Off Topic The Politics Thread

[sb_73]

I work with computers but am a luddite at heart, feeling that life in unnecessarily complex.

The olden days you describe definitely have a more socialist feel - work hard and, hopefully, have a fair, if unspectacular existence.

I don't think the notion of retirement was fully developed (perhaps just age related illness preventing work) so capitalism and medicine have created that rod for all our backs.

In modern living, stagnation amounts to a widening of the wealth divide - those that can save can do so for 10 years on the same wages and those that can't will just be 10 years behind. The mega rich won't comparatively suffer either.

The olden days were based on poverty and hierarchy mate, nothing egalitarian about them at all. It might have felt socialist, but it certainly wasn't. You paid rent for the land you worked, you paid a tithe to the church, you kept to your place.

The mega rich, and even the averagely better off haven't suffered much Matt, they are now above where we were before the crash. Myself included if I'm honest. It doesn't make me happy, but I can't say I feel guilty about it.

Eat the rich!

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Remove the scales from your eyes Goldie. still waiting for reasons you have confidence in the competence of this government to deliver anything. At the moment it seems like you think we will rely on the good sense and goodwill of the EU to reach agreements.

It has nothing to do with goodwill, though hopefully the EU will exercise good sense. A so-called "hard" Brexit will damage the EU financially, at a time when there are big economic problems with its members, Greece, Spain, Italy etc, Brexit trade problems for Ireland, a huge number of EU immigrants in the UK that want their status confirmed and an annual black financial hole in the EU budget now that the UK contributions are at an end.

We've seen a lot of posturing on both sides, which seems to have got some people rattled, but if both sides are intent on reaching an agreement, then one will eventually be hammered out. The UK may have to accept transition for two or three years. It may have to make some financial contribution to have preferential access to the single market and customs union, which will aid trade for companies in the UK and on the Continent. We're on virgin ground, and both parties are moving forward cautiously

 

[rangercol]

It's not a Brexit good or bad issue Col, it's whether the government is doing a decent job, even if I don't like the outcome. What gives you confidence that they are?

You have been clear that you are prepared to accept the pain. What gives you the right to accept it on behalf of other people? I don't know how much your life and work are related to EU, possibly very little, but very many people will have to accept a huge level of pain because their livelihoods are completely dependent on the smooth functioning of a regulated open market of 500 million people. Hopefully the pain will be short term.

Incoming!

In that case the government is doing a truly **** job. To be independent there is no need for a negotiation at all, except to sort out whether we owe anything. We simply quit everything. The negotiation will cede 'independence' in every aspect, because all agreements will be overseen on the EU side by the ECJ, which is apparently a satanic coven. The only way to avoid this is to leave entirely and completely.

On an entirely separate point I read that most people are no better off than they were in 2007 thanks to the financial crash, austerity and so on. That led me to thinking - why should we expect to get better off year on year? For generations, centuries, this wasn't the case. People knew that their lives would be very similar to their parents' lives and their kids would live the same way too. I wonder if they were happier than we seem to be.

Whenever I listen to Davis I get the impression that there is a plan and that he is confident that there will be a decent deal. That could well be because I want us to leave. You hear the opposite, probably because you don't want us to leave.
I have the right to want whatever I want in a democracy. That's what the referendum was for.

We tend to go around in circles on this, so I'll leave it for a bit and see how things pan out. You may be right about our team being clueless, you may be wrong. Time will tell.

I just feel that those who get rather hysterical about us leaving the EU just whip up fear, trying to scare the Country into changing its mind.
Apparently, our side are all useless, clueless idiots and the EU side are all shining lights of brilliance and intelligence. This is the same EU that is completely undemocratic and is suffering a huge back-lash against its running of things; the financial disasters involving the Euro, the EU's mass unemployment etc etc.

I want us out of it and voted for that. I think our Country will be fine and that there are just as many businesses that say they are hamstrung by EU regulations and want to be free of them.

I'll leave you the last word to tell me where I've got it all wrong mate.

 

[sb_73]

It has nothing to do with goodwill, though hopefully the EU will exercise good sense. A so-called "hard" Brexit will damage the EU financially, at a time when there are big economic problems with its members, Greece, Spain, Italy etc, Brexit trade problems for Ireland, a huge number of EU immigrants in the UK that want their status confirmed and an annual black financial hole in the EU budget now that the UK contributions are at an end.

We've seen a lot of posturing on both sides, which seems to have got some people rattled, but if both sides are intent on reaching an agreement, then one will eventually be hammered out. The UK may have to accept transition for two or three years. It may have to make some financial contribution to have preferential access to the single market and customs union, which will aid trade for companies in the UK and on the Continent. We're on virgin ground, and both parties are moving forward cautiously

Still no reasons given to have confidence in the competence of our Government to handle this effectively I notice. The fact is that, quite aside from the lack of direction, strategy and leadership, the whole thing is just too much, far too complex, for the Department for Exiting the EU to handle.

The biggest risk to the EU is that of the UK getting a deal which encourages other countries to think along the same lines. From day one the EU has stressed that this is a lose-lose negotiation, they have understood from the outset that the result will mean both parties will be worse off, but the UK has to be visibly worse off for the integrity of the EU. German politicians and businessmen (including car makers) have accepted this. They will not accept a deal which reduces the rights of EU citizens in the U.K, safeguarded by the ECJ or what they might regard as an inadequate financial settlement. They have clearly set out their position, whereas we just have a series of sound bites and red lines, most if not all of which I expect us to cave in on.

 

[sb_73]

Whenever I listen to Davis I get the impression that there is a plan and that he is confident that there will be a decent deal. That could well be because I want us to leave. You hear the opposite, probably because you don't want us to leave.
I have the right to want whatever I want in a democracy. That's what the referendum was for.

We tend to go around in circles on this, so I'll leave it for a bit and see how things pan out. You may be right about our team being clueless, you may be wrong. Time will tell.

I just feel that those who get rather hysterical about us leaving the EU just whip up fear, trying to scare the Country into changing its mind.
Apparently, our side are all useless, clueless idiots and the EU side are all shining lights of brilliance and intelligence. This is the same EU that is completely undemocratic and is suffering a huge back-lash against its running of things; the financial disasters involving the Euro, the EU's mass unemployment etc etc.

I want us out of it and voted for that. I think our Country will be fine and that there are just as many businesses that say they are hamstrung by EU regulations and want to be free of them.

I'll leave you the last word to tell me where I've got it all wrong mate.

Everywhere, of course.

 

[KooPeeArr]

The olden days were based on poverty and hierarchy mate, nothing egalitarian about them at all. It might have felt socialist, but it certainly wasn't. You paid rent for the land you worked, you paid a tithe to the church, you kept to your place.

The mega rich, and even the averagely better off haven't suffered much Matt, they are now above where we were before the crash. Myself included if I'm honest. It doesn't make me happy, but I can't say I feel guilty about it.

Eat the rich!

I appreciate that it was the case that the poor class were purely taxed for the benefit of the rich but the rich were very few (including the church) and the average person would still habit a society almost exclusively with people with exactly the same standing.

In terms of wage stagnation, I wasn't trying to make you feel guilty, merely trying to explain that wage progression is necessary for old age especially given the increase in life expectancy. I'd guess that progression has been intrinsic part of life since Victorian times so possibly not a new thing.

Personally, I'm not angry either (otherwise I'd have to muster the effort to become some sort of activist) - I'll either have enough or I won't and I'll exist until I stop doing so (it's a benefit of not having or wanting children I suspect).

 

[Uber_Hoop]

The mega rich, and even the averagely better off haven't suffered much Matt, they are now above where we were before the crash. Myself included if I'm honest. It doesn't make me happy, but I can't say I feel guilty about it.

Totally agree.

 

[sb_73]

Assisted dying back in the news, described on the BBC as an issue that 'polarises opinion'. That may be true, but one side of the opinion is in a very small minority, and it's the side which currently has the law backing it up. According to which poll you look at between 68 and 82% of the British people are in favour of the right for the terminally ill to request assistance to die when they want, including majorities of the disabled, religious and GPs. So let's do it.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

Assisted dying back in the news, described on the BBC as an issue that 'polarises opinion'. That may be true, but one side of the opinion is in a very small minority, and it's the side which currently has the law backing it up. According to which poll you look at between 68 and 82% of the British people are in favour of the right for the terminally ill to request assistance to die when they want, including majorities of the disabled, religious and GPs. So let's do it.

Far too sensible. We treat our pets more humanely than our ill relatives.

 

[kiwiqpr]

my pets are nicer than some of my reletives

 

[Stroller]

A Tory success story. Life expectancy for the elderly has fallen for the first time in a decade, and it has been blamed on austerity. Kill off the poor to mitigate NHS funding problems - brilliant!

 

[Uber_Hoop]

A Tory success story. Life expectancy for the elderly has fallen for the first time in a decade, and it has been blamed on austerity. Kill off the poor to mitigate NHS funding problems - brilliant!

Are the elderly and the poor necessarily the same? Anyway, I'd have thought that it makes a great deal of sense to sweep away the burden of the conservative, intransigent elderly to make more room for the socially liberal, progressive youngsters such as ourselves, Strollerpoos.

 

[TheBigDipper]

Pleased to see the Daily Fail has found a headline today that isn't about immigrants or enemies of the people. Instead it's about feckless students registering to vote in two constituencies and then boasting about doing so on social media.

So clearly unworthy of the support of decent people when they're asking to have their tuition fees paid, eh?

In all seriousness, the UK shouldn't have a system where registration in two places is possible and it's fairly easy to check and prosecute. Why we don't just use unique NI numbers and crosscheck beats me. Anyone got any idea?

I look forward to the story that says only a very small number actually successfully did so being buried inside the papers at some point.

 

[sb_73]

A Tory success story. Life expectancy for the elderly has fallen for the first time in a decade, and it has been blamed on austerity. Kill off the poor to mitigate NHS funding problems - brilliant!

As long as it's only life expectancy for the elderly that's falling, that's fine by me. I don't count as old, yet.

And anyway, it isn't. Just heard the bloke behind this story on the wireless, he said the rate of growth in life expectancy has stalled, not that life expectancy is falling. And that is attributed to the rate of dementia in the over 85 year olds, which is a result of......the rise in numbers of this group because of......rising life expectancy (that is my extrapolation of the few facts he gave in between some pretty intense politicising about austerity which even he said was his opinion not proven). All the old differences in class, wealth, location persist, probably not helped by austerity. If you are poor you probably won't live as long as someone who is rich, nothing new here. And if you do make it beyond 63-65 you are likely to be living with a chronic medical condition, the key to the quality of your life is how well you can manage it. Which probably comes back to wealth and education.

The biggest mystery to me is how on Earth 'Sir' Phillip Green is still alive, the corpulent old crook.

 

[ELLERS]

A Tory success story. Life expectancy for the elderly has fallen for the first time in a decade, and it has been blamed on austerity. Kill off the poor to mitigate NHS funding problems - brilliant!

The elderly generally vote Tory, I don't get it?
Unless they are shooting themselves in the foot.

 

[Stroller]

As long as it's only life expectancy for the elderly that's falling, that's fine by me. I don't count as old, yet.

And anyway, it isn't. Just heard the bloke behind this story on the wireless, he said the rate of growth in life expectancy has stalled, not that life expectancy is falling. And that is attributed to the rate of dementia in the over 85 year olds, which is a result of......the rise in numbers of this group because of......rising life expectancy (that is my extrapolation of the few facts he gave in between some pretty intense politicising about austerity which even he said was his opinion not proven). All the old differences in class, wealth, location persist, probably not helped by austerity. If you are poor you probably won't live as long as someone who is rich, nothing new here. And if you do make it beyond 63-65 you are likely to be living with a chronic medical condition, the key to the quality of your life is how well you can manage it. Which probably comes back to wealth and education.

The biggest mystery to me is how on Earth 'Sir' Phillip Green is still alive, the corpulent old crook.

Yeah, I thought the 'evidence' was somewhat tenuous, but it makes a good headline. Having said that, it does make some kind of sense. If the poor die younger - which statistics suggest is the case - making them poorer should speed up the process, shouldn't it?

Then of course there's the impact of cuts to NHS and Social Care funding........

https://www.rsm.ac.uk/about-us/medi...n-2015-to-cuts-in-health-and-social-care.aspx

 

[sb_73]

Yeah, I thought the 'evidence' was somewhat tenuous, but it makes a good headline. Having said that, it does make some kind of sense. If the poor die younger - which statistics suggest is the case - making them poorer should speed up the process, shouldn't it?

Then of course there's the impact of cuts to NHS and Social Care funding........

https://www.rsm.ac.uk/about-us/medi...n-2015-to-cuts-in-health-and-social-care.aspx

But even that just shows that people are dying because they are old, older than ever before. Many, many years ago I worked at Islington Health Authority (no longer in existence) where the author of that report, Martin McKee, was one of my colleagues. He is not politically neutral (but no one is) to put it mildly. Nice bloke, if a bit earnest in those days.

We'll see at the next election if we want to spend more on health and social services, as well as endlessly demanding perfection from them and it looks like immortality for ourselves. The reason our health is not as goods many of our European friends is because we don't spend as much on it. We were catching up during the Blair years, though as he apparently never did anything right, it must have been a fluke.

Taking these things out of general taxation and adopting a state run insurance system, like Germany or Holland, and closing down the 'internal market' would make sense to me.

Just seen that inflation has surprisingly dropped, which is a good thing.

 

[East Herts Rangers]

In all seriousness, the UK shouldn't have a system where registration in two places is possible and it's fairly easy to check and prosecute. Why we don't just use unique NI numbers and crosscheck beats me. Anyone got any idea?

Raise the voting age to 40. As Winston said, if you are not a Socialist when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative by the time you are 40 you have no brain.

 

[TheBigDipper]

In all seriousness, the UK shouldn't have a system where registration in two places is possible and it's fairly easy to check and prosecute. Why we don't just use unique NI numbers and crosscheck beats me. Anyone got any idea?

Raise the voting age to 40. As Winston said, if you are not a Socialist when you are 20, you have no heart. If you are not a Conservative by the time you are 40 you have no brain.

Not quite what I was asking, old chap. Does anyone have any idea why the UK doesn't have a system in place to prevent double registration and double voting and catch people trying to do so.

Not a true quote, either, I'm afraid. As the website devoted to old Winnie says...

"There is no record of anyone hearing Churchill say this. Paul Addison of Edinburgh University made this comment: ‘Surely Churchill can’t have used the words attributed to him. He’d been a Conservative at 15 and a Liberal at 35! And would he have talked so disrespectfully of Clemmie, who is generally thought to have been a lifelong Liberal?’"

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

Yes, I find it unbelievable, and unbelievably slack, that when MP's can be chosen for 5 years on a couple of votes over his or her competitor, voters can turn up at the electoral station, give a name on the electoral list and get given a voting slip without any proof of identity. It's the same slackness that allows illegal immigration in small ports and harbours and airports all over the UK. Let's have decent national identity cards with fingerprints and iris identification. Credit to Labour that had wanted to bring this in when in government.