Brexit, for once some facts.

[Ducknald Don]

Never mind.

In the near future the BBC's Radio Four 1pm news will be interviewing Jeremy Corbyn about the situation in Yemen.

Why? I haven't a clue, someone must have thought it would be a good idea.

Perhaps he'll know how to run Yemen.
.

Not that I'm a fan of JC but he has consistently criticised the practice of selling arms to Saudi Arabia, those arms are then used in Yemen.

 

[PeterL]

One for OG to get his teeth into! This being a 'good' read and explanation of tolerance, especially of people who hold different views

https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_Brmc7_2017-09-08/data/376211/index.html?share=1&WT.mc_id=tmgapp_inar_share&utm_source=tmgapp&utm_medium=inar&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=tmgapp_inar_share&Expires=1507244400&Signature=NSSNoIDLVHzxYyR4aNv1ofTSpyeHIUoJCFeq5FOMsj2kB2oCsHchuT9sZ1oprgSJlBKI~WDPZV-lZjgsMEK0EaGAPM3YiQm2B5sfI8elOxck-3TckxhF7ku3hRpDNyNrK~sxBbmIub3Sf0j7nJcKChQvwENRS-yNeKR9u1rrGuP3TY5wIvK-UTZWAxX~NAHoqfNC~wpMtCyK8pbNtBeoXu6R3~kOnvbCriobGy1Jvgw-3fUUCTnZ7nr13PD7kbQv0LO~NAg3qyj9mjz9pK2NH1WXKHNSoZ~QL33AzN2AYnXQqartPQhfq8HXqEbt8~wvxLO3zJ5FtakoDBQ8WkvV0A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLCEPDGCTPVKXNOA

 

[Woosh]

Is JC a real brexiter?

Labour has shifted its position and is now pressing for Britain to stay in the single market and the customs union during any transition period.

Keir Starmer, the shadow Brexit secretary, has even suggested Britain should stay in the customs union EU indefinitely, unless there is hard evidence that a new trade deal would make Britain better off.

http://news.sky.com/story/mps-to-probe-whether-new-customs-system-ready-for-brexit-11024749

That's the most sensible position voiced by a brexit party.

 

[PeterL]

Is JC a real brexiter?

Labour has shifted its position and is now pressing for Britain to stay in the single market and the customs union during any transition period.



http://news.sky.com/story/mps-to-probe-whether-new-customs-system-ready-for-brexit-11024749

That's the most sensible position voiced by a brexit party.

Contrary to early claims, which I agreed with, perhaps, he really does think he can run the country and 'see off' as Old Tom might say, the landed gentry? If we really do descend into abject poverty post Brexit then the rioting peasants may well bring this scenario to pass. Canterbury Tales.

 

[PeterL]

Big business must take some blame for Brexit
Firms have used cheap foreign labour as a lazy substitute for investment in training and productivity


https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_Brmc7_2017-09-08/data/376226/index.html?share=1&WT.mc_id=tmgapp_inar_share&utm_source=tmgapp&utm_medium=inar&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=tmgapp_inar_share&Expires=1507244400&Signature=cFh7-0FZ-62gWqlRk5NrMrvOo9UmyEJwFAgSAkbXVJZvPZNoWFYvZ13pShaVvbEx~7ZSEkIlahSJU3xa8M9yO4Sxuh7VegOG-78u0YZSBXMZj7UVpxlVS2ug6A3ssaygbtomA8bbtp1b58Cr~z9jxX1QuY9t27-1~44kZBtM3aRxOr4a8IqUDOpo0Rcy3ec5e5rQvMGhJWUS~8kM4ClwfiJlu2ToZ2C-UWx1p4uQbUGaIcMsai3RgK8b1ZixcMYw0cr-VkSCamT728iS4-1ssm-Um6RwssVcMEgWNFBFRHLBAwpcauN43oMhanuxo5si0mkwtyhK7LNBr03G96vRfg__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLCEPDGCTPVKXNOA

 

[Woosh]

Big business must take some blame for Brexit
Firms have used cheap foreign labour as a lazy substitute for investment in training and productivity

I totally agree that the EU favours large businesses - to the detriment of small ones.
However, we need large businesses to invest here. That's why I think we should adopt the same position of EFTA countries.

 

[Woosh]

Contrary to early claims, which I agreed with, perhaps, he really does think he can run the country and 'see off' as Old Tom might say, the landed gentry? If we really do descend into abject poverty post Brexit then the rioting peasants may well bring this scenario to pass. Canterbury Tales.

there should be no place for hereditary peers in our democracy. They have to earn their place in the HoL.
I don't think JC will win enough seats at the next GE to command a majority but if Labour shifts their brexit stance toward EFTA then they must have done so with the tacit support of their rank and file in advance of party conferences.

 

[PeterL]

Just about finished my morning read of the DT

I totally agree that the EU favours large businesses - to the detriment of small ones.
However, we need large businesses to invest here. That's why I think we should adopt the same position of EFTA countries.

No issues with your view of hereditary peers, they have, almost without exception, overstayed their welcome/value. However we need to careful to not create to 'important' a second chamber. It should never be more than advisory. That means advisory to the Government, not the press.

 

[Zlatan]

there should be no place for hereditary peers in our democracy. They have to earn their place in the HoL.
I don't think JC will win enough seats at the next GE to command a majority but if Labour shifts their brexit stance toward EFTA then they must have done so with the tacit support of their rank and file in advance of party conferences.

Like John Prescot ??? I,d rather have landed gentry thanks.Lesser of two evils. Two Jags is a repulsive side of Labour ...

 

[PeterL]

Like John Prescot ??? I,d rather have landed gentry thanks.

Indeed and therein lies the danger, we lose some impartiality
. I can already hear the squeal from OG.

 

[oldgroaner]

One for OG to get his teeth into! This being a 'good' read and explanation of tolerance, especially of people who hold different views

https://digitaledition.telegraph.co.uk/editions/edition_Brmc7_2017-09-08/data/376211/index.html?share=1&WT.mc_id=tmgapp_inar_share&utm_source=tmgapp&utm_medium=inar&utm_content=share&utm_campaign=tmgapp_inar_share&Expires=1507244400&Signature=NSSNoIDLVHzxYyR4aNv1ofTSpyeHIUoJCFeq5FOMsj2kB2oCsHchuT9sZ1oprgSJlBKI~WDPZV-lZjgsMEK0EaGAPM3YiQm2B5sfI8elOxck-3TckxhF7ku3hRpDNyNrK~sxBbmIub3Sf0j7nJcKChQvwENRS-yNeKR9u1rrGuP3TY5wIvK-UTZWAxX~NAHoqfNC~wpMtCyK8pbNtBeoXu6R3~kOnvbCriobGy1Jvgw-3fUUCTnZ7nr13PD7kbQv0LO~NAg3qyj9mjz9pK2NH1WXKHNSoZ~QL33AzN2AYnXQqartPQhfq8HXqEbt8~wvxLO3zJ5FtakoDBQ8WkvV0A__&Key-Pair-Id=APKAJLCEPDGCTPVKXNOA

Why are you aiming this at me?
Where do you think that in any way I disagree with the principle of people being entitled to their own opinions?
if you imagine I dislike Brexit and the Tory party principles you are right, but it nothing due to any bigotry except that against the following things, greed, lies, false and unworkable promises, and abusing the rights of others.
Are you going to state they are not guilty as charged, do you want to see evidence to that effect?

To that I plead guilty of Bigotry, but if Jackass Grease Mug wants to worship Offler the Crocodile God and burn sausages in his devotions, I really don't care.
So long as he doesn't impose his nonsense on the rest of us.

Accepting that other people differ from my view is fine by me, but for them to expect me to simply ignore them spouting nonsense and promoting anti social action against others?
No thank you very much.
That's how wars come about

Remember the old saying
For evil to triumph all that is required if for good men (insert any one of a list of sexual states here) to do nothing.

Supporting what you believe to be right is a far higher duty than ignoring what is clearly wrong to pander to Political Correctness.

What we have is another example of the attitude that seems to have become popular when people find their judgement being questioned.
For some reason Brexit voters fool themselves into thinking that they hold the high moral ground with their Fake Patriotism and "Gott Mitt Uns!" attitude, and that they somehow are "The Will of the People !" incarnate and inviolable.
We know from past experience where that sort of logic leads.

Lets face it the leave side squeaked a victory with votes bought with lies and False promises, and they have been desperate ever since to keep the sinking ship afloat despite daily evidence it is a at best a foolhardy idea, nothing more than a vain hope that something will turn up in the nick of time.

 

[oldgroaner]

Indeed and therein lies the danger, we lose some impartiality
. I can already hear the squeal from OG.

It seems you are hearing things you want to hear again as I din't react to this., Prescott was a member of the New Labour Shower remember?
If you turn down the gain on your hearing aid you will be able to understand the conversation clearly, and who is and who isn't involved.

 

[PeterL]

OG, you're right and I apologise. I should be more reactive. I'll go take a lie down.

 

[Woosh]

Two Jags is a repulsive side of Labour

Two Jags are cheap, two houses, one in London central and one in 50,000 acre plot in Scotland aren't cheap. And yet, they still sign in at the HoL while the taxis are waiting outside.
Why do we give them an attendance allowance in the first place?

 

[Woosh]

So long as he doesn't impose his nonsense on the rest of us.

I wonder why the hard brexiters put forward JRM as their leader.
The man has not said anything worth listening to in his whole life.
Even Dominic Raab is more eloquent and convincing than him.

 

[PeterL]

I wonder why the hard brexiters put forward JRM as their leader.
The man has not said anything worth listening to in his whole life.
Even Dominic Raab is more eloquent and convincing than him.

You obviously either missed this earlier or chose not to read it properly...

Writing about oneself is boring, but ideas are not. The question for Conservatives is “What do we want to propose to the electorate and how can we deliver it?” The last election campaign was too managerial and lacked inspiration. An effective manifesto does not need a great list of specific promises, it must instead set out a principled foundation on which each policy may be built.

Unlike the socialist, the Conservative believes that society is built from the bottom up, not the top down. Individuals come together to form families, communities and nations. The instruments of government are there to serve not to command. The random mass of individual decisions will better suit the comfort of the nation than the careful direction of resources from Whitehall. I am not the first to point out that, every day in London, 10 million lunches are served without the need for ministerial involvement.

It follows from this view that the state is there to enable people to lead the lives they wish as far as possible without conflicting with their neighbours. Policy decisions flow from this and it is the moral basis for what the government does. It is interested in what people can do, rather than what they are unable to do, and this has underpinned Iain Duncan Smith’s disability reforms, which seek to find out what a disabled person is capable of doing, rather than assuming that the only response to disability is money.

In terms of taxation, the view that individuals matter is a reminder that the money belongs to a specific person, and the state may only take what it needs. Generally, people will spend their own money more effectively than the government and there is no money at all, except for that earned in the private sector. Public sector workers may pay tax, but that merely circulates money between departments; tax paid by NHS workers comes and goes from the consolidated fund with some administrative expense in between.

In addition to low taxation being right in terms of ownership, it is also better economically. The recent cut in corporation tax, one of George Osborne’s most successful policies, has more than doubled the tax received. This has helped businesses afford to invest and employ people leading to a stronger economy and allowing the Government more easily to finance its expenditure. This example ought to be applied to income tax and, as a matter of urgency, to stamp duty.

Going with the grain of what people want is not only important in terms of taxation. The Grenfell Tower was not created because people chose to live in tower blocks, but because, from the Second World War onward, officialdom wanted tower blocks – despite opinion surveys consistently showing that the overwhelmingly majority of people want to live in houses with gardens.

But the state thought it knew best. Regrettably some Conservatives went along with this, though tower blocks are the physical embodiment of socialism. Would it not be better to pull them down, build houses, even if this requires more space, which it often does not, and then sell them at a discount to the current occupants of tower blocks? It would help people have what they want, and reinvigorate home ownership, which creates a stable society but also meets a natural, almost fundamental, human ambition.

As with tower blocks, so with energy policy It is striking how wrong the big state can be. It was the “Nanny knows best” approach that led to the scandal over diesel emissions. To risk public health today, for a carbon dioxide policy made irrelevant by emerging markets was the worst sort of political grandstanding. Similarly, the tariffs on Chinese solar panels put up the cost of energy subsidies at the expense of the poorest in the land. Meanwhile, the market is providing cleaner energy; in the United States, renewable energy is growing rapidly as it becomes more economic, and shale gas has helped reduce emissions significantly. Conservatives should recognise that individual ingenuity and business acumen do better than central planning.

Conservatives ought to back the free market, but that is not the same as big business. We must tackle monopolies. Big business loves regulation – and incidentally the European Union – because it keeps out competition, maintains high prices and reduces the power of the individual consumer. The role of the state here is to back the customer, not the producer. In some areas this is easy: supermarkets are highly competitive and need little interference. The monopolists tend to have high levels of capital invested, and many customers.

As a constituency MP, the worst organisation I deal with is BT, but it is not alone as a scarcely competent monopolist. The energy companies have a degree of arrogance towards the customers, while both banks and insurance firms penalise loyalty and the BBC writes eye-wateringly rude letters to people who do not own a television, assuming that they must be crooks. This is not about price caps, but about tilting the scales back towards the individual: if a company can penalise me for not paying on time, I ought to be able to fine it for sending out the wrong bill.

Each of us wants to improve our own standard of living and to see our children better off than we are. This is best done by freeing individuals to maximise their own successes through government that has confidence in their capacities, which trusts the people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is MP for North East Somerset

Whether or not he could deliver it is another matter but, tell me what you see wrong in what he says?

 

[Woosh]

Whether or not he could deliver it is another matter but, tell me what you see wrong in what he says?

yes, plenty. But as they are his arguments, it's not worth to argue with someone who does not post on here.
I am much more interested in your own view.

 

[PeterL]

yes, plenty. But as they are his arguments, it's not worth to argue with someone who does not post on here.
I am much more interested in your own view.

That essentially is my view. I totally buy into the fact that a top-down management style is essentially bad news for people. Equally I personally deplore micro-management. I'm not too sure which is worse, probably the latter, as that is generally in your face. I do not like bureaucracy either. I guess I just don't like being told what is good for me and what to do. All of which means less government not more. And, that is from someone who was in the Army!

 

[Woosh]

I totally buy into the fact that a top-down management style is essentially bad news for people.

but we expect a lot more from our politicians to lead us.
JRM's views are simplistic. It's OK for a guy who did History at uni to be simple minded when it comes to economy and tax but we demand a lot more from our clever people.
I suggest you read some introduction to keynesian economics. We can discuss the benefit of bipartisan approach to the economy.

 

[Zlatan]

You obviously either missed this earlier or chose not to read it properly...

Writing about oneself is boring, but ideas are not. The question for Conservatives is “What do we want to propose to the electorate and how can we deliver it?” The last election campaign was too managerial and lacked inspiration. An effective manifesto does not need a great list of specific promises, it must instead set out a principled foundation on which each policy may be built.

Unlike the socialist, the Conservative believes that society is built from the bottom up, not the top down. Individuals come together to form families, communities and nations. The instruments of government are there to serve not to command. The random mass of individual decisions will better suit the comfort of the nation than the careful direction of resources from Whitehall. I am not the first to point out that, every day in London, 10 million lunches are served without the need for ministerial involvement.

It follows from this view that the state is there to enable people to lead the lives they wish as far as possible without conflicting with their neighbours. Policy decisions flow from this and it is the moral basis for what the government does. It is interested in what people can do, rather than what they are unable to do, and this has underpinned Iain Duncan Smith’s disability reforms, which seek to find out what a disabled person is capable of doing, rather than assuming that the only response to disability is money.

In terms of taxation, the view that individuals matter is a reminder that the money belongs to a specific person, and the state may only take what it needs. Generally, people will spend their own money more effectively than the government and there is no money at all, except for that earned in the private sector. Public sector workers may pay tax, but that merely circulates money between departments; tax paid by NHS workers comes and goes from the consolidated fund with some administrative expense in between.

In addition to low taxation being right in terms of ownership, it is also better economically. The recent cut in corporation tax, one of George Osborne’s most successful policies, has more than doubled the tax received. This has helped businesses afford to invest and employ people leading to a stronger economy and allowing the Government more easily to finance its expenditure. This example ought to be applied to income tax and, as a matter of urgency, to stamp duty.

Going with the grain of what people want is not only important in terms of taxation. The Grenfell Tower was not created because people chose to live in tower blocks, but because, from the Second World War onward, officialdom wanted tower blocks – despite opinion surveys consistently showing that the overwhelmingly majority of people want to live in houses with gardens.

But the state thought it knew best. Regrettably some Conservatives went along with this, though tower blocks are the physical embodiment of socialism. Would it not be better to pull them down, build houses, even if this requires more space, which it often does not, and then sell them at a discount to the current occupants of tower blocks? It would help people have what they want, and reinvigorate home ownership, which creates a stable society but also meets a natural, almost fundamental, human ambition.

As with tower blocks, so with energy policy It is striking how wrong the big state can be. It was the “Nanny knows best” approach that led to the scandal over diesel emissions. To risk public health today, for a carbon dioxide policy made irrelevant by emerging markets was the worst sort of political grandstanding. Similarly, the tariffs on Chinese solar panels put up the cost of energy subsidies at the expense of the poorest in the land. Meanwhile, the market is providing cleaner energy; in the United States, renewable energy is growing rapidly as it becomes more economic, and shale gas has helped reduce emissions significantly. Conservatives should recognise that individual ingenuity and business acumen do better than central planning.

Conservatives ought to back the free market, but that is not the same as big business. We must tackle monopolies. Big business loves regulation – and incidentally the European Union – because it keeps out competition, maintains high prices and reduces the power of the individual consumer. The role of the state here is to back the customer, not the producer. In some areas this is easy: supermarkets are highly competitive and need little interference. The monopolists tend to have high levels of capital invested, and many customers.

As a constituency MP, the worst organisation I deal with is BT, but it is not alone as a scarcely competent monopolist. The energy companies have a degree of arrogance towards the customers, while both banks and insurance firms penalise loyalty and the BBC writes eye-wateringly rude letters to people who do not own a television, assuming that they must be crooks. This is not about price caps, but about tilting the scales back towards the individual: if a company can penalise me for not paying on time, I ought to be able to fine it for sending out the wrong bill.

Each of us wants to improve our own standard of living and to see our children better off than we are. This is best done by freeing individuals to maximise their own successes through government that has confidence in their capacities, which trusts the people.

Jacob Rees-Mogg is MP for North East Somerset

Whether or not he could deliver it is another matter but, tell me what you see wrong in what he says?

Well written post ..Good points..
Suspect some on here criticise JRM not because of what he says but for what they assume he represents. I think its called prejudice.
Woosh
You, ve made some fantastic points through thread and as I,ve said before deserve a medal for not reacting to you know who, but I do think you overcomplicate issues. Keynesian economics is not that difficult to understand and generally its when the ideas he established in 30's are forgotten we see serious problems. We might not like Thatcher. especially " up north" but without a doubt it was her economic policies ( based on Keynesian principles) that saw us anything like succeed economically. ( Yes, I know most on here put our improvements in living standards somehow down to EU.)
We don't need degrees in macroeconomics to see what works and what does not.