|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 13:46:55 GMT
I think the conservative lead in the polls has more to do with corbyns leadership and lack of credibility, it reminds me of the days of Michael Foot in some respects, idealistic rhetoric with little or no relevance to its core supporters. Labour needs to get back to basics and develop policies for this century . The class war belongs in the past I agree Harry. All this bollocks about re-nationalizing the national grid, utilities, trains etc etc is a massive retrograde step. Labour need to embrace wealth creation not look down on it. Momentum have infiltrated the party and made it unelectable. I'm sure Corbyns a decent bloke but he's no Prime Minister. There needs to be a new paradigm shift on the Left. Not a return to the 1950s I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2019 13:56:46 GMT
I agree Harry. All this bollocks about re-nationalizing the national grid, utilities, trains etc etc is a massive retrograde step. Labour need to embrace wealth creation not look down on it. Momentum have infiltrated the party and made it unelectable. I'm sure Corbyns a decent bloke but he's no Prime Minister. There needs to be a new paradigm shift on the Left. Not a return to the 1950s I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have. So what you're saying is the wealth creators are fine under labour so long as they don't try and keep it , π You are incredibly naive lil un . Wealth creation and free enterprise creates jobs , encourages growth and investment, generates tax revenues for public services and welfare spending . It's the goose you would be wise not to kill . Rich people don't fail the poor it's not their job . It's the selfish twats in parliament who's job it is
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 14:09:59 GMT
I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have. So what you're saying is the wealth creators are fine under labour so long as they don't try and keep it , π You are incredibly naive lil un . Wealth creation and free enterprise creates jobs , encourages growth and investment, generates tax revenues for public services and welfare spending . It's the goose you would be wise not to kill . Rich people don't fail the poor it's not their job . It's the selfish twats in parliament who's job it is Wealth creation is fine, completely fine, but it is also completely wrong for there to be billionaires in the same country where people work 100 hour weeks and can't afford to feed their families and rent a house. I am absolutely not having a go at free enterprise or wealth creation, and there is a balance to be struck. I just think we are a long way from that balance at the minute. I agree kind of re: rich people, the government should absolutely not be allowing them to hoard the ridiculous amounts of wealth they have. Again, moving away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing is the only way we can move forward without huge catastrophe. Free market growth is unsustainable on a planet with finite resources, and even more so with a species of animal that isn't happy to waste its life working its arse off for pittance while its boss does nothing and rolls in hundreds/thousands of times bigger salary.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 8, 2019 14:17:39 GMT
Parliament approved the invasion of Iraq. Parliament also approved leaving the Eu In both cases, the wrong decision.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 8, 2019 15:00:02 GMT
No it's a PM who's promised to up police numbers by 20,000 and had a long standing appointment to give a 9 minute speech at a police college in Wakefied whilst there's an election round the corner. βLong standingβ How can he have had a longstanding appointment when heβs only been in office for a few week. Has this thread morphed into the Quantum Physics thread... Long standing in the context of Boris' premiership. This is obvious Bath.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 8, 2019 15:02:10 GMT
How is a photo of a British Prime Minister making a rallying speech in front of British soldiers during a time of war even comparable to a British Prime Minister standing in front of Police cadets vowing to break the law of the land? Well ones a privileged privately educated buffoon Potential law breaker The others a privileged privately educated war criminal One disregarded the will of parliament the other is prepared to do similar So all in all quite a lot in common It's called politics mate.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 8, 2019 15:38:16 GMT
I agree Harry. All this bollocks about re-nationalizing the national grid, utilities, trains etc etc is a massive retrograde step. Labour need to embrace wealth creation not look down on it. Momentum have infiltrated the party and made it unelectable. I'm sure Corbyns a decent bloke but he's no Prime Minister. There needs to be a new paradigm shift on the Left. Not a return to the 1950s I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have. 'Moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and well being' Sounds great What does it mean? What's the driving force behind this if its not the profit motive? State planning? Whose in charge of that then?
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 8, 2019 16:12:29 GMT
I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have. 'Moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and well being' Sounds great What does it mean? What's the driving force behind this if its not the profit motive? State planning? Whose in charge of that then? Sustainability is a one word solution to an incredibly complex global problem. I Think it means dig up your lawn and plan some spuds
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 18:46:31 GMT
I don't think Labour look down on wealth creation at all, their policies are to ensure it isn't hoarded by the tiniest percentage of greedy tossers that currently own most of the wealth in the country. There was a paradigm shift on the left, it moved to Neo-liberalism and deregulation, and that didn't work because all it did was allow the richest to keep getting richer while the poorer rack up debt they can't afford. Labour aren't particularly radical at all to be honest, but even if they were, I'm really not sure why moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and wellbeing offends anyone at all. It seems weirdly to be seen as some sort of horrifying naivety to think that we should help people who can't afford to live on their low wage jobs. I wait for the day people go 'oh shit, actually it would be nice if people were helped out when they needed help' instead of thinking 'oh fuck em they shouldn't have got into that position, it's their own fault' which seems to be the weird, completely unsubstantiated view most have. 'Moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and well being' Sounds great What does it mean? What's the driving force behind this if its not the profit motive? State planning? Whose in charge of that then? The driving force is becoming sustainable. Not destroying civilisation is a pretty good motivator. But profit motive can still be a driving force, if people really need that. It's a move towards a sustainable and wellbeing based economy, not a complete destruction of capitalism (although I bloody hope that happens in the very long term). Yes though, the state does need to take more responsibility for curbing companies' stupidity. Big business has been in charge for far too long, and they have no useful interests at heart at all. It means that we need to find a cultural shift that places people's self-worth in parts of their lives other than their jobs and their money. It needs a much greater focus on wellbeing and being a sustainable and, although it sounds naive, happy member of society. Think how many songs/poems/books/films etc have the premise of 'working your arse off to put money in a rich arsehole's pocket'. People don't want a life like that, yet somehow everyone is still fine to live in it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2019 20:58:40 GMT
'Moving the economy away from profit and towards sustainability and well being' Sounds great What does it mean? What's the driving force behind this if its not the profit motive? State planning? Whose in charge of that then? Sustainability is a one word solution to an incredibly complex global problem. I Think it means dig up your lawn and plan some spuds It doesn't, it just means recognising that exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It's about making sure people aren't taking advantage and ruining things long term just to get short term gain. It's also about making sure people aren't taking advantage of others for their own gain. It won't happen. The people at the top won't allow anyone to share their resources (see the amount of money that has been put into PR campaigns against socialism), and it'll always be as it ever was. The rich keep the riches and make the poor fight among themselves.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 8, 2019 21:12:14 GMT
Sustainability is a one word solution to an incredibly complex global problem. I Think it means dig up your lawn and plan some spuds It doesn't, it just means recognising that exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It's about making sure people aren't taking advantage and ruining things long term just to get short term gain. It's also about making sure people aren't taking advantage of others for their own gain. It won't happen. The people at the top won't allow anyone to share their resources (see the amount of money that has been put into PR campaigns against socialism), and it'll always be as it ever was. The rich keep the riches and make the poor fight among themselves. Say it like it is mate. The majority of people are selfish cunts. But isn't your post better suited for the climate change thread.
|
|
|
Post by harryburrows on Sept 9, 2019 4:42:03 GMT
Sustainability is a one word solution to an incredibly complex global problem. I Think it means dig up your lawn and plan some spuds It doesn't, it just means recognising that exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It's about making sure people aren't taking advantage and ruining things long term just to get short term gain. It's also about making sure people aren't taking advantage of others for their own gain. It won't happen. The people at the top won't allow anyone to share their resources (see the amount of money that has been put into PR campaigns against socialism), and it'll always be as it ever was. The rich keep the riches and make the poor fight among themselves. You need to give some examples of where this Marxist utopia has ever been even slightly successful as I'm really struggling to understand your ideas . As Churchill once said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried How can you justify nations wasting trillions on space programs when the population of say china and India don't have a pot to piss in or the USA where they don't have basic healthcare .
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Sept 9, 2019 6:16:23 GMT
Yet ironically, Phillip Hammond wants to remain in an EU full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and ignore the democratic result of a vote held in his own nation.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 9, 2019 7:36:24 GMT
Yet ironically, Phillip Hammond wants to remain in an EU full of unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats and ignore the democratic result of a vote held in his own nation. Where's the irony in that tweet?
|
|
|
Post by Northy on Sept 9, 2019 7:48:51 GMT
I think the conservative lead in the polls has more to do with corbyns leadership and lack of credibility, it reminds me of the days of Michael Foot in some respects, idealistic rhetoric with little or no relevance to its core supporters. Labour needs to get back to basics and develop policies for this century . The class war belongs in the past I agree Harry. All this bollocks about re-nationalizing the national grid, utilities, trains etc etc is a massive retrograde step. Labour need to embrace wealth creation not look down on it. Momentum have infiltrated the party and made it unelectable. I'm sure Corbyns a decent bloke but he's no Prime Minister. There needs to be a new paradigm shift on the Left. Not a return to the 1950s Corbyn a decent bloke, have you seen who he's mixed with the last 40 years? Labour has embraced wealth, ask Corbyn his net worth is twice that of Boris Johnson, and corbyn's wife has been in the headlines with keeping her coffee bean farmers in poverty whilst she sells the bags of 'organic' coffee at inflated prices Socialism, do as I say, not what I do ...
|
|
|
Post by vokeswagen on Sept 9, 2019 9:41:56 GMT
It doesn't, it just means recognising that exponential growth is not possible on a finite planet. It's about making sure people aren't taking advantage and ruining things long term just to get short term gain. It's also about making sure people aren't taking advantage of others for their own gain. It won't happen. The people at the top won't allow anyone to share their resources (see the amount of money that has been put into PR campaigns against socialism), and it'll always be as it ever was. The rich keep the riches and make the poor fight among themselves. You need to give some examples of where this Marxist utopia has ever been even slightly successful as I'm really struggling to understand your ideas . As Churchill once said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried How can you justify nations wasting trillions on space programs when the population of say china and India don't have a pot to piss in or the USA where they don't have basic healthcare . Harry whereabouts is the Marxism in fraise's post? I'm not seeing any I must admit. Maybe you're struggling to understand the ideas because you're working from the position of assuming they're Marxist when in reality they're just common or garden left wing concepts
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 9, 2019 10:30:22 GMT
You need to give some examples of where this Marxist utopia has ever been even slightly successful as I'm really struggling to understand your ideas . As Churchill once said democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried How can you justify nations wasting trillions on space programs when the population of say china and India don't have a pot to piss in or the USA where they don't have basic healthcare . Harry whereabouts is the Marxism in fraise's post? I'm not seeing any I must admit. Maybe you're struggling to understand the ideas because you're working from the position of assuming they're Marxist when in reality they're just common or garden left wing concepts I may well be mistaken, but I think the point Harry's trying to make is that a market economy (Churchill said the free market was the worst form of economic system..apart from all the others)is better for the vast majority of the population than any form of state-planned system. Remember that not all Countries are at the Post-Industrial Stage of Development..many are still in the Pre-Industrial Stage. It's a complete nonsense to talk about 'Sustainability' and 'well-being' when many African, South American, Asian Countries are struggling to produce even enough food to feed their populations. And countries that use State Planning as an Economic Model like Russia and China are some of the worst polluters on the planet. And commit the most horrendous forms of Human Rights abuses. State Planned Economies have no independent Judiciary remember.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 10:39:50 GMT
Harry whereabouts is the Marxism in fraise's post? I'm not seeing any I must admit. Maybe you're struggling to understand the ideas because you're working from the position of assuming they're Marxist when in reality they're just common or garden left wing concepts I may well be mistaken, but I think the point Harry's trying to make is that a market economy (Churchill said the free market was the worst form of economic system..apart from all the others)is better for the vast majority of the population than any form of state-planned system. Remember that not all Countries are at the Post-Industrial Stage of Development..many are still in the Pre-Industrial Stage. It's a complete nonsense to talk about 'Sustainability' and 'well-being' when many African, South American, Asian Countries are struggling to produce even enough food to feed their populations. And countries that use State Planning as an Economic Model like Russia and China are some of the worst polluters on the planet. And commit the most horrendous forms of Human Rights abuses. State Planned Economies have no independent Judiciary remember. That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with Labour's moderate Democratic Socialist manifesto. Whatever your politics, dressing it up as anything else is disingenuous..............
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 9, 2019 10:50:41 GMT
I may well be mistaken, but I think the point Harry's trying to make is that a market economy (Churchill said the free market was the worst form of economic system..apart from all the others)is better for the vast majority of the population than any form of state-planned system. Remember that not all Countries are at the Post-Industrial Stage of Development..many are still in the Pre-Industrial Stage. It's a complete nonsense to talk about 'Sustainability' and 'well-being' when many African, South American, Asian Countries are struggling to produce even enough food to feed their populations. And countries that use State Planning as an Economic Model like Russia and China are some of the worst polluters on the planet. And commit the most horrendous forms of Human Rights abuses. State Planned Economies have no independent Judiciary remember. That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with Labour's moderate Democratic Socialist manifesto. Whatever your politics, dressing it up as anything else is disingenuous.............. I'm not saying it is. There's a world of difference between the public/private sector Economies we have in the West and the 100% state planned economies of Russia and China etc The 'Free Market' is a theoretical concept anyway, no country on this planet has a 100% 'free market', most are between 40 to 60% public the rest private. The difference between Western Economies is the difference between the private/public mix. The bigger the public sector, usually, the higher the level of taxation and borrowing. The lower the public sector, usually, the lower the level of taxation and borrowing. The variable in this, of course, is economic growth which means that spending more can mean lower taxation levels and vice versa. Anyway Prestwich, What is the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy? (No more than 2,000 words)
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2019 11:28:06 GMT
That's all well and good, but has nothing to do with Labour's moderate Democratic Socialist manifesto. Whatever your politics, dressing it up as anything else is disingenuous.............. I'm not saying it is. There's a world of difference between the public/private sector Economies we have in the West and the 100% state planned economies of Russia and China etc The 'Free Market' is a theoretical concept anyway, no country on this planet has a 100% 'free market', most are between 40 to 60% public the rest private. The difference between Western Economies is the difference between the private/public mix. The bigger the public sector, usually, the higher the level of taxation and borrowing. The lower the public sector, usually, the lower the level of taxation and borrowing. The variable in this, of course, is economic growth which means that spending more can mean lower taxation levels and vice versa. Anyway Prestwich, What is the difference between Democratic Socialism and Social Democracy? (No more than 2,000 words) Iβll answer later Iβm going in a meeting for the rest of the afternoon..... π
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 9, 2019 11:47:46 GMT
Christ Emily Thorntons fudge on Politics Live has just repeated her claim that she'll negotiate a "better" deal with the EU, call a 2nd ref then campaign to remain.
It's absolutely crazy batshit.
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Sept 9, 2019 13:54:20 GMT
Christ Emily Thorntons fudge on Politics Live has just repeated her claim that she'll negotiate a "better" deal with the EU, call a 2nd ref then campaign to remain. It's absolutely crazy batshit. Campaign against the 'better' deal she's negotiated. π
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 9, 2019 14:40:12 GMT
Christ Emily Thorntons fudge on Politics Live has just repeated her claim that she'll negotiate a "better" deal with the EU, call a 2nd ref then campaign to remain. It's absolutely crazy batshit. Campaign against the 'better' deal she's negotiated. π To be fair. If she did get a better deal offer. then whether or not she campaigns against it or not, doesn't it still mean that the public have a better alternative than just remain to vote for? She said she'd campaign against it, she didn't say it wouldn't be on offer to the voters. To be honest, I presume she only mentioned getting a better deal to make Boris look more inept, as it's clear any deal will never get through the HoCs.
|
|
|
Post by rogerjonesisgod on Sept 9, 2019 14:52:03 GMT
Campaign against the 'better' deal she's negotiated. π To be fair. If she did get a better deal offer. then whether or not she campaigns against it or not, doesn't it still mean that the public have a better alternative than just remain to vote for? She said she'd campaign against it, she didn't say it wouldn't be on offer to the voters. To be honest, I presume she only mentioned getting a better deal to make Boris look more inept, as it's clear any deal will never get through the HoCs. So a) what's her version of better deal? She said today seeing in customs union and single market. So softer than the EU's WA b) if ANY deal won't pass the HoC why would she bother negotiating one? It's all bollocks to put a shit deal to Leavers and remain to remainers.
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 9, 2019 14:55:09 GMT
To be fair. If she did get a better deal offer. then whether or not she campaigns against it or not, doesn't it still mean that the public have a better alternative than just remain to vote for? She said she'd campaign against it, she didn't say it wouldn't be on offer to the voters. To be honest, I presume she only mentioned getting a better deal to make Boris look more inept, as it's clear any deal will never get through the HoCs. So a) what's her version of better deal? She said today seeing in customs union and single market. So softer than the EU's WA b) if ANY deal won't pass the HoC why would she bother negotiating one? It's all bollocks to put a shit deal to Leavers and remain to remainers. Well that's it isn't it. There will only ever be an unacceptable deal on offer. She said it to show up Boris as he will not get an acceptable deal and she'll never have to prove that Labour can get a better one. It's not much different from anyone saying they can get a good deal.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 9, 2019 18:43:23 GMT
Yet ironically, Phillip Hammond wants to remain in an EU full of unelected which ones, unaccountable bureaucrats I raise you on++e mr cummings and ignore the democratic result of a vote held in his own nation. where has it been ignored?
|
|
|
Post by pearo on Sept 9, 2019 19:45:11 GMT
Yet ironically, Phillip Hammond wants to remain in an EU full of unelected which ones, unaccountable bureaucrats I raise you on++e mr cummings and ignore the democratic result of a vote held in his own nation. where has it been ignored? Around 32,000 people work for the European Commission, of which around 7,500 work at the European Parliament, of which 751 are elected members. Of the 32,000 people over 9,000 earn more money per annum than any elected member of the UK Parliament. Mr. Cummings is trying to deliver the Leave vote than won the referendum. What Mr. Hammond WANTS to do is ignore the afore mentioned vote, granted that has not happened yet.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Sept 9, 2019 19:55:58 GMT
Around 32,000 people work for the European Commission, of which around 7,500 work at the European Parliament, of which 751 are elected members. Of the 32,000 people over 9,000 earn more money per annum than any elected member of the UK Parliament. Mr. Cummings is trying to deliver the Leave vote than won the referendum. What Mr. Hammond WANTS to do is ignore the afore mentioned vote, granted that has not happened yet. If I were Boris, I would ask Tusk "What was that deal you supposedly offered May?". Piss on everybody's chips.
|
|
|
Post by essexstokey on Sept 10, 2019 10:55:01 GMT
Around 32,000 people work for the European Commission, of which around 7,500 work at the European Parliament, of which 751 are elected members. Of the 32,000 people over 9,000 earn more money per annum than any elected member of the UK Parliament. Now lets look at the uk how many civil servants do we have that are un electedMr. Cummings is trying to deliver the Leave vote than won the referendum. He is not elected and not a tory he is a paracite that has no electoral mandate and no political party yet he is running the governmentWhat Mr. Hammond WANTS to do is ignore the afore mentioned vote, granted that has not happened yet. As said before the vote was 1 advisory and 2 has not been rejected all that the MP'S are trying to do is stopping the uk crashing out without a deal with our biggest trading partners. this would increase food prices by upto 6%, decrease exports as a 10% tariff would be put on all british goods going into Europe, bring in extra costs like paperwork etc. in addition there would be an distinct risk to the good Friday agreement with a hard border being put up in Ireland add to that the risk of the union of the uk breaking up. how can a hard brexit be any use to anyone!! Lets throw in a few other things: 1 people may not know but the European union are implementing a law that will effect the tax dodging mega rich where offshore accounts will have to declare there income the true reason that they support brexit. 2 Mogg/ borris/ farage et el all will make millions out of this as you and me will pay more for there riches 3 Boris's backer will make 300+ million if the economy tanks has he has bet it will 4 those on low incomes or benefits will be proportionately hit the most with food price hikes pushing more into poverty and more to be reliant on food banks. So it looks like the ruling tories are governing for the few not the many Even borise's brother says its wrong and another 22 tories
|
|
|
Post by foster on Sept 10, 2019 11:15:03 GMT
Around 32,000 people work for the European Commission, of which around 7,500 work at the European Parliament, of which 751 are elected members. Of the 32,000 people over 9,000 earn more money per annum than any elected member of the UK Parliament. Now lets look at the uk how many civil servants do we have that are un electedMr. Cummings is trying to deliver the Leave vote than won the referendum. He is not elected and not a tory he is a paracite that has no electoral mandate and no political party yet he is running the governmentWhat Mr. Hammond WANTS to do is ignore the afore mentioned vote, granted that has not happened yet. As said before the vote was 1 advisory and 2 has not been rejected all that the MP'S are trying to do is stopping the uk crashing out without a deal with our biggest trading partners. this would increase food prices by upto 6%, decrease exports as a 10% tariff would be put on all british goods going into Europe, bring in extra costs like paperwork etc. in addition there would be an distinct risk to the good Friday agreement with a hard border being put up in Ireland add to that the risk of the union of the uk breaking up. how can a hard brexit be any use to anyone!! Lets throw in a few other things: 1 people may not know but the European union are implementing a law that will effect the tax dodging mega rich where offshore accounts will have to declare there income the true reason that they support brexit. 2 Mogg/ borris/ farage et el all will make millions out of this as you and me will pay more for there riches 3 Boris's backer will make 300+ million if the economy tanks has he has bet it will 4 those on low incomes or benefits will be proportionately hit the most with food price hikes pushing more into poverty and more to be reliant on food banks. So it looks like the ruling tories are governing for the few not the many Even borise's brother says its wrong and another 22 tories Have you got links for those first 3 points mate? As an impartial poster it's only fair that I question remainers on their sources, as well as leavers.
|
|