Off Topic Political Debate

Hmmm - if that happens the Tories being decimated will be the least of our worries I fear.

 

It is not accepted by the bank of England that the UK would suffer meltdown by leaving the present EU arrangement, they predict the effect would be marginal. If we did leave I cannot see that we would not have some kind of enhanced trading arrangement. The Germans will not want to lose our lucrative market for their exports.

 

Left wing propaganda, best to read a better quality newspaper.

 

The Bank of England are trying hard to preserve a state of non-panic. They are bound to say it will all be alright. I agree that we would be bound to negotiate lots of new trading arrangements. However trading costs could not help being higher, reducing trade even by a percentage, I suspect our currency would suffer and multinational companies would start their relocation to the EU. It would be a disaster.

 

Ah yes - they need us more than we need them. It's not something I would like to see tested.

 

We cannot afford to be ever sidelined by a strong political union within the EU. Whatever happens the UK's position needs to be defended rigorously.

 

If Britain leaves the EU it will not be in any condition to dictate the terms of it's departure. Britain is important to Germany's exports (Germany's 5th largest export market) but not irreplaceable,also, Germany's is not the only voice here. My concern is that we will see a referendum campaign either with members of the government on both sides (ie. civil war) or a rebellion of the Tory MPs who want to leave at all costs - and possible defections to the Kippers. Do people on here think that Farage is finished ? Ukip still has 24 members of the European Parliament - though how they justify sitting there I do not know.

 

For every celebrated economist who rails against Austerity there is another who can "prove" it is right. Do people not remember the old saying that if you put 10 economists in a room you will get 11 opinions. It is all they are - opinions. There are always too many other factors in play to enable anyone to actually "prove" they were right or wrong and too many examples of each side succeeding or failing. The old economics mantra was "ceteris paribus" - a Latin phrase meaning if other things are equal - NEWSFLASH - others things are NEVER equal. It is political leaning more than economic theory that determines how people argue on Austerity.

 

I have read the article Toby pointed at. A lot of it I think is deliberately confusing.

What I think is that the government (in whatever form it takes) needs to be more efficient and careful in spending our money for us, The NHS and the benefit system are financial black holes; the more you put in, the more they will want, so you put in more, etc. If money was spent where it was actually needed and not for financing multiple levels of management, that would be a start. Financing what needed the support and not superflous extras, bits that do not need the support should be excised. Appreciating the finances of a nation of 65 million people will be quite different to a household, although the basic tenets still need addressing, you cannot spend more than you have or if you do need help it should be for the short term. How a government can expect to finance its spending by continual borrowing is beyond me, there must be a time when the creditor calls in the loan and that will be a very dangerous place to be; except the international bankers just keep giving. Most of us will run a credit card debt over from one month to another at some stage in our lives, but in our interest we adjust our the spending and pay the debt of as quickly as possible. On the greater scale why do governments not do the same thing?

There is the adage of spending to accumulate, but if there is not enough money to cover your basic costs this is a concept that is somewhat frivolous to even think about. Some things are already fixed and cannot be avoided (Trident and HS2, to bring up two controversial examples), but the overall budget should have been created to include those. What the government finacial people need to do is to take a step back and assess what really does need supporting, what does not and provide a framework that is simple and transparent that shows where the money they spend is going.

 

Nearly everyone can accept the idea of 'austerity', if people like to call it that, however, it needs to be coupled with fairness. People do not like to see banks saved on the one hand, and whole populations going under on the other. What type of 'austerity' sees tax cuts for the rich but benefit cuts for the poor ? Behind this lies the idea that money given to the rich will benefit the whole of society whereas that which is given to the poor will just disappear into a black hole - is this a valid idea ? Maybe we also need to be asking why the state does not have sufficient income now (without borrowing) whereas this was not a problem for states in the 50s and 60s - what has changed ? Is it that too much money and too many resources have been privatized ? Has it come to the stage where Germany has to borrow money to pay Greek debts because Germany has a better credit rating ? - what sort of mad World is that. Maybe we should be focussing a little more of our scorn on the so called 'Rating Agencies' themselves and other predators who actually speculate on whole nations going under.

 

The

Firstly Gordon Brown had no alternative to saving the banks, it would have been chaos if they had let the banks go under with savings, pensions, jobs being lost.

The tax 'cuts' for the rich were no such thing. Labour had a lower top rate in 13 years than the coalition. It has been proved the take over 40% is counterproductive.

The problem with the UK borrowing was entrenched in the old unproductive industries that were unable to cope with cheaper labour and US financed Germany. We have had a balance of payment problem for decades. The UK public demand ever expensive services whether we have the money to pay for them or not. To keep to an 'acceptable level' we have had to borrow large amounts. The UK has not had proper austerity and I doubt if we will over the next five years. The Tories will probably not even cut the extra 12 billion, it will not be set against the surplus in years 2018 - 2019 ready for a giveaway at the next election.

 

Seems to have gone quiet on the arguing front, so...

 

No it hasn't

 

... yes it has...

please log in to view this image

 

Is this a Scottish argument or can anyone join in?

 

Looking at UK politics from the outside, there appear to be more divisions now than have existed since the end of WWI. Politically, the country seems to be pulling itself apart. The regional divisions give the impression that they are greater than nationalism but are also based on fundamental economic direction. In the past the labour/Conservative split was about the balance required to create an effective mixed economy. Now there are more players, each with their own view of how to deal with economic partners, levels of regional autonomy, nationalism, frustration with the traditional political elites, and a variety of fears for the future.

I may have got this all wrong. As I say, I'm viewing this from the outside, but I can't see how all these disparate elements can hold the country together. If the UK were to vote to leave the EU but the vote is only carried by the south and Midlands how will Scotland stay? If Scotland goes, will Wales and the North want to go with them? Will the Conservative and Labour parties tear themselves apart over EU membership? Will the EU vote provide more support for UKIP? Is UKIP able to heal the wounds of a serious division caused by the consequences of the referendum?

I can't help feeling that there are going to be a lot of very hurt and angry people following the referendum. It will take very skilled political leaders to bring everyone together afterwards. Will the current leaders be able to do that?

 

Very concerned for Venezuela so was just looking up their electoral system. If it was run properly this actually looks like a pretty fair system for parliamentary elections combing FPTP and PR though I think open list PR would be better.... "Starting from 2015, the 167 members of the National Assembly are elected by three methods; 113 members are elected by plurality voting in 87 constituencies. A total of 51 seats are elected by closed listproportional representation based on the 23 states and the Capital District. Seats are allocated using the d'Hondt method. The remaining three seats are reserved for indigenous peoples, and are elected by the community.[10] "

 

I must say wherever you sit on the political spectrum it is hard to disagree with this. Very worrying... and we need a centrist Govt at this time in my view.

Guardian editorial: Cameron is tilting at windmills but it is vital for Britain that he succeeds - not often you get the Guardian supporting Cameron. Which demonstrates what a critical phase we are in.

 

You're correct. The real illness we have is the decline in the "British" entity and pride in being "British". This has left a gap very ably filled by the regionalist Nationalists in Scotland (SNP) and England (UKIP) yes UKIP claim to be British but I see them as English. It's natural that this identity fades in a multi cultural society but a good question is how does the USA manage to promote its identity internally? There's a lot of animosity to the federal government but even Texans are proud to be American, Texan first but always in the union even with the relatively recent Yankee Confederate civil war all have got on with being American... I guess it helps when a superpower and Britain was more British when we were running most of the world. Somehow we need to instill a new sense of British identity which is full of the values that make us unique and proud. When we tolerate criminal rights above the British peoples rights its bound to back fire. We should all be allowed and encouraged to fly the union flag, we should be allowed and encouraged to maintain clean friendly helpful communities and encouraged and enabled to police the country properly removing criminal elements.
Personally I'd love to have a day every month where criminals are publically paraded to a central location where they are indeed put into stocks and humiliated by the community. A unity of purpose and identity is whats needed based on high moral values and eradication of the criminal/terrorist classes.

 

please log in to view this image

Apparently this is a photo in parliament yesterday debating the zero hours contracts.... and who is the large group of MP present? SNP.... and virtually no one else there...