• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics

Gutter Boy said:
Who invests though? Not companies, because they just buy-in ready made from abroad. And not governments because they've outsourced all their business to companies.

Infrastructure is much more than people too. It's transport, buildings, underwriting loans. The way to alleviate concern about Nissan pulling out or the tariffs for importing from Germany is for the government to relaunch Rover.
Click to expand...
You said we were restricted by the EU to invest in manufacturing - I have shown you this was not the case, this is not philosophical debate there is tones the government are able to do (and didn't ) under the EU rules.
 
r-u-s-x said:
You said we were restricted by the EU to invest in manufacturing - I have shown you this was not the case, this is not philosophical debate there is tones the government are able to do (and didn't ) under the EU rules.
Click to expand...

Mainly disincentivised. But also to some extent restricted - see state aid laws
 
P.D. said:
I don't think it will happen but if they put a limit of say 5 years on it as Poland suggested then the deal would go through, there's also Labour people like Snell who have hinted they'd back a revised deal like that particularly as there will be a small change to put in more protection for environment regulations and workers rights.
Click to expand...

I think that might actually happen. It's the only thing there's a majority in the house for.

Just don't point out to the DUP that 5 years is well after the unionist voting age majority will have happened.
 
Gutter Boy said:
The last paragraph is it though. It works for shareholders, not society

If companies have no roots, they really are just mining workers until they spot a slightly better seam somewhere else, then bugger off.
Click to expand...

That's globalisation for you. And as Trump, no doubt, is discovering once it is out of the bottle you can't really put it back again.

It may be possible to rebalance the interests of society and business owners, but as various governments trying to tax digital multinationals have discovered that's not easy either. Especially given where power resides. Most likely, but not for some time yet, and not without a struggle, the inevitable implications of widespread automation/AI/other emerging technologies will force a rethink of the corporate model and distribution of risk and reward. That's if the effects of climate change or some other global event deosn't get there first.
 
Gutter Boy said:
If a few flighty neo-liberal organisations are getting twitchy at the state reasserting some authority, I'd take that as a good sign

Before the EU we had our own manufactures, rather than being reliant of Japanese good favour (based on access to cheap eastern european labour) and being able to buy German. Imagine if we produced and owned our own stuff again.
Click to expand...

Before Brexit we had ARM Holdings the world largest designer of processors and processor software. Their kit is used in iPhone processors, Bluetooth systems, WiFi etc etc in short a global leader designing the future. Now it's a Japanese company thanks to Brexit. We make plenty of cars in the UK. We may not own the company in the UK but there is lots of production and billions in investment and revenue, taxation, wages etc associated with building cars here. The only thing "flighty" will be these factories move into the EU. We've already had one move to Slovakia.

There is no "state authority" or vision unfortunately, just a monumental fudge that is costing the UK. Brexit does not help future manufacturing when you impare access to the worlds largest free trade area - on our door step.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
This conversation started out of the description of Labours plans being instantly dreamland stuff, and so then described as an opening gambit toward a solution.

Quite rightly it was pointed out that time has passed. And instead of playing PR and flimflam, if Labour have a desired solution they should be pushing for it directly.

They could be rallying Parliament behind it, leading the push for change, and really taking charge of proceedings.

Instead they, according to you, are more interested in playing games, manoeuvring, and making sure the Tories get shown up.

This is the fundamental problem I have. And what you reply isnt solutions, its rhetoric.

And yes - you are right. The government have fudged up. But the UK collective pay the price. And while the Conservatives have let us down, I fail to see how the same cannot be levelled at Labour to.

The Lib Dems are toothless, I know, but at least they have had a firm stance/solution throughout. All parties should have the same conviction.

As I said, the small time flimflam really shouldnt be the priority right now. A proper vision, and solution, should be.

And Corbyn saying he can get a unicorn deal is not it. Him using that as an opening stance is locking the door after the horse has bolted, this isnt the time for it and the EU have no need to entertain it. He is wasting time. And his preoccupation with apportioning blame is just getting in the way.

If he was a real leader he would have a bigger picture perspective.
Click to expand...

There are no solutions. If Brexit itself is funamentally flawed - that every exit scenerio leaves the UK worse off in one way or another - what would you propose is a 'solution'? Labour are not in power and can't negotiate with the EU, so its churlish to criticism them for Brexit, which is Tory created and run phenomenon. Sure Labour are on the fence, and it is their job to oppose the government - something they could do a lot better imo.
 
ringo said:
I think we are a lot less strong economy than we think we are. We may be a member of G7 and notionally sixth strongest economy, but I'm not sure that truly reflects shifting economic power in the global economy. We are hugely reliant on our (financial) services but everyone is after a slice of that pie, the financial world is being heavily disrupted by new technologies, I know from speaking to senior execs there are banks in Africa that have a better grasp of the future of banking than some UK banks. Personally, in an exceptionally mobile business world, I think our economic position is much more precarious than many people would think. Of course a lot of people are well aware of this - but a lot of those people have homes in many countries.

One thing that has worked in our favour is that people with money and power like to live and work in London. But London has changed for the worse in recent years - and if it has less pulling power - that will also make a big difference.
Click to expand...

It's true. And the post also encapulates possible underlying popularist sentiment that hasn't been listened to or addressed. Those that don't own houses in many countries, what do they get out of free trade, and cheap migrrant workers? It tinkles me off that politicans are neither addressing peoples ('popularist') concerns really or delivering anything of value in Brexit. They are missing both targets. The sooner we can appreciate genuine Brexit/ popularist concerns the sooner politicans can actually deliver to people. Brexit is a red herring, but an important one, that could focus minds on actually delivering to people (while still in the EU imo).
 
Brexit: MPs drop plan to put fresh referendum to Commons vote
  • 35 minutes ago
Members of the the cross-party People's Vote campaign have admitted they don't yet have enough support from MPs to get another EU referendum.

The MPs have dropped plans to table an amendment to next week's Commons vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal.

Instead, they will throw their weight behind a series of other delaying moves, to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

They conceded they had little chance of getting a referendum without Jeremy Corbyn telling Labour MPs to back it.

Sources at the People's Vote campaign said its official position was to get behind amendments calling for a delay to Brexit and for MPs to take control of the process.

Conservative MP Guto Bebb, speaking on behalf of the campaign, said: "When every route to Brexit has been examined and exhausted it will become clear the only way forward is to hand the final decision back to the British public through a People's Vote."

Labour MP Luciana Berger, a leading member of the People's Vote campaign, had been planning to table an amendment calling for a referendum, along with Conservative MP Sarah Wollaston and Labour's Mike Gapes, among others.

But Ms Wollaston told reporters: "With great regret we will not be laying that amendment because without the leader of the opposition's backing, it would not pass."

She said that with no majority among MPs for any approach to Brexit, Parliament would "inevitably be faced with the choice between 'No Deal' or returning the decision to the people".

'Not good enough'
Ms Berger called on Mr Corbyn to "do the right thing and back a people's vote", which she said was supported by millions of young Labour supporters and members.

"Labour should be clearly setting out a different course, not facilitating a job-destroying Brexit," she said.

"Yet at a time when Labour could be championing a People's Vote, the leadership avoids answering that call... This is not good enough."

She warned her party leader that Labour would "haemorrhage" votes at the next general election if he did not support a referendum.

Mr Corbyn has said he wants to try to force a general election before considering other options such as a referendum.

But the Labour leadership has taken a step towards backing a referendum in its own amendment to the vote on Theresa May's Brexit deal.

The amendment calls on the government to back Labour's plan for a permanent customs union with Brussels and a version of the EU's single market.

And it says the government should hold a public vote on either a deal or a proposition that has MPs' support.

The Liberal Democrats have also tabled an amendment, which "instructs the government to take all necessary steps to rule out a no-deal scenario and prepare for a people's vote in which the public will have the option to remain in the European Union on the ballot paper".

It will be up to Commons Speaker John Bercow to decide which amendments will be put to the vote on Tuesday.
 
They are making the final push for those numbers. Lammy did a speach saying you can't undermine democracy with more democracy which is the biggest pile i have ever heard.
 
Nayim is nothing, if not persistent, in saying this is Labour's fault. Seriously? No, no, no, the Tories, those who represent 'stabile government' own this clusterfudge. so let's have less of this flimflam moral equivalency
 
The People's Vote MPs can blame Corbyn all they want. The fact is, there are too many Labour MPs who don't want a 2nd referendum and there isn't really anything Corbyn can say to change their mind, as they are more concerned with their constituencies that voted to leave. Several frontbenchers have reportedly told Corbyn that they'd resign if he backs a 2nd vote. The likes of Caroline Flint aren't suddenly going to change their minds just because Corbyn says so -- and it's not like he wasn't independent minded as a backbench MP, as I'm sure they'd remind him. Still, never let a chance to bash Corbyn go to waste, eh Chukka?

The People's Vote group need to lobby these MPs if they want to get what they want. 70 Labour MPs turned up to their official launch the other day, nowhere near enough. They need many more plus the Remain Tories like Nicky Morgan, who currently aren't interested either.

IMO, they are wasting their time whilst there is a possibility of a Norway+/Soft-Brexit, which is likely the only thing that has a Parliamentary majority. That's what they should be pushing for imo.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I was just posting what came up on the BBC, is about the only "news" today in the politics section.
Click to expand...

I know, my Corbyn bashing comment was directed at Chukka Ummuna, champion of the "People's Vote."

I mean this lot are acting like there is this huge surge of support amongst Labour MPs for what they want, and Corbyn is the dam that's holding it all back. But it's not true and they know it; if it was, they'd table their amendment and watch as a huge Labour rebellion against Corbyn took place, which they would love as the side aim of the likes of Ummuna is to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity. Unfortunately for him, he isn't very good at politics.
 
the dza said:
I know, my Corbyn bashing comment was directed at Chukka Ummuna, champion of the "People's Vote."

I mean this lot are acting like there is this huge surge of support amongst Labour MPs for what they want, and Corbyn is the dam that's holding it all back. But it's not true and they know it; if it was, they'd table their amendment and watch as a huge Labour rebellion against Corbyn took place, which they would love as the side aim of the likes of Ummuna is to undermine Corbyn at every opportunity. Unfortunately for him, he isn't very good at politics.
Click to expand...

I thought from the convention there was an appetite for a referendum, and he basically quite begrudgingly accepted it as a "maybe if all else fails" option? Im pretty confident he doesnt want one, though cant say I know the workings or will of the party to know if he is the particular problem in this case.
 
nayimfromthehalfwayline said:
I thought from the convention there was an appetite for a referendum, and he basically quite begrudgingly accepted it as a "maybe if all else fails" option? Im pretty confident he doesnt want one, though cant say I know the workings or will of the party to know if he is the particular problem in this case.
Click to expand...

I don't think Corbyn wants one either. But if there was enough support for it amongst Labour MPs, what he wants on this matter would be irrelevant imo. When it comes to Brexit, as we see on the other side, the MPs are all quite willing to tell the party leaders to go phuck themselves.

I'm not against a 2nd referendum, we've talked about it quite a bit in this thread. But for those who want/would tolerate a soft-Brexit, that is a more likely avenue of success, at least at the moment.

The way the conference motion was put, is that Labour would try for a General Election (it doesn't say they'd have one quick crack at getting on and then give up on it) and if they couldn't secure one, then all other options would be on the table, including a 2nd referendum.

Corbyn's enemies in the party and their pals in media like The Guardian are trying to spin it that Corbyn is the biggest obstacle to a 2nd referendum. But that's not true -- it's 400 and something MPs whose constituencies voted leave, that's the biggest obstacle. Things may change in the coming weeks, but right now, there is not the appetite in Parliament for a 2nd ref. If Corbyn dropped dead tomorrow, that would hold true -- people often cite Yvette Cooper as someone who "should" be leader (oh, Labour would be 75 points ahead in the polls if Yvette were in charge etc.) However, she's not a supporter of a 2nd referendum either, as far as I know. Her seat was about 60% leave.
 
Not being a Labour supporter I didnt exactly watch the whole thing with baited breath, can only say the over riding message I got in the press/highlights etc was that the party were pushing for it and he didnt want to entertain it, eventually being forced to tack it on the end in an "only if .." way to appease them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back