Jump to content

UK Politics- P0rn, Horn and Local Elections


Recommended Posts

14 minutes ago, Maltaran said:

If you are treating goods as domestic by default, how would you prevent unscrupulous people from declaring goods as for domestic use and then smuggling them across the Irish border without putting border checks in place?

Not really, you can target goods which are clearly meant for domestic consumption or no real risk to the single market and deem them for domestic use. Goods meant for export can be declared and exported. Checks also do not have to happen at the border. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Winding up my local Facebook group. Suggesting to Oxfordshire that instead of buying bunting to celebrate the jubilee for one of the least deserving super rich people in the world who couldn't give a fuck about them, because of the financial issues being experienced by the rest of the country they should donate to a local food bank instead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Not really, you can target goods which are clearly meant for domestic consumption or no real risk to the single market and deem them for domestic use. Goods meant for export can be declared and exported. Checks also do not have to happen at the border. 

My question was about people who are deliberately trying to circumvent the checks. How do you catch them without having checks either between GB and NI or on the Irish border crossings?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Maltaran said:

My question was about people who are deliberately trying to circumvent the checks. How do you catch them without having checks either between GB and NI or on the Irish border crossings?

The difference is how much of an issue that really is. The UK suggests that 80% of goods are low risk, for instance being goods moved to supermarkets, that can easily prove that these goods are for domestic supply without having to have constant checks at the border. Other goods can use the Trusted Trader system.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Heartofice said:

It's also part of the UK market. But giving more flexibility if it's selling to different markets is a useful thing to do.

That is technically true, but not in practice.

I will explain it a bit, No, hoot-hoot, but try to follow it anyway.

When there are two custom territories, there needs to be a border to perform, well, customs checks (I use that term broadly, our NZ anti-targ can probably address it better and in more detail).

NI is now a point, where two custom territories overlap. So technically, goods leaving NI in either direction would need to get checked (goods getting into NI is not the problem). So that no unauthorized EU goods can enter the UK single market, and vice versa. A mindful reader would now arrive at a question, if things need to get checked once they leave NI, doesn't that mean there'd be a need for customs check in Ireland, which nobody wanted? 

Yes. To bypass this is, the EU has more or less given up on some degree of sovereignty and effectively outsourced its custom checks to the UK. Not an ideal solution, but pretty much the only practical way to avoid putting up a border in Ireland. So UK performs custom checks of in- and outgoing goods into NI. The often talked about border in the Irish sea. 

So in practical terms, NI is way more in the EU market, than in the UK market. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Tory MP and government minister, who gets subsidised meals and expenses and a 2nd home, suggests people work more hours or get a better job.

Thanks!

Hopefully at next election someone in her constituency will take her words to heart and take her job.

 

As someone who has worked two jobs and worked in an industry where that was something very common I feel like I should add onto this that the tax burden of having two jobs is an absolute bitch and taking into consideration how much of your time and energy and how much stress working two jobs takes thisis a whole heap of horseshit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, HelenaExMachina said:

As someone who has worked two jobs and worked in an industry where that was something very common I feel like I should add onto this that the tax burden of having two jobs is an absolute bitch and taking into consideration how much of your time and energy and how much stress working two jobs takes thisis a whole heap of horseshit. 

Also fails to account for carers who’re too busy looking after friends/family that they don’t have the time to work. Or pensioners. Or the disabled who either can’t work, or can’t find work due to discrimination 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It boils down to this. Conservatives of various stripes like to believe that your life is in your control. Ultimately, whatever life deals you, you can change your circumstances. You just need to be smart enough or work hard enough or whatever else.

So if you're poor, there must be a way out of it. Cook batch meals! Shop at Lidl! Get another job! There must be something!

Because the alternative - that some people, through no fault of their own, can't escape poverty - means that the system they believe in and have created and supported for decades, in many cases, is cruel and awful and needs to change. Not a thought they want to entertain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its also the uncomfortable realisation that not only are some people poor though no fault of their own, by the same token some people are rich and wealthy through no merit of their own and thus there is a possibility that they might not have earned their position and are not inherently worth more than those lazy poor people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

its also the uncomfortable realisation that not only are some people poor though no fault of their own, by the same token some people are rich and wealthy through no merit of their own and thus there is a possibility that they might not have earned their position and are not inherently worth more than those lazy poor people.

Beat me to it. That's the fundamental idea that they have to hold on to no matter the cognitive dissonance. They believe that they've earned and deserve everything they have and their entire worldview is balanced precariously on this brick of arrogance and entitlement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, mormont said:

 

Because the alternative - that some people, through no fault of their own, can't escape poverty - means that the system they believe in and have created and supported for decades, in many cases, is cruel and awful and needs to change. Not a thought they want to entertain.

You give them a hell of a lot more credit than I do. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, mormont said:

It boils down to this. Conservatives of various stripes like to believe that your life is in your control. Ultimately, whatever life deals you, you can change your circumstances. You just need to be smart enough or work hard enough or whatever else.

So if you're poor, there must be a way out of it. Cook batch meals! Shop at Lidl! Get another job! There must be something!

Because the alternative - that some people, through no fault of their own, can't escape poverty - means that the system they believe in and have created and supported for decades, in many cases, is cruel and awful and needs to change. Not a thought they want to entertain.

And by the same token there are those on the left who believe the exact reverse, that nobody can be responsible for their own circumstances, that being poor is purely a function or result of oppression or a system that is against them. Every inequality in life is due to discrimination rather than luck or choice.

You can see why there might be some disagreement.

Of course the truth is that the role of government should be to protect those for whom cannot work within the system, who need extra help, whilst also creating a system where you can lift yourself out of poverty by working hard and making good decisions. That is what Maclean was saying with her comments, which sounds completely reasonable if you don't take it out of context and put the worst possible spin on it. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And by the same token there are those on the left who believe the exact reverse, that nobody can be responsible for their own circumstances, that being poor is purely a function or result of oppression or a system that is against them. Every inequality in life is due to discrimination rather than luck or choice.

You can see why there might be some disagreement.

Of course the truth is that the role of government should be to protect those for whom cannot work within the system, who need extra help, whilst also creating a system where you can lift yourself out of poverty by working hard and making good decisions. That is what Maclean was saying with her comments, which sounds completely reasonable if you don't take it out of context and put the worst possible spin on it. 

 

that would be true if the current system actually allowed the poor people to earn enough to work themselves out of poverty.  Unfortunately you need a certain amount of wealth and security to do that.  It is also true that things actually cost more when you are poor.  you can't afford the slightly better things that last twice as long thus spend many times what the more wealthy do.

 

you also can't buy in bulk if you can are allready choosing between food and heat.  you also probably don't have the freezer space to store bulk foods.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Pebble thats Stubby said:

that would be true if the current system actually allowed the poor people to earn enough to work themselves out of poverty.  Unfortunately you need a certain amount of wealth and security to do that.  It is also true that things actually cost more when you are poor.  you can't afford the slightly better things that last twice as long thus spend many times what the more wealthy do.

 

you also can't buy in bulk if you can are allready choosing between food and heat.  you also probably don't have the freezer space to store bulk foods.

 

It’s true for some people and not true for others. The current system absolutely does allow people to work their way out of poverty, but that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t be made easier. 
 

And that’s basically what was being said, that the job market should be made to work so that it’s easier for people to get out of poverty, with less barriers. 
 

That’s not to say that there aren’t plenty of other barriers around that make it harder than it should be, such as the cost of housing etc, but the overall goal is to help people help themselves, not just give people hand outs unnecessarily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And by the same token there are those on the left who believe the exact reverse, that nobody can be responsible for their own circumstances, that being poor is purely a function or result of oppression or a system that is against them. Every inequality in life is due to discrimination rather than luck or choice.

You can see why there might be some disagreement.

Of course the truth is that the role of government should be to protect those for whom cannot work within the system, who need extra help, whilst also creating a system where you can lift yourself out of poverty by working hard and making good decisions. That is what Maclean was saying with her comments, which sounds completely reasonable if you don't take it out of context and put the worst possible spin on it. 

 

There has been research done on how and why some people end up with a huge proportion of the wealth and others end up either so much less. It comes down to random chance. When you look at the distribution of wealth it tends to follow a power law, just as  the distribution of smaller and larger earthquakes do. There are many other physical phenomena that also follow the same distribution. This very strongly suggests that random chance or luck has more to do with gaining wealth than anything else. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, maarsen said:

There has been research done on how and why some people end up with a huge proportion of the wealth and others end up either so much less. It comes down to random chance. When you look at the distribution of wealth it tends to follow a power law, just as  the distribution of smaller and larger earthquakes do. There are many other physical phenomena that also follow the same distribution. This very strongly suggests that random chance or luck has more to do with gaining wealth than anything else. 

Is that the UK and does it look at the general populations ability to get their way out of poverty or is it just looking at how the very rich managed to get very rich. I’m seriously dubious about those findings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Heartofice said:

Is that the UK and does it look at the general populations ability to get their way out of poverty or is it just looking at how the very rich managed to get very rich. I’m seriously dubious about those findings.

Look it up and follow the math. This is not just the UK but across all societies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Week said:

Look at you being all silly and cute citing studies like this is a factual debate. It's all about how you feel! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...