Off Topic The Politics Thread

[GoldhawkRoad]

PwC will do whatever their clients instruct and pay them to do. They are not motivated primarily out of the goodness of their hearts or for the benefit of humanity. They are in the business of making money and representing their clients. They are not impartial or objective in that respect. If the CBI told them "Put together a dossier and use whatever criteria is necessary to show that there could be transitional losses after a Brexit", then that's what PwC will have done.

In recent years, the CBI has essentially acted in collaboration with Government, representing the big corporations that lobby Brussels in their own interests, whether or not this is contrary to the interests of mid and small UK businesses. Meanwhile, let's not forget the CBI has a catastrophically poor record at judging these kind of issues.

* It backed the Exchange Rate Mechanism in 1987 and wanted full membership. This led to 15% interest rates and millions of homeowners going into negative equity

* It backed joining the Euro in 1999.

* It has consistently argued for control to be transferred from Parliament and the courts in the UK to the EU

Let's put it like this. If the CBI gave you financial advice on investments, and thereafter you did the complete opposite, you'd probably make a killing...

 

[QPR Oslo]

Not even John Redwood?

Yeah, they never make mistakes. Except for Enron. And Tyco. Oh, and they were only £263m out with Tesco last year, even though they had access to the books and were paid to audit them. KPMG, Deloitte, and Ernst & Young have similar **** ups on their books. They never seem to suffer for them though, do they?

There will undoubtedly be economic fall out from a Brexit, but why you would trust these crooks to estimate it is beyond me. The Brexiters may even be right, there could be benefits. I personally doubt it, but you never know.

I didn't say they don't make mistakes ( who doesnt) or that I trust them. Point is that these kind of estimates is their businss. if they can't do it who da F can? Further this is not one side or the other of the political argument coming out with these estimates, unless one of them has paid them some vast amount to get PWC to produce what they want - which just might blow even PWC''s risk analysis. These estimates are probably the best you'll get.

 

[rangercol]

Nah, I just find him an hysterically pathetic figure, on a par with Corbyn. We really aren't blessed with much talent in the political field are we? I must confess I have a morbid fascination with IBS. He spent seven years in the army, rising to the rank of lieutenant, one step higher than when he entered. Most (80%) of commissioned officers reach the rank of Major in that time. I don't think Corbyn is the smartest chook in the henhouse either, but at least he doesn't lie about his qualifications. The most amazing thing about IBS is that so many people think he is a good man and principled. Then why has he spent 6 years designing and implementing policies that he has just discovered he finds hateful? Bizarre.

Meanwhile, corporate charlatans pWc, or PWc or however they brand themselves estimate Brexit will reduce the UK economy by £100bn and cost 1 million jobs by 2020. I know this doesn't bother you, and I doubt it's accurate anyway, just struck me how nice and round the figures are.

Bit simplistic to say those figures don't bother me. I'm not convinced they're entirely accurate mind you.
The truth is none of us know exactly how things will pan out if we leave but, as you know, I think it will be well worth the risk to regain our sovereignty.
Ultimately I believe the UK can be stronger than ever outside the EU.

By the way, do you disagree with IDS that the tories are penalising the less well off in favour of the better off?
I think he's spot on!

 

[KPDHoopster]

Point is that these kind of estimates is their businss.

No it isn't, they are an Accounting firm. A couple of dodgy handshakes, produced these numbers.

if they can't do it who da F can?

That's the whole point - No one can !!

These estimates are probably the best you'll get.

Err, no they aren't, you can quite easily get another "Accounting firm", coming out saying exactly the opposite !!!!

 

[sb_73]

Bit simplistic to say those figures don't bother me. I'm not convinced they're entirely accurate mind you.
The truth is none of us know exactly how things will pan out if we leave but, as you know, I think it will be well worth the risk to regain our sovereignty.
Ultimately I believe the UK can be stronger than ever outside the EU.

By the way, do you disagree with IDS that the tories are penalising the less well off in favour of the better off?
I think he's spot on!

No disagreement, but as he is one of the architects of that policy, and has been for six years, I struggle to see why he should be praised for his actions. I thought that was pretty explicit Tory policy from the Thatcher years onwards anyway, this idea that wealth trickles down, so the richer the rich are the better. Unfortunately the gap between rich and poor is growing, just one element of the deeply divided society we are living in. It really is quite scary - wealth, politics, religious belief, ethnicity, migration, what part of the country you are from, EU in or out, PC v non PC, the divisions just seem to be getting more extreme and the middle ground smaller. I know, as a compulsive contrarian, I sometimes don't help on here, but we really have to get along a bit better. No one is 100% right or 100% wrong apart from totalitarian ideologues (who are, of course, wrong), and we would be wise to recognise this. I have yet to hear any one from either the remain or leave campaigns for the EU, for example, admit that both sides have pros and cons.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

No disagreement, but as he is one of the architects of that policy, and has been for six years, I struggle to see why he should be praised for his actions. I thought that was pretty explicit Tory policy from the Thatcher years onwards anyway, this idea that wealth trickles down, so the richer the rich are the better. Unfortunately the gap between rich and poor is growing, just one element of the deeply divided society we are living in. It really is quite scary - wealth, politics, religious belief, ethnicity, migration, what part of the country you are from, EU in or out, PC v non PC, the divisions just seem to be getting more extreme and the middle ground smaller. I know, as a compulsive contrarian, I sometimes don't help on here, but we really have to get along a bit better. No one is 100% right or 100% wrong apart from totalitarian ideologues (who are, of course, wrong), and we would be wise to recognise this. I have yet to hear any one from either the remain or leave campaigns for the EU, for example, admit that both sides have pros and cons.

I don't think optimum growth is possible without the gap between rich and poor increasing. As long as the situation of the poor is improving, I don't see an issue with that of the rich improving at a faster rate. Whether that is happening in reality I'm not sure, as I'm neither rich nor poor, but I think that is the intention.

 

[Chaz]

By the way, do you disagree with IDS that the tories are penalising the less well off in favour of the better off?
I think he's spot on!

He's the one who drafted it! That was his job! He's not resigned for the disabled or the less well off, he's resigned to cause a split and divert the In camp within the Tories from campaigning 100%. He's acted shamefully and should be roundly condemned by all.

 

[sb_73]

I don't think optimum growth is possible without the gap between rich and poor increasing. As long as the situation of the poor is improving, I don't see an issue with that of the rich improving at a faster rate. Whether that is happening in reality I'm not sure, as I'm neither rich nor poor, but I think that is the intention.

If 'optimum growth' is achieved at the cost of dividing society even further, so the rich end up in gated communities with security guards (as they already are in many parts of the world), I'm not sure it's worth having. Balance is what's needed. Panorama on at the moment about fuel poverty, people skipping meals to pay for heat. Not unemployed or skivers, but pensioners and people on low incomes. I don't care what your political leanings are, to live in a country where 20% of people are in fuel poverty, twice the number when parliament voted to erradicate it by 2016, is shameful.

George Osborne said this in 2008 " no one takes pleasure out of people making money out of other people's misery but that is a function of capitalist markets". At least he's honest. But markets aren't to blame, the people who worship them and prioritise something that only exists in our collective imagination over their fellow humans are.

 

[Star of David Bardsley]

If 'optimum growth' is achieved at the cost of dividing society even further, so the rich end up in gated communities with security guards (as they already are in many parts of the world), I'm not sure it's worth having. Balance is what's needed. Panorama on at the moment about fuel poverty, people skipping meals to pay for heat. Not unemployed or skivers, but pensioners and people on low incomes. I don't care what your political leanings are, to live in a country where 20% of people are in fuel poverty, twice the number when parliament voted to erradicate it by 2016, is shameful.

George Osborne said this in 2008 " no one takes pleasure out of people making money out of other people's misery but that is a function of capitalist markets". At least he's honest. But markets aren't to blame, the people who worship them and prioritise something that only exists in our collective imagination over their fellow humans are.

All very noble in theory but I don't think any system works better than Capitalism. It's the best of a bad bunch IMO. Something more socialist can't improve the lot of those at the bottom of the pyramid long term, for me.

 

[KPDHoopster]

If 'optimum growth' is achieved at the cost of dividing society even further

The two are completely unrelated.
You can have negative growth, and the divide in society will grow.
A person on say 50k per annum, can save, buy a house, and consequently improve their "lot" in life, whereas a person on, or near minimum wage for most of their life, have no opportunity to progress their "financial well-being", in any meaningful way what-so-ever.

As for the State providing the safety blanket to significantly correct that imbalance, is completely and utterly impossible.
As the demographics of an aging population, take full effect on the State's pension obligations, our Government debt figures will explode, leaving less and less money for all other benefits.

There is a natural limit to the amount of money that can be raised by taxation, it is around 40%. As has been proven where countries try to extract more, companies move overseas, the rich "off-shore" income to avoid excessive taxes. So no matter the economic health of a country there is a limit to how much that can be spent on benefits, and not have debt levels going up inexorably.

 

[sb_73]

All very noble in theory but I don't think any system works better than Capitalism. It's the best of a bad bunch IMO. Something more socialist can't improve the lot of those at the bottom of the pyramid long term, for me.

Mixed economy, which is what we have. A pure capitalist economy would be like the 19th century, where poverty was only alleviated by charity or benevolent employers like Cadburys and Lever Bros.

The two are completely unrelated.
You can have negative growth, and the divide in society will grow.
A person on say 50k per annum, can save, buy a house, and consequently improve their "lot" in life, whereas a person on, or near minimum wage for most of their life, have no opportunity to progress their "financial well-being", in any meaningful way what-so-ever.

As for the State providing the safety blanket to significantly correct that imbalance, is completely and utterly impossible.
As the demographics of an aging population, take full effect on the State's pension obligation, our Government debt figures will explode, leaving less and less money for benefits.

There is a natural limit to the amount of money that can be raised by taxation, it is around 40%. As has been proved where countries try to extract more, companies move overseas, the rich "off-shore" income to avoid excess taxes. So no matter the economic health of a country there is a limit to how much it can spend on benefits, and not have debt levels going up inexorably.

The markets make their case. The underclass is permanent. Very Nietzschian. In medieval times they could not conceive of any other economic system than that based on aristocrats and serfs. Just because I can't describe future systems doesn't mean we are stuck with what we have got - it's inevitable things will change they always have. Francis Fukuyama thought the fall of the Soviet Union marked the end of history, he was wrong. The tensions are so obviously present to drive change that it will happen. I don't know when or what the change will be, but it will happen. And not necessarily to something better.

 

[Chaz]

“The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness.”

― Terry Pratchett, Men at Arms:

 

[TootingExcess]

No disagreement, but as he is one of the architects of that policy, and has been for six years, I struggle to see why he should be praised for his actions. I thought that was pretty explicit Tory policy from the Thatcher years onwards anyway, this idea that wealth trickles down, so the richer the rich are the better. Unfortunately the gap between rich and poor is growing, just one element of the deeply divided society we are living in. It really is quite scary - wealth, politics, religious belief, ethnicity, migration, what part of the country you are from, EU in or out, PC v non PC, the divisions just seem to be getting more extreme and the middle ground smaller. I know, as a compulsive contrarian, I sometimes don't help on here, but we really have to get along a bit better. No one is 100% right or 100% wrong apart from totalitarian ideologues (who are, of course, wrong), and we would be wise to recognise this. I have yet to hear any one from either the remain or leave campaigns for the EU, for example, admit that both sides have pros and cons.

IDS, Gove et al are all marketeers (the market knows best, trickle down economics etc) unfortunately the markets and big business are saying we need to stay in the EU - I'm sure his Damoscene conversation to social crusader is related to this fact. That and ****ing Osborne over too.

 

[QPR Oslo]

No it isn't, they are an Accounting firm. A couple of dodgy handshakes, produced these numbers.

That's the whole point - No one can !!

Err, no they aren't, you can quite easily get another "Accounting firm", coming out saying exactly the opposite !!!!

A couple couple of dirty handshakes between the CBI and PWC! LOL. Go read what PWC's core business is, Accounting isn't mentioned. Of course good forecast models can be made. Go look at it.Have you seen one from a similar Company saying the opposite? I doubt it.

 

[rangercol]

No disagreement, but as he is one of the architects of that policy, and has been for six years, I struggle to see why he should be praised for his actions. I thought that was pretty explicit Tory policy from the Thatcher years onwards anyway, this idea that wealth trickles down, so the richer the rich are the better. Unfortunately the gap between rich and poor is growing, just one element of the deeply divided society we are living in. It really is quite scary - wealth, politics, religious belief, ethnicity, migration, what part of the country you are from, EU in or out, PC v non PC, the divisions just seem to be getting more extreme and the middle ground smaller. I know, as a compulsive contrarian, I sometimes don't help on here, but we really have to get along a bit better. No one is 100% right or 100% wrong apart from totalitarian ideologues (who are, of course, wrong), and we would be wise to recognise this. I have yet to hear any one from either the remain or leave campaigns for the EU, for example, admit that both sides have pros and cons.

I'm not naive enough to think that the IDS resignation is all about his objection to the budget. He clearly has timed it to do maximum damage to the pro-EU government.
However, as you often say on here, people should be able to change their minds about something having received more information or evidence.
I believe IDS was sincere in his efforts to reduce the ridiculous claims culture that grew up during Labour's time in government and was increasingly alarmed with the way his ideas were being implemented.
All ministers have to support the government line, but he clearly thought that the reduction for the disabled was a step too far.
At the same time he clearly wanted to knife Cameron over Europe.

 

[sb_73]

I'm not naive enough to think that the IDS resignation is all about his objection to the budget. He clearly has timed it to do maximum damage to the pro-EU government.
However, as you often say on here, people should be able to change their minds about something having received more information or evidence.
I believe IDS was sincere in his efforts to reduce the ridiculous claims culture that grew up during Labour's time in government and was increasingly alarmed with the way his ideas were being implemented.
All ministers have to support the government line, but he clearly thought that the reduction for the disabled was a step too far.
At the same time he clearly wanted to knife Cameron over Europe.

Fair enough Col, and good call on being permitted to change your mind. We would have to get into his head to really understand this, and I don't think there's much room in there. Post referendum his metamorphosis from Quietman to Quitman will complete as he becomes Forgottenman, even if we go Brexit. Boris seemed highly critical of his decision to go, I suspect he will be badged as unreliable.

I've got over my obsession with him now, time to move on.......I'm interested that a few on here seem to think that what we have, a market driven capitalist economy, is the only option.

 

[TWGWTDT]

You can only laugh?
So we really think that the UK can get its **** together to manage itself ?
A nation that on average has £20k in purchases each household they dont use or need

IDS wasn't even thought of by many of you on here until he resigned. Any idea without looking the puppets names up who is even in the cabinet

You will all forget about the IDS puppet in a week ... No one cares
It's a soap opera circus IMO with a script engineered to do what?

How we can comment on what is a controlled public relationship exercise is crazy

Sell your crap clear all debts forever and live a rewarding life because the UK hasn't the ability to unite on anything IMO. Back home tomorrow where in my small hamlet sick, old disabled people are cared for every day ... I see it and if some business man says it's not sustainable then they are burnt . I pay big taxes in both countries but in France I have no problem doing so because I can see them first hand everyday

Paying in the UK for the disabled to get less is disgusting

The U.K. Needs a revolution and badly

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

....moved

 

[sb_73]

A gripe of mine. Why can't criminal sentences be expressed in a way that the public can understand? Yesterday, it was reported widely that the toe rag that killed the Scouse copper who had two young children, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The BBC declared 4 times an hour that the little punk "would be detained in prison for 20 years".

This morning, it's clear he'll be released after 10 years (He'll be on licence, but since he was on licence for another offence when he killed the copper, I have no faith that he won't resume his psychopathic life.)

In the US, the sentence would have been expressed as 10-20 years. The UK authorities won't adopt that practice because they want to dupe the public about tough sentencing, and most of the media conspires with them. Is it any wonder the public get cynical when government and media treats us like pea-brains?

Wrong thread, though doubtless you can work an anti EU angle into it somehow, if pushed. Try the politics thread.

 

[GoldhawkRoad]

A gripe of mine. Why can't criminal sentences be expressed in a way that the public can understand? Yesterday, it was reported widely that the toe rag that killed the Scouse copper who had two young children, was sentenced to 20 years in prison. The BBC declared 4 times an hour that the little punk "would be detained in prison for 20 years".

This morning, it's clear he'll be released after 10 years (He'll be on licence, but since he was on licence for another offence when he killed the copper, I have no faith that he won't resume his psychopathic life.)

In the US, the sentence would have been expressed as 10-20 years. The UK authorities won't adopt that practice because they want to dupe the public about tough sentencing, and most of the media conspires with them. Is it any wonder the public get cynical when government and media treats us like pea-brains?