  |
 At last some compassion from the Tories. |
| Track this thread - Email this thread - Print this thread - Download this thread - Subscribe to this forum |
 Oct 6 2016, 10:41 PM
Post
#41
|
|
 Queen of Soon
Joined: 24 May 2007
Posts: 74,077 User: 3,474 
      
|
QUOTE(Qassändra @ Oct 6 2016, 11:30 PM)  We're not talking about hypotheticals here - we know exactly how much extra WTO export tariffs will cost when trading with Single Market members if we leave. Having to pay extra for the exact same product you were buying before (which is now also at a price disadvantage to competitors in the Single Market) has big knock-on effects, to put it lightly. I have crunched numbers on this, as an Accountant, and the cost to business is frightful. Many businesses are very concerned about the tariffs and the cashflow impact this will have. Going for a hard BrExit, which is not what this country voted for (not that the bigotted moronic 52% had a f***ing clue what they were voting for beyond some w*** about control and a humongous lie about £350m that doesn't exist and the NHS), will see thousands of firms go bankrupt under the strain of having to pay tariffs. Even if we get a good deal of below the WTO rates we're in for billions of revenues going on tariffs and a hoard of bankruptcies. |
 |
 
|
|
Oct 6 2016, 10:51 PM
Post
#42
|
|
 DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
           
|
Exactly. Plenty of small firms are operating on narrow profit margins. When you suddenly have to pay 8 percent extra to access the same market you relied on for your revenues before, that only ends in job losses or price increases - or bankruptcy, if you're now resoundingly outcompeted by another firm doing what you do cheaper from another Single Market country.
The reason Theresa May is terrifying is because most other leaders would look at that and see what could be done instead to stay in the market but work to alleviate any negative side-effects of immigration. Theresa May has made clamping immigration down to a trickle (because let's be real - you don't make *that* much of an economic sacrifice just to get the option to control immigration) the ultimate aim here, regardless of the economic consequences. The upside is that we've got about two years' warning that this is her aim. I really don't want to be a siren voice here, but if anyone is genuinely not sure if they would be secure enough to withstand another recession on a par with the crash - or worse - I'd advise saving now to move to another country for the year or two of the storm after we leave. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2016, 10:55 PM
Post
#43
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Silas @ Oct 6 2016, 11:41 PM) I have crunched numbers on this, as an Accountant, and the cost to business is frightful. Many businesses are very concerned about the tariffs and the cashflow impact this will have. One of my company's clients deals with big data for financial services firms. The second we lose financial services passporting across the Single Market...well, that 10% of UK tax revenues from the City was nice while it lasted. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2016, 11:07 PM
Post
#44
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Qassändra @ Oct 6 2016, 11:30 PM) Also, there's a reason they're calling her Mayliband. It isn't a 'more left-wing agenda' - it's one or two of the same policies (but not a mansion tax, nor a 50p top rate, nor a cap on energy prices...) mixed in with a platform of taking us out of a trade zone so we can reduce immigration to a trickle. Additional spending is also given tremendous leeway by the fact we've just had a big economic shock. It's no great mystery why they trust the Tories to turn on the spending taps at a time like this but not Labour - the Tories didn't spend the last six years looking like they were champing at the bit to start increasing spending massively, regardless of whether the economic climate was good or not. When did Miliband regularly talk about "curbing excessive pay in the private sector", and regularly talk in as blunt terms about "corporate irresponsibility"? Hell, even with the workers in boardrooms thing, Miliband was barely mentioning that by the end, Chuka Umunna (who would've been responsible in this area) certainly wasn't talking about it, and I really don't see that it would've happened if Labour had won last year. QUOTE(Qassändra @ Oct 6 2016, 11:55 PM) One of my company's clients deals with big data for financial services firms. The second we lose financial services passporting across the Single Market...well, that 10% of UK tax revenues from the City was nice while it lasted. And the problem is? Maybe then, to fill the hole, maybe politicians will be forced to build a different economic model, one which isn't just geared towards the international mega-rich and a tiny sliver of the British upper-middle-class. This post has been edited by Danny: Oct 6 2016, 11:08 PM |
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2016, 11:33 PM
Post
#45
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Oct 7 2016, 12:07 AM) When did Miliband regularly talk about "curbing excessive pay in the private sector", and regularly talk in as blunt terms about "corporate irresponsibility"? Hell, even with the workers in boardrooms thing, Miliband was barely mentioning that by the end, Chuka Umunna (who would've been responsible in this area) certainly wasn't talking about it, and I really don't see that it would've happened if Labour had won last year. The 2015 manifesto: QUOTE We will improve the link between executive pay and performance by simplifying pay packages, and requiring investment and pension fund managers to disclose how they vote on top pay. And we will make sure employees have a voice when executive pay is set by requiring employee representation on remuneration committees. The reason it was barely mentioned is because neither are exactly the kind of policy that shifts many votes. Or really get much attention when it isn't someone from Labour saying it. I mean, I know you're fond of the meme that Ed Miliband was too terrified to do anything because of the press (despite being the only opposition leader until that point to directly attack Murdoch's interests), but in the event of a Labour government they probably would've done, y'know, maybe at least ONE OR TWO things to justify a Labour government, if only because if Ed Miliband really wanted an easy life as an Opposition leader he probably would've given the whole 'saying anything at all that pissed off the papers' thing a miss. I'm not really sure why you think they wouldn't have done the free measure of mandating workers on boards.QUOTE(Danny @ Oct 7 2016, 12:07 AM) And the problem is? Maybe then, to fill the hole, maybe politicians will be forced to build a different economic model, one which isn't just geared towards the international mega-rich and a tiny sliver of the British upper-middle-class. The problem is you lose the best part of £66bn in tax revenues a year for the foreseeable. I presume you quite like the idea of a 60 percent top rate of tax? That would generate one twentieth that amount. Assuming there were no knock-on effects on the economy (which is a generous assumption, to say the least), it's the equivalent of raising everyone's taxes by 12p in the pound. Or closing two thirds of the UK's schools. Building a different economic model that gives you the same huge tax revenues from one world-leading sector is...easier said than done. It's like setting fire to your Ferrari and saying 'well, this will encourage me to build my own railway!'. You're starting from scratch with a massive building task to create a new sector that will definitely already have a few long-established world leaders. Just getting rid of one globally influential sector doesn't give you a headstart in making a new one. It just means a long time with less tax revenue (which also means less tax revenue to invest in any new sector development), waiting in the hope you eventually get a replacement. (Oh, and you're also attempting to do this during a period of huge economic turmoil after you've just left the Single Market, aren't getting loads of skilled labour in from immigration because you've just made a decision to reduce it to a minimum, etcetcetc) |
|
|
|
|
Oct 6 2016, 11:56 PM
Post
#46
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Qassändra @ Oct 7 2016, 12:33 AM) The 2015 manifesto: The reason it was barely mentioned is because neither are exactly the kind of policy that shifts many votes. Or really get much attention when it isn't someone from Labour saying it. I mean, I know you're fond of the meme that Ed Miliband was too terrified to do anything because of the press (despite being the only opposition leader until that point to directly attack Murdoch's interests), but in the event of a Labour government they probably would've done, y'know, maybe at least ONE OR TWO things to justify a Labour government, if only because if Ed Miliband really wanted an easy life as an Opposition leader he probably would've given the whole 'saying anything at all that pissed off the papers' thing a miss. I'm not really sure why you think they wouldn't have done the free measure of mandating workers on boards. Because it would've provoked the usual squealing from the Tories, the press, the CBI, Blair and Mandelson, about how it was "anti-business" and would "destroy the economy". Before you know it, Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna would've been demanding a U-turn, and Miliband would've caved in within about a week. (Also, the idea that Miliband was "brave" in taking on Murdoch is nonsense -- for the first year he was leader, he sucked up to them endlessly and didn't say anything about the phone-hacking scandal, he only spoke out after the Milly Dowler story broke when he thought it was a sure thing that Murdoch was finished in Britain, and then when it turned out that Murdoch was staying, Miliband as usual caved in and went back to doing free promo stunts for them.) This post has been edited by Danny: Oct 6 2016, 11:59 PM |
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 04:10 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(Danny @ Oct 7 2016, 12:56 AM) Because it would've provoked the usual squealing from the Tories, the press, the CBI, Blair and Mandelson, about how it was "anti-business" and would "destroy the economy". Before you know it, Ed Balls and Chuka Umunna would've been demanding a U-turn, and Miliband would've caved in within about a week. You're doing that thing where you go off into a rabbit hole of ludicrous caricature again. Mandelson as Business Secretary took inspiration from Germany all the time - why would he come out and say something commonplace in Germany would "destroy the economy"? Why would Chuka Umunna, who proposed it as Shadow Business Secretary, demand a u-turn on a policy he drove forward? Why would literally any Labour MP (all of whom have to be members of at least one trades union) claim the concept of workers having mere *representation* on a board would in any way stop business from working or destroy the economy? Also...why exactly do you think Ed Miliband would go through the emotional trauma of shattering a relationship with his brother, finally make it into government by taking the long way around and trying to be more left-wing than a straight-forward Blairite approach (which if he really wanted to he could have done easily from the start), and then do literally nothing left-wing in government? What exactly do you think he wanted to get there for?! Miliband's actions blocked Murdoch's purchase of BSkyB and led to the Leveson Charter - hardly sucking up. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 07:47 AM
Post
#48
|
|
|
BuzzJack Enthusiast
Joined: 4 November 2014
Posts: 527 User: 21,342
|
QUOTE(Silas @ Oct 6 2016, 11:34 PM) Not that you appear to let facts get in your way, but that only includes 6 days of the Brexit aftermath. Q3 statistics are unsurprisingly (given it only ended a week ago) yet to be released and they hold a better picture of any impact the vote will have had. Also, if the Steling swan-diving to a 31 year low in June and then going lower again this past week, causing us once more to slip behind France in the ranking of Global economies, while staying at a exceedingly low rate for the past quarter isn't plummeting then what is? edit - this is aimed at that peace mob creature, not you tyron. Although you probably gathered that given that you have a functioning brain. The pound sterling has been overvalued for years so it was overdue that it would drop so much, of course anyone with the slightest idea about economics would know that. And if you weren't so doom and gloom, you'd know that so far in Q3 2016 all sectors of the British economy is looking good, services is up, construction is up, manufacturing is up. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 08:07 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
|
...Craig?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 11:09 AM
Post
#50
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
OMG IT IS
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 11:14 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
QUOTE(PeaceMob @ Oct 7 2016, 08:47 AM) The pound sterling has been overvalued for years so it was overdue that it would drop so much, of course anyone with the slightest idea about economics would know that Traders sold the pound en masse because we voted to do something that is awful for our economic prospects and will almost certainly leave us trading on unfavourable terms with our biggest economic bloc partner. They didn't sell the pound as part of a considered adjustment that they'd been overestimating how strong the UK's economic fundamentals are on a day-to-day basis. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 12:01 PM
Post
#52
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
 
|
Agreeing with all Qassandra and Silas are saying here.
Countries, on the topic of overvalued currency, who have currency declining find imports of raw materials and foreign goods increasing, that includes all the cheap Lidl and co, clothes, oil going up. So everyone has less money to spend on British goods, so British firms get hit hard. The notion that May will hit her fellow megarich Tories and the press barons and have any power over what private companies pay their directors is laughable. Just words. Cut their own economic throats for the benfit of poor people? Not in a million f***ing years. Those in charge of important gov roles have million stashed away in offshore accounts, like they will do ANYTHING to change that!! Only a fool would think it's anything other than a soundbyte. Housing? A million homes on 2 billion pounds? Err what sort of homes? Council Housing? Flats? Where? Who's building them? In case anyone hadnt noticed their aren't enough British builders to build that many houses. That means getting some Polish and other foreign skilled workers into the country. Who'd want to come here not knowing whether they would get kicked out an any time? I also make with my shoddy maths re house building that they intend building houses at 2,000 pounds per house, which is really economical. 2 billion divided by 1 million? I'll have half a dozen please! The banks have power. We are still supporting British banks financially (and mortgage stretched people paying little out compared to what they should be paying) savings get less and less as the pound drops, so there will be a permanently poor underclass. Foreign banks will insist on passporting deals. If they dont get it they will move. British economy will collapse. Think things are tough now? They will be MUCH worse. All these things are entirely logical and predictable. To make bland statements about all being fine is like the whale in hitchikers falling to earth humming to itself, thinking the ground rushing up towards it is a friend. Splat! |
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 04:28 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
My mother said, to get things done, you better not mess with Maj
Joined: 28 October 2014
Posts: 5,765 User: 21,319
|
To anyone saying this country hasn't plummeted, the UK economy fell behind France's within minutes of the result being announced. And I know this since one of my friends was happy about Brexit for that reason.
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 7 2016, 07:14 PM
Post
#54
|
|
|
BuzzJack Gold Member
Joined: 11 April 2006
Posts: 4,259 User: 457
|
QUOTE(Qassändra @ Oct 7 2016, 05:10 AM) You're doing that thing where you go off into a rabbit hole of ludicrous caricature again. Mandelson as Business Secretary took inspiration from Germany all the time - why would he come out and say something commonplace in Germany would "destroy the economy"? Why would Chuka Umunna, who proposed it as Shadow Business Secretary, demand a u-turn on a policy he drove forward? Why would literally any Labour MP (all of whom have to be members of at least one trades union) claim the concept of workers having mere *representation* on a board would in any way stop business from working or destroy the economy? Oh come on, you must be allowing yourself serious selective amnesia about the 2010-15 period. These people were all squealing in horror just at the suggestion of rich people having to pay a bit more tax, or the suggestion that energy companies should drop their prices --- you really think they would've been sanguine about the idea of a Labour government letting workers overrule their bosses (the so-called "wealth creators"), giving the average employee pay rises, and capping the pay packets of the top guns? You really think that wouldn't've provoked the usual round of taunts about how it was "Marxist", "anti-business", "anti-aspiration", "a recipe for unproductivity", "scaring the wealth creators overseas"? And you really think Miliband wouldn't've caved in, despite having a record of ALWAYS doing so whenever he was faced with those kind of attacks? QUOTE Ed Miliband ... tried to be more left-wing than a straight-forward Blairite approach  QUOTE Miliband's actions blocked Murdoch's purchase of BSkyB and led to the Leveson Charter - hardly sucking up. Yes, in the brief period where it seemed like Murdoch was toast in the midst of the huge public uproar at Milly Dowler's phone being hacked, so Miliband thought he could safely jump on the bandwagon without any risks. Yet both before and after that period, when it was obvious Miliband would actually have something to lose by standing up and saying something, his backbone was MIA as usual. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2016, 01:03 AM
Post
#55
|
|
|
DROTTNING!
Joined: 15 April 2006
Posts: 63,953 User: 480
|
Mmm. Squealing so much in horror they proceeded to put those policies in their manifesto. When your definition of 'they retreated and caved in on the policy' seems to be 'they stopped mentioning it in every TV clip', does any Opposition policy exist at all after three months?
|
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2016, 12:08 PM
Post
#56
|
|
|
BuzzJack Legend
Joined: 18 July 2012
Posts: 22,812 User: 17,376
|
I'm a little confused on Corbyn Labour's policies right now. Given there could be a Gen Election at any time, in theory, just what is Labour Party Policy on important topics?
1) The EU. He stated the day after the referendum he wanted to trigger Art 50 immediately, but hasn't given any clearer idea what he would now be doing about it, or intends to do about it, other than he supports it. No actual details? 2) Council Housing building - fab idea. How many? How's he paying for it? Council's are decimated and have no cash. Where is he going to build the housing, what areas, what land, how's he going to tackle NIMBYism? Where are the skilled builders coming from? 3) Trident: is this or isn't this official Labour policy? 4) Indie Scotland? 5) Explain how a nationalised railway industry is going to guarantee seats for everyone during busy periods - just back from Spain, fab, cheap railway network, but to say it's packed in the rush hour is to understate a bit, and they have double-decker trains. I saw some people choosing to sit on the floor (skateboarder, frinstance) despite many vacant seats. That makes Jezza cool I guess. The taxpayer will of course pay for the railway network (which I'm not against) but how is this going to be costed? more tax on the lower paid, or higher paid, or both? 6) NHS support. Issue of foreign doctors and staff. Can they stay? Where's money coming from to stop cuts? More borrowing? More tax? Ta.... |
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2016, 12:41 PM
Post
#57
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
  
|
I thought that this was a thread about the Tories having some compassion...
Which after the overturning of Lancashire council's democratic decision to ban fracking seems to be ROLLING MERRILY ALONG as per.  QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) I'm a little confused on Corbyn Labour's policies right now. Given there could be a Gen Election at any time, in theory, just what is Labour Party Policy on important topics? 1) The EU. He stated the day after the referendum he wanted to trigger Art 50 immediately, but hasn't given any clearer idea what he would now be doing about it, or intends to do about it, other than he supports it. No actual details? He seems to have about as much of a clue about how the EU works as the three dopey stooges from government currently in charge of negotiations on behalf of the UK, i.e. 'fuck all'. He is ‘pressing for full access to the European single market’ but like the Tories doesn't seem to want to accept all of the conditions adding ‘There are directives and obligations linked to the single market, such as state aid rules and requirements to liberalise and privatise public services, which we would not want to see as part of a post-Brexit relationship’, which matches the Tories and their ‘but we don’t want free movement of people’ having-their-cake-and-eating-it mantra. QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) 2) Council Housing building - fab idea. How many? How's he paying for it? Council's are decimated and have no cash. Where is he going to build the housing, what areas, what land, how's he going to tackle NIMBYism? Where are the skilled builders coming from? Agreed, it is a good idea. Paying for it will be achieved by removing the artificial local borrowing cap to allow councils to borrow against their housing stock. That single measure alone would allow them to build an extra 12,000 council homes a year. NIMBYism can be tackled by providing more investment in local services, transport and jobs - plenty of places to build in the UK! QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) 3) Trident: is this or isn't this official Labour policy? It is official Labour policy, whether Jeremy likes it or not. QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) 4) Indie Scotland? Yes. QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) 5) Explain how a nationalised railway industry is going to guarantee seats for everyone during busy periods - just back from Spain, fab, cheap railway network, but to say it's packed in the rush hour is to understate a bit, and they have double-decker trains. I saw some people choosing to sit on the floor (skateboarder, frinstance) despite many vacant seats. That makes Jezza cool I guess. The taxpayer will of course pay for the railway network (which I'm not against) but how is this going to be costed? more tax on the lower paid, or higher paid, or both? 2 words: SOUTHERN RAIL. QUOTE(popchartfreak @ Oct 8 2016, 01:08 PM) 6) NHS support. Issue of foreign doctors and staff. Can they stay? Where's money coming from to stop cuts? More borrowing? More tax? Ta.... Would suggest reading this for more: http://www.jeremyforlabour.com/policies |
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2016, 01:42 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
I'm so lonely, I paid a hobo to spoon with me
Joined: 6 February 2010
Posts: 12,908 User: 10,596
|
It's quite telling that he came up with more policy initiatives in a two month leadership campaign than he did in the previous nine months as party leader.
Anyhow, back on topic. Sajid Javid being at DCLG made the fracking somewhat inevitable. Eager not to be outdone, his planning minister Gavin Barwell the other day suggested that the problem with the housing crisis is that developers aren't building units small enough for millennials to live in. |
|
|
|
|
Oct 8 2016, 03:10 PM
Post
#59
|
|
|
#38BBE0 otherwise known as 'sky blue'
Joined: 27 October 2008
Posts: 16,170 User: 7,561
|
QUOTE(Soy Adrián @ Oct 8 2016, 02:42 PM) Eager not to be outdone, his planning minister Gavin Barwell the other day suggested that the problem with the housing crisis is that developers aren't building units small enough for millennials to live in. Yes I saw that, despite the fact that we already build the smallest houses in Europe! What with Cherie Blair representing landlords against the governments forthcoming 2017 change to taxation which takes away the ability of higher and additional-rate taxpaying landlords to deduct their mortgage interest from their rental income before calculating their tax bill, they really are trying to do everything they can to keep house prices high! Good luck with that when we leave the EU.
This post has been edited by Doctor Blind: Oct 8 2016, 03:10 PM |
|
|
|
|
| Time is now: 19th April 2024 - 11:32 PM |
Copyright © 2006 - 2024 BuzzJack.com
About | Contact | Advertise | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service
