O/T DUP still not playing ball..

[KerrAvon]

" Solving today's problems with yesterday's failed solutions "

Yeh of course they are , more neoliberal horse shyte .


https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...t-tories#img-1

https://www.theguardian.com/science/...hnology-speech

More the failed Labour policies of the 60s than the 70s.

[KerrAvon]

@ ragingpup

I think you are too kind in suggesting that people who switched to UKIP did so out of concerns for their jobs. Some would have done so, but for a good many others it was good old fashioned xenophobia.

You misunderstood the purpose of my boiler room fraud comments. I wasn’t suggesting that The Great Leader is a con-man (or at least no more so than the average politician) . I had intended to convey that with my comment about Labour supporters wanting a better Britain. My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell.

On the something for nothing point, it is clear from the other thread that is running that you don’t accept that there is a price to be paid for simultaneously increasing corporate tax rates and the minimum wage. There clearly is and it will be paid in jobs.

In much the same way that I think that the majority of Labour supporters want a better Britain, I think the majority of Tory supporters do too. My profession sends a lot of people to Parliament and I know several MPs from both sides of the house and of various levels of seniority. They are like every other bunch of people and generally decent irrespective of their politics. You say that I hate it when people use comments such as likening Tories to ‘sewer rats’ or similar. That is not the case. I think such behaviour demonstrates that the person making the comment has a closed mind, which annoys me. I don’t like bigotry and it matters not to me whether such behaviour is based upon race religion or political persuasion.

I’m aware of the ‘priming the pump’ argument advanced in resect of some of Labours borrowing plans. Some investment spending of that type is desirable, particularly when interest rates are low. Where I part company with Labour is on the scale of the borrowing that they propose, firstly because I doubt their ability to spend wisely (government generally has a poor record on that) and secondly because the sums involved are so great that they will create inflation (by boosting the demand side of the economy).

Your argument for nationalisation of the utilities and Royal Mail is, my opinion, fallacious. The notion that there will be profits available to invest ignores the fact that we will be paying interest on the costs of acquisition. The article that you have linked to suggests that the key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other. It quite rightly suggests that question should be answered upon an empirical basis, but then ignores the evidence available in the UK from our previous experience with nationalised industries. As a regular (daily) train user, I can say without fear of contradiction that we are streets (or should that be tracks) ahead of the nightmare of British Rail.

Your apparent belief that things would be somehow different today is not evidence based. The imperative to make a profit inevitably drives efficiencies. The lack of such a need inevitably leads to excessive staffing levels, weak management and a lack of innovation.

Whilst I would agree that the energy market doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, that is down to a failure of regulation (and, by extension, political will) rather than a flawed system.

I’ve never said that I would to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. I would change many things, but not in a way that you would necessarily like. As an example, for me, education is the greatest tool available for seeking to level the social playing field and one of the main routes to prosperity, but I don’t think we do it at all well in the UK. In part that is because of our ridiculous commitment to the one size fits all comprehensive system. We need to start recognising the existence of difference in aptitude and ability and start providing more options to recognise that some children have an academic bent whilst others have stronger practical/technical abilities. It won’t happen because people are too scared to acknowledge that reality in part because of prejudice towards a technical education which will be seen as being inferior. It isn’t - it’s just different. Sadly (or not), nobody has asked me to write UK education policy.

I’m loving the way that you say that we should debate without quoting references to links in a post that contains two links. Alanis Morissette would have loved it too.

[ragingpup]

@ ragingpup

I think you are too kind in suggesting that people who switched to UKIP did so out of concerns for their jobs. Some would have done so, but for a good many others it was good old fashioned xenophobia.

You misunderstood the purpose of my boiler room fraud comments. I wasn’t suggesting that The Great Leader is a con-man (or at least no more so than the average politician) . I had intended to convey that with my comment about Labour supporters wanting a better Britain. My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell.

On the something for nothing point, it is clear from the other thread that is running that you don’t accept that there is a price to be paid for simultaneously increasing corporate tax rates and the minimum wage. There clearly is and it will be paid in jobs.

In much the same way that I think that the majority of Labour supporters want a better Britain, I think the majority of Tory supporters do too. My profession sends a lot of people to Parliament and I know several MPs from both sides of the house and of various levels of seniority. They are like every other bunch of people and generally decent irrespective of their politics. You say that I hate it when people use comments such as likening Tories to ‘sewer rats’ or similar. That is not the case. I think such behaviour demonstrates that the person making the comment has a closed mind, which annoys me. I don’t like bigotry and it matters not to me whether such behaviour is based upon race religion or political persuasion.

I’m aware of the ‘priming the pump’ argument advanced in resect of some of Labours borrowing plans. Some investment spending of that type is desirable, particularly when interest rates are low. Where I part company with Labour is on the scale of the borrowing that they propose, firstly because I doubt their ability to spend wisely (government generally has a poor record on that) and secondly because the sums involved are so great that they will create inflation (by boosting the demand side of the economy).

Your argument for nationalisation of the utilities and Royal Mail is, my opinion, fallacious. The notion that there will be profits available to invest ignores the fact that we will be paying interest on the costs of acquisition. The article that you have linked to suggests that the key question, from a public policy perspective, is whether the business assets are likely to be run more efficiently in the interests of the public in one form of ownership than the other. It quite rightly suggests that question should be answered upon an empirical basis, but then ignores the evidence available in the UK from our previous experience with nationalised industries. As a regular (daily) train user, I can say without fear of contradiction that we are streets (or should that be tracks) ahead of the nightmare of British Rail.

Your apparent belief that things would be somehow different today is not evidence based. The imperative to make a profit inevitably drives efficiencies. The lack of such a need inevitably leads to excessive staffing levels, weak management and a lack of innovation.

Whilst I would agree that the energy market doesn’t work as efficiently as it should, that is down to a failure of regulation (and, by extension, political will) rather than a flawed system.

I’ve never said that I would to continue doing what we have been doing for the last 40 years. I would change many things, but not in a way that you would necessarily like. As an example, for me, education is the greatest tool available for seeking to level the social playing field and one of the main routes to prosperity, but I don’t think we do it at all well in the UK. In part that is because of our ridiculous commitment to the one size fits all comprehensive system. We need to start recognising the existence of difference in aptitude and ability and start providing more options to recognise that some children have an academic bent whilst others have stronger practical/technical abilities. It won’t happen because people are too scared to acknowledge that reality in part because of prejudice towards a technical education which will be seen as being inferior. It isn’t - it’s just different. Sadly (or not), nobody has asked me to write UK education policy.

I’m loving the way that you say that we should debate without quoting references to links in a post that contains two links. Alanis Morissette would have loved it too.

Lol @ Alanis. I think we both know that the point about dropping links was about going forward and an acceptance that both left and right can make evidence based arguments for their convictions - and that we should refrain from making such condescending comments as "My point was about the danger of people suspending any sort of reason or critical thought simply because they want to believe what they are being told and, in particular, because they want to believe that they can have something for nothing, which is, as far as I can see, what the Labour Party is currently trying to sell". You just can't help yourself can you?

I respect your viewpoints and arguments that you put forward, much as I disagree with them. Its a shame that you can't afford the same respect for others.

I am interested in your views on education however. I tend to agree that we should raise the value of technical skills. The difficulty in proceeding in this direction is how to organise it - at what age should we start deciding that this child is academic and this child is technical? How do we decide that? I personally failed at school coming out at 16 with only an English CSE grade C and proceeded to fail my A levels having rather ill advisedly decided to do all my revision in the Maltby pubs. Was I not an academic failure at this stage? What would you have had me do?

Having tried dead end jobs whilst I dabbled with am-dram, I went back into education as a mature student to do an access course, did alright and went on to do a degree in drama where, after a very confident start, suddenly was inspired by an excellent personal tutor and I went on to get a 1st degree. Suddenly I'm an academic! But no thanks to the education system and no real thanks to myself at school.

So how would your hypothetical school system have managed me and how would you go about identifying academic v tech skills generally? I generally agree with you but, as an educationalist at heart, am very concerned that such a policy could lead to early labelling of kids as 'academic' and 'technical' in a way that doesn't suit their developing selves. It is crooked thinking like this that I think is behind recent Conservative thinking on developing grammar schools as opposed to providing adequate resourcing (facilities and pay) for general education and allowing brilliant teachers manage the multi faceted development of our kids.

[millmoormagic]

So, what would you do about the in work poverty, homelessness, foodbanks useage, in modern Britain Kerr?

You put together fine words in fine sentences that actually, when it comes down to it, mean absolutely nothing, care to tell me what you'd do, i think this is the 5th time of asking...

[KerrAvon]

So, what would you do about the in work poverty, homelessness, foodbanks useage, in modern Britain Kerr?

You put together fine words in fine sentences that actually, when it comes down to it, mean absolutely nothing, care to tell me what you'd do, i think this is the 5th time of asking...

Yesterday afternoon you didn't want me to answer your questions, but by the late evening you did. Make your mind up.

I'd accept that growing the economy is the only practical solution. To that end, I'd continue with the progress that has been made to reduce the budget deficit.

On homelessness, I'd accept that there will be no change until the supply side of the housing market is addressed. Whether the promises in the budget to do so amount to much remains to be seen. I would also accept that the complex reasons behind homelessness have existed under governments of every hue and will continue to do so.

What I wouldn't do is vote for a party that prioritises nationalising businesses over tackling poverty, advocates policies that will increase unemployment and inflation and which is willing to borrow billions to buy middle class votes by scrapping tuition fees - the progressive taxation solution to the question of how to fund such a high proportion of people going to university.

[millmoormagic]

Yesterday afternoon you didn't want me to answer your questions, but by the late evening you did. Make your mind up.

I'd accept that growing the economy is the only practical solution. To that end, I'd continue with the progress that has been made to reduce the budget deficit.

On homelessness, I'd accept that there will be no change until the supply side of the housing market is addressed. Whether the promises in the budget to do so amount to much remains to be seen. I would also accept that the complex reasons behind homelessness have existed under governments of every hue and will continue to do so.

What I wouldn't do is vote for a party that prioritises nationalising businesses over tackling poverty, advocates policies that will increase unemployment and inflation and which is willing to borrow billions to buy middle class votes by scrapping tuition fees - the progressive taxation solution to the question of how to fund such a high proportion of people going to university.

Dodged like a grey old politician learned in the dark art of...dodging, you just put a massive two fingers up to millions of people struggling week in week out fella, in short you don't give two f*cks.

The truth is we do have the wherewithall in this country to tackle it, properly, the people holding us back are the tories, yourself, the regressives.

You keep harping back to the 70's, in 1979 the proportion of kids living in poverty stood at 14%....In 2017 the proportion of kids living in poverty stands at 30% (4 million kids)

Bring back the 70's...

[animallittle3]

May hasn't come back with any deal at all as she ?

It's the peace in our time gig all over again , there's nothing of substance in this agreement , when pushed on it's merits she's swerving the scrutiny , nothings agreed no less until err it's agreed , quite .

It's a fudge , it's bought a bit of time but that's about it , the tories are playing the well done PM mood music in public , the party comes first after all and sharpening the knifes behind closed doors .

Things will come to a head in the new year , there's little doubt about that , too fragile , too weakened for it not to .

Boris , Gove and IDS won't accept the EU calling the shots for too much longer , Rees Mogg either .

She's their useful idiot right now and the only thing keeping her in office .

It won't last with trade deals on the agenda , we've seen nothing yet .

[KerrAvon]

May hasn't come back with any deal at all as she ?

It's the peace in our time gig all over again , there's nothing of substance in this agreement , when pushed on it's merits she's swerving the scrutiny , nothings agreed no less until err it's agreed , quite .

It's a fudge , it's bought a bit of time but that's about it , the tories are playing the well done PM mood music in public , the party comes first after all and sharpening the knifes behind closed doors .

Things will come to a head in the new year , there's little doubt about that , too fragile , too weakened for it not to .

Boris , Gove and IDS won't accept the EU calling the shots for too much longer , Rees Mogg either .

She's their useful idiot right now and the only thing keeping her in office .

It won't last with trade deals on the agenda , we've seen nothing yet .

Lol. You said there would be another General Election in the summer, then it became the autumn and now it's the New Year. You've peppered the target a bit. Why not go for 'some time before July 2022' to at least give yourself a chance of being right.

May secured an agreement to move onto trade talks. In doing so, she secured an agreement on citizen's rights, which was probably the most difficult of the three issues under consideration and upon which no reasonable government could have agreed to the EU demands.

The Irish border issue was a red herring. That issue cannot be settled until the future trade arrangements are settled and for that reason alone, nothing is agreed until everything is agreed.

The trade talks will be very diffilcult. The EU are not acting in good faith. They want to make our exit painful so as to discourage other countries.

You voted for it.

[animallittle3]

It doesn't matter how you voted in the referendum you are still entitled to be represented with integrity , honesty and credibility .


This is not about keeping the tories in power at all costs to the detriment of the electorate .

Not fit for office and an embarrassment .


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ys-verhofstadt

[Grist_To_The_Mill]

It doesn't matter how you voted in the referendum you are still entitled to be represented with integrity , honesty and credibility .


This is not about keeping the tories in power at all costs to the detriment of the electorate .

Not fit for office and an embarrassment .


https://www.theguardian.com/politics...ys-verhofstadt

lol The Guardian, a rag that's slightly to the left of the Daily Worker