UK Politics - From Russia with Love

[Werthead]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Can we get back onto the topic of UK politics specifically and not the general topic of whether growth is good? I feel like we've gone far enough down the sidebar that it either needs its own thread, or to be dropped. 

Going back to UK politics, then, how do people feel about the selection of an apparent conspiracy theorist as a Labour candidate for a presumably target seat? I think people can guess how I feel about people questioning whether the Manchester bombing actually took place, but it does raise the issue of whether someone can be a good MP and still hold such... let's say, ill-founded views?

Oh FFS. Labour is running around scoring own goals whilst the opposition is beating each other up, falling over and leaving their goal wide open to a concerted attack.

[Maltaran]

2 hours ago, mormont said:

Can we get back onto the topic of UK politics specifically and not the general topic of whether growth is good? I feel like we've gone far enough down the sidebar that it either needs its own thread, or to be dropped. 

Going back to UK politics, then, how do people feel about the selection of an apparent conspiracy theorist as a Labour candidate for a presumably target seat? I think people can guess how I feel about people questioning whether the Manchester bombing actually took place, but it does raise the issue of whether someone can be a good MP and still hold such... let's say, ill-founded views?

I was going to mention Galloway, then I noticed you specified a good MP

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Werthead said:

Oh FFS. Labour is running around scoring own goals whilst the opposition is beating each other up, falling over and leaving their goal wide open to a concerted attack.

All those civil restraint orders simply show how wide-ranging is the conspiracy against her.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

On 21.4.2018 at 0:43 PM, williamjm said:

It's difficult to keep track sometimes, but I think Labour's official policy is currently saying that they'd want to stay in a customs union with Europe so they might vote for this proposal even if they're not going to vote against Brexit.

Kinda, yes but at the same time, kidna no. As you said, Labour's pie in the sky Brexit is a Customs Union (which would somehow miraculously allow Britain to make trade deals on its own, among other things), and which is not the the Customs Union, as it exists now.

I am quite sure I mocked Labour's nonsense in this or in the last thread by pointing out the important distinction between the Customs Union and a Customs Union. Neither Tories nor Labour have actually come to terms with reality (at least in public) what Brexit actually means and what the consequences are. So they are both still pitching pie in the sky ideas which would allow them to enjoy most of the benefits of EU membership, with the Tories it's sectorial arrangements and Free Trade Agreements which covers the bits Britain likes/needs. Labour's version is a Customs Union, with the ability to strike trade deals for Britain on its own.

 

[Hereward]

6 hours ago, mormont said:

Going back to UK politics, then, how do people feel about the selection of an apparent conspiracy theorist as a Labour candidate for a presumably target seat? I think people can guess how I feel about people questioning whether the Manchester bombing actually took place, but it does raise the issue of whether someone can be a good MP and still hold such... let's say, ill-founded views?

No, someone with views such as this can't be a good MP, not only because they have demonstrated catastrophically bad judgement, but because they are unlikely to represent all their constituents fairly and equally, and also because, in a minority Parliament, they clearly are not up to the task of potentially deciding matters if national import. 

41 minutes ago, Notone said:

Kinda, yes but at the same time, kidna no. As you said, Labour's pie in the sky Brexit is a Customs Union (which would somehow miraculously allow Britain to make trade deals on its own, among other things), and which is not the the Customs Union, as it exists now.

I am quite sure I mocked Labour's nonsense in this or in the last thread by pointing out the important distinction between the Customs Union and a Customs Union. Neither Tories nor Labour have actually come to terms with reality (at least in public) what Brexit actually means and what the consequences are. So they are both still pitching pie in the sky ideas which would allow them to enjoy most of the benefits of EU membership, with the Tories it's sectorial arrangements and Free Trade Agreements which covers the bits Britain likes/needs. Labour's version is a Customs Union, with the ability to strike trade deals for Britain on its own.

 

Well, the EU's proposal for a customs union could equally be characterised as one that allows the trading of German manufacturing, French agriculture and nothing the British are actually good at! The obvious answer is not to leave, but if we do, no customs union seems the only logical response to the concerns the voters seemed to express.

[mankytoes]

18 hours ago, Maltaran said:

The main point on the Windrush thing is that anyone born in a Commonwealth country who moved to the U.K. before 1971 was automatically granted indefinite leave to remain, but the government at the time never actually made a record of who these people were. Now that the Tories have made it so that employers, landlords, healthcare, etc have to check that people are legally allowed to be in the country, these folks are finding that they are unable to prove their citizenship.

Basically, they're considered guilty unless they can prove they're innocent. 

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

All those civil restraint orders simply show how wide-ranging is the conspiracy against her.

I see she played the race and gender cards in the tweet she replied. I always wonder in these situations, do you think these people really believe a white man wouldn't be criticised for making these sorts of comments? Or they just see it as the best way to defend themselves?

[A Horse Named Stranger]

24 minutes ago, Hereward said:

Well, the EU's proposal for a customs union could equally be characterised as one that allows the trading of German manufacturing, French agriculture and nothing the British are actually good at! The obvious answer is not to leave, but if we do, no customs union seems the only logical response to the concerns the voters seemed to express.

Well, if you go for a hard Brexit, that is at least a logical coherent position. No deal, no customs Union, no whatever. Singapore on thames or so. That car manufacturers and other UK businesses are not particularly thrilled by that prospect is another matter.

If that's the desired outcome, fine. But then the Tories (and also Labour) should at least have the political courage to tell the electorate what that means in practical terms. Increased food prices, lowering of regulatory standards (likesay enviromental and worker rights) etc.

I mean there's no outcome which entails passporting rights for the British Banking sector, that is also clear, isn't it?

[Hereward]

18 minutes ago, Notone said:

If that's the desired outcome, fine. But then the Tories (and also Labour) should at least have the political courage to tell the electorate what that means in practical terms. Increased food prices, lowering of regulatory standards (likesay enviromental and worker rights) etc.

I mean there's no outcome which entails passporting rights for the British Banking sector, that is also clear, isn't it?

Well, I think that is debatable. on food prices, increased duties on EU agricultural exports may well mean decreased duties on more efficient producers in the Americas, Africa and Asia. Though of course there is a price to pay, especially with US imports on an environmental, ethical and public safety angle. After all, EU policy has long been aimed at propping up inefficient French and Mediterranean agriculture at the expense of the third world. As far as regulatory standards and workers' rights are concerned, that's not a given. It would simply be the choice of the British Parliament. After all, Corbyn's historical opposition to the EU has largely been down to its prevention of the kind of economy, state ownership and vastly increased regulation and workers' rights that he has always wanted to introduce.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

I will break your response down into different bits.

Just now, Hereward said:

Well, I think that is debatable. on food prices, increased duties on EU agricultural exports may well mean decreased duties on more efficient producers in the Americas, Africa and Asia.

Yes. But I can't see British farmers being too fond of the idea of competing with low cost US imports, and that would mean that also British food product standard will go down on the long run.

1 minute ago, Hereward said:

After all, EU policy has long been aimed at propping up inefficient French and Mediterranean agriculture at the expense of the third world

Yes, we are in agreement on that.

2 minutes ago, Hereward said:

As far as regulatory standards and workers' rights are concerned, that's not a given. It would simply be the choice of the British Parliament.

That is however implausible/highly unlikely. The idea seems to be FTA agreements with emerging nations in the East and ofc China. Britain is a high wage country compared to those nations (I think we can agree on that), a not so minor part of those costs are taxes and stuff that pays for services like the NHS. Now how do you ensure competitiveness of the British industry with the (relatively) low wage cost nations. Again the relatively best case scenario seems to be adapting US laws, I doubt that is an improvement for the blue collar Briton.

 

7 minutes ago, Hereward said:

After all, Corbyn's historical opposition to the EU has largely been down to its prevention of the kind of economy, state ownership and vastly increased regulation and workers' rights that he has always wanted to introduce.

Corbyn's an idiot. Privatization to the extent the UK has done, was a UK decission. EU regulations (or minimal standards if you will) on workers rights etc. is that ominous red tape Brexiteers wanted to cut. Now somebody has to pay for Corbyn's post-Brexit vision. Which brings us back to the relatively high costs of labour (no pun intended). Singapore upon Thames is not reconcileable with Corbyn's post-Brexit Britain. At least I don't see, how.

[Hereward]

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

I will break your response down into different bits.

Yes. But I can't see British farmers being too fond of the idea of competing with low cost US imports, and that would mean that also British food product standard will go down on the long run.

They won't be. But it would be a return to the 19th century, when British food production was far lower than it is now. It was a left-wing principle at the time that free trade, and therefore cheap food imports, were of benefit to the working class. Can't see the Tories going for it, though.

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

Yes, we are in agreement on that.

That is however implausible/highly unlikely. The idea seems to be FTA agreements with emerging nations in the East and ofc China. Britain is a high wage country compared to those nations (I think we can agree on that), a not so minor part of those costs are taxes and stuff that pays for services like the NHS. Now how do you ensure competitiveness of the British industry with the (relatively) low wage cost nations. Again the relatively best case scenario seems to be adapting US laws, I doubt that is an improvement for the blue collar Briton.

I think the idea is that FTAs would benefit UK financial, legal, creative, pharmaceutical and other service industries more than it would hurt manufacturing. Not much compensation to the people who voted Brexit, I admit.

4 minutes ago, Notone said:

 

Corbyn's an idiot. Privatization to the extent the UK has done, was a UK decission. EU regulations (or minimal standards if you will) on workers rights etc. is that ominous red tape Brexiteers wanted to cut. Now somebody has to pay for Corbyn's post-Brexit vision. Which brings us back to the relatively high costs of labour (no pun intended). Singapore upon Thames is not reconcileable with Corbyn's post-Brexit Britain. At least I don't see, how.

I agree, he is an idiot. But the last point is a bit silly. Of course the two are not reconcilable. They are two competing Brexit visions.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Just now, Hereward said:

I agree, he is an idiot. But the last point is a bit silly. Of course the two are not reconcilable. They are two competing Brexit visions.

Yet, how to you want to ensure competitiveness of the British economy with its new trading partners and find the money to pay for Corbyn's worker's paradise at the same time. That's the point that needs to be answered.

[Hereward]

27 minutes ago, Notone said:

Yet, how to you want to ensure competitiveness of the British economy with its new trading partners and find the money to pay for Corbyn's worker's paradise at the same time. That's the point that needs to be answered.

You can’t. Corbyn is an economic disaster waiting to happen, in or out of the EU. Being out of the EU just gives him more scope.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

18 minutes ago, Hereward said:

You can’t. Corbyn is an economic disaster waiting to happen, in or out of the EU. Being out of the EU just gives him more scope.

That's a misunderstanding, imo. Being in the EU didn't force Britain to embrace austerity. That was a domestic political choice taken by Westminster.

[Hereward]

I never mentioned austerity. I was talking about his proposals for widespread nationalisation and state aid.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Well, I would reverse the argument. Privatization of services was something British goverments pushed for and went the furthest form all (?) EU states. Which also looks more like a national decission. Feel free to point out the EU law that required states to do widespread sales.

[SeanF]

40 minutes ago, Notone said:

That's a misunderstanding, imo. Being in the EU didn't force Britain to embrace austerity. That was a domestic political choice taken by Westminster.

It was a choice, in the sense that you can choose between trying to live within your means, or choose not to.  The budget deficit was 10% of GDP in 2010, compared to 2% now.

However, the Eurozone got austerity with knobs on, between 2011 and 2015. 

And, Hereward is right that some of Corbyn's more ambitious proposals would not be possible under EU law,  EU law and institutions are pretty right wing on economic matters.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Privatization of some sectors is not prohibited though.

[Hereward]

That’s irrelevant, its already happened. EU law arguably prevents it being reversed. article 176 and 106 of the TFEU for instance.

[A Horse Named Stranger]

Hum, Art. 176 ?

That'S about the European funds to help regional disadvantaged regions?

 

Anyway 106 looks more relevtant. but it doesn't explicitly forbid state ownership.

Quote

Article 106

(ex Article 86 TEC)

1.   In the case of public undertakings and undertakings to which Member States grant special or exclusive rights, Member States shall neither enact nor maintain in force any measure contrary to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to those rules provided for in Article 18 and Articles 101 to 109.

2.   Undertakings entrusted with the operation of services of general economic interest or having the character of a revenue-producing monopoly shall be subject to the rules contained in the Treaties, in particular to the rules on competition, in so far as the application of such rules does not obstruct the performance, in law or in fact, of the particular tasks assigned to them. The development of trade must not be affected to such an extent as would be contrary to the interests of the Union.

3.   The Commission shall ensure the application of the provisions of this Article and shall, where necessary, address appropriate directives or decisions to Member States.

The ther sutff is basically monopoly/fair competition rules.

[Werthead]

5 hours ago, SeanF said:

It was a choice, in the sense that you can choose between trying to live within your means, or choose not to.  The budget deficit was 10% of GDP in 2010, compared to 2% now.

The alternative choice, and the one favoured by anyone with an understanding of economic theory greater than George Osborne's (which includes sea urchins and some types of rock), is state reinvestment to grow the economy, which has been the solution to most major depressions and downturns larger than a standard recession. Osborne and Cameron's approach was to take advantage of the aftermath of the 2008 downturn to justify a mass cutback in government spending for ideological purposes, the erosion of workers' rights and the resulting crippling of our military and NHS, the mass-reduction in policing, the meltdown in the prison service, the mass explosion of homelessness and the appalling situation in education is the result.

One alternative to austerity, for example, would be making sure that companies paid the damn taxes they're supposed to, which would have made up a large chunk of the "living within our means" gap by itself without the need to start dismantling the country.

Austerity was a deliberate political choice, not one borne of necessity, and the way it was handled did long-term damage to the British economy, as can be seen by our poor recovery compared to just about every other country affected by the recession (apart really from Greece, and their problems were much deeper-rooted and systemic).