• 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 (so long and thanks for all the fish)

You never will either, unless you only have two candidates and a 100% turnout. It's a warped concept of democracy - it's always been about popular, not adding together all the losers' votes.

Preferential voting also creates perverse incentives - i.e. the Tories would actually do better if UKIP were strong, so you might end up with parties propping up rivals as gameplaying tactics.



Or just a decent candidate that builds a presence in their area and then inspires people to vote for them. Pursued people by hope and a positive agenda, not fear and plotting.

That might work at the level of local council elections but for general elections the broader party affiliation is pretty much always going to play a very significant part in how a constituent casts their vote, no matter how nice/good/empathetic the individual candidate might be.
 
The European Commission is making much of a wish for “strategic autonomy” in financial services, arguing that it needs to find ways to pull financial business from the UK into the EU after Brexit.

The main reason for the EU’s strong push for business might not readily be apparent to all. It is not just a matter of jobs.

Underlying the push is a wish to be in a position to control and modify global financial regulatory standards to relieve market pressures on the highly fragile – and dangerous – euro project. However, the idea is a reckless one and the consequences of such an approach, were the EU to succeed, could be calamitous for the world economy.

The reason for this arises from the structure of the eurozone. EU law splits eurozone sovereignty between the member states, who are in charge for fiscal purposes, and the European Central Bank, which governs monetary matters. As a result, neither is sovereign.

Unlike true sovereigns, such as the UK or US, eurozone member states cannot require the ECB to print more money to repay debts. So the only monies they can count on are those arising from their tax base.

Member debt is being used to fund the eurozone. Vast amounts are held by EU and international investors. Because of the lack of a sovereign issuer, those investors run the constant risk of member state default – that is, other than for a relatively small amount of EU bonds issued for Covid funding.

The zone is funding itself on the basis of debt of sub-sovereign quality, leaving the zone highly vulnerable to market sentiment. In the meantime the EU has sought to force the market to regard the arrangements as normal, and appropriate for a currency zone.

EU law and regulation requires EU financial firms to treat the member states’ sub-sovereign paper as sovereign. Furthermore, some of the costs arising from the setup have been ignored or hidden, with the adoption of accounting treatments that allow for assets, such as non-performing loans, to be reported by financial firms as being other than they are.

Similarly, accounting treatments mean that liabilities which the markets assume are borne by wealthy members such as Germany fail to appear on the relevant balance sheet, giving a misleading picture of financial health.

The fundamental problem is that the cost of mutualising eurozone member state debts and creating a unitary state is too high, politically, and it is clear this will not occur any time soon. Also, the cost of properly capitalising and applying international standards to the EU’s financial system, to reflect the risk arising from this setup, would be prohibitively expensive. The evolving fictions are creating flashpoints, the most public of which is euro clearing.

This is a business under which, for certain liquid derivatives trades, a clearing house becomes the buyer to every seller, and the seller to every buyer. This allows for reduction of risk in the financial markets through the netting of offsetting positions.

The resulting cleared contracts contain long-term exposures and the clearing house collects collateral, often daily, from market participants to adjust for the fluctuating value of the exposures.

Trillions of risk is safely cleared in the UK; but the EU wishes to control this function, and potentially to tax it to raise funds for the eurozone.

The EU has been threatening not to allow EU financial firms to use UK clearing houses
by not using its powers to declare them to be safe. This is despite UK standards being higher, because, unlike the EU, the UK is not seeking to paper over the cracks of a half-built financial system, thus masking the dangers arising from the eurozone.

The European Commission has recently issued a reprieve in its efforts to pull apart the business of UK clearing houses, saying it will continue to recognise the use by EU parties of UK clearing houses, temporarily, while it builds capacity to house the business within the EU.

But the Commission made clear its efforts will not abate. The EU is arguing that euro clearing is an essential part of its supply chain which it needs to control, and that this therefore needs to be onshored.

The EU rails at the fact that in 2011 and 2012 the London Clearing House – one of the three main UK clearing houses, increased “haircuts”, or discounts – applied to the value of southern eurozone member state bonds when received by the clearing house as collateral, to take account of the value those bonds had at the time.

However, the EU’s unique legal arrangements for the eurozone mean that the EU’s attempts to drag euro clearing to its shores are, indeed, reckless.

The EU’s wish to restrict the discounting of eurozone debt by clearing houses would present extreme risk when the markets take a different view of the value of that debt, for instance because they regard the fiscal arrangements within the issuing member state as having worsened.

What EU control would mean is that a clearing house would run an increased risk, at the behest of EU regulators, of its collateral being insufficient to cover losses; and because the clearing house sits in the middle, between buyers and sellers, this risk would effectively be mutualised among the world’s major financial institutions who provide their clients with clearing services.

The EU often likes to refer to the US as a comparator. But there is a profound difference. The US is a single country, with central organs which the federal sovereign stands behind. That is not true of the EU.

The EU is trying to run before it can walk. The world cannot stand by and allow it to do so, discarding the risks of its half-built currency system on to everyone else.
 
You never will either, unless you only have two candidates and a 100% turnout. It's a warped concept of democracy - it's always been about popular, not adding together all the losers' votes.

Preferential voting also creates perverse incentives - i.e. the Tories would actually do better if UKIP were strong, so you might end up with parties propping up rivals as gameplaying tactics.



Or just a decent candidate that builds a presence in their area and then inspires people to vote for them. Pursued people by hope and a positive agenda, not fear and plotting.

What a load of nonsense you do spout. Right now, the anti Tory plurality is pretty strong and preferential voting would give left leaning liberals Greens and others a chance to get their second choice Labour candidate up. Under the present system, Labour will never govern independently again. Also, what the fudge do non voters have to do with anything? Clearly we are speaking about a majority of people who do cast a vote. The way to fix that, is to have compulsory voting. Tories brick their pants just contemplating that.
 
My mother had Italian heritage, her father immigrated her from Italy turn of the previous century. Always worked as well. So yeah we are heroes descended from heroes blah blah.

I know of so many people who have worked all their life and whose children can not not only get on the property ladder can't afford to rent yet see people just turned up in the country been given housing.

Yes Maggie sold a load off and it was wrong but to pretend that the is no issue is frankly mental. People always give the case study about their own families as if it is somehow relevant. Then wonder why the is such apathy with current politics. I honestly feel I have more in common with the average working class voter, though to lots of lazy people let's just call us all racists.

On other political issues I'm seriously considering actually joining the Labour Party and not just voting for them. Then I read Sir Kier wants to ban private health care?? So me paying for private health care and not be a burden on the health service is a problem? Not sure what is wrong with the guy.
I’ve said to you before, it’s the free market in both the rental and owner occupier sector that makes housing become unaffordable. We build housing developments but enable the developers to charge the market rate for all of them rather than force them to build affordable houses. City People buying second homes in the country, you buying up your multiple investment homes, allowing foreign investment buying of British homes. These are all major factors affecting housing affordability. I live in London and have kids who may or may not afford housing local to me. I don’t gripe about it. I have to find a way to help them if I can. Btw you keep bleating on about class as if the “working class” speak with just one beaten down voice. I am from working class stock not a family of bankers or lawyers. I went into the Police force and now work in local government.

On the jobs issue well many immigrants come and do jobs where there is a shortage of labour. They are willing to move and leave their families where many ( not all) natives are not. Without them those jobs don’t get done. If there is apathy to politics it’s because people want simple solutions to complex problems. Brexit is an example.

The example of my dad is relevant to this argument and yeah not everyone is the same blah blah. But it shows what you can achieve with a bit of motivation and if you don’t sit around feeling sorry for yourself or blame others. You are forever going on about how you’ve “made it” in life from humble beginnings so you obviously think the same.
 
Last edited:
I’ve said to you before, it’s the free market in both the rental and owner occupier sector that makes housing become unaffordable. We build housing developments but enable the developers to charge the market rate for all of them rather than force them to build affordable houses. City People buying second homes in the country, you buying up your multiple investment homes, allowing foreign investment buying of British homes. These are all major factors affecting housing affordability. I live in London and have kids who may or may not afford housing local to me. I don’t gripe about it. I have to find a way to help them if I can. Btw you keep bleating on about class as if the “working class” speak with just one beaten down voice. I am from working class stock not a family of bankers or lawyers. I went into the Police force and now work in local government.

On the jobs issue well many immigrants come and do jobs where there is a shortage of labour. They are willing to move and leave their families where many ( not all) natives are not. Without them those jobs don’t get done. If there is apathy to politics it’s because people want simple solutions to complex problems. Brexit is an example.

The example of my dad is relevant to this argument and yeah not everyone is the same blah blah. But it shows what you can achieve with a bit of motivation and if you don’t sit around feeling sorry for yourself or blame others. You are forever going on about how you’ve “made it” in life from humble beginnings so you obviously think the same.

Absolutely I did make it from humble beginnings, but not everyone is as great as your dad and me. He sounds like a good guy and I know I'm fcuking terrific.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/busines...prove/?li_source=LI&li_medium=liftigniter-rhr

Right on cue I read the above link this morning. I don't care if the tories don't win the next election. I hope they don't and would be amazed if they do.

What that article showed me yet again is how in touch I am with the red wall voters. When I was younger I think I was the "Essex" voter, not from Essex though thank GHod.

The lack of housing and where the housing we do have goes is an important issue and is causing the sort of social issues that so many liberals hate. Sort that out and we can all go round holding hands and singing hippy folk songs to your hearts content.
 
The lack of housing and where the housing we do have goes is an important issue and is causing the sort of social issues that so many liberals hate. Sort that out and we can all go round holding hands and singing hippy folk songs to your hearts content.
Lack of housing is not a liberal issue. This goes back to looking at simplistic causes for complex problems. It’s everything to do with market economics and the fact that successive governments have used the housing market to create an economic bubble. You post in a very divisive way as if liberals all sit on one side and “working class” on another. I wish life was so black and white.
 
Lack of housing is not a liberal issue. This goes back to looking at simplistic causes for complex problems. It’s everything to do with market economics and the fact that successive governments have used the housing market to create an economic bubble. You post in a very divisive way as if liberals all sit on one side and “working class” on another. I wish life was so black and white.
There's only one problem with the housing market and that's the artificial stops on building that all govts have put in place.

If demand is high and supply low, the incentive is there for more housing to be built until an equilibrium is reached. But governments don't allow those houses to be built and inexplicably put their thumb on the scales.
 
I get that which is why I am not a Tory. I believe in great public services to help people up the ladder, schools, health, transport and housing. But to a certain extent people need to help themselves to take advantage of these rather than expecting everything to come to them.

I really could have written that word for word. Honestly think we agree, just probably differ on slight differences.
 
There's only one problem with the housing market and that's the artificial stops on building that all govts have put in place.

If demand is high and supply low, the incentive is there for more housing to be built until an equilibrium is reached. But governments don't allow those houses to be built and inexplicably put their thumb on the scales.

It's party that but also it seems most people agree more housing is needed but only as long as it isn't anywhere near them. Where I live as soon as any new housing, flats or conversions are proposed everyone is up in arms about it. Similarly with the Tory policy to build more in certain areas, an algorithm might not be the best way but really people just didn't want their own area being built up.

A lot of the reasons are due to lack of supporting infrastructure, a lot of the time they build housing but no new schools, medical facilities, roads/public transport etc to support it so you get horrendous traffic issues and complaints about services.
 
It's party that but also it seems most people agree more housing is needed but only as long as it isn't anywhere near them. Where I live as soon as any new housing, flats or conversions are proposed everyone is up in arms about it. Similarly with the Tory policy to build more in certain areas, an algorithm might not be the best way but really people just didn't want their own area being built up.

A lot of the reasons are due to lack of supporting infrastructure, a lot of the time they build housing but no new schools, medical facilities, roads/public transport etc to support it so you get horrendous traffic issues and complaints about services.
There's plenty of space in the North for building and nobody who matters to complain about it.
 
It's party that but also it seems most people agree more housing is needed but only as long as it isn't anywhere near them. Where I live as soon as any new housing, flats or conversions are proposed everyone is up in arms about it. Similarly with the Tory policy to build more in certain areas, an algorithm might not be the best way but really people just didn't want their own area being built up.

A lot of the reasons are due to lack of supporting infrastructure, a lot of the time they build housing but no new schools, medical facilities, roads/public transport etc to support it so you get horrendous traffic issues and complaints about services.

The traffic is terrible in southern Sussex.
 
The drugs policy things is a bit weird. Basically the government are following scientific advice and changing it from being a criminal issue to a health issue (good news/idea). But they are having divert the attention of their Tunbridge Wells members by these empty threats of a war on party ('middle class') drug use. Which is pointless because that's the type that generally causes no harm to anyone (aside from distribution being forced to criminalised). So good news, but with a random bit of Mary Whitehouse charade thrown in for the puritan audience.
 
The drugs policy things is a bit weird. Basically the government are following scientific advice and changing it from being a criminal issue to a health issue (good news/idea). But they are having divert the attention of their Tunbridge Wells members by these empty threats of a war on party ('middle class') drug use. Which is pointless because that's the type that generally causes no harm to anyone (aside from distribution being forced to criminalised). So good news, but with a random bit of Mary Whitehouse charade thrown in for the puritan audience.

What they going to do. Stop and search on yuppies?
 
What they going to do. Stop and search on yuppies?
Ring everybody on confiscated dealers phones and tell them to stop takin drugs
The police don't have time to do anywhere near the job they should so how exactly will they be able to do the above
Laughable

Legalise it, tax it, and hey presto all the crime around it stops
 
Back