could all just make a nice big pie together and share it. Nobody would be excluded and we could live in harmony. Except those pesky vegans, feck them.
His aims are to get the best deal possible for the uk in the time frame that he set out, then he publishes and the people decide. We are going around in circles. I have already conceded that I am in the minority here but i am offering my honest opinion.
A soft Brexit requires all 4 freedoms to be unchanged , that freedom of movement is not up for discussion. Corbyn is trying to please Leavers and Remainers and is managing to con some of them. Problem is that remaining neutral or trying to please everyone will only please the loyal faithful and convinces no-one else.
Of course the EU would have preferred the UK to remain but they now want this uncertainty to be over with and they are not going to agree to anything that will compromise the customs union or the single market. Surely everyone must realise this by now. Three years down the road and we're almost back to Theresa May's Lancaster House speech but with Labour instead.
As I've mentioned in multiple posts so far, which you've wilfully ignored, i agree that there is an antisemitism problem in the Labour party. The problem with your argument is that you aren't acknowledging my points as regards the difference between antisemitism and antizionism. You haven't touched on the fact that the JLM has a vested interest in removing Corbyn. You haven't commented on the fact that an awful lot of the statements in that document is hearsay, some of then sounding a little incredible.
You can say I'm like a climate change denier all you like, but the reality of it is that I have addressed what you've said. All you can do is come back at me with tired old insults like inferring I'm a conspiracy theorist. How about we have a proper debate and we'll see exactly how and why this might be a smear job.
The great thing about Corbyn and McDonnell is they've been around such a long time we have a really good idea about what they think and what they will do.
Do you guys really think the Manifesto will be it and that's enough? No more state intervention? Not even Corbyn and McDonnell are saying that!
I think the article is letting Chavez and Maduro off lightly. Oil a problem? Only if you spend it poorly. Fundamentally people are starving and dying at a horrible rate, in a country that should be rich.
Somebody just read BJs manifesto to him and the part about tax increases and BJ said no, that's not true
I think the point was that the issues started long before the socialists took control although socialism then contributed. I feel that to blame the entire situation on socialism is extremely disingenuous.
Completely subjective... So he should embrace his straight talking honest politics mantra and tell us what he believes that entails
Of course there were problems in Venezuelan society, but to say that leads a direct pathway to the hunger and starvation we have seen is just not fair. We are over 20 years from when Chavez first took office, the shortages started 10+ years after he did.
I'm not sure what that video was supposed to prove? Perhaps you could give me a breakdown?
I don't think state intervention is a bad thing, so more of it won't worry me. If they go too far then they will lose support. But right now, we need as a country, to have certain services run for the good of the people, not the bottom line of investors.
for what’s it’s worth read it as purely opportunistic - which is a utter sham really. completely irresponsible.
To be fair, the Leave campaign was very clear - if they don't get the deal they want, they'll go for No Deal. Madness, but pretty clear. Unless they've moved the goalposts from the last few years, Labour certainly won't get the deal they claim they can, so it's fair to ask what happens when they don't.
That this is a man who doesn't like opposition, thinks that Conservatives are evil and will try to change the governmental system for the advantage of Marxist policies. This isn't scaremongering, it is what he's said on numerous occasions.
Scrutiny, mainstream media-style...
I don't really see the problem with the things he's saying there, although quite a bit of it was cut quite tightly, so possibly out of context. His comment about being a Marxist is one we all know about, I'm not particularly concerned, Corbyn gave a speech the other day stating that he would limit his executive power, rather than increase it, as the Tory manifesto is suggesting. The other comment I thought you might take issue with is when he said he'd like to destroy the system. Whilst I think this is a bit far, I do agree that it needs significant restructuring.
Can you show me an example of anyone on the leave side saying pre referendum we might not get a deal, and if not then we will leave without a deal?
Genuinely curious because I only remember the rhetoric being we will get an amazing deal and that is that.
Everything in a society should ultimately be for the good of the people, I am very much a utilitarian. Investors are also part of "the people" and in a well functioning capitalist society everyone should be an "investor".
Certain things, such as railways or water, should probably be government owned by I don't think it would make much difference either way. Do you think basic services (rail, gas, electricity, rail) would get a lot cheaper if everything was in public hands? The evidence from around Europe suggests otherwise. If not then what's the point in going through the faff?
Doubt any of them did, that's not the point I'm getting at.
To be honest with you, we are talking hypothetically aren't we? I mean, i think this has been a really bad day for Labour and their already slim chances of even a minority government are rapidly disappearing. The public love the Tories it seems and nothing that they do or say will change that.
We are heading for 5 more years of conservatives and there is nothing anybody can do about it. I do believe that everybody should be looked after and protected, i just hope that you are a lot better prepared then i am. If things continue on this current projection in my life, i predict that i will probably be homeless within the next 18 months and no matter how hard i try (And believe me i am trying so hard) there seems to be nothing i can do to change it.
The suicide statistics are very high in this country and, to be frank, i can see myself joining that list. It is hard to continue when you have nowhere to turn and feel like you are nothing more than a burden. Then when you see potential or existing MPs saying things along the lines of the working class are lazy etc (i'm paraphrasing several people of course but i'm sure that you get the gist) and it's their party that will almost without doubt win a majority, I just can't help but feel defeated, broken and so very useless.
Given that a hung parliament is the most likely way for Labour to gain power, if Labour manage to cobble together a coalition, they'll all be looking to get those 4 freedoms.
- Status