How anyone could even begin to think that is a good idea.

 

Same with the police really. Just hire people to do the job properly.

It certainly seems to be a rather bizarre idea.

but Brexit is guaranteed to give us shitloads of money to spend on all those ships we will need to patrol, all those borders in Ireland to man, and extra staff at ports airports to carefully check all those EU people trying to enter the country illegally.....

 

Then chase up those that slip through the net. What sort of numpty would volunteer to do a job for nothing? One with mates smuggling goods or people, most likely.

 

In other words, it's the government starting to make announcements about all the money they are going to have to spend, having denied it would cost anything. Just making sure we all get used to the idea that Brexit is going to be very expensive just so we can't say we weren't warned......(2 years later)

but Brexit is guaranteed to give us shitloads of money to spend on all those ships we will need to patrol, all those borders in Ireland to man, and extra staff at ports airports to carefully check all those EU people trying to enter the country illegally.....

 

Then chase up those that slip through the net. What sort of numpty would volunteer to do a job for nothing? One with mates smuggling goods or people, most likely.

 

In other words, it's the government starting to make announcements about all the money they are going to have to spend, having denied it would cost anything. Just making sure we all get used to the idea that Brexit is going to be very expensive just so we can't say we weren't warned......(2 years later)

 

Ah, but not all of us voted for Brexit in the belief it would guarantee saving money - after all, you can't put a price on sovereignty. :thinking:

 

On a side issue, thanks to everyone who *didn't* vote for me as The Poster Who Represents The Worst Of Buzzjack' - I feared I would be a shoe-in, given how much I argue with people here. ;)

Ah, but not all of us voted for Brexit in the belief it would guarantee saving money - after all, you can't put a price on sovereignty. :thinking:

It's going to be fun watching that be tested over the next few years.

 

On a side issue, thanks to everyone who *didn't* vote for me as The Poster Who Represents The Worst Of Buzzjack' - I feared I would be a shoe-in, given how much I argue with people here. ;)

Not that I got round to voting, but thankfully you don't really represent the forum as a whole.

Ah, but not all of us voted for Brexit in the belief it would guarantee saving money - after all, you can't put a price on sovereignty. :thinking:

 

On a side issue, thanks to everyone who *didn't* vote for me as The Poster Who Represents The Worst Of Buzzjack' - I feared I would be a shoe-in, given how much I argue with people here. ;)

 

 

Plenty of folk however did vote on that assumption (because thats what they were told by Leavers). Evidence suggests that Rees-Mogg, Johnson, Mr May, newspaper billionaires & co with offshore millions and millions (and Rees-Mogg who advises other millionaires and billionaires where to avoid UK taxes) may have personal reasons for wanting a very hard Brexit - to beat the forthcoming EU changes to stop this in 2019. What a coincidence that they all keep campaigning for hard Brexit! They stand to lose millions if it's anything that keeps those rules. One can see why T. May was so keen to get that march 2019 deadline in stone.

 

Funny that. Rich establishment people standing to make shitloads out of Brexit, the rest of us standing to lose money. Whoda thought it?

 

I don't usually vote in personal rates, it's a bit like picking your fave or least-fave nieces and nephews and then telling them, oops! :o Praise for good work, that's fine, though. :cheer:

Plenty of folk however did vote on that assumption (because thats what they were told by Leavers).

 

Although that cannot be proven one way or the other for years.

Although that cannot be proven one way or the other for years.

 

just ask them. You know, real life actual talking to people, and see who voted for what and what they thought they were getting. You dont have to wait for a poll, you know...

 

If you mean it cant be proven that we are going to be worse off, thats pretty much a given that we will be, no-one is claiming otherwise now, not even brain-dead leading Brexiteers*. They can wish-fulfilment that 20 years from now we will be living in paradise, but we've already had a decade of misery and half a lifetime of it won't appeal to most people on the offchance that they might be happier and more affluent as they approach their (ever-more-distant) pension. By which time there will be no way of proving one way or the other whether we will still be worse off compared to if we'd stayed in the EU, even if it's going marvellously and the generation wrenched out hasn't taken us back in.

 

(* campaign (everyone): we will save shitloads of money that we send to the EU, and be free to make easy trade deals that will make us better off.

 

Now: It's a matter of principle, and worth any cost to be free of the tyrants sending stormtroopers into the streets to force children to sweep chimneys and accept zero hour wages)

 

PS No it isn't worth any cost. And the EU is against that sort of thing, unlike Tories who'd have 5-year-olds back up chimneys in a flash if coal reserves were easy to mine and the they didn't come across looking a bit heartless.

 

PPS Sarcastic exaggeration for effect. Not all Tories are Victorian trolls. Only some are.

just ask them. You know, real life actual talking to people, and see who voted for what and what they thought they were getting. You dont have to wait for a poll, you know...

 

You just described pretty much what pollsters do. :P

 

If you mean it cant be proven that we are going to be worse off, thats pretty much a given that we will be, no-one is claiming otherwise now, not even brain-dead leading Brexiteers*. They can wish-fulfilment that 20 years from now we will be living in paradise, but we've already had a decade of misery

But the referendum was only 18 months ago... :rolleyes:

 

Assuming you refer to the austerity measures though, they were necessary, given that the previous Lab gov't had spent us into massive debt.

 

 

Now: It's a matter of principle, and worth any cost to be free of the tyrants sending stormtroopers into the streets to force children to sweep chimneys and accept zero hour wages)

 

PS No it isn't worth any cost. And the EU is against that sort of thing, unlike Tories who'd have 5-year-olds back up chimneys in a flash if coal reserves were easy to mine and the they didn't come across looking a bit heartless.

 

PPS Sarcastic exaggeration for effect. Not all Tories are Victorian trolls. Only some are.

 

Hey,I thought I had the copyright on sarcastic exaggeration. :w00t:

You just described pretty much what pollsters do. :P

 

But the referendum was only 18 months ago... :rolleyes:

 

Assuming you refer to the austerity measures though, they were necessary, given that the previous Lab gov't had spent us into massive debt.

Hey,I thought I had the copyright on sarcastic exaggeration. :w00t:

 

WRONG

 

WRONG

 

WRONG!!!

 

WRONG AGAIN

 

Do NOT come in here with that Daily Mail Tory lir.

 

The fact of the matter is a giant banking CRASH caused the GLOBAL crisis and debt, NOT Labour. Labour's deregulation of the banks did not help o course, but the Tories voted for that and wanted even MORE deregulation!

 

A country economy is NOT like a household one. Labour was investing money into infrastructure. That is all. It did NOT cause the recession and did NOT overspend. Gifdeon Osborne even agreed to that recently.

 

Austerity is wrong. It is a political choicw, not an economic one.

Austerity was not necessary, it was an ideological choice. A choice that has caused billions of pounds of damage

I literally cannot believe h came in here wth tha Murdoch lie.

WRONG

 

WRONG

 

WRONG!!!

 

WRONG AGAIN

 

Do NOT come in here with that Daily Mail Tory lir.

 

The fact of the matter is a giant banking CRASH caused the GLOBAL crisis and debt, NOT Labour. Labour's deregulation of the banks did not help o course, but the Tories voted for that and wanted even MORE deregulation!

 

A country economy is NOT like a household one. Labour was investing money into infrastructure. That is all. It did NOT cause the recession and did NOT overspend. Gifdeon Osborne even agreed to that recently.

 

Austerity is wrong. It is a political choicw, not an economic one.

 

Any countries with weak banking oversight (like the UK) and indifferent attitudes towards banks lending habits (like the UK) and in particular countries that allowed banks to sell crap that it was supposed to be checking on (like the UK) having set the trend for allowing banks to get ever bigger until they were too large and powerful to argue with and be allowed to fail (like the UK) while claiming they were a safe stable pair of hands (like the UK) ended up with a banking crisis and an economy wrecked for a decade (the UK). Thatcher started the ball rolling, but Brown and Blair were entirely complacent and complicit in it (with the full support of the Tories who originated the policy). That we allowed banking to be our primary moneymaking national tool meant governments were terrified to do what needed to be done, so they did nothing and the market did it for them. They were warned many times by annoying "experts"....

 

Not all countries had to rescue global banks because they had very tight regulations, and kept a close eye on what they were up to (see canada, which is why we employ ol' Marky boy so he can do his bit to bring his reputation into a system that is still largely flawed, but not quite as flawed as it was under Gordon Brown "The Iron Chancellor").

 

The fact that it was a global problem is a direct condemnation of all governments that failed to do their duty, it's not a "get out of jail free" card because it was a Labour government in power. Had it been a Tory government pursuing exactly the same policies that Labour opposed then Labour would have the superior moral stance. I'm not aware of Corbyn having any policies on banking (which still owe the country bail-out money) or oversight, regulations to make it tighter and harder to lend recklessly - though I stand to be corrected, as I'm out of the loop a bit lately...

 

Austerity, yes, is a completely different kettle of fish, but one which both parties were outbidding each other on until Corbyn got into power, so in effect the voter had no other alternative but to vote for it.

The fact of the matter is a giant banking CRASH caused the GLOBAL crisis and debt, NOT Labour. Labour's deregulation of the banks did not help o course, but the Tories voted for that and wanted even MORE deregulation!

 

A country economy is NOT like a household one. Labour was investing money into infrastructure. That is all. It did NOT cause the recession and did NOT overspend. Gifdeon Osborne even agreed to that recently.

 

Austerity is wrong. It is a political choicw, not an economic one.

 

I never claimed Labour *caused* the banking crash, only that they seemed to be in denial of by increasing spending despite it, thus exacerbating the problem.

 

Austerity was not necessary, it was an ideological choice. A choice that has caused billions of pounds of damage

 

I'm glad I'm neither your bank manager, or Candlelit Snow's - you seem to have a 'spend-until-the-credit-card-is-maxed-out' attitude. :blink:

 

When that causes Labour to be voted out (as in 2010), you then blame the Tories for taking the measures necessary to clear up the mess...

 

Austerity, yes, is a completely different kettle of fish, but one which both parties were outbidding each other on until Corbyn got into power, so in effect the voter had no other alternative but to vote for it.

 

Maybe so, but when voters did get a chance to choose, they *still* preferred prudence over profligacy...

 

I never claimed Labour *caused* the banking crash, only that they seemed to be in denial of by increasing spending despite it, thus exacerbating the problem.

I'm glad I'm neither your bank manager, or Candlelit Snow's - you seem to have a 'spend-until-the-credit-card-is-maxed-out' attitude. :blink:

 

When that causes Labour to be voted out (as in 2010), you then blame the Tories for taking the measures necessary to clear up the mess...

Maybe so, but when voters did get a chance to choose, they *still* preferred prudence over profligacy...

 

1. well, despite austerity, deficit is even bigger now, so that logic is flawed.

 

2. There is a difference between borrowing money to fix and maintain your house so it doesn't fall apart and cost even more to repair down the line, and borrowing money to blow on exotic holidays and piss ups. Or borrowing to set up a business that will employ people and bring money and tax in, or to care for the needy, versus borrowing money to give huge tax breaks/ tax avoiding capability. The whole of society went credit card borrowing mortgage-buying insane, because everyone saw it as a quick way to get richer and savings went out the window. It was a bubble that has yet to properly burst because there is no incentive to save with such low rates, so people speculate still. Life support politically, I call it, by slamming savers.

 

3. They chose rather less in 2017 than they did in the election before, so your argument doesn't make sense - the previous election didn't run on a platform of increasing spending - and were it not for bribing a small party with taxpayers money Tories might not even be running the country right now.

1. well, despite austerity, deficit is even bigger now, so that logic is flawed.

 

2. There is a difference between borrowing money to fix and maintain your house so it doesn't fall apart and cost even more to repair down the line, and borrowing money to blow on exotic holidays and piss ups. Or borrowing to set up a business that will employ people and bring money and tax in, or to care for the needy, versus borrowing money to give huge tax breaks/ tax avoiding capability. The whole of society went credit card borrowing mortgage-buying insane, because everyone saw it as a quick way to get richer and savings went out the window. It was a bubble that has yet to properly burst because there is no incentive to save with such low rates, so people speculate still. Life support politically, I call it, by slamming savers.

 

3. They chose rather less in 2017 than they did in the election before, so your argument doesn't make sense - the previous election didn't run on a platform of increasing spending - and were it not for bribing a small party with taxpayers money Tories might not even be running the country right now.

 

1. I doubt that a lack of austerity would have *reduced* the deficit. When you've borrowed too much, you cut back, not spend more - that's basic money management.

 

2. But wouldn't the Tories also be slammed if interest rates went up?

 

3. But the point is that they had the chance to reject austerity - but they didn't.

 

Regardless of the DUP, Labour were *far* short of having enough MP's to form a government, even with LD & SNP help. We'd just be stuck with *another* GE.

Edited January 3, 20187 yr by vidcapper

1. I doubt that a lack of austerity would have *reduced* the deficit. When you've borrowed too much, you cut back, not spend more - that's basic money management.

 

2. But wouldn't the Tories also be slammed if interest rates went up?

 

3. But the point is that they had the chance to reject austerity - but they didn't.

 

Regardless of the DUP, Labour were *far* short of having enough MP's to form a government, even with LD & SNP help. We'd just be stuck with *another* GE.

 

1. If cutting back was a cure, then why do we owe even more? Cutting back on maintaining and heating your home while allowing it to fall to bits will mean you end up paying more in the long run than if you borrowed and paid back over a long period. Simplistic comments, and the economy is far more complicated than running a house.

 

2. If rates went up yes, everyone with a mortgage and debt would be very pissed off. That is the fault of the banks for allowing people to borrow more than they can comfortably pay back, and them for not realising that interests go up as well as down and allowing for that (the current situation is historically freakish, and we're talking centuries of data here, and shows just how much manipulation is still going on a decade later). Some people of course may be unlucky, say in losing a job, but they can at least sell the house and rent.

 

3. The election was more Brexit than anything. The Tories promised a "fair society" for "everyone" and how Brexit was going to be marvellous. They didn't point out the debt, and the ongoing cuts (despite claims to the contrary) so most voting for them didn't even realise what they were voting for. Never mind that it is most likely going to get much much worse.

 

 

1. If cutting back was a cure, then why do we owe even more? Cutting back on maintaining and heating your home while allowing it to fall to bits will mean you end up paying more in the long run than if you borrowed and paid back over a long period. Simplistic comments, and the economy is far more complicated than running a house.

 

2. If rates went up yes, everyone with a mortgage and debt would be very pissed off. That is the fault of the banks for allowing people to borrow more than they can comfortably pay back, and them for not realising that interests go up as well as down and allowing for that (the current situation is historically freakish, and we're talking centuries of data here, and shows just how much manipulation is still going on a decade later). Some people of course may be unlucky, say in losing a job, but they can at least sell the house and rent.

 

3. The election was more Brexit than anything. The Tories promised a "fair society" for "everyone" and how Brexit was going to be marvellous. They didn't point out the debt, and the ongoing cuts (despite claims to the contrary) so most voting for them didn't even realise what they were voting for. Never mind that it is most likely going to get much much worse.

 

1. You just critiqued your own analogy there. :P AIUI, the debt continues to rise partly because of the interest we're having to pay in it. :unsure:

 

2. I agree

 

3. I would say 50% Brexit/50% Keep-Corbyn-out.

 

A more moderate Labour leader might have had greater appeal to floating voters, but OTOH may have had less appeal to younger voters - we'll never know which option would have lead to more votes/MP's for Labour, though.

1. You just critiqued your own analogy there. :P AIUI, the debt continues to rise partly because of the interest we're having to pay in it. :unsure:

 

Yes, interest is a problem (though it gets quite cheap over a very long period of time and inflation, if you are using it to generate new money - this is happening in councils right now, who have cheap government loans and are investing in property to rent out to get an income that will outpace the loan) but it depends what you are spending it on. As I said, if you let your house fall down rather than borrow to maintain it you lose everything and it's worth nothing and you end up homeless. Borrow and you end up with a (hopefully manageable amount) spread debt to pay back and you have a home and an asset that you can use if you get into difficulties.

 

Half our problem as a nation is our decision to sell our assets to foreign companies and individuals who then make money out of us who are screwed as there is no alternative. Debt is a choice, but a necessary choice sometimes.

More lies and distortion from Leave supporters coming up. Gove made a speech this week on the post-EU future for farming. Here is an extract...

 

"There are, as we all know, parts of the pig for example which don’t find favour with the British consumer but which are delicacies in China. Satisfying that demand means other parts of the carcass can be used to meet demand at home, or indeed elsewhere in Europe, which is currently met by Dutch and by Danish farmers. Pursuing new trade opportunities outside Europe can make us more competitive with Europe."

 

Note that he says that we will be able to complete with the Dutch and the Danes after leaving the EU because we won't be bound by their rules. How, then, does he think the Dutch and the Danes are getting away with it now? Or could it be that there are no EU rules stopping us selling parts of the pig we find unpalatable to China? Surely Gove isn't telling porkies.