# Oh Dear - he's gone and trumped them all!



## Random Orbital Bob (9 Nov 2016)

Game over folks...the most dangerous man in the history of the universe is now the leader of the free world!!

I just heard the victory speech on the way back from the station....nearly crashed the car!


----------



## NickN (9 Nov 2016)

Not a good year to be a bookmaker... :twisted:


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2016)

Even makes Reagan look like a civilised intelligent alternative.

Would Bernie Sanders have got there? He has the populist touch which Clinton certainly has not.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (9 Nov 2016)

Anyone know where you can buy 2nd hand Anderson shelters


----------



## NickN (9 Nov 2016)

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/152308056975?rmvSB

Looks a bit, er, in need of oiling and TLC, as so many sellers love to say on Fleabay.


----------



## mailee (9 Nov 2016)

USA, WTF! :shock: The Russians must be wetting themselves. :lol: What's next, Alan Carr for our PM! Has the world gone mad? :roll:


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Nov 2016)

There's going to be a real shortage of bricks now in America, especially in the southern states


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (9 Nov 2016)

Anyone get the feeling we're sort of heading back to the middle ages?


----------



## NazNomad (9 Nov 2016)

Well, it's not like they were spoiled for choice, was it?


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2016)

I think Bernie Sanders might have made it. I blame the " liberal elite" for being too arrogant. Ditto with our own Labour Party - this could be good for Corbyn.


----------



## NazNomad (9 Nov 2016)

How soon they forget that they once voted for the support actor from Bedtime For Bonzo.


----------



## MIGNAL (9 Nov 2016)

Trump is a lot of hot air (cough!) - I hope! 
He can't deliver even on a miniscule amount of the stuff he's come out with. It's not that difficult to rouse the masses if they've suffered from job losses and incomes going nowhere. This is simply a reaction to globalisation. Trump will deliver FA to them.


----------



## bugbear (9 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":1yqfc1kh said:


> Trump is a lot of hot air (cough!) - I hope!
> He can't deliver even on a miniscule amount of the stuff he's come out with. It's not that difficult to rouse the masses if they've suffered from job losses and incomes going nowhere. This is simply a reaction to globalisation. Trump will deliver FA to them.



I think this too. But following that, what are the hate-filled mob he's created, and can only let down, going to do?

It won't be pretty.

BugBear


----------



## MIGNAL (9 Nov 2016)

Time BB, time. Slowly but surely they'll come to realise that their great white hope has delivered nothing. They'll react by voting in the next Democrat, someone much less tainted than Clinton, who will promise a bright new world and who will also deliver FA. So the cycle continues. The non establishment become the establishment.


----------



## Fitzroy (9 Nov 2016)

It's the fact that he is now seen as approved, and with that approval all his behaviours and views become normalised and acceptable. This fiasco has set back progress on equality and inclusion by 40 years.


----------



## NazNomad (9 Nov 2016)

Heads up: nothing will change.

If voting changed anything the public wouldn't be allowed to do it.


----------



## AJB Temple (9 Nov 2016)

Hardly any significant reaction in UK markets at opening this morning. Media has got its knickers in too much of a twist perhaps.


----------



## lurker (9 Nov 2016)

He needs to still be alive in Febuary to become POTUS

......just saying


----------



## Nelsun (9 Nov 2016)

^and it would likely be someone who voted for him too.

I listened to his acceptance speech in which he didn't call for Clinton to be arrested. If only he goes back on everything else he's said just as quickly. Bummbling old fartwaggon that he is.


----------



## finneyb (9 Nov 2016)

BUT the election is rigged - Trump says so!!

Brian


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2016)

bugbear":2q8rvlp5 said:


> .., what are the hate-filled mob he's created, and can only let down, going to do?
> 
> It won't be pretty.
> 
> BugBear


Yes an element of hate filled mob, but a bigger element of ordinary low-paid or unemployed who are have paid the price of failed neo-liberal economics and have been ignored by the establishments (left or right) in so many other ways. Very similar to the Brexit vote.


----------



## RobinBHM (9 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":n9ryqo9w said:


> Trump is a lot of hot air (cough!) - I hope!
> He can't deliver even on a miniscule amount of the stuff he's come out with. It's not that difficult to rouse the masses if they've suffered from job losses and incomes going nowhere. This is simply a reaction to globalisation. Trump will deliver FA to them.



'He cant deliver even on a miniscule amount of the stuff he's come out with' -Mmm that sounds like a proper politician to me, he'll fit in well!

I wonder if he will be clever enough to back track on all the divisive rhetoric by reaching out to the Muslims, Hispanics, Mexicans, Blacks without upsetting those that voted for his 'zero tolerance immigration' policy etc etc.

I suppose we can look forward to his hotels being rebranded the 'President Trump' hotels


----------



## skipdiver (9 Nov 2016)

People are fed up of the old establishment and have voted for what they see as change, in a protest vote of sorts. He will spend the next four years making himself and his Republican mates obscenely wealthy with tax cuts and business breaks. It has parallels with the Brexit vote here.


----------



## swagman (9 Nov 2016)

Who would have thought you could Trump what happened in the Brexit vote. The worlds gone mad. #-o


----------



## doctor Bob (9 Nov 2016)

I put a decent chunk of dough on a Trump win at 5/1. So some good has come out of it.


----------



## n0legs (9 Nov 2016)

Will Oliver Stone still be alive in 30 years?


----------



## MIGNAL (9 Nov 2016)

Wonder when he will start building the great wall of America/Mexico? Well, not him personally but you know what I mean. It's the one that the experts (oops!) say won't make a blind bit of difference. 
Anyway, I'm never going to accept that Trump is US president. The vote was rigged. Crikey! He hasn't entered the Whitehouse and he's already got that wrong.


----------



## thetyreman (9 Nov 2016)

am I the only one who genuinely doesn't care?


----------



## NazNomad (9 Nov 2016)

thetyreman":inrdjy1p said:


> am I the only one who genuinely doesn't care?



No, you're not the only one.


----------



## RossJarvis (9 Nov 2016)

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggggggggggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh......deep breath......aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggggghhhhhhhhhhhhhhh....
repeat for several minutes.

then remember some people voted Brexit and the World is still here. Then get on with life.


----------



## tomatwark (9 Nov 2016)

doctor Bob":s1dxi5gn said:


> I put a decent chunk of dough on a Trump win at 5/1. So some good has come out of it.



Certainly a different way of paying for your lovely new house, most people take out a self build mortgage :lol:


----------



## Woodmonkey (9 Nov 2016)

The idiots are taking over!

https://youtu.be/3kqLVeP7iHA


----------



## DiscoStu (9 Nov 2016)

320 million people and that's the best they can do? 

Says something about their election system. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## focusonwood (9 Nov 2016)

Can't believe Biff Tannen is POTUS


----------



## selectortone (9 Nov 2016)

Looking forward to seeing America made great again.

[/sarcasm]


----------



## SteveF (9 Nov 2016)

i wonder if i could get 5\1 on him being assassinated before he walks through the front door

Steve


----------



## Stanleymonkey (9 Nov 2016)

We're bringing our Christmas do forward - just in case!


----------



## Flynnwood (9 Nov 2016)

American woman on Radio 2 lunchtime had gotten hold of data that said 53% of women (in her area) would vote for trump. On that basis she got and took odds of 12 to 1.

Putin's response, 2 mins 30secs:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uOPFTnHG-Q


----------



## Jacob (9 Nov 2016)

Flynnwood":ufbpkhva said:


> American woman on Radio 2 lunchtime had gotten hold of data that said 53% of women (in her area) would vote for trump. On that basis she got and took odds of 12 to 1.
> 
> Putin's response, 2 mins 30secs:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uOPFTnHG-Q


Does that mean 53% of women like being groped? Not in my experience  .


----------



## Max Power (9 Nov 2016)

His vote was really quite diverse . There was a gay guy being interviewed earlier who represented a LGBT group who campaigned for him by reason that he was perceived to be anti Muslim who they perceived to be anti gay


----------



## Flynnwood (9 Nov 2016)

Have a laugh: 1 min 40 secs:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svRMbZeNn1U


----------



## lurker (10 Nov 2016)

doctor Bob":11osk1o9 said:


> I put a decent chunk of dough on a Trump win at 5/1. So some good has come out of it.



are they offering odds on him not becoming POTUS

i have a few quid to spare


----------



## skipdiver (10 Nov 2016)

doctor Bob":1fnjzlfd said:


> I put a decent chunk of dough on a Trump win at 5/1. So some good has come out of it.



You could put your winnings toward a fall out shelter. :lol:


----------



## Jacob (10 Nov 2016)

A lot of comment that this could be seen as good news for Corbyn: 
_"This is not about left and right, as such; it is about a willingness to stand up to the status quo and call for a genuine change in the way we do politics."_ 
Whether or not it's good news for the USA, doubtful, but we do not know!

It's the middle ground being rejected, Sanders might have pulled it off in the USA


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Nov 2016)

Or good for Le Pen. We could be moving into some very choppy waters, that almost certainly will not end well.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (10 Nov 2016)

I agree with Jacob that fundamentally both Brexit and in the US, the sentiment behind the vote is a rejection of the status quo. It's sort of the democratic equivalent of the French revolution! But instead of chopping the heads off the French toffs, the electorate is (thinking it's) giving the Westminster and Washington bubble's a kicking. Whether that turns out to actually happen remains to be seen. Interesting times and that's for sure!


----------



## custard (10 Nov 2016)

Over half of all Americans have seen real declines in their living standards over the past twenty years. Whether you agree with them or not, it's easy to understand why those people didn't vote for more of the same.


----------



## MIGNAL (10 Nov 2016)

Twenty years? I don't think their earnings in real terms have increased since something like 1975! 
The real problem is that the semi skilled/skilled jobs that paid half decent wages have gone and they aren't going to return, despite what Trump says. It's how you address these issues and no one has come up with an answer, certainly not Trump. Wealth distribution doesn't go down that well in the US. Then you look at _personal debt _and the line on the graph. It's being going up at 45 degrees since the very early 80's, a vast increase.


----------



## Steve Maskery (10 Nov 2016)

I agree.
The fundamental problem is that we, in rich western counties, have had, not for years, _but for generations_, a bigger slice of the global cake than is our natural share. Ever since the industrial revolution, we have got rich off the backs of less-developed countries. Now those countries are doing what we did 200 years ago and that means that there is a re-balancing, and we don't like it.
S


----------



## AJB Temple (10 Nov 2016)

There is an additional US dynamic. I lived there for a while and it is quite an eye opener how insular many of the people are. Not at all travelled, very few have passports, marked ignorance of world affairs, and deeply segregated in some places. We tend to look at America and use our UK / European values to make judgements, but this only applies to a few places and a minority of the population.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (10 Nov 2016)

Clinton was entirely the wrong choice of candidate. Now, Michelle Obama would have been another matter entirely. She'd have wiped the floor with Trump.

For all of Trump's distasteful comments and his shady business dealings - which will come out eventually as you don't get to be a billionaire by playing it straight - he has one major thing going for him. He didn't sound like the same tired old career politician who promise much, deliver nothing and skim off the top. That might be exactly what he will do, but people didn't think so.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. People scoff about Russia and their corruption problem, yet how is it that the Clintons are now worth $50m when their political salaries, and they are career politicians, would be absolutely nowhere near that amount. It's private money. They are owned by billionaire lobbyists and investors. They are corrupt as they come and have lied and cheated their way through the past 20 years. The Clinton foundation being the icing on a poo filled cake. It will all come out in the wash.

Both candidates were awful, but just being a woman wasn't enough to prevent people seeing Clinton for what she really is. You can't polish a cowpat.


----------



## Lons (10 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":274p8d93 said:


> You can't polish a cowpat.



Dunno about that! It's exactly what Trump reminds me of. :wink:


----------



## gregmcateer (10 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":1mqw7ro1 said:


> I agree.
> The fundamental problem is that we, in rich western counties, have had, not for years, _but for generations_, a bigger slice of the global cake than is our natural share. Ever since the industrial revolution, we have got rich off the backs of less-developed countries. Now those countries are doing what we did 200 years ago and that means that there is a re-balancing, and we don't like it.
> S



Spot on, IMHO.

I genuinely believe it's going to get tougher for our developed world.


----------



## RossJarvis (10 Nov 2016)

I can't but agree with those who're pointing out that the West is getting a deserved come-uppance.

The major problem we and the Americans face is that the politicians won't tell the truth and us the voters won't listen to it. When they actually admit that the whole system is *****d and don't really know what to do but have some ideas which may work, and we feel it's worth voting for someone who doesn't push the positive, act the strong man/woman, then maybe things could get better.

Although I can't stand most of his ideas, Corbyn is the only politician so far approaching honesty, I can't see him getting anywhere so I don't see things getting better.

The people get the rulers they deserve, so let's face it we're all *******d.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (10 Nov 2016)

Lons":tqldbzn8 said:


> YorkshireMartin":tqldbzn8 said:
> 
> 
> > You can't polish a cowpat.
> ...



I know what you mean but in all honesty I didn't think he came across as polished at all, quite the opposite. Just a cowpat. He sounded like an crazed madman for the entire campaign. He becomes president-elect, then suddenly, as if by magic, sounds presidential. His victory speech was really very good I thought. Obviously not written by him, but he still had to be able to speak convincingly.

I can't work him out. Some say he's a closet democrat. Maybe he's the stig.

I think he just said things to shake it up and in reality he's probably far more level headed. I mean, he's had his fair share of business problems, but you don't get to be in that position without being pretty smart. Notwithstanding his rather egregious comments about women but I've heard and seen far worse in the board room of listed companies....

Clinton sucks though, not because she's a woman or a democrat, but because of how she chose to behave, feathering her own nest whilst pretending to be socially minded. Ugh.


----------



## RossJarvis (10 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":q4np9zm4 said:


> Clinton sucks though, not because she's a woman or a democrat, but because of how she chose to behave, feathering her own nest whilst pretending to be socially minded. Ugh.



Throughout the campaign I thought that Trump was too bizarre and offensive to be a credible choice for that particular job and sort of assumed that Hilary was just the obvious sensible choice. Then a few days ago I heard her screaming away at some convention or other and realised that the choice was between two complete and utter dicks. At that point I realised that the Donald was not as bad a choice as I'd previously thought.

Grief, they're both complete nutters, I thought Boris was strange, He's the steadiest most sensible person in the World in comparison.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2016)

I wonder who the Vice President is going to be ? Mickey Mouse ? Seriously, that's who we need to be concerned about as Trump will get assassinated sooner rather than later.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Nov 2016)

The reason D.Trump won is because of Obama.


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Nov 2016)

He's going to create hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of American jobs. 
If his promise to Scotland is anything to go by (why shouldn't it?) it's looking distinctly like the mid west has been squeezed by their cojones.


----------



## treeturner123 (11 Nov 2016)

A couple of things

First, reference to Ronald R fails to mention that RR was also a politician both when he was acting and after as a not too bad Governor of California. As a result he had some insight into how politics works and a way to make politics work for him. He also had a good support group round him.

Secondly, I agree with the comments about Michelle Obama. What a gracious but firm person she seems to be. If she ran next time, I'd apply for US citizenship to vote for her!!!

Phi


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

Perhaps the only hope with Trump is that he is a practical doer and not a theory man with an ideology - so when he finally confronts the issues he's been blagging on about he might realise the need to get down to the facts and find workable solutions.

More likely he will be a lame duck and obedient to the civil service - except for occasional fits of rage followed by rash decisions.

One thing he will have to confront is his promise to reduce taxation. It's already historically low in the USA and there's no way he can increase public spending without increasing taxation.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Nov 2016)

Jacob. he can borrow, or print the money he needs.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

devonwoody":25oxfu7q said:


> Jacob. he can borrow, or print the money he needs.


Amounts to almost the same thing - devaluation reduces the value of people's assets. Taxation makes more sense and is more workable because it takes more from the better off and is redistributive.


----------



## devonwoody (11 Nov 2016)

Jacob that does not seem to worry politicians , I used to by a packet of fags of under one shilling (5p) now I think they are around £10. etc. etc.


----------



## swagman (11 Nov 2016)

If Trump tries to enforces a heavy import tariff on China, he will also need to look at his Defence budget. 

Given the likelihood of a major military confrontation between the 2 countries, who is Mexico likely to back. 

Xi Jinping, or Donald Trump.


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Nov 2016)

He could do helicopter money. Just fly over the mid west states dropping millions of dollars. Better than QE, which even Osborne admitted just ends up in the hands of people who are already wealthy. 
Something like 60 people in the world have more wealth than half of the planet. Quite an astonishing statistic. Many of those 60 will be in the US. Not sure if Trump is one of those 60.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":1ffy5sux said:


> He could do helicopter money. Just fly over the mid west states dropping millions of dollars. Better than QE, which even Osborne admitted just ends up in the hands of people who are already wealthy.
> Something like 60 people in the world have more wealth than half of the planet. Quite an astonishing statistic. Many of those 60 will be in the US. Not sure if Trump is one of those 60.


It all comes down to crude economics.
I favour the Monopoly board solution; if you want the game (the economy) to continue (producing goods and services) you have to take money from those who have too much and give it to those who have too little,( and also spend it on infrastructure).


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Nov 2016)

Trumps support amongst the wealthier educated white population was much better than predicted, so it wasn't just the poor underclass that voted for him. That also could be a reflection on Clinton being somewhat of a flawed candidate though. 
I also have a sneaking suspicion that we've entered another world. It's what I term the anti science. Gove's comment summed it up brilliantly, we are fed up of experts. Youtube is full of conspiracy theories, many of which are frighteningly ridiculous. There seems to be a small but unhealthy number of people who are rejecting science and reasoning, whilst sat in their warm centrally heated rooms, sat in front of their technologically advanced computers and iphones. They would rather put their faith in Trump though. Strange world.


----------



## bugbear (11 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":3hej9j1w said:


> I also have a sneaking suspicion that we've entered another world. It's what I term the anti science. Gove's comment summed it up brilliantly, we are fed up of experts. Youtube is full of conspiracy theories, many of which are frighteningly ridiculous.



Mike Pence (the VP elect) is not merely a climate change denier (I guess we took that for granted).

He also denies the link between smoking and cancer.

Oh, and evolution.

It's called "post factual politics".  

BugBear


----------



## swagman (11 Nov 2016)

Trumps vice president Mike Pence has some controversial beliefs. http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -governors . :deer :deer :deer


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":3jlnealp said:


> Trumps support amongst the wealthier educated white population was much better than predicted, so it wasn't just the poor underclass that voted for him. That also could be a reflection on Clinton being somewhat of a flawed candidate though.
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that we've entered another world. It's what I term the anti science. Gove's comment summed it up brilliantly, we are fed up of experts. Youtube is full of conspiracy theories, many of which are frighteningly ridiculous. There seems to be a small but unhealthy number of people who are rejecting science and reasoning, whilst sat in their warm centrally heated rooms, sat in front of their technologically advanced computers and iphones. They would rather put their faith in Trump though. Strange world.


Not that strange. 
The benefits of science, technology, economic theory, increased productivity etc etc have not benefitted all equally. Especially increased productivity which leads inevitably to unemployment - thats the whole idea, but not everybody gets any benefit from having to do less work.
So a lot of people are pineappled off and will clutch at straws - almost literally if they are so pineappled off they've decided to set off across the Med in an overcrowded dinghy, whilst in another part of the world somebody is making loadsa dosh from manufacturing bombs and dropping them on these peoples' homes.

A lot of people rejecting the status quo.


----------



## DennisCA (11 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":2w9y4era said:


> I agree.
> The fundamental problem is that we, in rich western counties, have had, not for years, _but for generations_, a bigger slice of the global cake than is our natural share. Ever since the industrial revolution, we have got rich off the backs of less-developed countries. Now those countries are doing what we did 200 years ago and that means that there is a re-balancing, and we don't like it.
> S



I disagree that our working class are poorer because developing countries have more today, as if it was a zero sum game. The developing world is still being exploited by the western global corporations. I also disagree that we somehow need to sell out our own working class and their jobs by outsourcing them as if that's somehow fair to punish our weakest for the past sins of the wealthiest members of our societies? Might as well just give aid funded by taxes then. 

I don't think the globalist system has been kind to the people exploited in the 3rd world either, they are very much at a disadvantage and being exploited every single day. I am very convinced a less globalized world with more local production would be a better world than today. I remember reading an economy article by one of the not left leaning papers saying world GDP growth since the neoliberal revolution has actually been less than it was in the era of 1950-1980 where globalization was more limited in scope, despite the massive growth of trade. 

There's been a self-fulfilling prophecy sold that globalization is something inevitable, like a force of nature, as opposed what it is, a set of treaties that was hashed out over years behind closed doors, very much like TTIP and CETA.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":w1ikd69m said:


> Trumps support amongst the wealthier educated white population was much better than predicted, so it wasn't just the poor underclass that voted for him. That also could be a reflection on Clinton being somewhat of a flawed candidate though.
> I also have a sneaking suspicion that we've entered another world. It's what I term the anti science. Gove's comment summed it up brilliantly, we are fed up of experts. Youtube is full of conspiracy theories, many of which are frighteningly ridiculous. There seems to be a small but unhealthy number of people who are rejecting science and reasoning, whilst sat in their warm centrally heated rooms, sat in front of their technologically advanced computers and iphones. They would rather put their faith in Trump though. Strange world.



But also don't forget that a fair chunk of wealthy and educated are just going to vote republican regardless the (idiocy) candidate. It's the party they believe gives them the greatest benefit. I must say I did have a rather surreal conversation with two very close friends of mine (Americans) who stayed with us for a week just 4 weeks ago. Every night over dinner it came up and every time they supported trump! These are well off, middle class, well educated white people working in IT with well paid white collar jobs. I was a little flabbergasted at first, just naturally assuming they would condemn him after the misogyny scandal broke. But they kept "selling" him to me and the more they sold, the more obsessed I became with trying to understand what was driving the thinking. In the end I think there were two distinct drivers:

First, they really quite seriously don't like Hilary. I've rarely seen hate for a person that someone has never actually met but boy oh boy I saw it then! Clinton seemed to illicit a very passionate response that was interlaced with a great many conspiracy theories but underneath which the "crook" accusation was the heart of it.

Second and this was the one that I couldn't help but argue about: They were hacked off with the democrats giving away what they call "free stuff". By this they meant all the tax dollars that fund various social and welfare programs for various disadvantaged and/or minority groups. I pointed out politely that surely they must realise that a civil society has a duty to deliver some form of social justice but they countered with....if we keep giving them free stuff....they become dependent on the state, fat, lazy, spongers, dole bludgers etc etc.....sound familiar???

In the end I had to stop because my mate started to go to bed early in a huff! But what that series of debates left me with is an understanding that the binary nature of American society, the winners and losers culture is very much still alive. As a nation I don't believe their culture is any where near as tolerant or charitable as ours is in Britain.

So I was a little shocked and a little disappointed but then it's not my hard earned dollars that the private sector has just had to pony up to pay for Obama care. Anybody with their own small business is *really* upset about that. I pointed out that if someone went into business with so little profit that they couldn't really afford to fund their workforce properly, then they were in error, not the administration, and suddenly I was alone at the dinner table!!!

So, it's not just the great unwashed that vote for Mr Looney...some people with an O level did too!


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

DennisCA":4wa3t3u8 said:


> ..... I remember reading an economy article by one of the not left leaning papers saying world GDP growth since the neoliberal revolution has actually been less than it was in the era of 1950-1980 where globalization was more limited in scope, despite the massive growth of trade.....


Tax rates in the 50s were up to 90% at the top and the country was getting wealthier at speed. Even Thatcher only brought top rates down to 60%.
Neo liberal = low tax. 
Taxation drives economies, whether it's spent on benefits, infrastructure, or even on warfare - the survivors end up better off. Neo liberal economics has strangled growth, reduced employment and enriched the already wealthy - which leads the way to "extremist" reaction - turning left or right .
Sanders might have beaten Trump, though you could hardly call Sanders or Corbyn "extremists"


----------



## DennisCA (11 Nov 2016)

Corbyn might get somewhere if he was more angry and bombastic instead of friendly old jam grandpa


----------



## MIGNAL (11 Nov 2016)

That's the new paradigm. Nasty, vulgar, gaudy, kitsch, obnoxious, lewd, sordid and filthy. 
You'll go far, right into high office!


----------



## DennisCA (11 Nov 2016)

Populism rules at the moment, it's what sways. Feels a bit unfair if only one side gets to be populist.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (11 Nov 2016)

This is worth a watch and a think about for anybody trying to understand the current political situation. It's part of a lecture given by political economist Mark Blyth - 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2VUFjSWN2w

It's worth rummaging about in YouTube for a few more Blyth clips. Whilst I don't entirely agree with his conclusions and forecasts, his analysis of what's been happening economically around the world is interesting, and delivered in a direct and entertaining style.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

DennisCA":1yq6hvjj said:


> Corbyn might get somewhere if he was more angry and bombastic instead of friendly old jam grandpa


 :lol: 
Well he _is _getting somewhere - he is the most popular leader the Labour party has had for a long time - has increased membership making Labour the biggest party in Europe and seems to be winning various elections all around the country with increased margins.
The media can't believe it so they don't believe it. Sanders' story more or less similar.


----------



## DennisCA (11 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2cydg23s said:


> This is worth a watch and a think about for anybody trying to understand the current political situation. It's part of a lecture given by political economist Mark Blyth -
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2VUFjSWN2w
> 
> It's worth rummaging about in YouTube for a few more Blyth clips. Whilst I don't entirely agree with his conclusions and forecasts, his analysis of what's been happening economically around the world is interesting, and delivered in a direct and entertaining style.



I think I've watched all of his stuff. He's engaging and funny and presents things in a way most people can understand.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1o8c2l63 said:


> DennisCA":1o8c2l63 said:
> 
> 
> > Corbyn might get somewhere if he was more angry and bombastic instead of friendly old jam grandpa
> ...



In your dreams, Jacob...in your dreams.

Just a very quick Google Labour slips to shock defeat in Sheffield Council by-election

Couldn't be bothered to look at all the rest.


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3k4grmuj said:


> Jacob":3k4grmuj said:
> 
> 
> > DennisCA":3k4grmuj said:
> ...


"The local candidate’s anti-Corbyn stance might have played a role in the defeat."
Surprise surprise!


----------



## RossJarvis (11 Nov 2016)

The thing with Corbyn is he's very popular with the new grass roots membership, not with Labour politicians. Looking at the recent parliamentary Tor...sorry Labour Party that's not necessarily a bad thing.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (11 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":28wzzbfa said:


> MIGNAL":28wzzbfa said:
> 
> 
> > Trumps support amongst the wealthier educated white population was much better than predicted, so it wasn't just the poor underclass that voted for him. That also could be a reflection on Clinton being somewhat of a flawed candidate though.
> ...



Very few Americans agree with socialism. Even their socialist politicians are at most, center right imo. My friends are the same. There is no way in hell they would ever vote for hilary clinton, yet a few of them did vote for Obama. All business owners, all middle class suburban residents with trucks, boats, health insurance and swimming pools. Intelligent and driven individuals. I haven't plucked up the courage to ask if anyone voted for Trump. Last time we discussed, they were going to vote independent.

It was the candidate that sunk the democrats. 

She just couldn't sell it.

Class divide in America is far more pronounced than here in my opinion. It only takes a drive through rural Arkansas to realise this. I've never seen such overt poverty.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Nov 2016)

Yes....the furthest South I ever got on business was Dallas which is of course dripping with oil wealth so I never made it into the hinterlands where the real poverty is. I agree Clinton couldn't sell it. So now we have a double glazing/real estate salesman with his finger on the nuclear trigger


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":zzc01w9g said:


> The thing with Corbyn is he's very popular with the new grass roots membership, not with Labour politicians. Looking at the recent parliamentary Tor...sorry Labour Party that's not necessarily a bad thing.


 :lol: 
He's also popular with the old grass roots membership - polls say he would have won the election without the new kids.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (11 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":8val0dsc said:


> Yes....the furthest South I ever got on business was Dallas which is of course dripping with oil wealth so I never made it into the hinterlands where the real poverty is. I agree Clinton couldn't sell it. So now we have a double glazing/real estate salesman with his finger on the nuclear trigger



Dallas is the area I've spent the most time recently. It has some horrific areas, but still nothing like the poverty in the countryside of some states, including texas. It's just unbelievable. 

Tempted to find a street view to show it. Might do later on.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3kvu3n13 said:


> RossJarvis":3kvu3n13 said:
> 
> 
> > The thing with Corbyn is he's very popular with the new grass roots membership, not with Labour politicians. Looking at the recent parliamentary Tor...sorry Labour Party that's not necessarily a bad thing.
> ...



Love it, Jacob.  You are a past master at spouting pearls of wisdom, such as _"polls say he would have won the election without the new kids"_ , as if they came down from the Sermon on the Mount. And yet you offer no links or evidence to support such pearls of wisdom.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (11 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1gclslcy said:


> Jacob":1gclslcy said:
> 
> 
> > RossJarvis":1gclslcy said:
> ...



Close, Corbyn came out of the Ark.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":1ihzj6me said:


> RogerS":1ihzj6me said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1ihzj6me said:
> ...



=D>


----------



## bugbear (11 Nov 2016)

RogerS":10mkcsj9 said:


> Jacob":10mkcsj9 said:
> 
> 
> > RossJarvis":10mkcsj9 said:
> ...



More post factual politics.

BugBear


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (11 Nov 2016)

Lets keep it civil guys....the usual "love triangle" of BB, Roger and Jacob....you know you guys should stop pontificating on here and throw your hats in the ring....go for gold and see if you can get elected....then you might actually be able to change something for the good.


----------



## No skills (11 Nov 2016)

I would vote..


----------



## Jacob (11 Nov 2016)

RogerS":159ximt9 said:


> Jacob":159ximt9 said:
> 
> 
> > RossJarvis":159ximt9 said:
> ...


The figures are out there somewhere. Don't give up so easily. In both membership elections Corbyn got a majority without the contribution of the new membership.


----------



## RogerS (11 Nov 2016)

Jacob":20b9reaw said:


> RogerS":20b9reaw said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":20b9reaw said:
> ...



But you keep doing this, Jacob. Why ? You make a sweeping generalisation and then when challenged, rather than defend your position and provide evidence to support your generalisation, you tell the challenger to go and look for themselves. That's not how debating or discussion goes. Well, at least not in the real world. By not providing any evidence, the logical conclusion is that you simply made it all up just to get a reaction. And that is called 'trolling'.


----------



## Woodmonkey (11 Nov 2016)

> Love it, Jacob.  You are a past master at spouting pearls of wisdom, such as _"polls say he would have won the election without the new kids"_ , as if they came down from the Sermon on the Mount. And yet you offer no links or evidence to support such pearls of wisdom.


The figures are out there somewhere. Don't give up so easily. In both membership elections Corbyn got a majority without the contribution of the new membership.[/quote]

But you keep doing this, Jacob. Why ? You make a sweeping generalisation and then when challenged, rather than defend your position and provide evidence to support your generalisation, you tell the challenger to go and look for themselves. That's not how debating or discussion goes. Well, at least not in the real world. By not providing any evidence, the logical conclusion is that you simply made it all up just to get a reaction. And that is called 'trolling'.[/quote]

Since new members were banned from voting, he *did* win with support of grass roots members


----------



## RobinBHM (11 Nov 2016)

This is old news, it doesnt matter how popular Jeremy is with the labour party members, modern politics occupies the centre ground, the ideals of the old 2 party politics to right and left is really not so relevent as we move further into this century.

I think its a shame Jeremy Corbyn is putting the party to the far left making labour marginal. I think he is a man of principal and like the fact he is different to the bland career politicians weve had recently, they all seem to have the same media scholl learning soundbites and body language for TV.

Wouldnt it be great if Donald Trump now met with Muslim leaders and the bereaved families in the recent police shootings of black people to reverse his devisive rhetoric.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (11 Nov 2016)

Just read that Trump is not scrapping Obamacare, but will reform it. That's his first reversal I believe, of many to come. He will turn out to be far more centrist that people expected. His radicalism got him elected, but I think he'll find that being elected alone, isn't enough to effectively govern and will have to placate the many thousands of staff of which he is now manager.

Putting everything else aside, he had virtually zero experience of any kind of politics outside the board room. Can you imagine how daunting it would be if you won an election you didn't truly expect to win, and suddenly had to run the most powerful country in the world? lol

I get nervous just watching the news, nevermind making it.


----------



## Woodmonkey (11 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":1o3ty627 said:


> This is old news, it doesnt matter how popular Jeremy is with the labour party members, modern politics occupies the centre ground, the ideals of the old 2 party politics to right and left is really not so relevent as we move further into this century.



I don't agree with that, recent politics have been lurching both right (trump, brexit) and left (Corbin, Bernie Sanders)


----------



## Mr_P (11 Nov 2016)

The anti-Trump mob really don't understand how he won and to prove it they are burning MADE IN AMERICA trainers in protest 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/article/3 ... over-trump

Seems to be acting lot saner now he's been elected.


----------



## Bm101 (12 Nov 2016)

Been staying away from this thread. 
But then I found this on ebay.  

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ww2-anderson- ... SwPCVX-k0T

Got all the hallmarks of promoting this thread from political to rabid. Would you look at the workmanship on that. They'll be making Etsy coffee tables out of it next. 8) It's only fifty notes to keep your family safe after all.


----------



## YorkshireMartin (12 Nov 2016)

Bm101":md2cu2ai said:


> Been staying away from this thread.
> But then I found this on ebay.
> 
> http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/ww2-anderson- ... SwPCVX-k0T
> ...



I think, quite possibly, you just won the internet.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2016)

Woodmonkey":3dpde43k said:


> RobinBHM":3dpde43k said:
> 
> 
> > This is old news, it doesnt matter how popular Jeremy is with the labour party members, modern politics occupies the centre ground, the ideals of the old 2 party politics to right and left is really not so relevent as we move further into this century.
> ...


Yep. Centre ground is being vacated. Only yesterdays people remain.


----------



## Jacob (12 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":1k14usae said:


> ....
> I think its a shame Jeremy Corbyn is putting the party to the far left making labour marginal. I think he is a man of principal and like the fact he is different to the bland career politicians we've had recently, they all seem to have the same media school learning soundbites and body language for TV.......


So why do you want Corbyn to be like the others?


----------



## Max Power (13 Nov 2016)

A move to the right has been on the cards for a while . France will be next to follow , resentment to failed multiculturalism will be the catalyst there


----------



## Steve Maskery (13 Nov 2016)

FWIW, I think that The Donald will end up alienating absolutely everybody.
Obviously the Democrats are against him but so are many in his own party. And now, less than a week after winning the election, he has said he will keep Obamacare, hasn't given any thought to prosecuting Clinton, and the Great Wall could be a fence, all things that he made a great deal of during the campaign. So when little or none of that materialises, he will have even his own voters angry at him, too.

We live in interesting times.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2016)

Max Power":1qelcm0r said:


> A move to the right has been on the cards for a while . France will be next to follow , resentment to failed multiculturalism will be the catalyst there


Or to the left. It's the centre ground which is emptying.
"Failed multiculturalism" will be the scapegoat for some but the issues in France are more about the "ignored" who are a varied group including immigrants and indigenous French.

Similar scenario here and in the USA: _"France's latest elections showed a sharp rise in "anti-system" voters, said political scientist Thomas Guenole of Vox Politica. "It's the intersection of two things: a deep economic crisis, and a system that cut France in two — the France of insiders and the France of outsiders," he said."_
https://www.yahoo.com/news/french-prime ... tml?ref=gs


----------



## Inoffthered (13 Nov 2016)

It is truly ironic that the so called liberal left are the ones on the streets demonstrating against a democratically elected president while simultaneously calling the other side fascists, you couldn't make it up. 

That a Guardian journalist should tweet about needing "a presidential assassination" was deplorable (imagine how the BBC and the Guardian would have reacted if a UKIPper had come out with something like that. 

Seeing the howls of outrage and tears emanating from the Democratic snowflakes I am reminded of the saying that “moral indignation is a standard strategy for endowing the silly person with dignity.”


----------



## Steve Maskery (13 Nov 2016)

But is it really democratic when the person with the most votes doesn't actually get elected? Arguably not, I'd say.
I agree 100% about the assassination remark. OK, maybe lots of people would actually welcome it, but we should not be relying on violence to solve our differences in the world. That is way of IS.


----------



## Max Power (13 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":1rn5l262 said:


> But is it really democratic when the person with the most votes doesn't actually get elected? Arguably not, I'd say.


It's the same system as previous US elections , so there's no excuse to bleat about it on that basis .
The man won fair and square by a decent margin .
People will always wine if they don't get their preferred option. Look no further than our own Brexit vote , where the majority voted for , but the losers still refuse to accept the result :roll:


----------



## MIGNAL (13 Nov 2016)

Except of course that Farage wasn't going to accept a 52 - 48 win for remain. he stated as much _before_ the referendum. 
Trump would accept the result. . . . but only if he won.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2016)

Max Power":1j4hkmxw said:


> ...
> People will always wine if they don't get their preferred option. Look no further than our own Brexit vote , where the majority voted for , but the losers still refuse to accept the result :roll:


They accept the result but point out that Farage would not have accepted if the margin had gone the other way. He does a lot of whining himself - and still takes a large salary from the EU even though he does nothing at all to earn it - not even negotiating the details. 

You can't make such fundamental changes with such an inconclusive marginal vote. Still less can you commit to unconditional Brexit without knowing the terms and all the details. Parliament has to vote on it and is entitled to ignore the referendum - which was only advisory to start with. The "will of the people" is obviously very undecided!
If the brexiters don't like the result they will have to resort to the democratic process at the polling booths, just like the rest of us.
Personally I think Brexit is impossible and we will be fobbed off with all sorts of confused wheeling and dealing by feeble minded government, in fear of of the mob and the media.


----------



## finneyb (13 Nov 2016)

Jacob":c0pfco8u said:


> Max Power":c0pfco8u said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



+1


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":2nuq3ciu said:


> It is truly ironic that the so called liberal left are the ones on the streets demonstrating against a democratically elected president while simultaneously calling the other side fascists, you couldn't make it up......


Not ironic it's democracy. 
Everybody (including you) is free to demonstrate and argue for/against whatever they like - that's how democracy works, in between elections. 
Calling them fascists seems fair enough - the similarities are much too close for comfort.

Good to see them turning out. Better still if the Mexicans could organise a general strike to defend themselves!


----------



## Inoffthered (13 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":3qqhde7p said:


> But is it really democratic when the person with the most votes doesn't actually get elected? Arguably not, I'd say.
> I agree 100% about the assassination remark. OK, maybe lots of people would actually welcome it, but we should not be relying on violence to solve our differences in the world. That is way of IS.




Trump won the election on the basis of the Electoral College system that they have in the USA. The president has never been elected on the basis of the popular vote. One could argue that the Electoral College system is flawed but to argue it after the event shows poor judgement.

Also, I wonder how many of those now banging on about the popular vote argument have previously told UKIP to suck it up for only getting one seat in parliament despite attracting 3.8m votes compared with the Limp Dumbs 8 seats with a total 2.4m votes and the SNP 56 seats with a total vote of 1.4m. Also the BBC seems to champion the popular vote argument but ignores the 17m+ voters for Brexit because the result did not fit with the BBC's interests. 

I agree with the comments that in democracy one has the right to demonstrate, but there is also a duty to accept the result of the democratic process. The hysteria being driven by certain elements of the media is shameful. The BBC is a disgrace and has ceased to be a reporter of news and is now a propagandist for the Labour party.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":2btalqkn said:


> ......but there is also a duty to accept the result of the democratic process. .....


Nobody denies the result of the referendum. The question is what you do with it, as unfortunately there was no consideration of how the thing would be implemented. Also it was quite clearly "advisory", like an opinion poll. Govt has no obligation to follow impossible advice.
If a referendum had said we should all fly to the moon how would the government deal with that?
The real issue is how you deal with the mass dissatisfaction which caused the result - being literal and simplistic won't benefit anybody, simple "Brexit" is not possible, not least because nobody knows how to do it, and all the indications suggest it will be a fiasco. It already is a fiasco!


----------



## YorkshireMartin (13 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1z881c7b said:


> Inoffthered":1z881c7b said:
> 
> 
> > ......but there is also a duty to accept the result of the democratic process. .....
> ...



The fact it was advisory was silly. What is the point of getting everyone to turn out on vote if it's not going to be acted upon?

I don't know, but I feel like there must be a legal reason why the referendum could not be considered legally binding. However, the result is not in doubt, it's the wishes of the majority and in my opinion, the result should be respected. These legal challenges do nothing but degrade our imitation of democracy. Parliament is sovereign, but was never designed to represent people on single major issues like this, parliament works based on the best all around approach a candidate puts forward. A generalised view of things.

In this type of binary decision and yes, it is binary, I do believe direct democracy is the best way. It works elsewhere. I don't want political party policy and whipping to influence the outcome of a major issue I vote on. it's not right.


----------



## Jacob (13 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":3ct2rmmr said:


> Jacob":3ct2rmmr said:
> 
> 
> > Inoffthered":3ct2rmmr said:
> ...


Yebbut nobody knows how to do it or how much it will cost and if there's any point in it at all. As I said - might as well have instructed the govt to fly us all to the moon. They wouldn't do it because they couldn't do it. With Brexit it'll be a messy fudge which will go on for years.
The fault is Cameron's - he gave no thought at all about what to do if it was yes for brexit. The other brexiteers had no idea either and still haven't


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (13 Nov 2016)

You have to love the irony of the leavers who claim their vote was in support of parliamentary sovereignty don't you? 

The recent legal case unequivocally ruled that it is unlawful for anything other than parliamentary sovereignty (ie correct due process) to trigger A50.

So now, you literally couldn't ask for a more clear definition of precisely what that sovereignty means....but...nope....not good enough...scrap that...we want the will of the people to over-ride it. Not sure about post factual politics, we certainly have entered a very strange era in politics when people scream from the rooftops what they think they want and then when they get it, reject it out of hand.


----------



## RobinBHM (13 Nov 2016)

Maybe we dont have an easy solution to exit the EU.

However neither did the UK sign up to become a federal Europe which is the ideal of European Parliament.

The Eurozone countries joined single currency without meeting the requirements and there are serious fundamental underlying issues with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Italy and soon France all with serious financial problems. Not to mention the Deutsche bank crisis.

The EU and especially the Single currency Eurozone needs reform. 

The Remainers who believe it is all a mess and wont work need to consider the long term dangers of staying in a EU that wont want to reform, in or out I dont think there is an easy path.


----------



## Max Power (13 Nov 2016)

I voted out and would do the same again . We went into a mutually beneficial trading block ,It has changed beyond all recognition to the point where we are in danger of no longer being an independent nation .


----------



## Inoffthered (13 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3f89zc2c said:


> Not sure about post factual politics, we certainly have entered a very strange era in politics when people scream from the rooftops what they think they want and then when they get it, reject it out of hand.




I disagree, the people that are screaming from the rooftops are the people that voted for the losing side in the elections and they lack the maturity to accept a majority decision. It is a dangerous precedent to set that cannot be allowed to succeedt because therein lies the road to anarchy. If thats what you want......


----------



## Mr_P (13 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":12rxsp64 said:


> But is it really democratic when the person with the most votes doesn't actually get elected? Arguably not, I'd say.



But those aren't the rules, The Donald would have held rallies/ advertised in uber safe Democrat states like California if it was the popular vote that counted.

Just like here, we have safe seats and iffy seats the money on campaigning goes to the winnable ones. Wonder how many many thousands of pence has been wasted in Oldham by the tories ? Jeez we had the Millionaire Hertfordshire born 110% Champagne Socialist Michael Meacher for 45 years. How many buy to let properties did he leave in his will ? The funny bit is the leader of the council took a massive pay cut to replace him thinking 2020 here I come and cabinet job for me, oops.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":22r37s11 said:


> Maybe we dont have an easy solution to exit the EU.
> 
> However neither did the UK sign up to become a federal Europe which is the ideal of European Parliament.
> 
> ...


Staying in and reforming from within would seem to be the sensible thing to do.
As to the loss of freedom/sovereignty etc - anybody who has any sort of contract or agreement with anybody else has sacrificed a bit of freedom for the sake of the advantages of the contract. Ditto with the EU - and if we don't like it we can pull out - as we are doing it seems, but it's becoming increasingly apparent that it might be better if we stayed in.

It's Cameron's poison chalice, he assumed we'd vote to stay, he made a promise to implement art50 immediately if it was no. This was a promise he couldn't possibly keep so the . resigned and is now seen as one of the worst and most pointless PMs in british history. 
No reason for us to follow his 'lead" - what if he'd promised to take us all to the moon?


----------



## Mr_P (14 Nov 2016)

Pretty sure the anti-mooners would have provided a decent economic arguement against such a plan. A trip to the moon for the weekend would be nice but the logistics of taking 65 million would be eye watering, make HS2 and third runaway look like a walk in the park. On the bright side he would have been laughed out politics a lot sooner.

Get over it Remoaners, we have voted. One side won and the other lost. It will take more than a bit of reductio absurdum to get a second ref.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Mr_P":3d9okxdu said:


> Pretty sure the anti-mooners would have provided a decent economic arguement against such a plan. A trip to the moon for the weekend would be nice but the logistics of taking 65 million would be eye watering, make HS2 and third runaway look like a walk in the park. On the bright side he would have been laughed out politics a lot sooner.
> 
> Get over it Remoaners, we have voted. One side won and the other lost. It will take more than a bit of reductio absurdum to get a second ref.


One side won an advisory commitment to an impossible plan. 
Get over it whining brexiters - it was not a good idea from the beginning and nobody knows how to implement it, least of all the leading brexiteers - who are now either resigned or keeping a low profile. Hoist with their own petards, as the saying goes.
Time to move on and let common sense rule. 
Blame Cameron, Gove, Johnson, Farage - that's fine and they are now history.


----------



## Mr_P (14 Nov 2016)

Isn't one of those the F.S ? for F.S I wouldn't have employed him. Guess watering the daisies outside the tent rather than in arguement applies. 

Remoaners and remainers aren't all the same.

Sounds like you lost twice, Owen Smith was the the perfect candidate for Jeremy anyway.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (14 Nov 2016)

Keep it civil folks pls.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Nov 2016)

In the meantime prices continue to rise. Energy next.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Mr_P":3ve3zku7 said:


> ..
> Sounds like you lost twice, Owen Smith was the the perfect candidate for Jeremy anyway.


I think Smith is being forgotten even faster than Cameron! They'll feature in pub quizzes soon - who were labour leadership contender and PM in 2015/16? Dunno never erd of eever of em!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

Returning to the subject of why Trump won, this is worth a listen to. It's from BBC Radio 4's The World This Weekend yesterday (13th November). Listen from 23-15 to the end.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b08295yz#play

In summary, it's an American Liberal academic from Berkeley, California, who decided to 'cross the empathy divide' and find out why so many Americans were so mad with 'the establishment'. She used the metaphor of a line of people snaking up the hill to the American Dream, with those lower down - working hard and following the rules - seeing themselves being pushed further down the line, in part by 'globalisation', but also by queue-jumpers being given priority - women now taking jobs previously done by men, blacks taking jobs previously reserved for whites, immigrants doing the same. Whenever they tentatively raised their hands and asked whether they could have an even break too, somebody further up the line, usually white and well-educated, turned round to them and sneered. They were labelled rednecks, racists, misogynists and so on, whether they were or not. Not altogether surprisingly, after about 30 years of this, they're pretty hacked off.

There's a huge gulf in understanding between the 'haves' of American society and the 'have nots'. Bridging that gulf won't be easy, and I'm by no means sure that Trump has the answers. He may be able to alleviate some of the problems, but probably not all. We shall see.


----------



## MIGNAL (14 Nov 2016)

Why would Trump have the answers? If he's so concerned with American jobs how come many of his business interests are located abroad? remind me what that is termed. . . . outsourcing? 
 Donald, we have a bit of a problem. Something he shares with Farage, employing a German immigrant and being paid a salary for a job that he doesn't do, all £85,000 of it.
The electorate = done over.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":u9ytr2zr said:


> You have to love the irony of the leavers who claim their vote was in support of parliamentary sovereignty don't you?
> 
> The recent legal case unequivocally ruled that it is unlawful for anything other than parliamentary sovereignty (ie correct due process) to trigger A50.
> 
> So now, you literally couldn't ask for a more clear definition of precisely what that sovereignty means....but...nope....not good enough...scrap that...we want the will of the people to over-ride it. Not sure about post factual politics, we certainly have entered a very strange era in politics when people scream from the rooftops what they think they want and then when they get it, reject it out of hand.



Something I learned the other day is that the EU treaties (Maastricht, Lisbon etc) were signed by the UK government using the Royal Prerogative. It does seem a bit ironic that the same method can't be used to start the process of cancelling them, despite the democratic advice to government of the UK electorate. It also seems a bit bemusing that Judges get on their high horses when they effectively tell 17.4 million people that their votes don't really count, and the same people then make irritated noises about it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1msUxAoWKU - view from 2mins in.

I dare say it'll all work out in the end. Things usually do. At least now, we do know what the Silent Majority thinks about the UK's membership of the EU. It would be unwise of the establishment to ignore that and try to thwart it, I think. Forcing a general election over the matter (or another referendum) is likely to be a very salutary experience for the 'establishment'.

Since the referendum, I've been trying to understand both sides of the argument to some degree. Reading the Telegraph and the Guardian (haven't bothered with the tabloids - can't spend all day reading newspapers) reveals a huge gulf in world-view and understanding of the issues. It's rather similar to the US divide in some respects, but not all. I think it will take some time before that gulf is bridged, and both sides have some understanding of each other's thinking. Currently, very few seem to be trying (though Charles Moore in the Telegraph and Simon Jenkins in the Guardian seem to be making some effort).

(Edit to add link to YouTube video of BBC interview supporting the assertion that the Royal Prerogative was used to give UK sovereignty away.)


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":21ja085n said:


> .... It also seems a bit bemusing that Judges get on their high horses when they effectively tell 17.4 million people that their votes don't really count....


They were asked to adjudicate on the law as it stands. They had no opinion at all about the issues - it was only about the law - which says pretty clearly that ultimately Parliament decides. Thus we regain out sovereignty instead of allowing a minority of the voting population to force through their project.


> ... we do know what the Silent Majority thinks about the UK's membership of the EU.


No we don't. We know only what a voting majority thought in September. A much larger group were silent or against brexit


> It would be unwise of the establishment to ignore that and try to thwart it, I think.


The wise thing to do is to sort out what's best for Britain and do it democratically via Parliament. Force doesn't come into it - it's an obligation - it's why we have Parliament and elections
The vaguely sinister threats coming from the Brexiters make it even more essential that Parliament decides, not the mob.


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":3399zxke said:


> Since the referendum, I've been trying to understand both sides of the argument to some degree.



I'm not sure if there is actually two sides to this argument. It is, like the voting public a lot more complex than that. I think there are probably many people with differing views from all sorts of directions who voted leave and the same for remain. It's maybe easy to assume that because a vote is presented with a simple yes or no answer that people will have a simple yes or no reason. I dare say that some people with similar views on many things could have voted either way and obviously people with vastly differing views may well have voted similarly.

I personally have a fairly poor view of the political industry and its practitioners, on the one hand because they have a fairly limited understanding of truth and on the other because few if any of them represent me and my views on how things should be. No Party represents me and probably never will.

A few years ago I'm sure more people felt it easy to align with either of the two big parties (or else smoked gorse flowers and wore Sandals so voted Liberal) but my feeling is more and more people feel unrepresented for lots of different reasons. It's only when a single, yes/no issue is massively beaten up and put to the people that it seems like there is a divide over a single issue and maybe it has been created by the process (thank the likes of the sub-toilet-paper rag The Mail for doing this).

Maybe the point behind the Brexit vote and The Donald Trumping everyone else is not because the people are divided on certain single issues, but because everyone is divided over thousands of issues and given one yes or no choice we end up effectively tossing a coin.


----------



## thetyreman (14 Nov 2016)

I don't like the brexit/trump comparison, it's a bad analogy, farage added to it all is making it very toxic, it's going to make trump even more unpopular with both english AND americans, and mexicans, proof he's completely out of touch with his own people and the UK, it's a bad move, and a terrible start to his career as president of the USA, I predit an uprising.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":fck9x69w said:


> .....It's only when a single, yes/no issue is massively beaten up and put to the people that it seems like there is a divide over a single issue and maybe it has been created by the process (thank the likes of the sub-toilet-paper rag The Mail for doing this).
> 
> Maybe the point behind the Brexit vote and The Donald Trumping everyone else is not because the people are divided on certain single issues, but because everyone is divided over thousands of issues and given one yes or no choice we end up effectively tossing a coin.



I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1lcq3heb said:


> I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.



You may well be right there, however I know quite a few people with phDs who are a bit thick when it comes to some issues :roll:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1k7g1p5y said:


> Cheshirechappie":1k7g1p5y said:
> 
> 
> > Since the referendum, I've been trying to understand both sides of the argument to some degree.
> ...



Ross, I'd agree that matters are not simple, and they certainly don't divide neatly in the old 'left' and 'right' political lines. However, both the US election and the EU referendum basically asked binary questions, to which anybody who cast a vote had to fit their hopes, fears, aspirations, vested interests, intellectual leanings and whatever else.

The world has changed - in some ways for the better. On page 6 of this thread, I posted a clip of Mark Blyth talking about whether democracy was being undermined (he thinks not - he argues that if anything, recent elections have been a reaction against technocracy and corporatism). A point he made in support of his argument was that in China, 400 million people have been lifted out of poverty by the effects of globalisation; I'm pretty sure most people would regard that as a thoroughly good thing. However, in parts of America and parts of the UK, the effects of globalisation have not been positive. How do we continue to allow the developing world to advance without disadvantaging quite a lot of people in the developed world?

There are other factors, such as the recent efforts of some to push 'social justice' for various minorities whilst demonising the more conservative (small 'c') social attitudes of many, for example.

I think a new politics is slowly emerging, but it may take some time for the establishment and the commentariat to understand it and come to terms with it. Brexit is one example, Trumpism another. Maybe Corbynism is another - it certainly chimes with a fair number of activists, though whether it will resonate with the wider electorate has yet to be tested.

Interesting times.....


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":310u3a3j said:


> RossJarvis":310u3a3j said:
> 
> 
> > .....It's only when a single, yes/no issue is massively beaten up and put to the people that it seems like there is a divide over a single issue and maybe it has been created by the process (thank the likes of the sub-toilet-paper rag The Mail for doing this).
> ...



Something I've noticed in life is that even people who might struggle with academic qualifications still have a pretty fair idea about what is, and is not, in their best interests. I don't buy all this stuff about people being too thick to vote - it's just that their interests might not accord with the highly educated liberal elite's. If they can't vote, what other options do you leave them to express their opinions? Armed insurrection?


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":ia5my65e said:


> RogerS":ia5my65e said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.
> ...



So do I ! My neighbour is a PhD but when the commonsense smarts were being given out, I think he must have bunked off that day. He constantly keeps paying tradesmen all the money up front and then wonders why the jobs never get finished.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2l5di2h5 said:


> RogerS":2l5di2h5 said:
> 
> 
> > I think that the lack of ability or IQ of the average voter to actually do any analysis of the issues so as to make an informed decision might have something to do with the result. Both here and in the States.
> ...



They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":28reyavg said:


> Cheshirechappie":28reyavg said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":28reyavg said:
> ...



Anybody else you'd like to exclude? People who are too old and might be senile, or too young to really understand the problems? People with dodgy clothes like ripped jeans or bomber jackets? People with the wrong accents?


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":2mdc5lej said:


> They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.



Approximately 5.5m people buy the Sun the Mail and the Mirror alone!!

I'm not sure how we'd be able to stop these guys getting into polling stations, would we need to ask everyone to bring along six months worth of copies of their daily read as proof?


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":2ersqzvb said:


> So do I ! My neighbour is a PhD but when the commonsense smarts were being given out, I think he must have bunked off that day. He constantly keeps paying tradesmen all the money up front and then wonders why the jobs never get finished.



Is he one of those super brainy boffs who wouldn't even know which way round to hold a screw-driver?


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1kvy8gn8 said:


> RogerS":1kvy8gn8 said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":1kvy8gn8 said:
> ...



Now you are just being silly.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1ni4pm0h said:


> RogerS":1ni4pm0h said:
> 
> 
> > They are too thick to vote because they do not think or examine any further than what their preferred rag is telling them to do.
> ...



I'm not sure what point you are making. Surely it is not unreasonable to expect someone voting to make an _informed_ decision ? You can only get an informed decision if you consider all viewpoints carefully and then make your decision. Not because the Sun screams 'We wuz robbed' or similar.


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":lyfgx027 said:


> RossJarvis":lyfgx027 said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":lyfgx027 said:
> ...



I think the point I was trying to make is that it may be unreasonable to expect everyone to make an informed decision and that even those who do look into it may not make the "right" decision.

I'd agree that ideally anyone voting would be making their decision on carefully thought out "informed" grounds, but how do we legislate for that? In the past, voting was restricted to "educated landowning" types who were male. More recently for very good reasons, voting has been expanded to most adults. To follow your expectations would, it seems to me, require narrowing down those who are allowed to vote. Who would decide how we do that, on what grounds and how to implement it? I could see this leading to unfair discrimination against those who would be effected by the vote who would end up being unable to take part in the vote.

As it is, people under the age of 18 and other adults are already excluded and there seem to be good reasons to allow more people to vote, not less.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1irgsmhi said:


> Now you are just being silly.



No more so than excluding people who read the 'wrong' newspaper.

As Ross pointed out, it's taken several centuries to extend the franchise to (almost) everybody over the age of 18. Quite a few choose not to cast their vote, even though entitled to do so - indeed, turnouts at some general elections have been worryingly low. That would tend to suggest that those who do vote care about the issues, and whilst their reasons for casting their vote may not accord with yours, or mine, or the 'liberal elite', they are still entitled to vote as they see fit. Anything less is not democracy, it's authoritarianism.

The turnout for the EU referendum was quite high (72%, from memory), as was turnout for the Scottish independence vote. When people think something matters, they do bother; when they think it won't make much difference, some don't. Once Westminster is sovereign again, it wouldn't surprise me if turnouts at general elections increased again, because people would feel that they could influence the country's political direction again, in the way they did in the 50s, 60s and 70s.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":e603n03p said:


> ....Once Westminster is sovereign again, ....


Westminster never has not been sovereign.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (14 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3k8t7qdv said:


> Cheshirechappie":3k8t7qdv said:
> 
> 
> > ....Once Westminster is sovereign again, ....
> ...



The UK has been ceding sovereignty to the EU since 1973, starting with control over our territorial waters for fishing. Each succeeding treaty (Maastricht, Lisbon, etc) ceded more, notwithstanding a few opt-outs here and there. The UK no longer has full control of agricultural policy, energy policy, immigration and border policy, business regulation and much else. 

We've just had a great debate and a referendum about whether or not to repatriate that sovereignty or continue to cede more to Brussels. Surely you can't have missed it?


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

Jacob":27jai16y said:


> Westminster never has not been sovereign.



Uh oh, I can hear the sirens of the grammar police approaching.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":pk8amjx2 said:


> Jacob":pk8amjx2 said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":pk8amjx2 said:
> ...


Every contract or agreement that anybody has with anybody, at every level, person to person, govt to govt, involves "ceding" sovereignty - life would be impossible without it. 
In general these agreements are presumed to be worth the trade off. 
It's not at all clear that we would better off without these various forms of contract with the EU. 
In general civilisation itself depends on a wide "social contract" - limiting our freedom and specifying our obligations.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (14 Nov 2016)

Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).

Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":2btlik11 said:


> Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).
> 
> Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?



Personally I could never see the difference in being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Westminster and being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Brussels or Strasbourg.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2b3xz22r said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2b3xz22r said:
> 
> 
> > Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).
> ...



You can vote for the idiots in Westminster but not for the ones that really call the shots in Brussels and Strasbourg.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

Just digressing slightly into the practicalities of doing business/taking equipment abroad pre-EEC. The Great 'Carnet' game. A game for two teams. On one side is you. On the other side, all the various Customs officers of every single European country that you drive through en route to your destination carrying all that demo equipment in the boot of your car. In case some of you don't know how to play the Great 'carnet' game, the rules are very simple.

Rule 1 - Prior to leaving the UK you deposit a large sum of money with HMRC as security that you will actually be bringing back the equipment with you. You fill in a form detailing in minute detail what you are taking out. This is recorded on the Master form that you take with you and is checked at each point of entry and exit. In return you will get a box form and two sheets of paper per country being travelled through.

Rule 2 - As you leave the UK, you give up one of those pieces of paper and in return get a stamp in the box form. 

Rule 3 - When you enter the next country on your route, you give up another piece of paper (the Entrance Form) and collect another stamp on the box form.

Rule 4 - As you leave that country, you give up another piece of paper (the Exit form) and collect another stamp.

And so on until finally

Last rule - you return to the UK and give up your last piece of paper and collect the last stamp.

You win if you have the correct number of stamps on the form as you get your money back.

_Forfeits_. 

If you find that you don't have the correct number of pieces of paper (you did count them before you left the UK, didn't you ? DAMHIKT) then you lose.

If you have not detailed the equipment model numbers properly on the Master form then you will pay a forfeit, not get your form stamped and lose. Unless you manage to luckily find in an obscure serial number somewhere the exact number that the customs man is looking for (because you had to do a hot swap of a circuit board while you were away and the model number of the new board doesn't match that on the Master form DAMHIKT).

And that, my friends, is how you play the Great Carnet game.

Soon to be at a port near you.


----------



## RossJarvis (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3sx8j6pu said:


> You can vote for the idiots in Westminster but not for the ones that really call the shots in Brussels and Strasbourg.



Good point, however I never seem to be able to vote for the correct idiots to get in  

I've never really been able to get my head round which bunch of idiots run the EU, the voted in MEPs or the non voted technocrats.  

I did notice however, when visiting the Brussels EU parliament building a few years back, that disabled access there was a hell of a lot worse than most places in the UK (hammer) so have never been sure whether all the complaints about over-regulation coming from the EU are justified.


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":25mdtgda said:


> Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).
> 
> Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?



For me, the whole EU in /out debate has been about this, not about immigration

I think there are 3 issues: practical, economic and ideological:

practical: my gut felling is that as organisations become larger, they become less efficient, less flexible.

ideology: my fear is that as organisations grow those at the top will empire build, leading to mission creep changing the nature of the EU and becoming less accountable

economic: the Eurozone is not a success and I think the Euro is over valued given the economic issues that caused 5 of the 17 Eurozone countries to be baled out.

Clearly having common technical standards, single market trading etc can, and has been overall very successful, but it comes at a great cost. 

The UK has never had any power to influence the European parliament, so whilst reform would have been a theoretical option, it was never a real possibility.


----------



## Jacob (14 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3momaoz2 said:


> Just out of curiosity Jacob....do you personally think a federalist Europe is the right direction? This isn't a loaded question or leading in any way, I'm genuinely interested in the perspective because fundamentally this whole issue of sovereignty is really just the thin end of the federalist debate. (My mind isn't made up one way or another just yet which is why I'm always fishing for different views).
> 
> Do we think that Europe becoming like separate and yet con-joined States in the US is a good or bad thing economically, socially?


It's easy to get waylaid by terms; "federalist" "union" "sovereignty" etc - non of them have a definitive simple meaning and the reality on the ground shifts steadily.
I think the sort of cooperation and common goals aspired to by the EU are interesting and as a group it should give more power over the quality of our lives. But just like most alliances; only as long as the going is good!
We also would have more power on the world stage.
Depends what the power is used for. It started as trade agreements (hence historic mistrust from the left) but evolved into a more social institution, if not quite "socialist" but concerned with quality of life, human rights etc. (hence mistrust from the right).
Interesting to compare "The Four Freedoms" of Roosevelt (very idealistic) and the EU (very prosaic and much about trade).
But the EU 4 freedoms does include a star feature; freedom of movement. This is a radical idea and very democratic, "democracy on the hoof". Without it the other 3 freedoms are just about privileges for trade - arguably keeping the workers captive in their own countries. Free movement of capital but not of people.

No wonder it's freedom of movement to be ditched first, if the interests of trade and business take precedence via Brexit - we would all lose by it, as individuals, and we could be turning our backs on something very progressive and constructive.


----------



## Inoffthered (14 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1tw75thg said:


> But the EU 4 freedoms does include a star feature; freedom of movement. This is a radical idea and very democratic, "democracy on the hoof". Without it the other 3 freedoms are just about privileges for trade - arguably keeping the workers captive in their own countries. Free movement of capital but not of people.
> 
> No wonder it's freedom of movement to be ditched first, if the interests of trade and business take precedence via Brexit - we would all lose by it, as individuals, and we could be turning our backs on something very progressive and constructive.




Are you being serious? What is democratic about forcing freedom of movement onto a country and removing its ability to determine who can come to work / live here? Please explain.


----------



## Inoffthered (14 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1l3pdnjs said:


> Personally I could never see the difference in being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Westminster and being shafted by a bunch of idiots in Brussels or Strasbourg.




There is a difference in that you can vote to remove the idiots in Westminster. You have no say in the appointment of Juncker and the other cronies.


----------



## Chippyjoe (14 Nov 2016)

Jacob, you are such a nob, why cant you just accept that we voted out of Europe, and Trump is going to be the next president of the USA. 
You are just such a wind up merchant, you would argue anything going, I expect that I will get a ban for this post, but I really don't care, because its about time someone told you straight.


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Nov 2016)

I agree with the principal of free movement, certainly the UK economy has benefited a great idea.

But we are a small country with old infrastructure and a high population density. Since Maarstrict we have struggled to cope with the population increase.

The EU doesnt offer any solutions for this. Nor does it offer any solutions for the Euro problems. 

I think Jacob's points are very interesting and yes, I agree with the Ideology, but I dont think the UK would be helped by the EU in solving problems the free movement is creating for the UK.


----------



## RobinBHM (14 Nov 2016)

I dont think Jacobs post above is an attempt at a wind up, Its a considered response to the question ROB posed.


----------



## selectortone (14 Nov 2016)

RogerS":13a7lgkz said:


> Just digressing slightly into the practicalities of doing business/taking equipment abroad pre-EEC. The Great 'Carnet' game....



I was that travelling salesman!! Carnets were a complete nightmare. Standing in line with a bunch of lorry drivers at some god-forsaken border crossing in the middle of the night when all you wanted was to be at your hotel enjoying a beer and whatever strange food was on that country's menu. I just couldn't believe my luck when they took the borders away.


----------



## RogerS (14 Nov 2016)

selectortone":2gh6uwvd said:


> RogerS":2gh6uwvd said:
> 
> 
> > Just digressing slightly into the practicalities of doing business/taking equipment abroad pre-EEC. The Great 'Carnet' game....
> ...




 I knew there had to be someone else out there who shared the pain !!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":xr9mnag5 said:


> Jacob":xr9mnag5 said:
> 
> 
> > But the EU 4 freedoms does include a star feature; freedom of movement. This is a radical idea and very democratic, "democracy on the hoof". Without it the other 3 freedoms are just about privileges for trade - arguably keeping the workers captive in their own countries. Free movement of capital but not of people.
> ...


So if the businesses you work for or use all decide to move abroad you would be quite happy not to have the freedom to follow them? 
Sounds like a form of slavery; goods, capital, finance can come and go as they please but people (who aren't financiers, businessmen etc) must stay in one place.
There's even talk of border problems with Eire, and Scotland if it can stay in the EU. Brexit world steadily shrinking to little Britain.
The vote for brexit is a huge self inflicted shot in the foot - those who imagine they have most to gain will in fact be the most disadvantaged. 
It's no coincidence that the chief pro brexiteers are basically the right wing media (owned by non dom tax dodging billionaires) and a gaggle of right wing financiers (Farage) and other very wealthy people and institutions. 
Deregulating business and finance, whittllng away at human rights act, stopping freedom of movement, weakening the power of unions and control of workers rights. Do you really imagine they are doing this for our benefit?


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":3u8mat6x said:


> I agree with the principal of free movement, certainly the UK economy has benefited a great idea.
> 
> But we are a small country with old infrastructure and a high population density. Since Maarstrict we have struggled to cope with the population increase.
> 
> ...


What exactly are "the problems the free movement is creating for the UK"? 
It features a lot in the imagination of the Daily Mail but what is the real position on the ground?
It seems to me that a huge percentage of immigrants to Britain make a huge contribution to our economy and quality of life - everything from rubbish agricultural jobs which nobody else wants to do, to top jobs in the NHS. 
What, where, is the problem in real terms - not just rumours and stories from the Mail ?


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3a479xvv said:


> Inoffthered":3a479xvv said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3a479xvv said:
> ...



That's not true. Goods, capital and finance are all subject to import tariffs, laws, money laundering regulations etc.



Jacob":3a479xvv said:


> There's even talk of border problems with Eire, and Scotland if it can stay in the EU. Brexit world steadily shrinking to little Britain.



You can't compare Eire with Scotland. Eire is a separate country whereas Scotland (at least for the moment) is part of the UK. I agree about the 'Little Britain' comment. 


Jacob":3a479xvv said:


> The vote for brexit is a huge self inflicted shot in the foot - those who imagine they have most to gain will in fact be the most disadvantaged.


Agreed. The naivety shown by many pro-Brexiteers is as breathtaking as it is depressing. After the recent judges ruling, one vox-pop interviewee on the radio was heard to say 'Why don't they just do it' (meaning leave the EU) as if it was as simple as switching off a light bulb. Such lack of understanding.


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2g7nv3po said:


> RobinBHM":2g7nv3po said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with the principal of free movement, certainly the UK economy has benefited a great idea.
> ...



Jacob...I think that you are viewing this through rose-tinted spectacles. Suggest you read what Trevor Phillips has to say on the subject of 'sunset segregation'. I think that he has rather a more profound view on inter-racial and migration issues then either you or I, don't you ?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3qo5yc7t said:


> What, where, is the problem in real terms - not just rumours and stories from the Mail ?




Now...before I document this, I was a remainer so take this in the spirit it's intended ie not racist in any way, rather a business dilemma for local workers.

In the local construction industry (I've renovated one and built two houses), there is absolutely no question that the British trades have been out competed by eastern European workers. The Eastern Europeans work for substantially lower day rates (undercutting the Brit's) and frankly the general reports are that their work ethic/rate is harder, longer, more prepared to do lates and weekends....generally more accommodating to the builder when on a tight schedule.

So I have witnessed with my own eyes the direct impact in construction and it appears to be carpentry that's most directly affected. I don't see many European Plumbers or sparks round here.

That's the only direct impact I've noticed personally. One could therefore argue that the living standards of local natives in those jobs have been directly impacted.

Remember...this is not a comment on race whatsoever, it's an economic discussion ie group A is more expensive than group B so the payroll master naturally chooses group B (Polish chippys). I mean, why wouldn't he? Cheaper and superior work rate, its a clear decision.


----------



## ColeyS1 (15 Nov 2016)

I nominate Jacob and Roger to go in the big brother house. They could do a special version where it's only the two of them and instead of being a few weeks, it could be 6 months. Come the end they'd win the hearts of the nation, as we all witness their arguments develop into a blossoming relationship. Newspaper headlines would say 'RogJa to win' as they tried persuading big brother to split the prize money 50 50. I'd watch it :lol: 

Coley


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":lybjgetb said:


> Now...before I document this, I was a remainer so take this in the spirit it's intended ie not racist in any way, rather a business dilemma for local workers.
> 
> In the local construction industry (I've renovated one and built two houses), there is absolutely no question that the British trades have been out competed by eastern European workers. The Eastern Europeans work for substantially lower day rates (undercutting the Brit's) and frankly the general reports are that their work ethic/rate is harder, longer, more prepared to do lates and weekends....generally more accommodating to the builder when on a tight schedule.
> 
> ...


So British employers underpay immigrant workers? I'm sure the immigrants would be happy to receive the same rates of pay - that's what the real issue is, and unionisation is part of the answer. 
Different on the unregulated self employed front of course, but I've been undercut countless times by other joiners - who as far as I know were not immigrants. It's never bothered me - no shortage of work, if somebody wants to work for less than me good luck to him! 
In fact wherever competitive quotes were called for I'd generally crank my price up a bit and let some desperate nutter have the job - and see him cock it up by being too cheap!

So immigration wouldn't be a problem if immigrants all behaved like lazy, unskilled, overpaid, uncooperative, uncompetitive, brit workers!
Just asking!


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

ColeyS1":2eb7yunx said:


> I nominate Jacob and Roger to go in the big brother house. They could do a special version where it's only the two of them and instead of being a few weeks, it could be 6 months. Come the end they'd win the hearts of the nation, as we all witness their arguments develop into a blossoming relationship. Newspaper headlines would say 'RogJa to win' as they tried persuading big brother to split the prize money 50 50. I'd watch it :lol:
> 
> Coley



LOL...if you look more closely at what I've been posting recently, you will see that I am broadly in agreement with Jacob when it comes to Brexit and its impact. If you peer even closer, you'll see that I actually thanked him for one of his posts :shock: 

It's when he wanders off down his leafy Leftie-liberal lanes that we do differ, I'll grant you that !


----------



## devonwoody (15 Nov 2016)

I wish to thank the forum moderators for their time and position in allowing the thread to be aired moderately freely on this occassion.
I thing I am qualified to post, being one of the early members of the forum.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2t8eftm7 said:


> Random Orbital Bob":2t8eftm7 said:
> 
> 
> > Now...before I document this, I was a remainer so take this in the spirit it's intended ie not racist in any way, rather a business dilemma for local workers.
> ...



{chuckling to myself} That's a very noble response Jacob. I think I would have been disappointed if you hadn't made it in fact  It's a perfectly reasonable perspective too and one which is straight out of the traditional left play book. But the trouble is I just don't think the business conundrum is that simple any more. There was a time when collective bargaining stabilised the power play between workers and employers but post globalisation, it just doesn't work any more because the employer can cock a snook at the unions and go buy the labour somewhere else. (Outsourcing essentially). And that somewhere else is a regulation free environment like China or in our example Poland. In other words globalisation is forcing workers with low economic expectations together with high economic expectation corporations or even smaller legal entities like small building companies (even me on an even smaller scale ie when I was building our house.

In this case though (as you mentioned), despite the ostensibly socialist ideology in the EU, union politics don't work for the self employed as it's outside of the regulatory framework. 

Don't get me wrong, I'm not arguing for or against the status quo in respect of polish workers, I was just responding to your assertion that the EU has only affected us positively. I think its reasonable to say that a fair few British joiners have been affected by this disjoint in wage expectation.

But of course this is way way beyond just the EU because the force which is causing all of this is the inexorable rise in consumption and the scrabble of developing of nations to get a piece of the middle classes we in the West have been enjoying for so very long. Finally, everyone else wants to get their snout in the management trough for a change....and lets be honest....we don't like it! But it's only the beginning and that's for sure!


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

devonwoody":3k059rx2 said:


> I wish to thank the forum moderators for their time and position in allowing the thread to be aired moderately freely on this occassion.
> I thing I am qualified to post, being one of the early members of the forum.



I rather think that there may be hope for the world when Jacob and Roger start agreeing in public


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

devonwoody":33tpq7g3 said:


> I wish to thank the forum moderators for their time and position in allowing the thread to be aired moderately freely on this occassion.
> I thing I am qualified to post, being one of the early members of the forum.


Me too. I'd rather talk about things (and listen to) people I don't agree with - it's more interesting than being stuck in a room full of Guardian readers!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":36ni7pye said:


> [.... I'm not arguing for or against the status quo in respect of polish workers, I was just responding to your assertion that the EU has only affected us positively. I think its reasonable to say that a fair few British joiners have been affected by this disjoint in wage expectation....


But then the clients of these hard working efficient cheap joiners should see the EU in a positive light!
And we all benefit from the migrant agricultural workers - apparently a lot of stuff would be more expensive and even left to rot in the fields, if it wasn't for them. In other words - we don't pay enough for our stuff.


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":l2ytkfms said:


> ..... we don't pay enough for our stuff.



We certainly don't ! The price we pay dairy farmers for their milk is totally inadequate.


----------



## MIGNAL (15 Nov 2016)

I'm amazed how many Brexiters I've come across who hate the EU, want to see it smashed to pieces and it's complete destruction. 
I find that scary. I suppose if Le Pen and the dutch guy get in then it will be all over. They will have achieved what they wanted. Just hold on to your hats. 

https://medium.com/@theonlytoby/history ... .sb1cpjy63


----------



## RossJarvis (15 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":2ntg1j39 said:


> Jacob":2ntg1j39 said:
> 
> 
> > In the local construction industry (I've renovated one and built two houses), there is absolutely no question that the British trades have been out competed by eastern European workers. The Eastern Europeans work for substantially lower day rates (undercutting the Brit's) and frankly the general reports are that their work ethic/rate is harder, longer, more prepared to do lates and weekends....generally more accommodating to the builder when on a tight schedule.
> ...



The other major problem here is the lack of "skilled" chippies in the "native" population. This of course varies due to supply and demand issues, but often the immigrant workers are supplying what doesn't exist here, so in a way they are not having an impact on local living standards. There is an impact where skilled workers are chosen in preference to the less skilled natives, particularly if they work at the same or lower rates to the natives.

The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. This is noted by the government who are trying to create some kind of expanded "apprenticeship" culture. Unfortunately you can't just magic this out of thin air. The infra-structure declined over many years and just doesn't exist any more. From my experience, working in a construction college the introduction/expansion of apprenticeships has been thoroughly chaotic, letting down both employers and more importantly the apprentices in an alarming way.

As with everything, there will be "teething problems", but the conversion of educational establishments to highly competitive businesses doesn't help this process, it just seems to exacerbate the problems. In a way we're faced with a perfect storm here.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":6zd8viwq said:


> Random Orbital Bob":6zd8viwq said:
> 
> 
> > [.... I'm not arguing for or against the status quo in respect of polish workers, I was just responding to your assertion that the EU has only affected us positively. I think its reasonable to say that a fair few British joiners have been affected by this disjoint in wage expectation....
> ...



My guess is the clients of these workers would have been remainers in the main, though I admit that assumption is impossible to back up. But they clearly are the beneficiaries of free movement of labour. Talk to any local developer round here and they all extol the virtues of Polish joiners ie inexpensive and good quality.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2kwm49pw said:


> ....
> The construction industry has really suffered over the past few decades as the "education industry" has diverted the more able into Higher Education (for some often bizarre and pointless reason) leaving a much lower standard of ability to enter into the construction trades. ....


You can't blame higher education if the govt is not spending enough on training and vocational causes. The blame game just goes around in circles. The culprit is the government.
One of the courses I did was a TOPS course which was a condensed C&G course designed to get people back to work and had been going strong since inception following WW1. Huge range of other skills being trained up. Widely regarded as brilliant and effective - not surprising after 70 years of steady development and improvement.
They were shut down by Thatcher, for no obvious reason other than saving money.


----------



## RossJarvis (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1zt21yyc said:


> RossJarvis":1zt21yyc said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



I'd have to say it's a bit hard to pin the blame solely on the government (even though they are rubbish, particularly since the tragedy of 1979). There is a wider societal issue that the trades are very undervalued particularly by the elitist educational establishment and have been for years. Other countries have a much higher opinion of trades and "vocational" skills and accordingly support these paths to a much greater extent. Look at Germany for instance.

The government are just reflecting the wider view of the people. It's only recently that they have woken up to the massive skills shortage, which admittedly hasn't been helped by the governments of recent times. Unfortunately the political industry is overwhelmingly staffed by those who have done well out of the elitist academic education industry and it's only now that they can't find a plumber or carpenter that they've realised what is actually happening. Shame it's a bit too late to do much about it.


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":13ticcij said:


> RossJarvis":13ticcij said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Oh dear, Jacob. And you were doing so well. You are completely wrong and misguided about the TOPS course and why it was discontinued in favour of a more relevant scheme. TOPS was started in 1972. 







_The Training Opportunities Scheme was introduced in 1972 and was expanded in 1974 by the Training Services Agency. By 1977 there were 500 different courses in Further Education Colleges or the TSA's own Skillcentres. Trainees had to be unemployed, over 19 and away from full time education for more than 3 years. They received a weekly allowance of £22.55 [aged 20 or over], travelling expenses and meal and other allowances.
_
Taken from this union history website

Alex Bowen, in his excellent contribution to the book 'Labour's Economic Policies 1974-1979', writes that 'A review of TOPS finished in 1978 concluded that the scheme should be geared more closely to the needs of the labour market; some of the skills taught had turned out to be very much in excess supply'.

So you can't blame Margaret Thatcher.


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

TOPS may well have had "an introduction" in 1972 but it was picking up from various older set-ups going back a lot further, run by various agencies under various titles. The Manpower Services Commission ran it until 1987. It was going strong in 1982 (when I did it) but Skillcentres were closed along with a lot of other vocational training, under Thatcher in the interests of "efficiency" - meaning cost saving.
The course I did was essentially C&G but full time. C&G date back to 1878 (I've just googled) but got a big boost after WW1 as there was a huge skill shortage.


----------



## Inoffthered (15 Nov 2016)

There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.


----------



## RossJarvis (15 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":3gqazeby said:


> There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.



I'm leaning toward the idea that industry needs to take the responsibility back for training, some places are very good at it, but training budgets are often the first to go in hard times. Smaller employers are obviously going to be in a bind for this. Creating pointless "agencies" like CITB which are probably full of useless chair polishers attending endless meetings or "networking" or expecting "the government" to do it is unfortunately a recipe for disaster.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2ssqqyj3 said:


> Inoffthered":2ssqqyj3 said:
> 
> 
> > There is no excuse for a skills shortage in the construction industry. The CITB still impose a levy on construction businesses (collecting £182m + each year) ostensibly to promote training in the industry. This anachronism is a hang over from WW2 when the country needed people to build houses. All these years later the CITB is still taxing construction businesses.....but they do have super offices rural Norfolk and their annual directors report & accounts contain a translation into Welsh.
> ...



Funny you should ay that......a long time friend of mine started a business circa 14 years ago training project management skills (really aimed at the oil and gas industry in Aberdeen). He's since managed to grow that business to over £2M revenues largely by getting his training course into the CITB catalogue. So his sales pitch is...."'ere, dya want some free training?....your company has already got the credits through he CITB". The PM skills he's training or close to nothing to do with construction 

So I'm inclined to agree that the CITB has deviated somewhat from it's original course!!!


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management. 
By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.


----------



## RossJarvis (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2cy4cqxk said:


> Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
> By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.



Totally agree.

Unfortunately most youngsters appear to want to become a chair polisher and earn wads of cash, the majority who end up learning proper jobs, where you might get your hands dirty, are those who've been let down by the whole system and aren't always best prepared for it. Careers advisors, schools and the youngsters themselves generally seem to think that going into the trades or other vocational areas is the route for "failures".


----------



## RobinBHM (15 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1vzy0d3s said:


> Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
> By and large these efforts and reorganisations were a complete waste of time and effort, except for the chair polishers, laughing their way to the bank - many of them paying themselves enormous salaries.



I had a client that ran his own business earning lots of money, he has a big house here a palatial one in Portugal. His business: business consultancy, mostly to public sector and a great deal in within the NHS.

Does the NHS gain so much in efficiency that it recovers the extortionate costs that these management consultants charge?


----------



## Jacob (15 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":z6o9bcro said:


> Jacob":z6o9bcro said:
> 
> 
> > Since 1979 there has been a huge misguided effort to introduce more management into many institutions, in the pursuit of efficiency. Most notoriously into the NHS which previously was regarded as a miraculously survivor of minimal management.
> ...


Very unlikely. It's these same people who are pushing for privatisation all the time - loadsamoney to be made!


----------



## RogerS (15 Nov 2016)

I used to be one of them - we're not all bad, y'know. Mind you, the partners #-o 

When I was working for KPMG I remember doing one piece of work for an investment bank. There were two parts to the study and a report at the end of each. However, the circulation of the two reports was different and so there was the same introductory section at the front of each. I completed the first part and duly submitted the report to the partner for his approval (and of course his fees). His sole contribution? Putting a semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

'Fair enough', I thought, 'if that's the house style then so be it'. A couple of months later and the second part was completed. Again, I submitted the report for sign-off to the partner so he could claim his fees. His sole contribution ? Removing the semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.

It was then that I decided I wanted out.


----------



## RossJarvis (15 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3gok4cm5 said:


> I used to be one of them - we're not all bad, y'know. Mind you, the partners #-o
> 
> When I was working for KPMG I remember doing one piece of work for an investment bank. There were two parts to the study and a report at the end of each. However, the circulation of the two reports was different and so there was the same introductory section at the front of each. I completed the first part and duly submitted the report to the partner for his approval (and of course his fees). His sole contribution? Putting a semi-colon at the end of each bullet point item in the introductory section.
> 
> ...



And how much did he charge......?


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (15 Nov 2016)

Guys....not all management consultancies are just robbing people blind...public or private....I mean come on, lets not let this thread deteriorate into a meaningless rant about the big 4!! A great deal of the streamlining work they do to make business processes more efficient is first class and it doesn't necessarily mean people lose their jobs in the process of achieving that efficiency. Bringing product to market faster is a common goal for their efficiency activity or automating previously sluggish processes. You just cant describe them all as rubbish and have the word intelligent in the same sentence. Lets be reasonable at least or this just becomes a pointless rant.


----------



## RossJarvis (18 Nov 2016)

Dear Me *ROB*, your irony seems to have slammed the lid on this one (or did I misread the twitch in your eyebrow when you wrote that?

Shame really as I was just getting into it.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (18 Nov 2016)

I've no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## RobinBHM (18 Nov 2016)

Getting back to Trump......

Who wouldve thought a man that has appeared on a reality tv show, has his name in big gold letters on flash hotel buildings, has no political experience etc etc would be voted in as president.

Trumps appointments over the last days and his continuing use of twitter isnt very encouraging so far! I know, early days........


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (19 Nov 2016)

Trump clearly represents a vote for change ie a rejection of the Washington bubble and in that respect it's parallels with Brexit are palpable. But why the American people thought to elevate this obvious lunatic to such an exalted platform is completely beyond me. The Democrats must be kicking themselves with the benefit of hindsight!


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":nvalvn4v said:


> Trump clearly represents a vote for change ie a rejection of the Washington bubble and in that respect it's parallels with Brexit are palpable. But why the American people thought to elevate this obvious lunatic to such an exalted platform is completely beyond me. The Democrats must be kicking themselves with the benefit of hindsight!



It's very difficult assessing this if we're in the UK. In 2000 I thought the potential candidate G W Bush was an obvious psycho, then spent 3 weeks in Austin Texas, during this time I came to realise he was actually a sensible and very appropriate candidate. After a while of decompression back in the UK my views sort of went back to where I was before but modified. We are seeing something from a particular place in time and environment. If you are sensitive and you change that place you may actually see things differently.

Notwithstanding the above, Trump is quite clearly a nutter, so he's probably much like most presidents who have gone before.

In 1997 I actually voted for Blair, how the heck I never saw this Tory fifth columnist for what he was and is is beyond me :shock:


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (19 Nov 2016)

My Father was a morse code man with the Royal Signals in WWII and I'll never forget watching a war film with him one late Friday night. As a wet behind the ears teen I asked him what in his opinion caused the war and he replied: "ignorance son".

He then went on to teach, became a headmaster and finally went above the school system and into the LEA. His entire career was chosen out of the conviction he had that ignorance was the cause of the 2nd world war. This was against a backdrop of a large Yorkshire family of coal miners, steel workers and railwayman. He believed that educating people was the solution to the kind of ignorance that caused wars.

When I see Trump vomiting his rhetorical bile about building walls and excluding innocent citizens on the basis of which God they choose to worship, I think of my Dad, who dragged himself out of the groove his family circumstance had created, who witnessed real bloodshed on a truly shocking scale......and that word just echo's around my brain....ignorance......it just sums up Trump and everything he stands for. What have the American people done? An ignoramus leading the ignorant...we live in tumultuous times folks and that's for sure!


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

When I was at school, some of our teachers had been in the services, and many had lived through the 2nd Great war. They believed in education, overcoming ignorance and truly enlightening minds. I've been out of working in education for 3 years now, unfortunately that attitude has gone with the people who believed in it. Go to school/college/university "learn how to win". Welcome to the new World!!!


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (19 Nov 2016)

I agree that "winning" has replaced "being". That's more American binary culture for you, you're either a winner or loser......what a staggeringly reductionist view!


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3dwe9gt4 said:


> I agree that "winning" has replaced "being". That's more American binary culture for you, you're either a winner or loser......what a staggeringly reductionist view!



I think the problem is that education and lots of other things have moved the focus away from the "process" to the "result". When I was instructing in a workshop I tried to focus on the whole process. Both the process of making something and the process of learning how to do it. It takes a while to get the "feel" of tools, measuring equipment etc and mistakes aren't "wrong" they're just an intrinsic part of the process of learning.

The students often got very frustrated because they couldn't produce what they wanted straight away. The powers that be weren't interested in the process either, all they wanted was the certificate at the end and the cash prize for producing it. This is why the education system has moved from teaching people and giving "qualifications" to record achievement, to teaching people to get qualifications. Nowadays if someone waves a piece of paper (NVQ, GCSE, A'Level, degree etc) at you, it may just mean that they've learnt how to get that piece of paper. It's not a good guarantee that they know how to do anything else. In fact with NVQs (and I'm a "qualified assessor :shock: ) The whole process is designed around how to fill in the b****y folder and nothing to do with what's being assessed. In fact it's easier learning to use a Bridgeport Mill properly than it is to fill in the b****y folder.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (19 Nov 2016)

That's horrible isn't it? All badges and no common sense....horrible. If I counted the times I say to my boys....first principles, it would be a very large number!!


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":qdp1fw3y said:


> That's horrible isn't it? All badges and no common sense....horrible. If I counted the times I say to my boys....first principles, it would be a very large number!!



This months new phrase from me is that we live in a post-competent culture.

Speaking of first principles, one reason I dropped out of college was because I couldn't work out the height of an equilateral tetrahedron from first principles. Everyone else said "just stick the correct formula in".


----------



## MIGNAL (19 Nov 2016)

Not just education, pretty much everything. NHS waiting lists, crime figures, unemployment figures etc. I don't believe any of them. My friend was a teacher in a comprehensive school for 10 years. He left the profession. He frequently told me that it wasn't about teaching subjects but about results. Didn't matter how you got there, by what sleight of hand, just make the figures look good.


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":nvm5sgfe said:


> Not just education, pretty much everything. NHS waiting lists, crime figures, unemployment figures etc. I don't believe any of them. My friend was a teacher in a comprehensive school for 10 years. He left the profession. He frequently told me that it wasn't about teaching subjects but about results. Didn't matter how you got there, by what sleight of hand, just make the figures look good.



Most people don't believe me when I tell them how bad it was where I worked (outright fraud really) After going off with stress, it was possibly the threat of whistle blowing that got me finally stabbed in the back.

It would be nice to think it's not everywhere but the Scottish half of me is a bit pessimistic about that


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":1ytjajpi said:


> Not just education, pretty much everything. NHS waiting lists, crime figures, unemployment figures etc. I don't believe any of them. My friend was a teacher in a comprehensive school for 10 years. He left the profession. He frequently told me that it wasn't about teaching subjects but about results. Didn't matter how you got there, by what sleight of hand, just make the figures look good.


it's Tory policy in general - supposedly to lead to "efficiency" by quantifying targets - but has turned into a mass persecution of these institutions with "blame " culture - "failing" schools, hospitals, deliberately demoralising and denigrating the staff - leading to pressure for privatisation.
The failure is with the Ministries responsible, not with the demoralised people on the ground, and privatisation will be or already is, a disaster. But you could get rich quick if you can get in there!


----------



## RobinBHM (19 Nov 2016)

Jacob":v5sl9ivh said:


> MIGNAL":v5sl9ivh said:
> 
> 
> > Not just education, pretty much everything. NHS waiting lists, crime figures, unemployment figures etc. I don't believe any of them. My friend was a teacher in a comprehensive school for 10 years. He left the profession. He frequently told me that it wasn't about teaching subjects but about results. Didn't matter how you got there, by what sleight of hand, just make the figures look good.
> ...



Just the Tories to blame then?

Quotes from the kings fund:

'Targets will be remembered as one of the defining features of Labour’s approach to health policy since 1997'

'what was different about Labour's approach to targets in the NHS (and across the public sector more generally) was the volume of targets and the vigour with which they were performance-managed from the centre.'


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":2iof05w2 said:


> Jacob":2iof05w2 said:
> 
> 
> > MIGNAL":2iof05w2 said:
> ...


New Labour very timidly followed the tory lead. Partly intimidated by neo-liberal nonsense but also trying to attract the middle ground. But that is history!
BTW the NHS was founded by Labour. It wouldn't be here otherwise.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Nov 2016)

Actually, the birth of the NHS was rather more cross-party. The first suggestion was by Beveridge (a liberal) in 1942, in his report on social justice. The actual proposal of a National Health Service was set out by Willink (a conservative) in a White Paper of 1944. The actual implementation was by Bevan (labour) in 1946. The NHS came into operation in 1948.

The wartime government was one of national unity - and all parties agreed that the post-war settlement must be more socially just than had previously been the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Willink


----------



## Wildman (19 Nov 2016)

As the voting got down to two candidates I thought damn there goes the neighborhood but you know what, a man does not become a multi billionaire by being stupid no matter what the dissenters think. He has powerful views but who is to say they are not what is needed at this point in time. I remain to be convinced yet not totally against the man, after all he won the election, the people got what they voted for and the policies were quite clear when they voted so I guess it is what the masses wanted. Only time will tell. The same applies to the Brexit vote. it makes me laugh when people quote post brexit, we are still part of the corrupt system that is Europe until we leave. How the hell the EU can force us to keep paying is only a matter of weak kneed politicians. A hard break and take it from there. We did not pull their coals out of the fire to be treated like this it is time the ungrateful scrotes realised that.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1n5fjbc3 said:


> Actually, the birth of the NHS was rather more cross-party. The first suggestion was by Beveridge (a liberal) in 1942, in his report on social justice. The actual proposal of a National Health Service was set out by Willink (a conservative) in a White Paper of 1944. The actual implementation was by Bevan (labour) in 1946. The NHS came into operation in 1948.
> 
> The wartime government was one of national unity - and all parties agreed that the post-war settlement must be more socially just than had previously been the case.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Willink


This is good if you want to get up to speed on NHS history

"There was a fierce battle to get it established.

In 1946 the Doctors voted 10:1 against.

The Tories voted against the formation of the NHS 21 times before the act was passed, including both the Second and Third reading.

Some of the claims ("Hitlerian coercion", "first step to turn Britain into a National Socialist economy") are so harsh as to make GOP look restrained.

To say that in 1946 must have been almost unbelievably emotive."


----------



## thetyreman (19 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":a8bug4z8 said:


> Actually, the birth of the NHS was rather more cross-party. The first suggestion was by Beveridge (a liberal) in 1942, in his report on social justice. The actual proposal of a National Health Service was set out by Willink (a conservative) in a White Paper of 1944. The actual implementation was by Bevan (labour) in 1946. The NHS came into operation in 1948.
> 
> The wartime government was one of national unity - and all parties agreed that the post-war settlement must be more socially just than had previously been the case.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Willink



execution is all that matters, not denying the idea is important, but labour actually made it a reality.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

thetyreman":1rk3vupc said:


> Cheshirechappie":1rk3vupc said:
> 
> 
> > Actually, the birth of the NHS was rather more cross-party. The first suggestion was by Beveridge (a liberal) in 1942, in his report on social justice. The actual proposal of a National Health Service was set out by Willink (a conservative) in a White Paper of 1944. The actual implementation was by Bevan (labour) in 1946. The NHS came into operation in 1948.
> ...


...against stiff opposition from all directions and very much to the credit of Aneurin Bevan and Attlee


----------



## Peter Sefton (19 Nov 2016)

'Targets will be remembered as one of the defining features of Labour’s approach to health policy since 1997'

'what was different about Labour's approach to targets in the NHS (and across the public sector more generally) was the volume of targets and the vigour with which they were performance-managed from the centre.'[/quote]New Labour very timidly followed the tory lead. Partly intimidated by neo-liberal nonsense but also trying to attract the middle ground. But that is history!
BTW the NHS was founded by Labour. It wouldn't be here otherwise.[/quote]

From my memory of working in education it was very much a labour thing, (if we can measure it we can improve it) we were told, the trouble was all the effort went into measuring and testing at the cost of education delivery.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (19 Nov 2016)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... e_(England)

There can be no doubt whatever that whichever political party had won the 1945 General Election would have implemented the National Health Service, funded from general taxation, and available to all when they needed it. The parliamentary spadework had been done, on a cross-party basis, over the previous three or four years. Beveridge; Willink; Bevan - all with the same aim.

Jacob - just because you enjoy rewriting history to fit your narrative, it doesn't alter the facts. In an earlier post, you wrote that labour founded the NHS, and that without them, it would not have existed. That is categorically not true.


----------



## RogerS (19 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1g6sqmql said:


> ..... In fact it's easier learning to use a Bridgeport Mill properly than it is to fill in the b****y folder.



The same can be said for that utter load of codswallop - ISO9001. AKA how to fill in the right piece of paper with irrelevant twaddle.


----------



## RogerS (19 Nov 2016)

Here we go again.

Jacob says that it is all the Tories fault.

He gets corrected, quite rightly, but rather than accept it and agree that his initial (and rather stuck-in-a-rut) statement was just his usual hot air, why he ignores it and introduces another red herring. Honestly, Jacob, anyone entering into a 'discussion' (and I use the term extremely loosely) with you would be better off trying to nail jelly to a tree. 

Or a blunt pencil. Pointless.


----------



## RogerS (19 Nov 2016)

Wildman":3s5jekzl said:


> .... A hard break and take it from there. ...



What do you mean by a 'hard break'?


----------



## RossJarvis (19 Nov 2016)

RogerS":120os9v5 said:


> RossJarvis":120os9v5 said:
> 
> 
> > ..... In fact it's easier learning to use a Bridgeport Mill properly than it is to fill in the b****y folder.
> ...



Not one we did, I remember going for the "Investors in People Standard", everyone who hated working in the place (which was just about everybody) lined up and taught how to smile and say the right things so we could get the standard.......and don't get me going about Ofsted, our place actually wrote a book on how to pass Ofsted, note not a book about teaching or motivating students, just about how to pass Ofsted. You couldn't make it up, you really couldn't.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

RogerS":akvx4kk2 said:


> Here we go again.
> 
> Jacob says that it is all the Tories fault.
> 
> ...


 But it is all the tories fault nevertheless.


----------



## Jacob (19 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":34l38a7r said:


> ... In an earlier post, you wrote that labour founded the NHS, and that without them, it would not have existed. That is categorically not true.


Labour founded the NHS in July 1948. This is absolutely true.
It's in all the history books you don't have to take my word for it. 
Without Aneurin Bevan and the Labour party it most likely would not have happened - it was strongly opposed by the medical establishment itself and the tories.

Henry Willink


----------



## YorkshireMartin (20 Nov 2016)

One of Trump's most polarizing issues is immigration. I think he's got it wrong, as have all the western governments, but I also believe they are purely self serving as individuals.

Allow me to pose a question, with a background scenario based on facts:

Let's say we continue to allow immigration from poor countries to the UK and the US. Also let us assume the other G8 nations do the same at a rate of 1m a year, per country, which is close to current estimates for the USA, likely to be similar for other G8 nations.

The criteria for immigration in our scenario are as they are in reality. Skilled workers, qualified professionals, those with significant capital to invest, or those with substantial family ties. So pretty much how it's always been, minus illegal immigrants for the purposes of this discussion. The number of asylum seekers are insignificant in relative terms so I have removed those figures for clarity.

There are something like 3-4 billion people living in extreme poverty across the world. The yearly population growth of these countries is something like 100m per year combined. 

Out of all those people we, as wealthy countries, take perhaps 10-20m immigrants. We take so few of their population, that their net population continues to increase by upwards of 60 million year on year (including deaths), placing yet further strain on their very limited economies. It is a downward spiral of poverty that is not being addressed by any government or any political party, anywhere, as far as I know. Mostly I believe this because there is no solution that would ever be enacted over even 10 terms of a western government, so the real problem may be pushed aside constantly in favour of merely being *seen* to "do the right thing".

We, as "advanced" nations, take only the most intelligent, entrepreneurial, brightest, most motivated, healthiest and determined immigrants from these poor countries. Why? Because they will benefit us the most, as rich nations, and make "good" immigrants. With current immigration policy, do we not strip the poor countries of these people, who are, most certainly, the ONLY group of home grown citizens that actually has the potential, in the long term, to lift their home country out of poverty through innovation and sheer hard work?

My question is, who exactly is all this immigration helping? If we drain a poverty stricken country of its finance and intelligent, motivated citizens, surely it is left without any hope of progress at all?

Why does anyone particularly care that Trump is anti-immigration, should we not all be, under the circumstances?

Are they not better served by staying in their home country and receiving *grass roots* investment? I'm not talking about such monstrosities as the Clinton Foundation or Oxfam, I'm talking about directly supporting the best and brightest in their social endeavours, whilst addressing the corruption that is so often endemic to these nations.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":lphwiz14 said:


> ...........
> My question is, who exactly is all this immigration helping? If we drain a poverty stricken country of its finance and intelligent, motivated citizens, surely it is left without any hope of progress at all?........


Immigration helps the recipient country (us) enormously. 
It's dead simple - people migrate to get a better livelihood so they move to where there is peace, prosperity and most of all; work. More work being done generates wealth for all of us, one way or another. Our economy and the yanks would collapse without them.
Yes it may weaken the places left - but if they haven't a viable livelihood their original country is not making use of them and presumably they won't be missed. Some money gets sent home which saves on foreign aid and also carries on driving the global economic machine - what goes around comes around.
Gross oversimplification I admit!



> Why does anyone particularly care that Trump is anti-immigration, should we not all be, under the circumstances?


Because it is a gross example of the blame culture - whereby people are encouraged to blame their neighbours, immigrants, unemployed, students, single mothers, foreigners, gays, agitators, do-gooders, trade unionists (the endless Daily Mail hate list) rather than blaming the wealthy elites who actually have the power and responsibility for the way things are. Add to this the delusion that the economy is in some sort of emergency/crisis and you have a massive propaganda success for the right wing media which is keeping us divided and easy to rule.

PS or to put it another way - Mexicans weren't responsible for neo-liberal economics, collapse of American motor industry, sub prime mortgages fiasco, widening inequality, etc. It was Trump and the Trumpalikes - who must find it entertaining to have got away with it and passed the buck.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Nov 2016)

Jacob":zcjh3jti said:


> Cheshirechappie":zcjh3jti said:
> 
> 
> > ... In an earlier post, you wrote that labour founded the NHS, and that without them, it would not have existed. That is categorically not true.
> ...



I'll try to set it out a little more clearly.

During the second world war, the UK had a government of national unity. One thing it recognised was that the general population would expect a better social settlement after the war than it had enjoyed before it. With that in mind, the Beveridge Report was prepared, and agreed by all parties. Subsequent to that, a white paper was prepared by Willink in 1944 setting out proposals for a National Health Service. Following the General Election of 1945, the Labour administration enacted the intent set out by the government of national unity during the previous years. There was no dissent that a National Health Service was needed, though no doubt there was debate about the manner of it's realisation. We know, for example, that Bevan departed from Willink's proposals by trying to bring all medical facilities into national ownership; he eventually compromised by nationalising hospitals but leaving GP practices as private businesses contracting to the NHS, the situation we still have.

Whichever party (or coalition of parties) had been elected in 1945, some form of National Health Service would have come to pass, so it is not true to say that without the Labour Party, it would not have happened. It flowed from the Beveridge Report (Liberal) via the Willink white paper (Conservative) to final realisation under Bevan (Labour).


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":236oets6 said:


> ...
> 
> Whichever party (or coalition of parties) had been elected in 1945, some form of National Health Service would have come to pass, ....


Pure guess. You can't rewrite history - it had been opposed by the tories at every stage and it looks unlikely that they would have supported - at least not without trimming it to the minimum they could get away with. See Willink comments.
It was actually founded by Labour and wouldn't have got through if they did not have a large majority.
Though of course the topic had been kicked about previously by many - it didn't arrive fully formed out of the blue.

Read this and a lot of other stuff on the net if you want to get up to speed.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Nov 2016)

YorkshireMartin":3u6iyxxd said:


> One of Trump's most polarizing issues is immigration. I think he's got it wrong, as have all the western governments, but I also believe they are purely self serving as individuals.
> 
> Allow me to pose a question, with a background scenario based on facts:
> 
> ...



Thanks for a thoughtful post, YM.

Something not much reported is that the governments of Eastern European countries are quite concerned about the outflow of their brightest and most energetic. Their economies are not the richest, and they need those people to bring about the economic growth that would help. 

It also worries me a bit when people make the claim that the NHS depends on immigrants to ensure it has enough staff; I wonder why we can't train enough of our own people, and I wonder how nations far less prosperous than ours manage when the medical staff they have (expensively) trained emigrate, leaving them with a far lower ratio of medics to population than we would regard as acceptable in the UK. I can't blame the individual immigrants for wanting to economically better themselves, but do wonder whether it's morally justified to take so many people with essential skills away from nations that need them.

Back on page 6, I posted a link to a short YouTube clip of political economist Mark Blyth giving a short talk. He showed a graph of world income growth over the last thirty years, which showed that a good part of the world had enjoyed substantial income gains - he mentioned "400 million people lifted out of poverty in China" as an example of that. This came about through trade.

When politicians talk about trade, I do feel they're on to something. It does seem to be a far more effective way of bringing less-developed nations nearer to the wealth levels of developed Western countries than all the Foreign Aid dispensed over many decades. However, it does need to be genuinely 'free' trade, and we do have to consider those disadvantaged by it in the developed world. I'm not sure whether existing 'Free Trade Deals' are really all that free, or whether they are nearer to stitch-ups by the large corporations that lobby Brussels and Washington so effectively. Maybe some degree of protectionism might be justifiable in the short to medium term to help the 'left behind' in the developed West.

(Edited to correct the spelling mistakes I've spotted. The ones I didn't spot are still there....)


----------



## Cheshirechappie (20 Nov 2016)

Jacob":33hmegxq said:


> Cheshirechappie":33hmegxq said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



Thank you for acknowledging my point to be correct.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":g1nbndaw said:


> Jacob":g1nbndaw said:
> 
> 
> > Cheshirechappie":g1nbndaw said:
> ...


I didn't.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":989p6rmt said:


> ..... I'm not sure whether existing 'Free Trade Deals' are really all that free, or whether they are nearer to stitch-ups by the large corporations that lobby Brussels and Washington so effectively. ...


The whole point of a free trade deal is to give the partners an advantage over the others. They disadvantage non partners more or less by definition - thats the whole idea, it's not for the benefit of anybody outside the deal, least of all poorly paid workers in the 3rd world.
The main plank of the brexit argument is to try to retain trade deals but prevent free movement of people - in other words it's to the advantage of everybody except working people who only have their work skills to offer, which is probably most of us on here.


----------



## Inoffthered (20 Nov 2016)

Jacob":66j22qqa said:


> Cheshirechappie":66j22qqa said:
> 
> 
> > ..... I'm not sure whether existing 'Free Trade Deals' are really all that free, or whether they are nearer to stitch-ups by the large corporations that lobby Brussels and Washington so effectively. ...
> ...




I disagree with your assertions here and again, I think you are looking at things the wrong way down a telescope. 
It is open for any country to remove barriers to trade if they wish, it is their prerogative. If a country imposes tariffs and non tariff barriers they cannot then complain about being disadvantaged because others choose a free trade arrangement. 
You appear to show a concern for the third world but seem oblivious to the damage that the EU causes to the third world because of its protectionist policies. The EU may be a free trade association for its members but those outside suffer. As an example, the price of sugar imports is fixed to protect the EU sugar beet growers. As a consequence sugar prices in the EU are artificially high and sugar growers in Africa cannot realise the full value of their crops. 
The multinationals and global interests that lobby the EU are not interested in free trade but are seeking to impose barriers that restrict access to markets, the exact opposite of what you appear to be suggesting.

Your views on the free movement of people are somewhat naive. I could argue that the restriction of free movement of unskilled labour to the UK would improve the lot of working people here by reducing the downward pressure on wages and also easing pressure on public services. And to preempt your next comment, no one on the Brexit side has ever said that there would be no immigration, the argument is for controlled immigration.


----------



## Jacob (20 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":34nl3fd4 said:


> .... I could argue that the restriction of free movement of unskilled labour to the UK would improve the lot of working people here by reducing the downward pressure on wages and also easing pressure on public services. ....


It'd be better to ensure that employers pay all the same then there would be no issue about wages. 
The point is - these people generate wealth - that's why their employers employ them and that's why we want them here. There are issues of course but the economic one is complete nonsense - it's not the workers fault if he is being underpaid.
Public services would collapse without the large number of immigrant workers employed.

If free movement is restricted it's very likely that Brit workers will suffer the same fate - the EU don't owe us any favours. Big shot in the foot!


----------



## Inoffthered (20 Nov 2016)

Jacob":tdqm3ylw said:


> Public services would collapse without the large number of immigrant workers employed.



This is the rather tired straw man argument put up by Remainers to imply that the NHS will collapse because of Brexit.
Who, exactly, has ever said "immigrant workers" would be expelled ?
Who exactly, has ever said that immigrants would not be allowed to enter the country to accept employment?

Still at least you have not yet sunk to the depths of this silly person

http://order-order.com/2016/11/20/andre ... ain-video/



Jacob":tdqm3ylw said:


> It'd be better to ensure that employers pay all the same then there would be no issue about wages.
> The point is - these people generate wealth - that's why their employers employ them and that's why we want them here. There are issues of course but the economic one is complete nonsense - it's not the workers fault if he is being underpaid.



Pay all workers the same? How very USSR!
I agree that employers employ people to create wealth, but wages are a function of supply and demand. An entrepreneur running a business will pay his staff what he needs to pay them in order to maintain the business. So if the supply of labour exceeds demand then the price of labour will go down. Talk to anyone in the construction industry about the impact of Eastern European joiners/plumbers/electricians. Employers are delighted because they work hard for less money. Others working in those trades are not so happy because pay rates are depressed. 
An excess of unskilled labour is the real curse for those operating at that level. A worker has the right to leave employment for a better job if they are not happy. With surplus labour, that option that gives the employee power is effectively removed.

Attempts to rig the market and fix wage rates reduces employment and create inefficiencies. A system that pays everyone the same destroys productivity because there is no incentive to excel. 

The other issue that your analysis fails to address is the effect of unrestricted immigration on the wider economy and social services. The argument that the mass immigration of recent years has added value has been de-bunked. The majority of immigrant labour is unskilled work, often on zero hours contracts. The contribution to the treasury through taxation is modest because unskilled work tends to be poorly paid.
The analysis supporting free movement of labour takes no account (deliberately imho) of the social costs. For a population increase of 1 million there is a substantial cost to social services which need to be provided or health and education will suffer. (increased waiting times/shortage of school places etc). The problem with natural population growth is generally manageable because the authorities can monitor birth rates and have a few years to sort out school places. When population growth comprises family units then the social demands are instantaneous. The problem is compounded if incomers are low wage earners and are therefore making no real contribution to tax revenues.

The other issue that the Remainers seem to ignore is the fundamental change that is taking place in the economy. Having gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries we are now entering the technological age. The days when industry needed thousands of workers to work in factories have long gone. The future of the economy now needs highly educated and motivated people. There will still be a role for a number of unskilled workers to work in leisure and care sectors but having an open door policy is madness and grossly unfair on the existing population. The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) suggests that our EU lords and masters really are engaged in the Coudehove-Kalergi plan.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Nov 2016)

It's very tempting to think that all we need are educated highly motivated people. It is complete nonsense of course. 
I'm well aware of dozens of people who work in the . . . cardboard box factory, the crisp factory, the greetings card factory, the plastics factory. . . I could go on. They are all small companies employing immigrant workers. I once asked one of the Polish workers how many English people worked at the factory that he worked in. Very few, was his answer. They come, they last a week, they go. This guy had done 5 years in the exact same very boring, monotonous job.


----------



## DennisCA (21 Nov 2016)

Pretty sure most of us just want a steady job and stability and aren't highly motivated or interested in jumping from job to job while building some kinda career and always on the move from city to city, those people are few and far between. Yet it seems like everyone has to be like that in todays world. Most people trying that burn out and die from heart attacks and stress.

There seems to be a disconnect between what people want and what society wants them to be.


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

DennisCA":3jliux46 said:


> There seems to be a disconnect between what people want and what society wants them to be.



Society reflects the people in it ! They are one and the same. 

With regard to Jacob's point re wages etc and migrant workers, he is ignoring the customer at the end of the day. Most people want to buy cheap..regardless of quality. So supermarkets drive the prices down, which drives the prices down to the suppliers. Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1mbcur1y said:


> .... Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?


No it's quite understandable. 
But there should be a strongly imposed minimum living wage, otherwise it's the desperate people at the bottom of the heap (not necessarily immigrants - they may be unemployed little englanders!) who get very badly treated - can't support themselves and their families and become a social problem which has to be paid for by the state (us) - tax credits, income support, housing benefits (the biggest one), etc. for starters - but then a whole rake of social problems which affect the poor and are a cost to society.
Blaming the poor for poverty is Alice Through the Looking Glass economics


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":zf2k6s17 said:


> ..... The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) .....


Free movement is the jewel in the crown. 
It's the most important of the four freedoms. It's civilisation - democracy on the hoof. 
It's also a boon for employers - an available workforce
"Unfree" movement has another common name: "slavery". 
It applies to you too - if your employers decide to move would you be happy to be unable to follow them and instead settle down to unemployment at home? 
Will the unfree movement boundaries shift with time? As it stands our freedom to move about Europe is likely to be stopped, will it be movement across British borders next - a visa for Scotland? Very likely a closed border with Eire for starters.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Nov 2016)

On the subject of wage levels across the EU, this is worth a listen - particularly from about 7.00 minutes in. (The whole video is worth listening to, though it is a bit long).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rGvZil0qWPg

Free movement also clearly benefits the big corporates too - if you can ship in cheap labour from Eastern Europe, you can compete better with Chinese imports (as others have said in various ways). I'm not convinced that it actually works that well for the ordinary man and woman in the street, just getting by.


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1etujv15 said:


> RogerS":1etujv15 said:
> 
> 
> > .... Is it small wonder that a supplier will pay the lowest wage he can to stay in business ?
> ...



I will repeat myself since you have decided to ignore my main point and instead carry on with your usual Marxist tub-thumping.

_He (Jacob) is ignoring the customer at the end of the day. Most people want to buy cheap..regardless of quality. So supermarkets drive the prices down,_

Or maybe it's simply because, in comparison to other EU countries such as France, the British workforce is not as productive.

https://www.ft.com/content/fff1944a-e51 ... 8b0d268c39


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":1vi2hm1l said:


> Jacob":1vi2hm1l said:
> 
> 
> > The other issue that the Remainers seem to ignore is the fundamental change that is taking place in the economy. Having gone through the agricultural and industrial revolutions in the 18th and 19th centuries we are now entering the technological age. The days when industry needed thousands of workers to work in factories have long gone. The future of the economy now needs highly educated and motivated people. There will still be a role for a number of unskilled workers to work in leisure and care sectors but having an open door policy is madness and grossly unfair on the existing population. The continuing absence of any coherent justification for the current free movement policy (other than the sound bite "the economy benefits" nonsense) suggests that our EU lords and masters really are engaged in the Coudehove-Kalergi plan.



The big problem here is that a very large number of the current population do not have the required capabilities, for a large number of reasons, to engage in this high-tech high-motivation revolution and currently there seems to be no means to change this. This is one of the reasons that an ever increasing underclass is developing. Maybe in a couple of generations or so things may turn around.

At the moment we have an employment market which requires people to fit into it, whereas we should be developing the employment market for those who exist. Admittedly this needs some kind of controlled intervention or general change in mind-set and I wouldn't particularly like to see a government of any flavour doing this.

The big worry is that in a highly competitive global economy, based on the "winners" trampling on and ignoring the "losers", we would not be competitive if we worked to a more egalitarian ethos. As mentioned, uncontrolled immigration would seem to lead to the displacement of native-born people from the employment market, but maybe only if the employment market itself were to remain as it is.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1xlhwdax said:


> ..
> The big problem here is that a very large number of the current population do not have the required capabilities, for a large number of reasons, to engage in this high-tech high-motivation revolution and currently there seems to be no means to change this. This is one of the reasons that an ever increasing underclass is developing. .....


Industrialisation has been going steadily for thousands of years. the "industrial Revolution" (science, coal, steel, steam power, oil power) and the new high tech revolution, are just conspicuous blips when change was/is most speedy.

The whole point of industrialisation is to produce more goods/services with less effort - which means that the whole point of it is to create unemployment. This is of course brilliant if you happen to have a pension, redundancy money, stack of cash, no rent to pay etc.
But many people find themselves redundant without these benefits. And under urgent pressure to get some cash together immediately. I don't know the figures but a vey large proportion of the population only have enough for a week or so if their income source stops completely - they don't have the means with which to re-arrange their lives and sheer survival comes to the fore. Expecting them to find other ways of earning a living is slightly crazy as we are in the process of removing opportunity in most areas of working life. 

Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.

Another approach was that of the Luddites - they weren't anti machinery or anti comfortable retirement, they were anti losing their livelihoods and being thrown onto the scrap heap. The took the simple line of protest by attacking the machines which had taken their jobs, and who can blame them? Another line was mass emigration to the colonies where they stole others land and committed genocide in various forms.

Unless post industrial efficiency benefits ALL society then it is not working - it is not efficient, and directly or indirectly, we are ALL the losers


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":12qkqzpn said:


> ....
> Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.
> 
> ....



Straight out of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Just how are you going to do that? What criteria are you going to use? Divide up all the wealth that the UHNW people have among the rest of the population? If so then you can have my 26p

Or only among some ? That's what the Politburo and all their apparachniks did in the good 'ol USSR. And every other leftwing regime.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":2wg2i2jj said:


> Jacob":2wg2i2jj said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...


Not easy. "Universal basic living wage" given to all, is talked about.
After all we all already receive massive indirect benefits - NHS, Education, the whole social infrastructure, roads etc. Handing out a bit of cash starts looking like a tiny detail in comparison


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2qof85pi said:


> RogerS":2qof85pi said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2qof85pi said:
> ...



Jacob...your comments are sounding more and more like an episode of Citizen Smith. Or from "Bedtime Stories" by Jeremy Corbyn. Whimsy doesn't even come close !!


----------



## thetyreman (21 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1tz6siwy said:


> Inoffthered":1tz6siwy said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1tz6siwy said:
> ...



I agree with this, and it is very worrying indeed, what worries me the most about it is that we are loosing our identity as a country and just copying american culture whilst loosing our own in the process, even the idea of winners and loosers is very american, it's not an idea I like particularly, it's very bipolar/black and white thinking.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Nov 2016)

What's the alternative Roger? There's a very good reason for Brexit and Trump. Ignore it if you want, just don't be surprised if things get much worse and politics becomes increasingly polarised. After all, when these people have nothing they have nothing to lose.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":108ohgsf said:


> Jacob":108ohgsf said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":108ohgsf said:
> ...


So what is your solution to impending mass unemployment? You can't say "get a job" as jobs are precisely the items increasing in scarcity - which is precisely the problem.


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1ffilnkl said:


> Unless wealth is more equally distributed so that everybody gets the benefit of modern production, then for these people it is pointless and destroys livelihoods.



I applaud the idea that wealth is distributed better and maybe re-distributed from some to others. The process through which this is done is the sticking point. I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. We also need to think about supplying the needs of those who for whatever reason may not have the opportunity of wealth creation, for whom subsidy is the only option.

I would much rather live in a society where everyone agrees to distribute their wealth, or the opportunity to get it, and sees the benefit of doing it, rather than one where it is enforced from outside. Unfortunately at this time I'm not sure how many see this "enjoyable duty" as an option, either from greed or fear or anything in between.

To what extent is it the government's responsibility to equalise wealth or the means to achieve it? Currently our government seems unable or unwilling to do either and I'd much rather "society" take the responsibility for this and not leave it up to the tiny group of Nerks who make up HM Government and its opposition.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Nov 2016)

Our favourite economist on austerity and who is paying for it: 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgDxLtXt_M

Don't forget we've been told for the last 10 years that there is no alternative. Anyone who wanted to stimulate the economy was seen as a left wing nut job. Except that they did masses of QE, which even Osbourne admitted ended up in the hands of the wealthy. Probably by design rather than by accident.
Blyth is quite correct regarding private debt. You only need to look at the graph from 1982 (freeing of financial markets) and the line goes up at 45 degrees. We are all in debt.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":3jg2gefl said:


> ..... I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. .........


It's the over-creation of "wealth" which is putting people out of work and, incidentally, destroying the planet. 
In fact we need more people to be allowed to exist without creating wealth, in the material sense at least. Maybe they've all got to become entertainers or something. Would being able to play the banjo be a form of wealth! It'd definitely be a commodity (if anybody would pay for it!)


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2utahk8x said:


> RossJarvis":2utahk8x said:
> 
> 
> > ..... I think if everyone has equality of opportunity to create the wealth they need we are on to a winner. .........
> ...



I agree here, creation of wealth, or however you want to phrase it, for need, with a bit left over for luxuries and the entire planet would be using a fraction of the resources it currently does and probably eliminate the poison it produces. Anyone could choose how many banjo players they wish to give the surplus to. I'm not sure how much wealth banjo playing would create, Billy Connoly had to tell jokes to subsidise his and I think the Eagles are the only popular band who made one tune with the banjo in lead.


----------



## DennisCA (21 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":3lmwsnh9 said:


> Our favourite economist on austerity and who is paying for it:
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9HgDxLtXt_M
> 
> ...



This guy needs more attention, it's not often you find an economist who is fun to listen to.


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3gjs62vt said:


> RogerS":3gjs62vt said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":3gjs62vt said:
> ...



When on the back foot, bring in another 'red herring' ! How have we got from redistribution of wealth to mass unemployment ?


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":30ub3z0x said:


> Jacob":30ub3z0x said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":30ub3z0x said:
> ...


Pay attention there at the back! 
The question is; how do you solve the problem of mass unemployment without some form of redistribution of wealth?
Clue "getting a job" isn't the answer as it is the inability to get a job which is the problem, hence the mass unemployment.


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1pxakp30 said:


> RogerS":1pxakp30 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1pxakp30 said:
> ...



Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason. 

Following on your idea....so you distribute the wealth, it gets spent, then we're back to square one. Where do you go from there ?


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3595advt said:


> Jacob":3595advt said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3595advt said:
> ...


Continuous re-distribution of wealth - which is what we do anyway. It means higher taxes for the high earners and higher benefits for the unemployed, or UBI (universal basic income). Lots of ways - higher minimum wage would be good, purchase tax on luxury goods, and so on. 

So I take it your solution (_Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason. _) is to let them all drop dead?


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":36misc9t said:


> Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.



I'd have to partially disagree here. There may well be too many people for the way populations and resources are currently distributed, but the World can easily sustain a much greater population, which it'll have to anyway unless we kill a lot off by accident or design.


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3295qhu2 said:


> Continuous re-distribution of wealth - which is what we do anyway. It means higher taxes for the high earners and higher benefits for the unemployed, or UBI (universal basic income). Lots of ways - higher minimum wage would be good, purchase tax on luxury goods, and so on.



Surely taxation is a very inefficient way to redistribute wealth, not to mention annoying for the "wealthy".

I would have thought it much better for the poor to access more wealth/resources earlier on and maybe for the "greedy" to not take so much in the first place. This would then mean all the tax officials could be freed up to do something much more rewarding and worthwhile instead!


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":18od1060 said:


> RogerS":18od1060 said:
> 
> 
> > ....Following on your idea....so you distribute the wealth, it gets spent, then we're back to square one. Where do you go from there ?
> ...


 #-o #-o #-o I give up. I'd rather nail jelly to a tree.



Jacob":18od1060 said:


> So I take it your solution (_Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason. _) is to let them all drop dead?


 Dunno about you? Maybe in your Marxist utopia people live forever. For the rest of 'mere' mortals we eventually do drop dead. Cutting the birth rate would be a start.


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2qmtci21 said:


> RogerS":2qmtci21 said:
> 
> 
> > Too many people on the planet. That's the real reason.
> ...



There are many people - probably both brighter and with more knowledge and experience than either you or I - who would beg to differ.


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1pnvorhp said:


> RossJarvis":1pnvorhp said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":1pnvorhp said:
> ...



Maybe we could make the planet bigger. If we all stuff a foot pump into our gardens and get peddling like mad?


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3kkq24yb said:


> RossJarvis":3kkq24yb said:
> 
> 
> > RogerS":3kkq24yb said:
> ...


Ross is right. It's a well researched area ( by people brighter and with more knowledge and experience than Roger - not many of them about!). 
Elimination of word wide poverty is well within our capabilities - should we choose to do it. One of the simplest and most boring changes, but highly effective, would be to all become vegetarian. This would liberate millions of square miles for food production (as distinct from animal food production). Sounds silly I know, but the figures prove it.

It's all down to political will and as we have the rise of Trump and the decline of the EU it looks less and less likely. We are all off to hell in a handcart!


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Nov 2016)

I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%

It seems to me we are off to hell in a handcart if we stay in the EU........

'Higher taxes for higher wage earners'....nice in theory but the pragmatic solution is to have low taxation for high earners. Unfair yes, but the reality is that low taxes means businesses and people are attracted to the UK, so creating more jobs for people and a much larger number of wealthy paying low tax means a much larger overall revenue to HMRC than few wealthy people paying high taxes.

I do find it frustrating that large companies are in the UK and avoid paying their taxes, that is unfair. Apple for example have managed to wangle a great deal in Ireland, they have had a huge incentive to come to Ireland and bring jobs in return for reduced tax. Nevertheless it is a significant employer which is good for the economy and employment there.


----------



## MIGNAL (21 Nov 2016)

4.8% :lol: Complete joke of a figure!


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":2nj172j7 said:


> I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%........


So immigration to Britain is not a problem is it - as far as jobs are concerned. Pleased you've spotted this!
But we are talking off mass un-employment to come with the advent of even higher hi-tech productivity


----------



## Cheshirechappie (21 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1rh17oal said:


> RobinBHM":1rh17oal said:
> 
> 
> > I'm confused by the talk of mass unemployment, The UK currently has an unemployment rate of 4.8% compared to France 10%, Portugal 11%, Italy 11.4, Spain 19%, Greece 23.4%........
> ...



I wonder.

Back in the late 19th century, people were writing about how machines would soon be doing all the work, and what would we do with all the leisure time it would create? Well - partly true, in that we generally work shorter hours than was common in 1850 or 1900 - but on the other hand, how many IT support people were there around then? Or aircraft fitters, come to that. Each new technological revolution seems to create a whole new category of work that needs doing. Maybe automation will, to some extent. It's also true that because we work fewer hours, we have more leisure time - which has created (or at any rate, greatly expanded) a whole new industry in leisure and tourism.

I'm not making any predictions. Just throwing some thoughts out there....


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Nov 2016)

Ive never suggested mass immigration is a problem for jobs. Indeed without significant foreign workers in th UK, many sectors, like hospitality, retail, agriculture would have real problems.

Immigrants do not take jobs ftom UK citizens. 

Immigration is an issue for infrastructure, school places, doctors surgeries, housing. Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density. The increase that foreign workers generate in tax does not relate to the increase of investment needed. I understand and applaud the idealogical theory of free movement, but there are practical issues that have to be solved.

Technology is changing the nature of employment, but its been changing for many decades yet we have very low unemployment so I dont agree that its an issue. We arent going to wake up in 2017 and find robots have taken all our jobs!

If that is the case, there would then be an army of robot field engineers needed.......


----------



## RogerS (21 Nov 2016)

Even better. Stop breeding like rabbits. Then we could all enjoy a bacon buttie.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RogerS":dvli0820 said:


> Even better. Stop breeding like rabbits. Then we could all enjoy a bacon buttie.


I say you lot would you mind not doing that!  

Unfortunately the urge to reproduce is strong - strongest when under pressure, threat, disruption, war, famine etc etc -not just with humans but throughout the plant and animal world. The pressure to perpetuate ones own genes is much stronger than the pressure to reproduce in a conveniently sensible way. It's about survival of the species. Population growth is greatest where quality of life is low and uncivilised.
Large families are in the 3rd world, or people from the third world yet to become cosily middle class. 
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/ ... urope.html .It's about survival of the species.
Simple answer to this is make sure these people are secure and have a reasonable livelihood and their birthrate will fall to 1.79 per woman.


----------



## Jacob (21 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":33y9v2sl said:


> .... Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density..........


Population density in Britain not particularly high https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_ ... on_density


----------



## RobinBHM (21 Nov 2016)

The vast majority of net immegration is to England not the UK.

http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... index.html

England has a population density of 413 per sq km compared to France 114


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":2axgwxvt said:


> The vast majority of net immegration is to England not the UK.
> 
> http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... index.html
> 
> England has a population density of 413 per sq km compared to France 114



Yep. You could probably fit the World's population easily into Caithness and Sutherland, mind you the trench foot and wet rot to their houses may be an issue.


----------



## RossJarvis (21 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":1ypddcux said:


> Immigration is an issue for infrastructure, school places, doctors surgeries, housing. Net Immegration of 300k is not sustainable to an Island of already quite high population density. The increase that foreign workers generate in tax does not relate to the increase of investment needed. I understand and applaud the idealogical theory of free movement, but there are practical issues that have to be solved.
> 
> Technology is changing the nature of employment, but its been changing for many decades yet we have very low unemployment so I dont agree that its an issue.



Have to agree with the infrastructure issue, I think this is where the greatest toll of immigration has been. I knew of one school in Sheffield where over 100 different first languages were spoken, so it wasn't just the numbers themselves which added to the stress on the system. Additionally the concentration of immigrants in fewer particular areas rather than evenly spread is a further problem both on the services and the social fabric of an area.

In terms of the unemployment figures, these are just a function of the policy to make it much harder to be unemployed, therefore forcing people into low value low paid jobs or quite often, still unemployed but not able to claim, so that you vanish from the figures. I'm not sure this is something to celebrate. There is still a large burden in benefits being paid to the low waged in terms of housing benefit, tax credits etc, plus the zero or minimal return from income tax.


----------



## Steve Maskery (21 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2wiokt99 said:


> still unemployed but not able to claim, so that you vanish from the figures.



Absolutely spot on. The ONLY reason we have the lowest unemployment figures for years is that we have the HIGHEST self-employment levels for years, where an enormous percentage of those people are scratching around for any kind of income and to whom Minimum Wage is just an aspiration.

If you are self-employed and not earning enough, HMRC stops your Working Tax Credits on the grounds that you are not working in an Organised Manner or working Regular Hours. You can simply be left with no income at all.

Go figure.


----------



## Jacob (22 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":sz750626 said:


> [....I knew of one school in Sheffield where over 100 different first languages were spoken,


Really? Do you have a list? it seems unlikely to me. One thing you can be sure of it that after one or two years they'd all be speaking english


> There is still a large burden in benefits being paid to the low waged in terms of housing benefit, tax credits etc, plus the zero or minimal return from income tax.


We need a sensible high minimum wage for all and a housing policy, otherwise we just subsidise unscrupulous employers and landlords.

Actually I don't see benefits as a "burden". Quite the opposite; an investment in human capital, the most cost effective way of reducing the destructive effects of poverty, money which finds its way rapidly back into the economy and keeps the wheels turning. It might also free people to make improvements in their lives and get back into work, training, education or other constructive situations.

Or to put it another way - do you want your neighbours to be miserable and poor, with all the associated social problems?


----------



## RossJarvis (22 Nov 2016)

Jacob":363p83yc said:


> RossJarvis":363p83yc said:
> 
> 
> > [....I knew of one school in Sheffield where over 100 different first languages were spoken,
> ...



Jacob, you really do need to read what people are writing and understand it, rather than reading into it what you think they are saying. It may also be an idea not to put two contradictory statements so close together.


----------



## dzj (22 Nov 2016)

Steve Maskery":2096esmi said:


> Absolutely spot on. The ONLY reason we have the lowest unemployment figures for years is that we have the HIGHEST self-employment levels for years, where an enormous percentage of those people are scratching around for any kind of income and to whom Minimum Wage is just an aspiration.



Some authors refer to this social class as the precariat.


----------



## Jacob (22 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":21qe8i3n said:


> ....
> Jacob, you really do need to read what people are writing and understand it, rather than reading into it what you think they are saying. It may also be an idea not to put two contradictory statements so close together.


Yes sorry I tend to react to cues. The alt.right have a set of memes which crop up a lot, but sometimes quite innocently!


----------



## devonwoody (22 Nov 2016)

I congratulate all on their tenacity in able to respond to leftish and rightish views. :wink:


----------



## RossJarvis (22 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3c2d5n4y said:


> RossJarvis":3c2d5n4y said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Thanks for the apology


----------



## DennisCA (22 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1jgui17n said:


> RogerS":1jgui17n said:
> 
> 
> > Even better. Stop breeding like rabbits. Then we could all enjoy a bacon buttie.
> ...



Don't panic says Hans Rosling on overpopulation, I recommend everyone take the time to watch it, very educational.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (22 Nov 2016)

Well I will say one thing which is that by and large the protagonists on either side of centre have behaved like gentlemen in this thread. I do like to see grown men recognising that their view is not necessarily a monopoly on the truth and to give other people the space to explore contrary ideas....without going down the playground route. You never know, maybe the forum has moved on in it's maturity over the last 2 years? Or maybe the combination of the two earthquakes in recent politics ie Brexit and Trump have rehearsed the arguments so much that the sting has gone out of defending an particular belief system. Who knows, but whatever is driving this reasonable "grace" then please continue.

Now where did I put that new treatise on sharpening......


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Nov 2016)

devonwoody":2f1c0tbg said:


> I congratulate all on their tenacity in able to respond to leftish and rightish views. :wink:



=D> =D> =D> 

spot any similarity with sharpening discussions?..........

I'll start: its much better to use a honing guide, you will never get a chisel sharp enough by hand and you absolutely must flatten and polish the back.


----------



## RobinBHM (22 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3gkam5rq said:


> Well I will say one thing which is that by and large the protagonists on either side of centre have behaved like gentlemen in this thread. I do like to see grown men recognising that their view is not necessarily a monopoly on the truth and to give other people the space to explore contrary ideas....without going down the playground route. You never know, maybe the forum has moved on in it's maturity over the last 2 years? Or maybe the combination of the two earthquakes in recent politics ie Brexit and Trump have rehearsed the arguments so much that the sting has gone out of defending an particular belief system. Who knows, but whatever is driving this reasonable "grace" then please continue.
> 
> Now where did I put that new treatise on sharpening......



Many thanks for the mods for allowing it to continue  , Im guessing a close eye has been kept with one finger hovering over the 'lock thread' button!


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (22 Nov 2016)

Yes...and the funny thing is, when people behave like grown ups, it means discussion like this becomes less of an issue and more like a digital off topic "pub" which is fine. The moment it gets personal then it just reduces it to the gutter and the mods have a duty to turn it off. Clearly there will always be a spread of views on any political topic but if people can demonstrate some respect for the people behind the views then we're doing well.


----------



## Jacob (22 Nov 2016)

The difference between sharpening and politics for me is that I couldn't give a monkey's what anybody says about sharpening - I made my mind up a long time ago, I just muscle in the hopes of saving a benighted beginner from a lifetime of difficulty, but I am interested in what they say about politics, and why.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (22 Nov 2016)

How very ironic Jacob...if only we could see the things we say (write) the way other people see them! I only mention that because one of the things that stood out for me when I joined this parish was just how very much you always defended your view on sharpening. It's interesting to hear you say you don't really care 

Remind me to be abroad when you stumble across an issue you feel passionate about :shock:


----------



## Jacob (23 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":z2o4pqio said:


> How very ironic Jacob...if only we could see the things we say (write) the way other people see them! I only mention that because one of the things that stood out for me when I joined this parish was just how very much you always defended your view on sharpening. It's interesting to hear you say you don't really care
> 
> Remind me to be abroad when you stumble across an issue you feel passionate about :shock:


What I meant was that what people think about politics is really important and affects us all in a big way - Brexit could change our lives dramatically. Already is doing in fact.
It seems a big part of the brexit and the Trump vote was from people who feel that they are not listened to by the establishment and I think they are right about that at least.
But at the same time there's a popular veto on talking to and listening to other people about politics, religion etc. so a lot of people never get to talk about important stuff except to people who think the same as themselves. I get a strong sense of that in threads like this - people are surprised to hear alternative views as all they know of them is as portrayed and denigrated in the Daily Mail etc. 
There's a veto on talking to your neighbour but no veto on being bombarded by the opinions of the Murdoch press, which can't be a good thing.


----------



## RogerS (23 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1wedkcms said:


> Random Orbital Bob":1wedkcms said:
> 
> 
> > How very ironic Jacob...if only we could see the things we say (write) the way other people see them! I only mention that because one of the things that stood out for me when I joined this parish was just how very much you always defended your view on sharpening. It's interesting to hear you say you don't really care
> ...



That is self-imposed, Jacob, by the individuals.


----------



## Jacob (23 Nov 2016)

RogerS":3dcz5mi5 said:


> Jacob":3dcz5mi5 said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbital Bob":3dcz5mi5 said:
> ...


No it's become conventional. Start talking about politics in all sorts of company (or on a woodwork chat group!) and people will say "no politics/religion/etc here please" and people get nervous, even upset - they are so unused to it. 
Brave New World (or is it 1984?) we are being told to shut up by some mysterious powers that be - but let us have press freedom to publish any old malevolent nonsense, loudly and often.


----------



## RogerS (23 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2l6jsdv0 said:


> RogerS":2l6jsdv0 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":2l6jsdv0 said:
> ...



I wish you would stop moving the goalposts and just randomly throwing out words for effect.

You quite specifically said "There's a veto on talking to your neighbour" and that was what I was referring to. We've all got neighbours, some close at hand, some further away. It is personal choice whether or not one talks politics, religion or the price of cornflakes. Nothing at all (well, maybe in your own head) about 1984 or some mysterious powers.

Likewise "no veto on being bombarded by the opinions of the Murdoch press". Personal choice. No-one is forcing you to buy the Daily Mail, Jacob. It's your choice.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (23 Nov 2016)

The point about people living in media bubbles is a good one. It's something that has been discussed in a number of places recently. It seems to be particularly a problem among those who rely on the likes of Twitter and Facebook for their news feeds, since they rely on users 'liking' various information feeds and thus excluding ones they don't immediately 'like', thus strongly reinforcing whatever preconceptions they may have and excluding other views entirely. 'Echo chamber' is a phrase that's been used.

Discussion of politics is difficult - it's very easy to deeply offend someone inadvertently. There are very good reasons why politics, religion and sex are regarded as topics to be avoided in polite conversation. The pub is another matter - but you may find yourself nursing a broken nose if your views don't quite match those of the locals. You may also turn into the pub bore.

The Murdoch press is actually quite diverse. For example, the Times took a quite strong Remain position, the Sun leaned more to Leave (I think...I'm not a Sun reader). One thing Murdoch has always been good at is gauging public opinion and tailoring his offerings accordingly. His profits depend on it.

Among the more silvertopped generation, I think if you formed your worldview by listening to the BBC and reading the Guardian, Brexit would have come as a shock. You would have thought that those campaigning for leave were just a noisy bunch of mavericks and fanatics banging on about a bee in their bonnet. However, read more widely (listen to the BBC and read theTelegraph, for example) and you wouldn't have been quite so sure.

One thought that does come to mind is that if you choose not to read or view a particular news and opinion source, don't slag it off. When someone says something along the lines of, "The Daily Mail/Daily Mirror/Telegraph/Guardian (delete as applicable) is a vile rag with disgraceful opinions, and I never look at it" they just look ignorant and bigoted. How would they know what opinions are expressed if they've never bothered to actually check? It just sounds like the echo-chamber again - my Twitter feed friends say this newspaper is vile, so it must be and I'll tell everybody it is. 

There's lots of information out there, though filtering it can be tricky. The internet is awash with rubbish, with nuggets of gold here and there. Most of us can't spend all day trawling through it all, so inevitably we come back to our trusted sources. It is just worth bearing in mind that broadening the search occasionally can broaden the outlook.


----------



## RogerS (23 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2xgg6r53 said:


> ....The internet is awash with rubbish, ....



That is sadly true. What is even sadder is that many people - both young and old - take what they read as gospel. And please don't get me started on Faecebook and Twatter.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (23 Nov 2016)

The problem with politics/sex/religion is they're belief systems rather than more mechanical forms of reason and as such cant be "proven" in the conventional sense. Also being belief systems they become extremely personal, for which read emotional when attacked and unless the protagonists are mature enough to show restraint......... well you know what happens!

It's for this reason that as a topic for discussion they're banned from Free Mason functions etc etc and of course from many public forums. Every now and then political topics come round which are so earth shatteringly large in terms of change that it seems appropriate to let them get aired. 

My personal view is that it is a very good thing to air views across all spectrums in respect of politics because we do live in the age of "confirmation bias" or the echo chamber as Cheshire put it. I think that's terribly damaging and its exactly the same reason why parliament needs a robust party in opposition! Even those on the blue side of the house think democracy is better served when the opposition has some teeth!

So if we're able to listen to alternate views without slinging toys out the pram then all power to you.

But Jacob, the mods here or indeed other administrators of different groups don't shut down public debate because they're afraid of it, they shut it down because people with no self control or sense of decorum behave unreasonably which spoils the space for the majority. it's no more complicated or conspiratorial than that.


----------



## RobinBHM (23 Nov 2016)

When the big referendum thread on this forum was running I found it very useful and learnt a great deal from it. 

One thing that is great about this forum is that the members are from all parts of the country and even world, many different backgrounds and so not surprisingly lots of differing views. I think it was a great source to learn a range of different views and also different people gave links to sources I would not normally have looked at. Its always good to challenge your own views, it is all too easy to be complacent and just accept the sources of information you tend to naturally gravitate towards.

What I totally disagree with in discussions about politics and appeared in that referendum thread on here quite often is the attitude that anybody with an opposing view must be stupid. Yes some people may be biased, some people may be uninformed or mis-frame issues but debating is the only way to broaden and challenge our views.


----------



## RossJarvis (23 Nov 2016)

Two well reasoned posts from *ROB* and Robin.

Now where you're both wrong is................


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (23 Nov 2016)




----------



## Jacob (23 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":27boxjlo said:


> .....
> But Jacob, the mods here or indeed other administrators of different groups don't shut down public debate because they're afraid of it, they shut it down because people with no self control or sense of decorum behave unreasonably which spoils the space for the majority. it's no more complicated or conspiratorial than that.


Yes yes I know!
It's the right wing media more than anything has made people angry. You've only got to catch a glimpse of a DM headline and whatever your point of view it will be annoying - somebody will get "the blame" - alt.right will blame loony left and vice versa. 
This feeds through - so that even a friendly gathering with neighbours will involve discouragement of discussion - in case people get annoyed.
So in discouraging discussion, even for the best of reasons, they've got you playing their game.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (23 Nov 2016)

Jacob":35voa13q said:


> Random Orbital Bob":35voa13q said:
> 
> 
> > .....
> ...



I think you make a good point about the red tops for sure and the DM in particular. It really does have a single agenda which is clearly to flog newspapers at any cost to the truth and decent journalism. Frankly, some of their headlines should be brought in front of the law for racism because it's got that far out of control.

But, specifically with reference to here, the only time I wade in is if offending comments are directed at the person. I have a very simple rule, a response must criticise the point, not the person. The spiral downwards in these threads is always after one of your angry types, throws an insult at the person, instead of taking their point and making an argument on it's merits. That's precisely why I keep lecturing about maturity, because it's only those who have enough of it that seem able to rise above the overwhelming temptation to succumb to mud slinging. 

So, I accept the press make people angry...and it's not just the right wing media, but people need to understand they're not slavish robots to the will of media magnates or third rate reporters and indeed have a personal responsibility to behave reasonably. In this place, if they choose not to exercise that responsibility and go ahead and publicly insult people then equally they have to accept the consequences. 

In terms of neighbours and open discussion, I have to say that amongst my peers we have very robust open discussion (usually down the pub) and it's never yet caused bad feeling.

Lastly, I don't really think it's the job of this forum to "repair" any perceived rise in "hate" throughout modern Britain. Possibly a bit beyond our scope


----------



## Inoffthered (23 Nov 2016)

Jacob":12stqsir said:


> It's the right wing media more than anything has made people angry. You've only got to catch a glimpse of a DM headline and whatever your point of view it will be annoying - somebody will get "the blame" - alt.right will blame loony left and vice versa.
> This feeds through - so that even a friendly gathering with neighbours will involve discouragement of discussion - in case people get annoyed.
> So in discouraging discussion, even for the best of reasons, they've got you playing their game.




Interesting, but I'd argue that it is the broadsheets and BBC/C4 that are fuelling public anger.
During the referendum the media never missed an opportunity to label anyone with a contrary view as being a swivelled eyed loon. Post referendum, the BBC will not accept the result and has sunk to little more than a propagandist for Remain. There are numerous interviews on Youtube where the Beeboid interviewer has no interest in developing a debate but is trying to elicit a careless comment to be used for propaganda purposes. The rare exception to this is Andrew Neil who exposed the deceptions included in the recent Open Britain video which grossly misrepresented quotes from various leavers. 

That a Guardian / Telegraph journalist feels able to tweet that it was time for a presidential assassination following Trumps victory demonstrates a nasty persona that , had such a comment been made by anyone from UKIP the BBC would have gone into meltdown.

The growth of alternative news sources creates a major problem for the MSM because they can no longer control what people read/watch, and the response is not to put their own in order and do their job and report the news the campaign to denigrate those with contrary views continues e.g. the BBC reporter in the USA that broadcast that UKIP was the UK equivalent of the KKK, the labelling anyone associated with alt right as being a Nazi.

It is the socialist left (who bizarrely appear to be siding with Soros and those with global ambitions for big business ) that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":3ue5s5nm said:


> [.....
> It is the socialist left (who bizarrely appear to be siding with Soros and those with global ambitions for big business ) that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


Quite a lot of the socialist left have been for brexit. Corbyn and McDonnel have both said that they wouldn't obstruct the implementation of art50. There's a lot of disagreement and differences of opinion on the left.
But opposing Brexit isn't "wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions" it's just the normal process of democracy - just because one side had won a vote doesn't mean you can't carry on arguing against it if you wish. In any case it's only an advisory referendum and the details have to sorted out and voted upon. 
It was never a simple issue and Cameron's promise to implement art 50 "immediately" was simply impossible and he had to resign. 
The government didn't have to accept Cameron's poison chalice and have not implemented art50 - the game has already changed and it seems probable that a repeat referendum would be against brexit.
In the end parliament has to decide whether or not brexit can sensibly be achieved - this is the democratic process- parliament is sovereign, not Farage or anybody else.
Whatever the outcome we are all free to continue to argue for/against, for evermore!


----------



## Bm101 (24 Nov 2016)

Jacob":flt5cvsg said:


> Brave New World (or is it 1984?) we are being told to shut up by some mysterious powers that be - but let us have press freedom to publish any old malevolent nonsense, loudly and often.



Orwell predicted a lack of information to the individual. Control by taking away choice.
Huxley foresaw the complete opposite. Lack of choice through sensory overload if you like. Too much choice.

In someone else's words, 
Orwell feared the truth would be would be concealed from us.
Huxley feared the truth would be drowned in a sea of irrelevance.

Who'd have thought they'd _both _be right? 
Just off to check Donald Trump's twitter account to make sure I'm not wrong about this one.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Interesting. I googled:
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/794200 ... books-what


----------



## Bm101 (24 Nov 2016)

I wasn't disagreeing with you Jacob. As I said, it was _in someone else's words_. I wasn't trying to pass myself off as some great literary critic. Just thought it was interesting they had such different viewpoints but they might _both_ be right when you reflect on today's society. More's the pity perhaps.
Regards
Chris


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Bm101":1o6q16nd said:


> I wasn't disagreeing with you Jacob. As I said, it was _in someone else's words_. I wasn't trying to pass myself off as some great literary critic. Just thought it was interesting they had such different viewpoints but they might _both_ be right when you reflect on today's society. More's the pity perhaps.
> Regards
> Chris


Sorry I wasn't challenging anything you wrote I was just following it up because I thought it was interesting. No implied criticism!
Anyway those quotes say much the same as you were saying - I was just trying to go back to a source.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 Nov 2016)

Funny we were talking about the role that the papers have in whipping up hate and anger yesterday....on the way to Lidl just now to pick up those remote sockets (brilliant by the way), happened to flick onto an LBC phone in where Mr James OB was debating exactly that. He was slamming into the DM for publishing the story about the murder of that Labour MP on page 30 instead of it being front page news.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":27xk2o9b said:


> Funny we were talking about the role that the papers have in whipping up hate and anger yesterday....on the way to Lidl just now to pick up those remote sockets (brilliant by the way), happened to flick onto an LBC phone in where Mr James OB was debating exactly that. He was slamming into the DM for publishing the story about the murder of that Labour MP on page 30 instead of it being front page news.


Yes it should have been front page. Thomas Mair and many DM readers would no doubt agree with this below, which is regularly repeated in various forms:


Inoffthered":27xk2o9b said:


> .......wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":ghisajkg said:


> Funny we were talking about the role that the papers have in whipping up hate and anger yesterday....on the way to Lidl just now to pick up those remote sockets (brilliant by the way), happened to flick onto an LBC phone in where Mr James OB was debating exactly that. He was slamming into the DM for publishing the story about the murder of that Labour MP on page 30 instead of it being front page news.



Another thing I found interesting was on Radio 4 last night. The chappie was saying that when he was having marital strife including infidelity, the Sun phoned up to say they were about to publish the story, when he pointed out two young children were involved and hadn't been told everything yet they decided not to publish. The DM phoned up to say the same, when told the same thing about the kids they asked "how old are the kids?", they wanted this to include in the story they did print the next day :x


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 Nov 2016)

I'll tell you a personal anecdote that informed my opinion of what the press are "really" like when I was very young. I had been back packing round the Middle East and spent a few months in Eilat, Southern tip of Israel. It just so happened there were two job opportunities for my much beleaguered travel funds: 1) In the bakery starting each weekday at 4am and 2) On the set of the filming of Rambo 3 which the plot (if you could call it that) was set in Afghanistan. Happily, the desert just outside Eilat was very like Afghanistan and better still, the Israeli's were very happy for Hollywood to build sets there and then blow them to smithereens! As long as a few Shekels changed hands.

You can guess which one I chose!

So I spent many a happy day as an extra filming with my bud Sly. 

Anyway, to cut a long story short, I took copious photos during that time (you weren't meant to) and then being an enterprising little git, sold them to Fleet Street as it was back then. I will never forget the hard bitten, fag hanging from the corner of the mouth hack that interviewed me for that story. He spent half an hour either mis quoting, putting words in my mouth and generally writing the piece he wanted while incredibly loosely and occasionally referring to my actual relating of the facts.

The story got published as a double page centre spread in the News of the Screws and it was basically antirely a work of fiction. Almost nothing of what I'd told him even made it in apart from the location! It blew my mind as to how much pure fabrication had gone into it and then realised right there, the penny dropped in a big way for me....it was a business and that's all....papers like that were in the business of shifting copy and selling advertising. Everything else was back of that clear agenda. 

Over the years, I've had a few occasions in business when that assertion has been corroborated. Even the boring IT press write absolute tosh about whats happening on Government projects overspending. The notion of sensationalism in the modern press is all too present. But what shocked me about the Rambo experience wasn't that it was a bit of embellishment here and there, it was pure and utter fabrication, including innuendo that he was sleeping with under age girls in his trailer on set and all manner of other salacious, complete and utter rubbish.

It opened my eyes to the kind of people that work in the media and I had spent 3 years before travelling, in TV myself. But TV are pussycats compared to the papers.

So when a bunch of young bright eyed innocents read this trash, it is bordering on the kind of indoctrination that terrorists perpetrate though clearly not as extreme. I honestly believe our press needs to be more accountable for what they print and industry bodies need more teeth to bring them to book.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":3dtfo0t3 said:


> So when a bunch of young bright eyed innocents read this trash, it is bordering on the kind of indoctrination that terrorists perpetrate though clearly not as extreme. I honestly believe our press needs to be more accountable for what they print and industry bodies need more teeth to bring them to book.



Unfortunately it's not just the media. I "retired" (okay, finally got sacked), from the state education industry a few years back, having been fairly gob-smacked by the level of dishonesty, fraud and general incompetence of the last institution. I discovered that if you try and "whistle-blow", I.e. tell the truth about what's going on, you will have a fairly concerted effort instigated to stall, avoid or discredit you and finally have "evidence" manufactured and independent reports "rewritten" to gain the desired outcome. Interestingly enough it seems that many awarding bodies are playing along in the same game (don't bother telling them people are cheating).

The same is happening in the NHS and elsewhere. The major driver is not that people are selling anything and profiting from it, or that they are inherently wicked or dishonest, but they are terrified just trying to keep their jobs.

I'm not sure if it was mentioned in this thread earlier, but we are living in a "Post Truth Era";

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-truth_politics

It's not just politics and it's not just the "left" or the "right" who are guilty, it's endemic in the whole "system".

Which I suppose get's us back to The Donald. This maybe why he got in, because the "silent" majority are fed up of all the lies and nonsense coming from the usual suspects from either end of the field.


----------



## MIGNAL (24 Nov 2016)

But he's telling more lies than anyone (actually he's famous for it). It hasn't taken him long to roll back on some of his promises and he isn't even in the Whitehouse yet! So already the Clintons aren't going to jail, the wall was just a metaphor and he's reconsidering his position on the Paris treaty. Amazing turn around. We pretty much know that 45% tariffs won't be allowed by the Republicans. What's left? His infrastructure spending, NATO. Even his position on both of those may be history within 6 months. I suspect the rusty belt of America have well and truly been conned.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":6iyuarzm said:


> I suspect the rusty belt of America have well and truly been conned.



I suppose, when all the usual options have been exhausted, the snake oil seller gets good sales. I think America has a history of such types


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

One of the bigger problems in Western politics (US, UK and EU) is the almost unreported, but endemic corruption of the democratic process by lobbying. If your corporation or NGO has the dosh, it can effectively buy influence. I think Cameron once said he thought it would be the next big scandal; seems the lobbyists are clever enough to stay just below the radar. It happens quite openly and extensively, but so far nobody has moved to curtail it.

Now and again, a hint comes to light. Remember the sting against Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind boasting to journalists posing as lobbyists how much access they had to the decision-makers? It's become a recognised way for ex-politicians to cash in - where do you think Blair's alleged £47m property portfolio came from? Remember 'taxi for hire' Stephen Byers?

I noticed that Trump has said he won't ratify the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal, and in future will only make bi-lateral trade deals. That may be his way of signalling to the big corporations that were skewing trade deals in their favour that the party's over. In which case - that's a positive for the rest of us. 

However - time will tell. The big banks and corporations won't give up that easily.


----------



## finneyb (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2lgqgsql said:


> One of the bigger problems in Western politics (US, UK and EU) is the almost unreported, but endemic corruption of the democratic process by lobbying. If your corporation or NGO has the dosh, it can effectively buy influence. I think Cameron once said he thought it would be the next big scandal; seems the lobbyists are clever enough to stay just below the radar. It happens quite openly and extensively, but so far nobody has moved to curtail it.
> 
> Now and again, a hint comes to light. Remember the sting against Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind boasting to journalists posing as lobbyists how much access they had to the decision-makers? It's become a recognised way for ex-politicians to cash in - where do you think Blair's alleged £47m property portfolio came from? Remember 'taxi for hire' Stephen Byers?
> 
> ...



I agree to some extent. I think Trump's campaign was considerably cheaper than Clinton's. It does show that the large spends on US elections are not necessary and the politician is spending to the budget available regardless of the effectiveness of the advertising; of course there are no free meals, anyone contributing to the campaign wants a return on their investment. I have friends in US and they are all sick of the election canvassing - they have the right to phone you repeatedly and do.

A classic case is the National Rifle Ass, for some reason a very powerful lobbyist, arguably too powerful, can't all be down to money they must have an effective system and probably over an extended period of time. 

Then we have the likes of Arron Banks ( Farage's financial sponsor) why doesn't he come out of the closet and stand for election? very close to Trump by all accounts. His financial sponsorship, without responsibility, is certainly damaging the UK at the moment.

Brian


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

I think there's a significant difference between the open funding of political parties - giving them funds to spend as they see fit - (donations over a certain sum must be declared and entered on a public register in the UK - I don't know about the US) and the closed, behind-the-scenes buying of influence by lobbying. There's no public register of such transactions, so there's no way of knowing whether an ex-politician meeting with a current minister is doing so as public service or as a hired hand unless he declares on who's behalf he's talking, and how much he's being paid - and they often don't, I gather.

This is worth a read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_ ... ed_Kingdom

The lobbying industry in the UK employs 14,000 people and is worth an estimated £1.9billion a year, apparently. :shock:

It's even worse in the EU - this is from the Wiki entry for 'Lobbying - Definition'

European Union[edit]


Wikimania 2009, results of the discussion about possible contents of European lobbying
With the Enlargement of the European Union in 2004, lobbying practices have taken a further step, bringing in not only a lot more players and stakeholders but a wide range of different political cultures and traditions, as well.[citation needed] According to Austrian Member of the European Parliament ("MEP") Hans-Peter Martin, the value of lobby invitations and offers each individual MEP receives can reach up to €10,000 per week.[17]
In 2003 there were around 15,000 lobbyists (consultants, lawyers, associations, corporations, NGOs etc.) in Brussels seeking to influence the EU’s legislation. Some 2,600 special interest groups had a permanent office in Brussels. Their distribution was roughly as follows: European trade federations (32%), consultants (20%), companies (13%), NGOs (11%), national associations (10%), regional representations (6%), international organizations (5%) and think tanks (1%), (Lehmann, 2003, pp iii).[18][19]
The fragmented nature of the EU's institutional structure provides multiple channels through which organized interests may seek to influence policymaking. Lobbying takes place at the European level itself and within the existing national states.[citation needed] The most important institutional targets are the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament.[20] The Commission has a monopoly on the initiative in Community decision-making. Since it has the power to draft initiatives, it makes it ideally suited as an arena for interest representation.[citation needed]


----------



## finneyb (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1tgojfym said:


> I think there's a significant difference between the open funding of political parties - giving them funds to spend as they see fit - (donations over a certain sum must be declared and entered on a public register in the UK - I don't know about the US) and the closed, behind-the-scenes buying of influence by lobbying. There's no public register of such transactions, so there's no way of knowing whether an ex-politician meeting with a current minister is doing so as public service or as a hired hand unless he declares on who's behalf he's talking, and how much he's being paid - and they often don't, I gather.
> 
> This is worth a read - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbying_ ... ed_Kingdom
> 
> ...



BUT, we need industry, charities, trade ass etc to influence govt otherwise we get legislation that is designed by civil servants for politicians - that would create havoc. Its a fine balance between influence and too much influence. Perhaps the answer is to identify the areas of extreme influence and set the rules to sort them out, leaving the acceptable influence to have a beneficial effect . 

Brian


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":39dowyy7 said:


> So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.



It's a difficult one, generally the group with the higher resources usually wins. I'm not sure what the balance of lobbying to government going out to fact find and consult is, if there is any balance.

If government policy solely relies on listening to those beating at its doors then the whole system is quite alarmingly knackered. In addition I presume the government uses all sorts of research and fact finding, independent of the lobbyists, to help influence decisions. Not that I'd expect them to be able to do that very well.


----------



## finneyb (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1i2b0yru said:


> So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.



In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round. 

A major issue in my opinion is the financial sector where there is little consumer lobbying - take the Pensions Regulator who allegedly has a duty to protect the scheme member - in reality PR doesn't and sells out the scheme member without the scheme member knowing because in PR's opinion scheme members are NOT ' directly affected parties' but of course the Employers are. Works & Pensions Select Committee looking at this now. 

I have no doubt that PR has been one-side lobbied, and bought it lock, stock and barrel.

Brian


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":2gbyjjxf said:


> Cheshirechappie":2gbyjjxf said:
> 
> 
> > So it's OK for corporations and NGOs with large bank balances to (effectively) buy legislation that suits them? That's what's happening.
> ...



Our favourite economist, again;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JPm2nPfz7M

Worth listening to the whole thing, but he mentions 'trade agreements' at about 2mins 15secs and onwards - and specifically, who had input to their draughting.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

finneyb":18cxel3u said:


> In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round.
> Brian



Lobbying isn't about facts. It's about influencing legislation in your interests - if you can afford it.

Edit to add - An example. Remember all the fuss about banning incandescent light bulbs? The reason given was that it would save the planet by reducing carbon dioxide emissions, wasn't it? Did anybody seriously buy that one? Did Hilary Benn even believe the guff he was spouting at the time? 

It was because bulb manufacturers make a far better profit on low-energy bulbs (five quid a pop) than they do on old-fashioned incandescents (50p a pop), and they somehow managed to lobby Brussels to legislate in their favour, that's why. If you were a minister looking to reduce C02 emissions, would you even bother about light bulbs unprompted, or go after heavy industry and power stations?


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP

Quote: "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."


----------



## Cheshirechappie (24 Nov 2016)

Here are Daniel Hannan's rather more level-headed thoughts on the media hoo-ha about Jo Cox's murderer;

https://capx.co/no-david-aaronovitch-co ... good-idea/


----------



## MIGNAL (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":24e8wra7 said:


> finneyb":24e8wra7 said:
> 
> 
> > In most cases there will be a balance of lobbying eg 38 degrees, environmental groups etc will provide the opposing view to industry giving the civil servant/politician the facts to consider the issue in the round.
> ...



Although to be fair Brussels were hardly the first to implement bans of incandescents. This is another of those that gets firmly put at the feet of the EU when in fact many (most?) governments around the world were imposing restrictions or bans on incandescents. I think Australia (of all places) and Brazil were quicker off the mark.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Low energy bulbs use about 1/5th of the energy of same light output incandescents. They are also supposed to last a lot longer but I'm not so sure about that.
So yes they do save energy and could be cheaper in the long run.
But - saving money isn't the objective - it's more than likely that a lot of energy saving measure will increase costs, but that's the price we will have to pay as we move away from fossil fuels.

I've got a 3 watt LED lighting up my front yard - just enough to be useful. Previously a 150 watt bulb was thought to be OK. So that's a vast reduction in energy, slight increase in cost of the bulb, big reduction in light output to a level which is just adequate. This is the future and these little details are all part of the big picture.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Nov 2016)

It also has a lot to do with the development of the technology.

LED bulbs, bulbs and dimmer technology has moved on a lot in the last year or so.

I used to offer LED downlighters as an upgrade for an orangery as they were quite a lot more than halogen, but now just do them as standard.

For an average orangery there is a worthwhile difference between say 12 x 50 watt GU10 bulbs compared to 12 x 9 watt LEDs, almost 500 watts less. I dontknow about reliability but halogen bulbs dont exactly last long.

I recently replaced 10 candle shaped bulbs from halogen incandescent to dimmable LED. The LED are excellent, they are dimmable all the way down to almost nothing, no flickering and even have a mock filament in them. The latest dimmer switches come with trailing and leading edge circuitry options for differing bulb options.

Of course it wont save money, it will help to hold off the constant energy hikes though! No doubt Im paying for all you people with over generous feed in tariffs guaranteed until 2099


----------



## MIGNAL (24 Nov 2016)

The oldest LED bulb that I have is just over 2 years, I think. Obviously I placed it in the room that saw the most use of any light bulb. It's still working. I've yet to have one that has failed but they are all under 2 years, so still early days. 
The few incandescents that I have are all in places that see very little use. I'm not really bothered about replacing them, although one day I may have to.


----------



## RogerS (24 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":4v7ooy3h said:


> .... Even the boring IT press write absolute tosh about whats happening on Government projects overspending. ...



Not all the time, Bob, having managed several large Govt IT projects ! I got to some other projects - warts and all. The IT press are pretty close to the mark most of the time. 

I will tell you an anecdote regarding Blair's NHS White Elephant...you remember, the one that was going to join everything together, online blah blah etc. He called a meeting of experienced IT people and I mean experienced. He asked them how long would it take. The general consensus was five to ten years. "Oh, that's far too long," said Blair "I want it done in two". "Can't be done" they all said. So Blair kept on looking until he found someone willing to get up on their hind legs, tongue hanging out saying "Me Sir...Me Sir...I can do it, Sir". The rest is, as they say, history.

Nice desert story, BTW...that must have been a hoot.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1ak0s7hl said:


> Here are Daniel Hannan's rather more level-headed thoughts on the media hoo-ha about Jo Cox's murderer;
> 
> https://capx.co/no-david-aaronovitch-co ... good-idea/


Hannan is wrong - there is a collective guilt. 
OK he's completely mad but it's quite likely that Mair would be triggered by the distinct air of threatening aggression coming from parts of the Brexit camp. 
From Farage himself ("trouble in the streets", planning a march etc) and in general - even on this thread:


Inoffthered":1ak0s7hl said:


> ... that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


He is telling us that normal democratic discussion is ".. playing a dangerous game".


----------



## Inoffthered (24 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1c9zmpgj said:


> Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP
> 
> Quote: "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."



The DM States "Thomas Mair may have murdered MP Jo Cox because he feared losing his home of 40 years to an immigrant family."

Jacob says "Today the DM is blaming immigrants for the murder of Joe Cox MP"

...a bit of a logic gap there I suggest although one of your earlier posts sought to link Jo Cox's murder and the DM and its readers so you clearly have an axe to grind. 

The politicisation of Cox's murder was/is one of the more despicable acts of the Remain campaign. The same crowd that, when an atrocity committed by followers of the religion of peace say " nothing to do Islam" are apparently desperate to find a way of pinning the murder of Cox onto UKIP/DM readers/anyone that voted leave (or swivelled eyed loons). Resorting to this type of tactic merely highlights the total absence of a cohesive argument hence resorting to character assassinations and name calling. Sad really.

It is interesting that various MSM interviewers who have failed to better Milo Yiannopoulos, now label anything associated with the alt-right as being Nazi; just more name calling for the same reasons as above but after Brexit and the US elections how long will it take before people realise it is not a winning strategy. You know the definition of stupidity, do the same thing while expecting a different result.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":36hvriz3 said:


> ....
> The politicisation of Cox's murder was/is one of the more despicable acts of the Remain campaign. .....


Cox's murder was politicised by Mair himself - Mair shouted “Britain First, this is for Britain” before shooting her. Fairly clear and unambiguous. NB there is a political organisation called "Britain First" - maybe you didn't know.


----------



## Inoffthered (24 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3rc42og6 said:


> Inoffthered":3rc42og6 said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Now now, don't patronise.
Did he say Britain First or Britain first? There is a difference but you clearly have a much better handle on the motives and it is the fault of all horrid people that voted Brexit or who read the DM (It is still a matter of surprise that despite the murder the majority of people still voted for Brexit, even in Cox's constituency.)

It is interesting to compare and contrast how some parties try to pin blame for Cox's murder at the door of DM readers / Brexit supporters yet when members of the religion of peace torture and massacre 130 innocent concert goers the same voices say "nothing to do with Islam".


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

There is a huge degree of hostility and veiled/overt threats emanating from parts of the Brexit camp. You gave us one yourself:


Inoffthered":3n2y8oj9 said:


> ... that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.



Not "pinning the blame" on the whole camp, but it's glaringly obvious that Mair would be influenced by this sort of stuff. It wasn't just a coincidence. 
No doubt there are also trump supporters out there polishing their AK47s and just waiting for the chance to use them.
Things have taken a nasty turn.

He was a closet nazi and brexiter by all accounts, he murdered an anti brexit MP, he shouted Britain First. Do you really think he was protesting about Britain's place in the eurovision song contest or something else?


----------



## MIGNAL (24 Nov 2016)

Why on earth are they undermining the democratic decision of the USA inoffthered? Clinton won the popular vote, not Trump. Trump is now already rolling back on his key promises. The only person undermining the will of the people is the person that they put in office: Trump. He got elected on a completely false mandate. He's conned the electorate.


----------



## RobinBHM (24 Nov 2016)

Id like to think there is bit of difference between a closet nazi and a brexiter, if not we all doomed.

It was a despicable act of terrorism.

Yes, I worry about redneck Trump supporters, stereotyped maybe but also true


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (24 Nov 2016)

RobinBHM":1ss6wgtl said:


> It also has a lot to do with the development of the technology.
> 
> LED bulbs, bulbs and dimmer technology has moved on a lot in the last year or so.
> 
> ...



At another time and in another thread I'd really like to pick up on the issue of changing from old style downlights to LED because I'd like to do it in my Kitchen which is only 9 years old! All my lights were made by a company called snaplight which have since gone bust so the mechanisms are irreplaceable. Each light has a separate tranny behind the bezel and I'm forever changing the dam things when they get too hot and cook! If it's not the bulb, it's the tranny...like painting the Forth road bridge! I hear that LED's are much cooler and therefore don't cook trannys. However mine are also dimmable and I also understand you need to match the switch to the light technology. So at some point I want to replace my Kitchen lights with a new everything basically...from the switch to the individual downlights...to LED. But I have no idea which direction to take, which products are good/bad etc as I'm 9 years out of date.


----------



## RogerS (24 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":3jnj8kv1 said:


> ....
> It is interesting to compare and contrast how some parties try to pin blame for Cox's murder at the door of DM readers / Brexit supporters yet when members of the religion of peace torture and massacre 130 innocent concert goers the same voices say "nothing to do with Islam".




Well said.... =D>


----------



## RogerS (24 Nov 2016)

Jacob":hgvk8iwt said:


> There is a huge degree of hostility and veiled/overt threats emanating from parts of the Brexit camp. You gave us one yourself:
> 
> 
> Inoffthered":hgvk8iwt said:
> ...



On the other hand, Jacob, you could be confusing correlation with causation again.


----------



## Inoffthered (24 Nov 2016)

RogerS":1rwx4mi7 said:


> Jacob":1rwx4mi7 said:
> 
> 
> > There is a huge degree of hostility and veiled/overt threats emanating from parts of the Brexit camp. You gave us one yourself:
> ...




Roger, I'm glad I'm not the only one that sees it.
I think I'll withdraw from this debate. It is a bit tedious when one side constantly conflates arguments, doesn't answer specific queries and selectively interprets comments and takes them out of context to support his own bigotry.
To imply that one of my comments represented a threat (which he has done twice) illustrates either a troll or a scary lack of comprehension Mindful of the sub O level economic pronouncements and wikipedia cut and pastes from his contributions during the Brexit debate I should have known better than to expect an adult debate.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

Inoffthered":3nwpp159 said:


> ...
> To imply that one of my comments represented a threat (which he has done twice) ...


If they aren't a threat then what does it mean when you say


Inoffthered":3nwpp159 said:


> ....dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


How will they come to regret playing this dangerous game? By being shot and stabbed like Joe Cox?

Inoffthered you need to be clear about whose side you are on.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

Probably best not to weigh in, but...oh well.

From the information I have seen it would seem that the main issue with the dreadful murder of Jo Cox was one of Mental Health. Maybe it's to do with Mair's non-engagement with the process, but it seems strange that some sort of mitigation on Mental Health grounds was not brought into what seemed to be a purely criminal prosecution. Maybe further reports are to be sought. It may be prudent for any campaigning group, not intent on assassinations, to moderate their language bearing in mind what the unstable/lacking in control may do, but I think the responsibility for Mair's actions lies with him and him alone. However whether he was "responsible" within his own actions is another issue. It would be naive to think that the nazi hate literature that he read and contributed to and the British/White supremacist milieu were not influential, nor that the Remain/Leave campaigns didn't have something to do with his state of mind at the time. But it would be wrong to shift the blame from him and his own actions elsewhere. 

I don't think that any side has a monopoly on homocidal supporters, although it does seem that things can swing in popularity. In the 70s the left had its murderous followers E.g. the Red Brigades, and the Terror of the French revolution and similar with the Russian revolution, Shining path etc, shows that murderous intent is not solely the property of the right.

Judging where the boundary between madness and sanity comes in terms of carrying out horrific acts or being beyond rational control is not a precise art and is often overlooked or denied for many reasons. I dare say there are many "vulnerable" people being deliberately manipulated by the Islamic Death Cults to commit dreadful atrocities. As well as many rational and well educated ones to similar ends. There are also many deranged people doing horrible things with no connection to a "greater" cause, as there are sane and reasonable people doing similar. See the story about the serial killer in the same press at the same time, or the rare cases of stranger murder by people with severe Mental Health episodes.

I'd have to say that it is unfortunate at the best and disgraceful at the worst that the death of a hard working caring MP, mother and wife is used for other peoples stupid battles of politics or to sell newspapers.


----------



## Jacob (24 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":quh7s5l9 said:


> ....
> 
> I'd have to say that it is unfortunate at the best and disgraceful at the worst that the death of a hard working caring MP, mother and wife is used for other peoples stupid battles of politics or to sell newspapers.


But not to forget that Mair politicised this himself, and to bear in mind;


Inoffthered":quh7s5l9 said:


> ... that are creating discord by wilfully seeking to undermine the democratic decisions both here and in the USA. It is a dangerous game to play and sets a precedent that the socialists may come to regret.


----------



## RossJarvis (24 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":29gcbsj5 said:


> Why on earth are they undermining the democratic decision of the USA inoffthered? Clinton won the popular vote, not Trump. Trump is now already rolling back on his key promises. The only person undermining the will of the people is the person that they put in office: Trump. He got elected on a completely false mandate. He's conned the electorate.



In a discussion this evening with some friends about this point, I was minded to mention that virtually every politician or party who has ever got in seems to revise or completely ignore the promises given before they got in. Maybe Trump is just more blatant in his dishonesty than the other b*****s.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 Nov 2016)

Oh yes I'm well aware of that. I think Trump seems to be taking it to a new level. He hasn't crossed the threshold of the Whitehouse and he's already muttering about changing his stance on things that he said. The difference might be the number of things that he's rolling back on. Some are probably out of his control, such as the 45% tariffs. But then you could safely argue that he should never have promised that in the first place. 
Talking of undermining democracy though, he wasn't going to accept the result unless he won, because it was 'rigged'. Dear me, if that doesn't undermine democracy I don't know what does. He was clearly wrong about it being rigged though!
I'm still waiting for inoffthereds explanation as to what is undermining democracy in the US.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":2u9cfzoc said:


> RossJarvis":2u9cfzoc said:
> 
> 
> > ....
> ...



Jacob, I'm not sure I understand the point you're making about the first bit, for instance David Icke makes a lot of comments about a lot of things, it doesn't make me hate lizards, love lizards or think he has anything of any relevance to say on the subject of herpetology at all. I wouldn't say that Mair's actions were not in some way connected with politics or the World going on around him but the real issue is much much more to do with Mental Health than it is to do with Politics. What we see happening in the press about this issue is also much more to do with politics than the reality of the tragic events of that day. The only political point to score might be one that if Mental Health Care provision had more support, this may not have happened at all.

Regarding the second quote I think you may be interpreting the "may come to regret" bit as sounding like a threat. I'm not sure if I've read the original correctly but I assumed that Inofftheread was saying that the socialists (whoever they are?) are creating discord and may later regret that if the boot were to be on the other foot in the future, that the right may also create similar discord.

Good grief, it's late, sleep tight and well.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":mpr2d4en said:


> Oh yes I'm well aware of that. I think Trump seems to be taking it to a new level. He hasn't crossed the threshold of the Whitehouse and he's already muttering about changing his stance on things that he said. The difference might be the number of things that he's rolling back on. Some are probably out of his control, such as the 45% tariffs. But then you could safely argue that he should never have promised that in the first place.
> Talking of undermining democracy though, he wasn't going to accept the result unless he won, because it was 'rigged'. Dear me, if that doesn't undermine democracy I don't know what does. He was clearly wrong about it being rigged though!
> I'm still waiting for inoffthereds explanation as to what is undermining democracy in the US.



Personally I think he should stick to his guns about the election being rigged and not accept the result. It may make us all sleep easier if he did that.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":1h6mwewb said:


> ..
> Regarding the second quote I think you may be interpreting the "may come to regret" bit as sounding like a threat. I'm not sure if I've read the original correctly but I assumed that Inofftheread was saying that the socialists (whoever they are?) are creating discord and may later regret that if the boot were to be on the other foot in the future, that the right may also create similar discord.....


Exactly. That is a threat is it not? 
Arguing for a political point of view is not "creating discord" if it is peaceful and non threatening, it is democracy in action.

Jeering "get over it remoaners" etc is the thin end of the wedge - we don't have to "get over it" - this is a democracy.

I don't suppose Inofftheread intends anybody any harm (could be wrong, should I lock my doors more thoroughly at night?) but there is a lot of this angry, verging on violent, rhetoric coming from the right and it clearly triggered Mair into action, and a whole series of attacks on immigrants, muslims etc. in recent months.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (25 Nov 2016)

I'm afraid on this I disagree Jacob. I think Ross hits the proverbial nail on the head when he suggests it's mental health that was the true cause behind the action on that day. The very idea that a sane person would commit murder after reading or hearing mainstream media is nonsense. But an unhinged person, of course. Precisely which message they choose to hang their deranged hat on is anybody's guess, I mean take your pick: Looney left, looney right, white supremacism, radical Islam, maybe a bit of IRA for good measure? The truth is there's a veritable smorgasbord of up to the minute "causes" that a nutjob can latch on to which are being reported in various levels of decency on hundreds of sources of media.

The classic trap is to retro-fit the facts to bolster a viewpoint and present it like it's causation. 

In that, mental health was very clearly the cause. Everything else is just a political agenda.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

But there is no clear line between mental health/ill-health, it's a continuum. 
It was not a coincidence that Mair was some sort of fascist with his head (and bookshelves) full of stuff, also a brexiter, attacked an anti brexit MP and shouted "Britain First". 
If mental health was the whole issue he would have attacked randomly without any of these associations
Yes "mental health was very clearly the cause" but the current political atmosphere was also a cause; the _trigger_ for Mair, and for other recent attacks on immigrants and muslims. 

Those who use the rhetoric of intolerance and violence are actively encouraging it - and many of them know this perfectly well, not least Farage and Trump.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1vvc9riv said:


> RossJarvis":1vvc9riv said:
> 
> 
> > ..
> ...



I think I can see how the wording of the comment may be read as a threat, and I can see how similar wording may be used as an actual threat. Now I may not have read the original as "written", but in my mind I can't see that the writer intended this particular point as a threat.

Last night I went to the curry house and consumed a fair amount of Cobra and curry. I'm sure someone might say that "you'll regret that". I wouldn't take that as a threat and in this instance they'd be wrong. Though I did regret the quantity of curry consumed as it limited the quantity of Cobra administered. However as the Curry was "all you can eat for £12" and the Cobra priced per volume I had little choice. I did regret that the deal wasn't the other way round though.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

How it works is those who want to keep their hands clean just use the words and encourage the others ("agents provocateurs"). Some of them talk the talk but don't realise it could have consequences. 
"Taking back control" is popular. 
Down the line the relatively balanced commit the lesser actions (minor attacks on immigrants etc). 
Further down the same line you get Mair who will swallow the whole message and go all the way.


----------



## RogerS (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":14i3g4wp said:


> But there is no clear line between mental health/ill-health, it's a continuum.
> It was not a coincidence that Mair was some sort of fascist with his head (and bookshelves) full of stuff, also a brexiter, attacked an anti brexit MP and shouted "Britain First".
> If mental health was the whole issue he would have attacked randomly without any of these associations
> Yes "mental health was very clearly the cause" but the current political atmosphere was also a cause; the _trigger_ for Mair, and for other recent attacks on immigrants and muslims.
> ...



That is rubbish, Jacob. I wasn't aware that you were an expert on mental health issues and so in a position to make these sweeping generalisations. You are, yet again, confusing causation with correlation to suit your own bigoted views.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1r8whb59 said:


> How it works is those who want to keep their hands clean just use the words and encourage the others ("agents provocateurs"). Some of them talk the talk but don't realise it could have consequences.
> "Taking back control" is popular.
> Down the line the relatively balanced commit the lesser actions (minor attacks on immigrants etc).
> Further down the same line you get Mair who will swallow the whole message and go all the way.



I can't quite remember quite how we got to this point but I don't think I'd disagree with you here and it's a technique that has been deliberately used in the past.

Like all the other things we've been sleepwalking into, maybe we will be hit by more and more civil disruption over these issues. The actions of someone like Mair are pretty rare and shouldn't really be given too much if any weight, it's the disgruntled and often youthfully boisterous "mob" that pose the real threat.

I'm not sure that the rhetoric of the likes of Farage, Trump etc, and there are probably similar on the left is the danger either, although they will be trying to play the media game. It's the media itself which is the problem, manipulating the "rhetoric" and broadcasting it. I've just caught sight of the cover of the Scum, sorry, Daily Mail and yet again it's throwing sense and truth out of the window to knock the Institute of Fiscal Studies for pointing out that most of us are pretty badly off and will be for a good while to come.

I remember the uproar at the unions in the 70s and 80s, we read about it through the press so it must have been right and look what happened to workers rights since then. The fact that the print unions alone were taking the Mickey had nothing to do with it?

To get back to the point about Mair, Gavrilo Princip shooting Franz Ferdinand really didn't cause the First World War, though I'm sure the press would like you to think so.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

By pure coincidence, this article in the Telegraph deals with some of what we've been discussing. It notes the rise of 'post-truth politics', a phrase used in the left-leaning media quite a bit lately, but points out that some left-leaning journalists fall into the trap of using it. The article then goes on to say that whilst some would like to divide humanity in neat 'left' and 'right' political boxes, and ascribe certain beliefs to each box, people are much more diverse and complicated. If we're to understand our current situation and find ways forward, our analyses must be more nuanced.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... -politics/


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":2nujanhq said:


> By pure coincidence, this article in the Telegraph deals with some of what we've been discussing. It notes the rise of 'post-truth politics', a phrase used in the left-leaning media quite a bit lately, but points out that some left-leaning journalists fall into the trap of using it. The article then goes on to say that whilst some would like to divide humanity in neat 'left' and 'right' political boxes, and ascribe certain beliefs to each box, people are much more diverse and complicated. If we're to understand our current situation and find ways forward, our analyses must be more nuanced.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... -politics/



An excellent article.

The problem with the monicker "post truth", is the irrational or rose tinted view that politicians have ever had more than a passing acquaintance with the "truth" in the recent or far past.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":3gplyxz9 said:


> By pure coincidence, this article in the Telegraph deals with some of what we've been discussing. It notes the rise of 'post-truth politics', a phrase used in the left-leaning media quite a bit lately, but points out that some left-leaning journalists fall into the trap of using it. The article then goes on to say that whilst some would like to divide humanity in neat 'left' and 'right' political boxes, and ascribe certain beliefs to each box, people are much more diverse and complicated. If we're to understand our current situation and find ways forward, our analyses must be more nuanced.
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/11 ... -politics/


it's in the telegraph so can be safely ignored. 
It isn't particularly a left leaning media term - this is just telegraph sounding off - and in the process presumably justifying the untruths which drove/drive brexit and trump campaigns.
Americans are worst at it - they think you can think what you like and choose not to believe in climate change etc etc


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob - do you genuinely think like that, or are you just trying to wind people up?

If it's the former, you really do need to broaden your outlook.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":zbgq82i5 said:


> it's in the telegraph so can be safely ignored.
> It isn't particularly a left leaning media term - this is just telegraph sounding off - and in the process presumably justifying the untruths which drove/drive brexit and trump campaigns.
> Americans are worst at it - they think you can think what you like and choose not to believe in climate change etc etc



As an experiment - let's try something.

"It's in the Guardian so can be safely ignored.
It isn't particularly a right-leaning term - this is just the Guardian sounding off - and in the process presumably justifying the untruths which drove the Remain vote and Clinton campaigns.
Americans are worst at it - they think you can think what you like and choose not to believe in the free market etc etc."

Neither your statement nor the edited one get us anywhere, do they?


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":157xgi2v said:


> it's in the telegraph so can be safely ignored.



I can't believe you said that :shock: I'd always assumed the Telegraph was your paper of choice to hang behind the outhouse door.

I dare say the article was also deliberately polemical and provocative, however both the Telegraph and the Scu..sorry Mail occasionally let the odd bit of decent journalism slip through. I'd imagine the Grauniad is similar but I'm not going to check as the bleatings of that bunch of Pseudo-intellectual frauds usually makes me physically ill.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

Just thought I'd google "Guardian + post factual".
This is much more interesting than that rather silly telegraph article. 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nghazi-gop
Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many


----------



## whiskywill (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":mdbs1ltd said:


> Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many



My daughter-in-law is a professor of meteorology in a Canadian University and specialises in climate change research. She is not convinced the current changes are man made.

Enough said?


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob - that approach to debate leads to such things as 'no-platforming', safe spaces in university common rooms, the Snowflake generation and a host of other phenomena discussed in various places lately. It leads to living in an information echo-chamber, and apparent incredulity and refusal to accept not only the result, the very idea that anybody might vote a different way when a democratic vote goes they way you don't want.

Grow up, accept that the Western world is a different place politically than it was last year, and like the rest of us, try to understand why.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

whiskywill":3hyoem6w said:


> Jacob":3hyoem6w said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many
> ...


No not enough said. She needs to be able to offer an alternative explanation of the evidence. I presume she hasn't been able to do this or she would be pretty well known by now!


----------



## MIGNAL (25 Nov 2016)

whiskywill":35wdhdj3 said:


> Jacob":35wdhdj3 said:
> 
> 
> > Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many
> ...



Not really. She is obviously in a very small minority.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":1kgz1az4 said:


> whiskywill":1kgz1az4 said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob":1kgz1az4 said:
> ...



I suppose it depends on the context. There is generally a great consensus on the "fact" that "climate change" is impacted by human activity, but the details of discerning what is part of the "natural order" of things and "man made" and the interplay between them may be less agreed upon. We are after all dealing (by we I mean them, I have no expertise at all) with very complex systems here and some things are harder to predict or discover than others.

As with most things, if we are not dealing with the science and know what the latest consensus is, if it exists, then we are still relying on the transmission of that information via some sort of media or other. That's the weakest link.

I'm sure the meteorologist mentioned is in a much better position to know about these things than me, but I don't know the context in which the statement is being made or in what vein it is being made.

Let's face it we're all in the dark and clueless about a hell of a lot more than we are clued about anything.


----------



## MIGNAL (25 Nov 2016)

The fact is that the vast majority of scientists that are involved in studying climate change are of the opinion that it is caused by human activity. Of course there are some who take a contrary view but in the greater scheme of things they represent a minority. That doesn't make the wrong in an absolute sense. I'm going with the majority though. It's far too complex for me to have even a passing understanding of the science, I'll defer to the majority of scientists.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (25 Nov 2016)

It's a bit like when the Guv of the bank of England said the pound would plummet if we left....seconds later, his opinion was rubbished by a politician. Personally, I believed the opinion of the expert in the field of banking and not the politician.

In terms of climate change, there's no question the majority of scientists who not just studied but also had other scientists peer review the data, agree that climate change is a genuine man made threat.

You need to choose who you're going to believe....the experts in that field....or an internet blogger?

Personally, I'm with the experts until evidence to the contrary can explain an alternative credible cause. The person who's family member is a prof and doesn't believe in climate change...I would be genuinely interested to hear her perspective on what led her to that conclusion as it might enlighten us all.


----------



## RossJarvis (25 Nov 2016)

MIGNAL":2gnnrhgy said:


> The fact is that the vast majority of scientists that are involved in studying climate change are of the opinion that it is caused by human activity. Of course there are some who take a contrary view but in the greater scheme of things they represent a minority. That doesn't make the wrong in an absolute sense. I'm going with the majority though. It's far too complex for me to have even a passing understanding of the science, I'll defer to the majority of scientists.



I'll have to agree with you there, that's my position. Even if we're wrong I'm not sure what possible harm there is in trying to deal with it. Unless you're a Virginian coal miner or the boss of Exxon it seems like a win win situation all round.

One of the problems I was pointing to is that it's not uncommon for someone who would agree with the consensus to have their comments taken out of context and used by the deniers. I'm not saying that Whiskywill was doing this as I'm finding it hard to understand what point anyone's trying to make at this late date in the thread.

Apart from the fact that we're all agreed, including Jacob, that the Guardian's rubbish


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":1x15go42 said:


> Jacob - that approach to debate leads to such things as 'no-platforming', safe spaces in university common rooms, the Snowflake generation and a host of other phenomena discussed in various places lately. It leads to living in an information echo-chamber, and apparent incredulity and refusal to accept not only the result, the very idea that anybody might vote a different way when a democratic vote goes they way you don't want.
> 
> Grow up, accept that the Western world is a different place politically than it was last year, and like the rest of us, try to understand why.


I'm not sure what all that is about. Is it something you read in the telegraph?

NB I think everybody "accepts" the result of the referendum. The head scratching is about what you do next and the answer isn't clear. 
"Brexit means brexit" has the same logic as "a trip to the moon is a trip to the moon". There's nothing in there to show how it could be done, or even if it's possible at all.


----------



## RogerS (25 Nov 2016)

RossJarvis":epenj2ak said:


> ..... I'd imagine the Grauniad is similar but I'm not going to check as the bleatings of that bunch of Pseudo-intellectual frauds usually makes me physically ill.



I just choked on my coffee reading that.  

I nominate it for Post of the Year =D>


----------



## RogerS (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":3fi13quw said:


> Just thought I'd google "Guardian + post factual".
> This is much more interesting than that rather silly telegraph article.
> https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nghazi-gop
> Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many



For the benefit of new readers, you have to realise that Jacob is a past master at stringing together sentences that have no reference to one another and instead sound like a cliche from Citizen Smith.

For example, take the above.

_Just thought I'd google "Guardian + post factual"._ Out of curiosity I also Googled that and most definitely didn't come up with the article referred to in the next sentence. "Post-factual" does not appear in the implied article mentioned.

Moving on...._"This is much more interesting than that rather silly telegraph article. 
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... nghazi-gop"_

was written in 2014 and so I'm not sure of the relevance of this article - typical Guardianista "My editor has asked me to throw together 2000 words of hand-wringing meaningless piffle by tomorrow". It's rubbish. Just a stream of random letters that happen to form words. Any relationship between the words and actually forming a coherent sentence are coincidental.

OK ..last one

_"Climate change is one of the big areas where the facts are ignored by many"_ Um, yes. I can make statements as well. The moon is made of green cheese. Tony Blair is a nice man. None of them add any new information to the thread.


----------



## Inoffthered (25 Nov 2016)

RogerS,
I admire your indefatigability however, intelligent and reasoned debate is impossible for many of the reasons you have highlighted. 

Overall I suggest that the best solution is not to feed the troll.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (25 Nov 2016)

I think we're all done here folks....would you say?


----------



## kevinlightfoot (25 Nov 2016)

Yes all done and becoming a little boring!


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1zr2bn9x said:


> Cheshirechappie":1zr2bn9x said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob - that approach to debate leads to such things as 'no-platforming', safe spaces in university common rooms, the Snowflake generation and a host of other phenomena discussed in various places lately. It leads to living in an information echo-chamber, and apparent incredulity and refusal to accept not only the result, the very idea that anybody might vote a different way when a democratic vote goes they way you don't want.
> ...



I think it's quite clear why the entire establishment is in a tizz about it. They held the referendum complacently expecting a Remain result; indeed they were so complacent, they didn't even get the Civil Service to work up any contingency plans for the event of a Leave vote. Given that there were only two possible results, and the opinion polls were within 10%, some might regard that as a rather strange omission.

Be that as it may, gummint and Civil Service now have to do something about it, and they are, to give them some credit. Personally, I think it will come as a shock to many people just how much of the UK's government is currently down to Brussels, or effectively directed from Brussels. That said, the more thought goes into how we disentangle ourselves before we trigger Article 50 the better.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

Cheshirechappie":20s009r7 said:


> ..... it will come as a shock to many people just how much of the UK's government is currently down to Brussels, or effectively directed from Brussels.


But _we_ are "Brussels" - it's a partnership, cooperative, treaty, agreement, whatever you want to call it. 
It's democratic - we have a role, a voice, an enormous amount of influence, and together - an enormous amount of power globally


> That said, the more thought goes into how we disentangle ourselves before we trigger Article 50 the better.


Then we don't have a role, influence, global power, or a voice, which seems an insane choice to make.


----------



## Jacob (25 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":36lbujj9 said:


> I think we're all done here folks....would you say?


Yep. They don't like the message, they have nothing to say - instead they are starting to attack the messengers.


----------



## Chippyjoe (25 Nov 2016)

Bob,

this thread should never have got off the ground in my opinion, and before everyone jumps on my back, it is only my opinion.

Something similar started on the Festool owners group, and was locked after about 2 posts.


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":1gg1k5wr said:


> Cheshirechappie":1gg1k5wr said:
> 
> 
> > ..... it will come as a shock to many people just how much of the UK's government is currently down to Brussels, or effectively directed from Brussels.
> ...



The first part is complete rubbish. We used our veto how many times? 40? How many times did we get what we wanted? None at all. As for democracy - well, you can vote for MEPs who have virtually no authority, but not for Commissioners who are solely responsible for originating EU legislation. The sooner the UK is disentangled from that, the better.

As for our position post EU, we have a ready-made network in the Anglosphere nations and in the Commonwealth, which we've sadly neglected. We can go and trade with every nation on the planet (except the EU) on terms we can negotiate ourselves to be mutually advantageous, which we can't currently do. The EU is hardly likely to engage in a trade war with us, given that the UK is their single largest market, so a free trade deal seems very achievable.

I genuinely think the UK's prospects are better out of the EU - out of the single market (though with access to it, as every other nation on earth has), out of the Customs Union (so that we can negotiate our own deals around the world). We will be freer living under Common Law rather than Roman law, and crucially, able to elect and hold to account through the ballot box, those that govern us.

I really can't see a downside.

Genuine question now - and I am not setting anybody up asking this - what are the reasons for staying in the EU?


----------



## Phil Pascoe (25 Nov 2016)

Sorry, CC - this is just inviting groundhog day. :lol:


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

phil.p":1rxww9fc said:


> Sorry, CC - this is just inviting groundhog day. :lol:



I see what you're saying, Phil. However, everybody posting on this thread, with one exception, has managed a mature and considered debate. The 'one exception' has complained that politics deserves to be discussed. Let's give him one last opportunity to do so in a thoughtful way. If he can't manage it ..... well, the mods can soon snap a lock on, and that will probably be the end of ANY political debate on this forum, now or in the future.


----------



## LarryS. (25 Nov 2016)

After 2000 years of fighting each other we got together to work together, I for one mourn the loss of something that was collaborative. Much like my family it wasn't perfect, but then what is. 
Trade agreements take years to negotiate, and now with a relatively small economy (compared to the eu) to imagine we have more power seems incongruous. I'm not sure how the economies of the commonwealth stack up, but to them an agreement with 20 something nations is of more value than 1.
I work in industry under eu regs and dealing with eu companies all the time, my job is going to get harder and my companies costs are going up, so we're worse off. 

So thats my opinion, it might be right, it might be wrong, but that's it. 

As for Trump? Makes me feel better about Brexit! 


Sent from my SM-G903F using Tapatalk


----------



## Cheshirechappie (25 Nov 2016)

LarryS":2e50ccw9 said:


> After 2000 years of fighting each other we got together to work together, I for one mourn the loss of something that was collaborative. Much like my family it wasn't perfect, but then what is.



Thanks for that, Paul.

I do have some sympathy with that sentiment. I think if the EU had stopped at being the EEC - a free trade area and forum for nation states to debate matters of mutual interest - most people would have been more than content. The problems have arisen, I think, from the desire to integrate the nation states into one. The common currency in particular has been deeply damaging for the southern states, and utterly catastrophic for Greece. 

I think Europe would be better off without the EU, but with something like the old EEC. If Brexit brings that closer by encouraging other nations to leave the EU, the better it would be in the long run for ordinary people across Europe.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (25 Nov 2016)

Yup...we're going round in circles now folks....trump...then Brexit etc. I do think we've reached a point where people's positions are clear and now they're just trenching in deeper and deeper. You're right about one thing Jacob, people are starting to attack the messengers. Personally I'm not sure whether that's due to their intransigence or sheer boredom but I honestly don't think we're going to resolve anything more in this thread. At least folks had a chance to really air their views so hopefully we can once again bury our heads in the sand and create some dust. I made a couple of scoops tonight and also a dovetailed face plate out of ply for my "G-jaws".

I'll leave this up overnight so you can have one more attempt to demonstrate how liberal, left, right you are and then I'll lock the thread.


----------



## RobinBHM (25 Nov 2016)

Jacob":nispekku said:


> Cheshirechappie":nispekku said:
> 
> 
> > Jacob - that approach to debate leads to such things as 'no-platforming', safe spaces in university common rooms, the Snowflake generation and a host of other phenomena discussed in various places lately. It leads to living in an information echo-chamber, and apparent incredulity and refusal to accept not only the result, the very idea that anybody might vote a different way when a democratic vote goes they way you don't want.
> ...



Those in the remain camp assume disaster is inevitable, but the reality is the EU has many idealogical and economic problems with some half a dozen members that are considering a referendum and could leave. Huge unemployment issues in some countries, an over valued Euro, a German bank in difficulties, a French election looming with far right Le Pen. Thats without starting on the new trade we are now free to develop. The big worry is how brave our politicians will in forgetting the single market and making tarif free deals around the world.

Trump. Well I can see him getting bored soon and leaving it all to his cabinet. Why would anybody want all that stress at 70 anyway.


----------



## Jacob (26 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob":2nem2oww said:


> Yup...we're going round in circles now folks....trump...then Brexit etc. I do think we've reached a point where people's positions are clear and now they're just trenching in deeper and deeper. You're right about one thing Jacob, people are starting to attack the messengers. Personally I'm not sure whether that's due to their intransigence or sheer boredom but I honestly don't think we're going to resolve anything more in this thread. At least folks had a chance to really air their views so hopefully we can once again bury our heads in the sand and create some dust. I made a couple of scoops tonight and also a dovetailed face plate out of ply for my "G-jaws".
> 
> I'll leave this up overnight so you can have one more attempt to demonstrate how liberal, left, right you are and then I'll lock the thread.


:lol: Attacking the messengers and, quite entertainingly, making a last minute attempt to justify their "post truth" viewpoints, re-enforced with a scintillatingly intelligent article from the Telegraph! :lol:
Plus a sinister threat from a brexiter - on the day Jo Cox's murderer was sentenced, and to round it off a climate change sceptic popped in to say hello! Didn't think there were any left :roll:

But all in all - it's very interesting and much better to have these sorts of chats than not. Better out than in (not the EU - better in than out!)


----------



## Cheshirechappie (26 Nov 2016)

Random Orbital Bob - I think you're right. I did try to keep sensible adult debate going (and thanks to LarryS and RobinBMH for posting in that spirit, and thanks to most other commenters on the thread), but I can't see this becoming anything other than a moderator's nightmare, now.

Ironic really. If you want to engage in political debate, p*ssing everybody else off isn't really the best way to promote it, or learn anything from it.


----------



## Inoffthered (26 Nov 2016)

Ironic really. If you want to engage in political debate said:


> It is the classic tactic of the liberal left and virtue signallers though,specifically designed to kill intelligent debate. Make ridiculous statements and conflate arguments. Showing a lack of comprehension that sees threats where none exist merely to paint themselves as a victim and disguise the paucity of their argument. Getting all moralistic and labelling and blaming swathes of the electorate as being responsible for the the murder of an MP yet slavishly following the doctrines of the self professed Marxists Corbyn and McDonnell who were (are) also IRA supporters and sympathisers.


----------



## Phil Pascoe (26 Nov 2016)

We also need to start with the assumption in all political discussion that every "statistic" and or "fact" is a lie if it comes from The Mail, The Express or The Telegraph and writ in stone and the word of God if it comes from The Observer, The Grauniad or The Independent.


----------



## Jacob (26 Nov 2016)

phil.p":1f5jsv0u said:


> We also need to start with the assumption in all political discussion that every "statistic" and or "fact" is a lie if it comes from The Mail, The Express or The Telegraph and writ in stone and the word of God if it comes from The Observer, The Grauniad or The Independent.


Half true, but Observer, The Grauniad, The Independent are not infallible and nobody thinks so either.


----------



## Random Orbital Bob (26 Nov 2016)

Blimey....taking my son to his trumpet lesson before locking the thread was expensive!!

Byeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee


----------

