Political Banter and Debate Thread

Hero of Excellence · **Joined:** 23rd Nov, 2008 **Posts:** 674

Cavey, do you now wonder why even a left-leaning Labour voter like me despises Corbyn? I'm disgusted how he's ruined our main opposition party,

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue Mar 14, 2017 15:59

He put a three line whip on a vote.

He then said he would protest that vote.

He then didn't bother to do anything at all.

The man is a complete shambles.

Satsuma · **Joined:** 20th Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 14360

Rubbish limerick. 1/10

Curiosity · **Posted:** Tue Mar 14, 2017 16:07

Satsuma wrote:

Rubbish limerick. 1/10

There was an old man of the Left
Who at backbench campaigning was deft
But he fucked up the Brexit
Then refused to exit
And of voters he was quite bereft

myp · **Posted:** Tue Mar 14, 2017 16:18

Better. 3/10

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Mar 14, 2017 16:19

**** Bravo! ****
/roses thrown on stage

DISCLAIMER: If by "deft" you mean "irrelevant, ignored and shit"

Cavey · **Posted:** Tue Mar 14, 2017 16:21

Lonewolves wrote:

Better. 3/10

Title

Kern · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 10:21

Guardian: Tory MP interviewed by plod over election spending.

I wondered where we'd got to on the election spending proto-scandal.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:07

Quote:

UK unemployment fell to its lowest rate in 41 years in the three months to January, according to new figures.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%, a level not seen since between June and August 1975.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39277539

myp · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:12

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/comm ... rexit.html

Quote:

Put simply, the unemployment figures just don't tell us as much about the economy as they used to.

Much has changed about the way we work in the UK in the last 30 years, and those changes have accelerated dramatically in the last decade.

Far more people are self-employed and far more people are working flexibly, either part time or on zero-hours contracts. This is a flexible labour market.

Flexible labour markets help bring down the unemployment figure and help to keep it lower even in times of economic strain.

Rigid workforces (of the kind that were more typical in the unionised 1970s) create high, fixed costs for a business. If there is a downturn, a company cannot easily cut their costs without simply making people redundant.

But a flexible labour force means there are other options, particularly if many of the workers are technically self-employed, like a delivery driver for example.

With this kind of flexible labour force, you can reduce costs and reduce output by other means – cutting the amount of work available for staff on flexible contracts or for those self-employed contractors.

You may even be able to convince staff to take a pay cut, rather than risk job losses.

This flexibility is a key reason why unemployment has fallen so sharply in the UK and indeed in the US, whereas it remains stubbornly high in more rigid France.

This was originally posted in the Mail on Sunday, not exactly the biggest critic of a Tory government we have ever known.

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:13

Cavey wrote:

Quote:

UK unemployment fell to its lowest rate in 41 years in the three months to January, according to new figures.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%, a level not seen since between June and August 1975.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39277539

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ecord-high

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:16

I'm sure that's true, but this doesn't entirely - or even substantially - detract from what any fair-minded person would have to concede is an amazing accomplishment from the economic wreckage of 2010. Look, when all is said and done, such low levels of unemployment are a good thing.

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:20

Low levels of employment are only a good thing when it translates to actual quality of life: food in people's bellies, heating during the cold months, etc. It shouldn't mean increasing levels of child poverty and families using food banks to supplement wages.

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:23

And girls missing school because they cannot get tampons*.

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Girls 'too poor' to buy sanitary protection missing school - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39266056

* Big problem for homeless women, too.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:25

Jem wrote:

Cavey wrote:

Quote:

UK unemployment fell to its lowest rate in 41 years in the three months to January, according to new figures.

The Office for National Statistics (ONS) said the unemployment rate fell to 4.7%, a level not seen since between June and August 1975.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-39277539

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... ecord-high

Yeah, but the Guardian? Come on.

We've done this before anyway. Even if we take 900k zero-hours contracts as being correct, a very good proportion of these will be "good" contracts (it's very far from the case that anyone and everyone who is on a zero hours contract doesn't want to be on one and/or isn't happy with the arrangement). Of the remainder - let's be generous and say it's half, 450k - that represents a mere 1.4% of the total number of people in work (32 million). Even if you (wrongly) took the *entire* 900k in zero hours contracts, that's *still* a mere 2.8% of the total in work - a tiny, tiny proportion - totally exposing the lie behind the brainless Left grievance-meme about "it's all zero hours contracts innit basterd Torees" crap.

Like I say, to any reasonably fair-minded individual, whilst the picture isn't perfect (when has it ever been? Certainly not under Labour, that's for sure), this milestone is a major - and very welcome - step forward.

myp · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:26

MaliA wrote:

And girls missing school because they cannot get tampons*.

I saw this on the BBC and thought you should see it:

Girls 'too poor' to buy sanitary protection missing school - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-39266056

* Big problem for homeless women, too.

If you're that poor they should be provided by the state.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:27

Jem wrote:

Low levels of employment are only a good thing when it translates to actual quality of life: food in people's bellies, heating during the cold months, etc. It shouldn't mean increasing levels of child poverty and families using food banks to supplement wages.

Blame those who caused the damage in the first place, not those who, in very difficult circumstances and as against a backdrop of "it will never work", are fixing the problem, I'd say.

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:29

"brainless left"

:roll:

If can't speak to me like an equal instead of being rude and insulting there is literally no point in me trying to counter your points.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:33

Clearly I wasn't referring to you - I was talking about the left wing media constantly parroting the zero-hours contract meme when the reality, as any fool can readily determine, is that such contracts constitute less than 3% of the total working population, even if one (wrongly) assumes that they are all "bad" and every single person who's on one doesn't want to be. (All as discussed before here also)

Apologies if I have come across as intemperate but I tire of this lazy, post-truth nonsense. The Tories' record is far from perfect, but credit where it's (genuinely) due etc.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Cavey wrote:

Jem wrote:

Low levels of employment are only a good thing when it translates to actual quality of life: food in people's bellies, heating during the cold months, etc. It shouldn't mean increasing levels of child poverty and families using food banks to supplement wages.

Blame those who caused the damage in the first place

What, the banks? And people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford?

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:43

MrChris wrote:

Cavey wrote:

Jem wrote:

Low levels of employment are only a good thing when it translates to actual quality of life: food in people's bellies, heating during the cold months, etc. It shouldn't mean increasing levels of child poverty and families using food banks to supplement wages.

Blame those who caused the damage in the first place

What, the banks? And people taking out mortgages they couldn't afford?

Sorry, done this to death, not doing it again. Yes, the banks were certainly very substantially to blame but if you have no law enforcement, no police on the streets, anarchy would quickly ensue. The principle problem was a catastrophic lack of regulation on the part of the ruling Party whose absolute irreducible duty it was to regulate (they didn't even *understand* what was going on, let alone regulate).

If you don't believe me, just ask Gordon Brown or Ed Balls, with their grovelling apologies to Parliament and the British people over it; if you can't accept it, well, that's a matter for you. But full liability has been admitted and sentence has been handed down by the court of public opinion!

It would appear that the British electorate have largely made up their minds, though, which explains why the Tories are 20% ahead of Labour in the polls, I guess. They don't seem to think they've done too badly.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

You may well have done it to death Cavey, but, respectfully, I still think you're flat wrong. I think you and I have discussed this before so there's little merit in rehashing it - neither of us is going to change our view point.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 11:56

That's absolutely fine with me, chap, you're most welcome to disagree!

Be aware, though, that said disagreement is as against a backdrop of the people who were actually in government and making these decisions openly admitting their mistakes and liabilities, as I've linked to innumerable times. I'm entirely happy, therefore, with my own take on this.

As a more general point, for me, as someone who grew up in the late 70s and early 80s, having such a low unemployment rate is a *joy*, and something to celebrate! So, I am.

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:01

Cavey wrote:

lazy, post-truth nonsense.

Cavey wrote:

Yeah, but the Guardian? Come on.

The figures are from the ONS. You don't have to read the story if the Guardian's political stance offends you just to take in the numbers.

Cavey wrote:

Even if we take 900k zero-hours contracts as being correct, a very good proportion of these will be "good" contracts (it's very far from the case that anyone and everyone who is on a zero hours contract doesn't want to be on one and/or isn't happy with the arrangement)

Source?

(Anecdotally I know quite a few people on zero hour contracts and none of them are happy about it.)

Cavey wrote:

Of the remainder - let's be generous and say it's half, 450k - that represents a mere 1.4% of the total number of people in work (32 million). Even if you (wrongly) took the *entire* 900k in zero hours contracts, that's *still* a mere 2.8% of the total in work - a tiny, tiny proportion - totally exposing the lie behind the brainless Left grievance-meme about "it's all zero hours contracts innit basterd Torees" crap.

Except comparing the increase in zero hour contracts to the entire number of people in work is ridiculous - obviously lots of those people would have been in employment under previous governments. You should be comparing the actual amount of increase in employment to the increase in zero hour contracts.

When you add that increase to the increase in levels of self-employment as mentioned up thread - which the government likes to brag about as a good thing, but e.g. LOTS of mums do it off the back of 'hobby' jobs to claim working tax credits because they cannot afford to feed their children otherwise* - and the rises in (as I said before) child poverty and food bank usage.... I just fail to see where this amazing picture of progress is that you're talking about?

* I run a community for work at home parents which is connected via facebook groups etc to literally thousands of mums actively doing this. Incidentally, the ONS figures suggest the bulk of the employment figure increase is women getting into work. Probably not coincidence.

MaliA · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:01

I've often wondered why you are older than me,now, I know

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:16

@Jem - going out shortly, but the 900k zero-hour contracts figure came from the article you posted. You might think it's 'ridiculous' to assume that not *everyone* who is on a flexible zero-hours contract does not want to be on one, and/or to compare the tiny number of the total number of these contracts with the total number working in order to show that actually, it's a tiny, tiny percentage (<3%) - I don't.

Like I say, I'm genuinely happy about the lowest jobless rate since 1975. I think this is a genuine achievement, and other stuff not being ideal can only detract so far from this (for me). Surely, this is good news of itself.

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:19

Cavey wrote:

@Jem - going out shortly, but the 900k zero-hour contracts figure came from the article you posted. You might think it's 'ridiculous' to assume that not *everyone* who is on a flexible zero-hours contract does not want to be on one, and/or to compare the tiny number of the total number of these contracts with the total number working in order to show that actually, it's a tiny, tiny percentage (<3%) - I don't.

Did you actually read my post?

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:20

There's something particularly amusing about me sitting here in a freezing cold house (that I can't afford to heat) staring out of the window at a car (that I can't afford to fix) arguing about poverty and quality of life with a man who's just spunked a shit ton of cash on a Porsche.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:23

Jem wrote:

There's something particularly amusing about me sitting here in a freezing cold house (that I can't afford to heat) staring out of the window at a car (that I can't afford to fix) arguing about poverty and quality of life with a man who's just spunked a shit ton of cash on a Porsche.

Bloody hell Jem, I'm not trying to personalise this! I've been as skint as anyone here, I'm not trying to lord it up? I'm just glad the unemployment rate has gone down
PM or ring me anytime, I would always help you!

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:27

I didn't suggest you were trying to lord it up, just said it's funny - sometimes you have to laugh at this shit.

I'll be fine, but thank you.

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:49

Hammond cancels NIC rise for self employed.

Interesting.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

Curiosity wrote:

Hammond cancels NIC rise for self employed.

Interesting.

Standard tactic. Test the waters with a controversial change, then weasel out if it doesn't go down well

Jem · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 12:53

Woohoo!

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 13:05

DavPaz wrote:

Curiosity wrote:

Hammond cancels NIC rise for self employed.

Interesting.

Standard tactic. Test the waters with a controversial change, then weasel out if it doesn't go down well

I think it's the right thing, both in terms of the effects and the political fallout.

APOD has covered the effects earlier, and why it is bad.

Politically, Tories need to be seen as strong on tax and in favour of entrepreneurial spirit. The increase in taxes for self-employed combined with the broken promise hurts them more than the political pain of a public U turn.

They will come again at it. The main problem now is that they have a 2bn pound hole in the budget.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

Curiosity wrote:

The main problem now is that they have a 2bn pound hole in the budget.

Pasty Tax. That should do it. Did that happen in the end?

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

DavPaz wrote:

Curiosity wrote:

The main problem now is that they have a 2bn pound hole in the budget.

Pasty Tax. That should do it. Did that happen in the end?

A tax on REMOANERS who are TALKING BRITAIN DOWN and not listening to the WILL OF THE PEOPLE.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 13:29

Curiosity wrote:

The main problem now is that they have a 2bn pound hole in the budget.

No, I think it's only a £145 million mini-hole, not £2 billion.

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 13:29

Jem wrote:

Woohoo!

yay!

Curiosity · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 13:51

Cavey wrote:

Curiosity wrote:

The main problem now is that they have a 2bn pound hole in the budget.

No, I think it's only a £145 million mini-hole, not £2 billion.

They've said it won't go up in this Parliament, so the overall cost between now and the end is cumulative, albeit not so damaging this year. But then it's £325m next year, £645m the year after, etc.

Total they need to find over the four years is around £2bn.

Hero of Excellence · **Joined:** 23rd Nov, 2008 **Posts:** 674

Jem wrote:

"brainless left"

:roll:

If can't speak to me like an equal instead of being rude and insulting there is literally no point in me trying to counter your points.

He's rude, ignorant, refuses to learn, and has contempt rather than compassion for anyone less well off than him. He's vile.

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Right. What tax policy measure should I overturn next?

Peter St. John · **Joined:** 26th May, 2008 **Posts:** 298

I'd like to congratulate the Tories for, after 40 years, managing to get parity with the last Wilson Government. Bravo!

markg · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 16560

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

Right. What tax policy measure should I overturn next?

Trousers.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49232

Hero of Excellence wrote:

Getting bored of telling you this is unacceptable. Final warning.

Trousers · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3073

markg wrote:

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

Right. What tax policy measure should I overturn next?

Trousers.

I am overly taxed to be fair, compared to the tax I want to pay. Vote Bruce.

DavPaz · **Joined:** 27th Jun, 2008 **Posts:** 38464

@Cras *fans face whilst swooning*

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6515

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

Right. What tax policy measure should I overturn next?

It's a long way from affecting me, but I've always thought that thing where if you earn over 100k your tax free allowance goes down if particularly stupid. If you want to tax me at 60%, fair enough, but don't pretend you're not, and then lower my tax rate again when I get to 120k

Cavey · **Posted:** Wed Mar 15, 2017 18:44

Peter St. John wrote:

I'd like to congratulate the Tories for, after 40 years, managing to get parity with the last Wilson Government. Bravo!

...With the added bonus of below ~30% inflation, a country and economy not paralysed by mass strikes across multiple sectors, or impending IMF bailout, too, Peter!

(Hope you're well!

)

ApplePieOfDestiny · **Joined:** 17th Dec, 2008 **Posts:** 8293

Squirt wrote:

ApplePieOfDestiny wrote:

Right. What tax policy measure should I overturn next?

It's a long way from affecting me, but I've always thought that thing where if you earn over 100k your tax free allowance goes down if particularly stupid. If you want to tax me at 60%, fair enough, but don't pretend you're not, and then lower my tax rate again when I get to 120k

Diamond shoes being too tight and all, but I'm in this band next year and can't mitigate it for the first time and it annoys me. I therefore chose to see it as a sub 2% tax rate over my whole income and it makes me feel better.

It would be a lot more honest to be a real tax rate of 50% in the 100 to 150 band rather than an effective 60%. It's the lack of honesty it shows rather than the rate itself that frustrates.

Peter St. John · **Joined:** 26th May, 2008 **Posts:** 298

Cavey wrote:

Peter St. John wrote:

I'd like to congratulate the Tories for, after 40 years, managing to get parity with the last Wilson Government. Bravo!

...With the added bonus of below ~30% inflation, a country and economy not paralysed by mass strikes across multiple sectors, or impending IMF bailout, too, Peter!

(Hope you're well!

)

And that's why you should never live or die by a single economic statistic

. Things are definitely in better shape than they were then, but I'm not sure that they're all that rosy, either. Especially since Trump seemingly wants to take a wrecking ball to the WTO…

As for me, I took another step on my way to becoming a US citizen yesterday. Fingerprints taken and now I have to study for the citizenship test. I'll be damned if I agree with the study guide that the USA won the War of 1812, mind you (I definitely consider it a no-score draw).

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Political Banter and Debate Thread Countdown to a flight-free UK

Who is online

Political Banter and Debate Thread
Countdown to a flight-free UK