The EU debate - Part III

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
I dont think that politics is a matter of analysing issues
You vote for the party that appears to have a similar view to you of what is best for the country

How can you decide whether their view on what is best for the country correlates with yours unless you analyse their policies on the key issues?

That's the politics of alignment, which party represents what I stand for, based on nothing but historic core beliefs.

The British political system is bollocks, an outdated voting system that doesn't allow for fresh parties to be created and have a hope in hell of gaining a decent number of seats, due to the historic clustering of party loyalties.

A PR system would lead to more consensus Govt, which in my view would be a benefit, as we'd end up with less Govt intervention and less dramatic shifts in policy from one parliament to the next.
 
If you can't tell which party is best for you in your opinion reasonably early on, say by the time you are thirty, you will never know
Bollocks.
Parties evolve mate.
They change their personnel and their values and stances differ greatly.
Look at Labour ffs.
Blair ran Labour for all those years, yet the current Labour leader, if he had his way, would brand Blair a war criminal and have him locked up.

Political parties are not static Pete
 
Bollocks.
Parties evolve mate.
They change their personnel and their values and stances differ greatly.
Look at Labour ffs.
Blair ran Labour for all those years, yet the current Labour leader, if he had his way, would brand Blair a war criminal and have him locked up.

Political parties are not static Pete

They are in Pete's World

The Tories are the party for Pete, he likes them, nearly as much as he likes chocolate digestives.
 
  • Like
Reactions: steveninaster1
Ok, so that's where you are going wrong Pete.
That what politics is mate.....
politicians analyse issues and then try to agree on how best to handle said issues.
Crime on the rise, analyse the reason why and try to fix it
Unemployment on the rise, ditto.

You DO vote for the party that has a similar view to you as what's best for the country, and you decide which party that is by analysing their stances on certain issues, to see if they mesh with yours.
and to see if the claims they make for their policies are supported by the evidence.
An example: when I was young I think well over 50% of UK adults smoked tobacco. Its effect on health had been covered up and media coverage of it saw it as a freedom issue. But as research became clear it was obvious to almost everyone that it was a health issue and the public were seriously damaging themselves by smoking. The politicians rightly led the people through this danger by passing laws restricting smoking and advertising as they saw the issues more clearly. Loads omorepeople would have had early deaths if this had been a referendum issue.
 
It is even more evident in the two American political parties.
The Democrats, back in the 50's and 60's, were the racist party, and the Republicans were the reasonable ones.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and he freed the slaves.
Some time during the 60's on Nixon's watch I believe, there was a complete 180 and now the Democrats are the reasonable ones.

Look at Lincoln Vs Trump and tell me they are the same?
 
If you can't tell which party is best for you in your opinion reasonably early on, say by the time you are thirty, you will never know
That's bullshit as parties evolve. Labour under Corbyn is different to Labour under Blair is different to Labour under Kinnock.

Basically what you're saying is you blindly vote Tory.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Saxton
CETA is OVER: Belgian PM kills trade deal in devastating blow to EU

The EU could not organise a piss up in a pub
Doesn't bode well for our negotiations with them. There's no hostility towards Canada and yet they still couldn't agree a deal. Years of limbo await us.
 
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/arti...ld-make-you-worry-about-europe-s-other-giants

Shares of Deutsche Bank, Germany’s largest bank, have lost more than half their value in the last year, and have been subject toexceptional volatility. Its bonds have also had a rough ride.

The decline is fueling lots of speculation about the adequacy of the bank’s capital cushion, its strategic positioning, the need to dispose of non-core units and its relations with the German government. More generally, the bank’s struggles hold important lessons for investors in the European banking sector, as some institutions continue to struggle to overcome the legacy of the global financial crisis.

Deutsche bank is battling three simultaneous headwinds that also are roiling other financial institutions:

  • Ultra-low interest rates, including negative ones on a significant portion of European and Japanese government bonds, are undermining the ability of the bank to generate steady income from traditional intermediation activities.
  • A persistently sluggish economy is putting pressure on the creditworthiness of some of the banks’ borrowers.
  • Financial-market distortions, including interventions by central banks that were deemed improbable not so long ago, together with tighter regulation, have eroded the scope for revenue generation from capital market activities.
These headwinds are not going to die down soon. As a result, banks must have, and must be perceived to have, robust capital cushions to avoid the kind of rough treatment by markets that Deutsche Bank continues to experience. This is particularly true of the European banking system, where, unlike its U.S. counterpart, comprehensive efforts to overcome past slippages were hampered at times by the urgent need to address a sovereign debt crisis that even threatened the integrity of the euro zone.


Market volatility is amplified by the more fluid capital structure brought about by the influence of new “hybrid” instruments, such as CoCos (contingent convertible bonds that turn into equity at a pre-specified price level). These were designed to counter the systemic effects of strains in the banking sector, including by reducing the need for costly government rescue plans. Yet they can also raise additional concerns about shareholder dilution when markets are already under pressure.

Bank investors have also been reminded that legal issues remain, most recently by the $14 billion penalty claim against Deutsche Bank announced earlier this month by the U.S. Department of Justice. This disclosure, along with the cross-selling scandal at Wells Fargo, is a further setback for banks that are still struggling to regain the public’s trust and respect.

It's no wonder that European bank chiefs -- including, this week,Credit Suisse Chief Executive Tidjane Tiam -- have highlighted the challenges facing the sector in the months ahead. Banks must not only realign their businesses to compete in a tough economic and financial environment, they must contend with a regulatory system that, responding to past excessive risk taking, is focused on a multi-year effort to push these companies into a less-exciting “utility model.” And all this while trying to regain public confidence.

Deutsche Bank may be an extreme case but its travails are indicative of a broader reality for the European banking sector as a whole. Unlike their U.S. counterparts, some European institutions haven't regained a sufficiently firm post-crisis footing. That means investors will need strong stomachs as they seek to differentiate among companies and opportunities in a sector that will inevitably remain vulnerable to bouts of unsettling market contagion, volatility shocks and reputational risk.

Why do you spell out what is in the link word for word. Is this some feeble attempt to convince us you know what you are talking about?
 
EU'll lose out! 'Hard' Brexit would cost other member states £8BILLION a year more than the UK
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...exit-cost-member-states-8BILLION-year-UK.html

A great piece by the Fail this, as it spectacularly fails to figure out who's actually going to end up paying the £13BN import tariffs?

Oh yeah, that'll be the consumer i.e. us <doh>

Great news £13BN's worth of stealth taxation that'll cause inflation, I can't wait.....

Offsets some of the £20BN their about to gift corporations with the 10% reduction in CT I suppose....oh happy days - a real result for the working man <ok>
 
  • Like
Reactions: paultheplug
Totally disagree. Whilst you may have some underlying affinity to a particular set of political beliefs, these can change with age and maturity.
When I was a kid, I was ignorantly Right Wing, in terms of being socially conservative.( My family are all Tory voters).
Till I got a family and a house and a decent job, then you start to realise that politics isn't just a bunch of boring ****tards talking **** on TV and that the **** they is said and the **** that happens, actually matters.
I really got into politics through the Young Turks and other left wing media years ago, and was horribly ultra left wing, then slowly as I got older, more common sense has creeped in and I have settled somewhere slightly left of the centre.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pieguts
Why do you spell out what is in the link word for word. Is this some feeble attempt to convince us you know what you are talking about?

Spell out? It's just cut and paste as some links don't work on all devices. <doh>
 
It is even more evident in the two American political parties.
The Democrats, back in the 50's and 60's, were the racist party, and the Republicans were the reasonable ones.
Abraham Lincoln was a Republican, and he freed the slaves.
Some time during the 60's on Nixon's watch I believe, there was a complete 180 and now the Democrats are the reasonable ones.

Look at Lincoln Vs Trump and tell me they are the same?

You think the Clinton's are reasonable?

He's a sexual predator that bombed a medical centre to detract media attention regarding one of his lies about affairs. She is stark bonkers.
 
You think the Clinton's are reasonable?

He's a sexual predator that bombed a medical centre to detract media attention regarding one of his lies about affairs. She is stark bonkers.

Ridiculous. You've absolutely no proof of such a ludicrous allegation!..

Trump is a mentally unstable megalomaniac. And a danger to the entire planet.

Whilst Clinton is nobody's first prize, given the choice America has left itself with, she can be the only choice!...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.