The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[Dryce]

Labour did not break Lehman Brothers or cause the financial crash of 2008. The policies more aligned with a party of continued deregulation did that. We are inches away from a PM who's idea of Brexit is a 'bonfire of regulations'.

Labour sold of a substantial chunk of the national gold reserves, inflated public sector costs and liabilities, commited to future spending liabilities. Those gold reserves were most valuable in a crisis. But Mr Brown and his cronies thuoght they knew better - over confident? Naive? Lax?

I'm interested though, to know what you think the UK would look like if Labour hadn't bailed out the banking sector?

Well they had a decade for the banks to go wrong on their watch. Once they went wrong then it's a form of economic blackmail on the public finances taht they needed bailing out.

There were plenty of underlying warnings that things were not right - and Labour became very infatuaute wth the financial sector. Nice taxable cash cow in the eyes of chancellor.

Would any other politcians have reigned things in ... almost certainly no ... so that means despite the supposed social morality of the left they are just as greedy for taxes and blind to the excesses of a system when in government as any other mainstream political group.

 

[Bellow]

Labour sold of a substantial chunk of the national gold reserves, inflated public sector costs and liabilities, commited to future spending liabilities. Those gold reserves were most valuable in a crisis. But Mr Brown and his cronies thuoght they knew better - over confident? Naive? Lax?

You omitted the biggest sin of all - Iraq.
I'm with you on the (continued) costs of PFI (and to some extent the psuedo privatisation of some aspects of the public sector) but would the country have tolerated increased taxation to cover the costs of (IMO) absolutely necessary public expenditure without which there would be no schools or hospitals? If the only other option was spend nothing, do nothing, would the public have tolerated the dwindling provision of services?

Well they had a decade for the banks to go wrong on their watch. Once they went wrong then it's a form of economic blackmail on the public finances taht they needed bailing out.

There were plenty of underlying warnings that things were not right - and Labour became very infatuaute wth the financial sector. Nice taxable cash cow in the eyes of chancellor.

Would any other politcians have reigned things in ... almost certainly no ... so that means despite the supposed social morality of the left they are just as greedy for taxes and blind to the excesses of a system when in government as any other mainstream political group.

That's really just the political terrain any political party has to navigate for survival - unless it can transform it into something else. But what?

 

[flowrider]

I suspect the strategy will be to call a GE and change the parliamentary arithmetic. If so, BJ will probably become leader as the view in the Tory party is that he is the best bet against Corbyn. Coincidentally, BJ is the one most likely to call a GE. Time will tell, but as you allude, the options otherwise are somewhat limited.

I think no. 10's cat would make a better PM than Corbyn.

 

[Yugguy]

I have no real idea how anyone can be a strong supporter of either Labour or the Conversatives.

Does anyone really think either party have the true answers?

 

[Dryce]

You omitted the biggest sin of all - Iraq.

I trade Kosovo with that. I think Mr Blair rightly gets a lot of criticism for Iraq but I think he made a difference with regard to the outcome with Kosovo.

I'm with you on the (continued) costs of PFI (and to some extent the psuedo privatisation of some aspects of the public sector) but would the country have tolerated increased taxation to cover the costs of (IMO) absolutely necessary public expenditure without which there would be no schools or hospitals? If the only other option was spend nothing, do nothing, would the public have tolerated the dwindling provision of services?

The dilemma I think is to be onest about who is paying.

If you buy a car on a long term PCP where your kids pick up the tab then is thart moral - regardless of the benefits they have from the family having a better car. PFI make sit too easy for politicians to reap the kudos for improving stuff but stick the nect government and future taxpayers with a substantial part of the bill.

The public can't have something for nothing - and this is the fundamental between Mr Brown's government and Mr Cameron's government. Mr Brown was profligate. Mr Cameron was blamed for so called austerity having inherited the bills and lack of liquidity resulting from Mr Brown.

That's really just the political terrain any political party has to navigate for survival - unless it can transform it into something else. But what?

I trust a government that holds the purse strings and makes me unhappy more than one that opens them because it is too afraid of making me unhappy.

 

[AltonAnt]

The public can't have something for nothing - and this is the fundamental between Mr Brown's government and Mr Cameron's government.

Do you think it would have been any different if the financial situation had been different for Cameron?
The PFI schemes were around for a while before labour came into power and were probably the right thing to do at the time in that they were agreed before things went pear shaped. Hindsight and all that.....
Every government is never going to have enough money so have to make decisions as mentioned to please those who are worst off or those that are well off.
We can see who this government is pleasing - https://www.ohchr.org/documents/issues/poverty/eom_gb_16nov2018.pdf

Thank goodness we have such low unemployment and trickle down economics

 

[Yugguy]

Brick Top enters running for Tory party leadership

 

[219]

This is just the cyclical nature of two party politics.

Tories get in, do well for a while, then they don't, so Labour gets in.
Labour get in, do well for a while then they don't, Tories get in.

Listen to the resigning speeches of all the previous PMs, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron and now May. They all basically sound the same.

Well , they could go back to the days of Monarchy ruling absolutely.

HM could delegate the job to her son , even Charlie would probably do a better job .

At least people would perform better for her Maj : if they failed her she could cast them in the tower , or have them beheaded .

 

[219]

The new PM wont be in place until the end of July leaving just 13 weeks to come to an agreement within Parliament and then go to Brussels to renegotiate a deal that they have already said is not renegotiable. Macron has already said he wont agree to another A50 extension so we're going out with no deal on 31st October.

Or calling the whole thing off and staying in .

 

[219]

Just saw Theresa May in the local supermarket. She was buying eggs.

On her way to McDonalds for a milkshake.

 

[219]

I almost felt sorry for her watching her breakdown at the end of her speech.............almost!

I did feel sorry for her , much as I don’t like her party or her policies

 

[Bellow]

I trade Kosovo with that. I think Mr Blair rightly gets a lot of criticism for Iraq but I think he made a difference with regard to the outcome with Kosovo.

If I've read the above correctly as praise for the Kosovo intervention (which IIRC, was deemed to be praiseworthy) then I make the point that Labour get criticised ceaselessly and what good they do is never acknowledged.

The dilemma I think is to be onest about who is paying.

If you buy a car on a long term PCP where your kids pick up the tab then is thart moral- regardless of the benefits they have from the family having a better car. PFI make sit too easy for politicians to reap the kudos for improving stuff but stick the nect government and future taxpayers with a substantial part of the bill.

If it get the kids to school and to other places (eg swimming pools, sports training grounds, any other event that may spark a life long interest and become a viable career, etc) then it can be viewed as an investment and their improved prospects for future employment and earnings make the payback worthwhile.
PFI schemes were (still are) rapacious though but hardly the first (and not the last) time where naive government is comprehensively rooked by a greedy private sector which is digging its own grave. Witness British Steel at Scunthorpe as a current example.

The public can't have something for nothing - and this is the fundamental between Mr Brown's government and Mr Cameron's government. Mr Brown was profligate. Mr Cameron was blamed for so called austerity having inherited the bills and lack of liquidity resulting from Mr Brown.

Whether austerity (or at least the degree of it) was actually required is a moot point (when tax cuts for the wealthiest were given, very moot) but Osborne used it as an election tool as it played well with his target demographic. Unsavoury at best.

I trust a government that holds the purse strings and makes me unhappy more than one that opens them because it is too afraid of making me unhappy.

Ah, the need to be popular enough to gain re-election. Neither 'hold' the purse strings though. They open them for the good of the country - or as bribes. Osborne's tactics were most certainly within the latter category. But it costs more in the long term (and I don't just mean his job which, had he attended to the neglected regions and Brexit been avoided, he may still hold. His choice).

 

[Bellow]

I did feel sorry for her , much as I don’t like her party or her policies

Reacquaint yourself with her part in Windrush and the 'hostile' to immigrants policies and reconsider.
She has sent 3 years pandering to 317 people without one moment's concern for the other 60 million UK residents. My sympathies are for everyone who's life she has made miserable beyond comprehension and there's none left over for her.

 

[Scott_F]

Do you think it would have been any different if the financial situation had been different for Cameron?
The PFI schemes were around for a while before labour came into power and were probably the right thing to do at the time in that they were agreed before things went pear shaped. Hindsight and all that.....

PFI was a Conservative idea but one that Labour foolishly embraced and told us that it was a "win-win" situation with better public services being provided at less cost to the taxpayer.

In reality, we had here today, gone tomorrow politicians dreaming up these PFI schemes and civil servants with little or no negotiating experience or financial acumen dealing with the extremely astute private companies who would make them happen.

The outcome was inevitable:

PFI deals 'costing taxpayers billions'

 

[Dryce]

If it get the kids to school and to other places (eg swimming pools, sports training grounds, any other event that may spark a life long interest and become a viable career, etc) then it can be viewed as an investment and their improved prospects for future employment and earnings make the payback worthwhile.
PFI schemes were (still are) rapacious though but hardly the first (and not the last) time where naive government is comprehensively rooked by a greedy private sector which is digging its own grave. Witness British Steel at Scunthorpe as a current example.

The question is value for money and price and responsibility for future liabilities.

It's all very well figuring you gets something nice and shiney and new now -but the question is what's the future cost - because that will affect the next generation.

'viewed as an investment' is a dangerous excuse.

PFI schemes were (still are) rapacious though but hardly the first (and not the last) time where naive government is comprehensively rooked by a greedy private sector which is digging its own grave. Witness British Steel at Scunthorpe as a current example.

Justifying the choices of one group against the sins of another isn't a solid justifcation. Even if it does server to highlight those sins.

Ah, the need to be popular enough to gain re-election. Neither 'hold' the purse strings though. They open them for the good of the country - or as bribes. Osborne's tactics were most certainly within the latter category. But it costs more in the long term (and I don't just mean his job which, had he attended to the neglected regions and Brexit been avoided, he may still hold. His choice).

If Mr Osborne had been chancellor in the 2000s you might have a point. But he wasn't. He inherited a basket case of government finance inherited from Mr Brown.

The seeds for Brexit started germinating in the 90s and were inadvertently fertilised and nurtured by the political classes in the 2000s. And finally repaed in the 2010s.

 

[flowrider]

I really cant imagine how or why Labour have managed to squander such a massive opportunity to blow the Conservatives away in the polls.........oh, yes I can, they elected Corbyn as their leader.

Reacquaint yourself with her part in Windrush and the 'hostile' to immigrants policies and reconsider.
She has sent 3 years pandering to 317 people without one moment's concern for the other 60 million UK residents. My sympathies are for everyone who's life she has made miserable beyond comprehension and there's none left over for her.

No government can have policies where everyone is a winner. There will always be winners and losers and this is no different in any government anywhere in the world. A Labour government will work exactly the same except the winners and losers will be different elements of society.

 

[st13phil]

I really cant imagine how or why Labour have managed to squander such a massive opportunity to blow the Conservatives away in the polls.........oh, yes I can, they elected Corbyn as their leader.

It will be interesting to see how Corbyn fares against the next Tory leader. I've long been of the view that Corbyn and May had a strange mutual incompetence pact and that neither could exist without the other...

 

[markjay]

Both Labour and the Conservatives are split down the middle over Brexit.

The only party that could get its act together and make headways at this time was always going to be one that was specifically formed around Brexit and therefore have no diversity of opinions on this potentially-divisive matter.

 

[Dryce]

It will be interesting to see how Corbyn fares against the next Tory leader. I've long been of the view that Corbyn and May had a strange mutual incompetence pact and that neither could exist without the other...

I put it down to strange times. I don't see them as being dependent on each other - rather both result from a structural breakdown and losing of the way in their parties. The Libdems are also part of this - but so insignificant at the moment it's easy to miss they exist.

Maybe what we're seeing is that modern politicians are actually irrelevant and really don't do much more than group navel gazing - while everybody esle gives up on them and gets on with their lives.

 

[fabes]

It does feel a little like this....
Sure they will to a degree influence our

Maybe what we're seeing is that modern politicians are actually irrelevant and really don't do much more than group navel gazing - while everybody esle gives up on them and gets on with their lives.

lives but perhaps the masses (Inc me) have become so dis-interested and dis engaged in the self interested sub culture of politicians......

There is soooo much wrong with the Chinese system, but playing the long game, slowly tidying up their show, to them Brexit is just a bump in the road with regards their 50 year plan. Our /Western political system is leaving the door wide open for them.

Not in my lifetime, but perhaps in my kid's......

A little off track, but when you look at all the posturing and the likelihood of two faced, lying, Boris the Baffoon to be our Premier politician, were not really going to compete are we....

On that bombshell.....