The EU debate - Part II

Exactly!

 

@petersaxton

 

Oh ffs

This thread was half sensible, it'll go downhill rapidly if 2 kitchens arrives, as no-one will understand as we're all too stupid.

He'll be up for a meet if you ask him though mate...

http://www.accountingweb.co.uk/community/blogs/rachaelpower/member-meet-up-a-sunny-evening-in-london

 

As I'm sure Pete would explain, half sensible isn't good enough. The sensible party is 100% er.....!

 

Top post
I think Corbyn is great but he needs to get party agreed policies in place instead of shooting from the hip and leaving the MPs wondering whether to tow the current party policies or agree with Corbyn.

 

So I guess you don't like the party becoming more popular then and attracting back lots of ex-supporters, as well as winning bi-elections and mayoral elections? hmmm - I can see why that would be undesirable in a political leader.

I can't believe you are comparing me to a fascist just for using evidence for backing up my claims in the face of meaningless soundbites or unprovable assertions like 'unelectable'!

Anti-Semite BS again...

 

What you mean like having a manifesto in place full of policy plans?

 

I know a bit about Smith, he's a MP from just up the road and has been made to look an idiot a fair few times - particularly by jumping on the Pontypridd should have a regional rugby bandwagon as a vote winner.

But he said live on BBC that austerity was right. Not sure how you can deny that. It's hardly left wing is it?

I do keep an open mind, it's just what I know about Owen doesn't bring the words 'honesty', 'integrity', 'fighting for the working class'. As he is part of the 'chicken coup' the word 'political opportunism' springs more to mind. If he had run originally I'd have more respect for him. But the fact he, like Eagle, is just another stooge of Blairites who are destroying and splitting the party - whether he knows it or not, leaves me with little respect for him.

 

The principle of reducing our deficit through cutting costs isn't a party political football, that belongs on one side or the other, it's a simple necessity.

Where the 2 sides should and do differ is on the means of delivering it.

 

How is it a necessity? It's been shown to not increase growth or reduce the deficit, and has been derided by leading economists as being bumpf. Notice that the Tories went through the biggest austerity drive this country has ever seen - it made it look like Thatcher was merely playing. Yet they increased the deficit initially, lost our Triple-A credit rating and oversaw the worst recovery from a recession ever.

But as has been widely accepted, the austerity was a political choice, it made the poor poorer - cost of living went up, numbers using food banks exploded (is in the millions), evictions and homelessness numbers rose hugely, pay froze or shrank under inflation, zero hour contracts boomed, and the number of people living under the poverty line increased into the millions. While there were tax breaks for the rich and the rich got richer.

The economy still hasn't fully recovered from a crash in 2007 and we now have Brexit to deal with. Hardly glowing recommendation for austerity.

As has been said 'you don't cut your way to prosperity'.

 

A deficit is the simple exercise of spending more than you earn, disastrous for the average family or person. Gvts get away with owing to their ability to keep rolling over their debt. In other words virtually like a perpetual loan.

Whilst interest rates are low this becomes more sustainable, but should rates begin to rise it can be ruinous.

Economic wisdom dictates that a cyclical deficit can be desirable. A structural deficit, which the UK has been running for a long time now, is not desirable and should be reduced or eliminated if possible.

 

No, it's the zealous "you're either with us or against us" approach of many on the far left which leads me to equate them with fascism.

I've met quite a few Militant Tendancy and/or Socialist Worker types over the years, & I find some of them quite scary. If you'd lived through the seventies and eighties you'd know what I mean.

Are you refusing to accept that some elements in the Labour party may have a problem with anti-semitism? Not an issue that even needs addressing in your eyes?

 

You're confusing the basic principle with Tory policy decisions.

The basic principle of reducing the shortfall in the spending deficit has to be a sound one

 

Jeez I'm just trying to add some wood to the fire!

 

There are 2 ways of doing that though. Increasing your revenue (taxes) by growing the economy or by reducing expenditure down to your current revenue. As the Vodka soaked priest above said, the second approach hasn't gone too well.

 

I think you are confusing austerity with reducing the deficit

 

Tax increases are up there in popularity, with the general electorate, alongside Corbyn...

 

Reducing the deficit doesn't have to mean austerity. There are plenty of other ways to increase revenue. Getting companies to pay their taxes would be a start. In 2013/14 tax avoidance cost the Exchequer £119bn, but instead the Tories decided to punish the unemployed, low paid and disabled.

 

Here, I'll agree with you. Piss takers like, Google, Facebook, et al should be told, 'pay what's fair or **** off'! .

Paying virtually zero, as some have been doing, is unacceptable.

 

This thread needs the superior brains of the Hull Massive.....