No deal Brexit

11113151617

Comments

  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Yes, and it's not likely to get any better come Brexshit - but I think we (or most of us on this board - there may be an exception or two) realise that.

    The Grauniad reports today BTW that the big *Farage Garage* (the lorry park at Sevington, near Ashford) is unlikely to be ready for use before the end of February, owing to heavy rain delaying work.

    O happy Kent! Prepare ye the Boris Bog-Boxes instanter!
  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.

    I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.

    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.

    Should we blame Boris Johnson for starting Covid-19? Because that's the kind of stupidity that even I won't entertain. Johnson's handling of the subsequent crisis has been utterly woeful, literally the worst in the world, behind even places like Brazil and Iran and the USA - but yeah. You might want to recalibrate your blame meter.
  • Who do we blame for Brexshit?

    There seem to be so many idiots involved - Cameron, Farage, Johnson...where to start?
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.
    The damage was done in the United States.

    Matt Hancock is Secretary of State for Health during the Covid-19 pandemic, 50000-60000 people have died of it, the worst death rate in Europe, and you were busy arguing that he can't be held responsible for how people in the department he runs, or that he has hired, have mishandled the crisis.

    For you to say that Gordon Brown was responsible for the 2008 financial crash is as if you were to say that because in New Zealand 25 people have died of Covid-19 Jacinda Ardern is personally to blame for not stopping the original bat in China.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Your post is entirely logical, but logic (sadly) is missing from the utterances of Certain Posters on this thread.
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Your post is entirely logical, but logic (sadly) is missing from the utterances of Certain Posters on this thread.

    Bishops are supposed to hear confessions, not make them.

  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.

    I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.

    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.

    If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
    It was short, sharpe and to the point.
    Brevity is good. But, being accurate is better. The damage caused by austerity most definitely did not happen under Gordon Brown. Even if his policies influenced US banks and international finance sufficiently to cause the 2008 crash, it was the policies of the coalition government elected in 2010 that resulted in the damage of austerity - it was the Conservatives peculiar economic policy (unopposed by the LibDems) that starved the nation of the investment that would have lifted us out of the economic downturn and instead left millions on low pay, just about managing, and reliant on food banks. The introduction of Universal Credit and other benefit reforms to create a 'hostile environment' for claimants added misery on top of that caused by austerity.

    I would never blame Brown for a world wide crash. I blaming him for creating the climate in which UK banks could fail.

    'Austerity' was a coalition policy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Universal credit, where all benefits are lumped together is a good idea. but has not been well implimented

  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.

    I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.

    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.

    Should we blame Boris Johnson for starting Covid-19? Because that's the kind of stupidity that even I won't entertain. Johnson's handling of the subsequent crisis has been utterly woeful, literally the worst in the world, behind even places like Brazil and Iran and the USA - but yeah. You might want to recalibrate your blame meter.
    This government could have done a lot better but we will not know how well we have done compared with others untill the crisis is over.

  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.

    I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.

    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.

    If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
    It was short, sharpe and to the point.
    Brevity is good. But, being accurate is better. The damage caused by austerity most definitely did not happen under Gordon Brown. Even if his policies influenced US banks and international finance sufficiently to cause the 2008 crash, it was the policies of the coalition government elected in 2010 that resulted in the damage of austerity - it was the Conservatives peculiar economic policy (unopposed by the LibDems) that starved the nation of the investment that would have lifted us out of the economic downturn and instead left millions on low pay, just about managing, and reliant on food banks. The introduction of Universal Credit and other benefit reforms to create a 'hostile environment' for claimants added misery on top of that caused by austerity.

    I would never blame Brown for a world wide crash. I blaming him for creating the climate in which UK banks could fail.

    'Austerity' was a coalition policy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Universal credit, where all benefits are lumped togther is a good idea.
    Universal Credit is a good idea. The way it was handled was not. How the job centre workers were told to handle claimants was at times inhuman. The way disabled claimants were handled was a re run of the ATOS miracles.
    Brown did not create the conditions for the banks failing. The banks did. We bailed them out.
    The up shot of austerity was that businesses went to the wall. People could not afford to live. Businesses that relies on people spending had to get rid of people because the money was not coming in because people had no money. Austerity was also a barely disguised attack on public sector. It took jobs and practically starved the NHS. It left the country in a weakish position when Brexit hit.
  • Hugal wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The so called austerity was due to Brown's incompetence. I am on about the man who promised us no more boom and bust. As for unemployment, untill this year there has never been so many people in employment in this country.

    I had no idea the former Prime Minister was so powerful as to not only cause a global financial crash, but also have such a strong influence on the next government's policies.

    The damage was done while he was Prime Minister. It was on his watch.

    If this is the most insightful analysis you are capable of, I pity you. This is such trivially obvious nonsense I don't know where to start. Alan's comment says it all and your reply says nothing. Not a thing. It is content free.
    It was short, sharpe and to the point.
    Brevity is good. But, being accurate is better. The damage caused by austerity most definitely did not happen under Gordon Brown. Even if his policies influenced US banks and international finance sufficiently to cause the 2008 crash, it was the policies of the coalition government elected in 2010 that resulted in the damage of austerity - it was the Conservatives peculiar economic policy (unopposed by the LibDems) that starved the nation of the investment that would have lifted us out of the economic downturn and instead left millions on low pay, just about managing, and reliant on food banks. The introduction of Universal Credit and other benefit reforms to create a 'hostile environment' for claimants added misery on top of that caused by austerity.

    I would never blame Brown for a world wide crash. I blaming him for creating the climate in which UK banks could fail.

    'Austerity' was a coalition policy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Universal credit, where all benefits are lumped togther is a good idea.
    Universal Credit is a good idea. The way it was handled was not.
    How the job centre workers were told to handle claimants was at times inhuman. The way disabled claimants were handled was a re run of the ATOS miracles.
    Brown did not create the conditions for the banks failing. The banks did. We bailed them out.
    The up shot of austerity was that businesses went to the wall. People could not afford to live. Businesses that relies on people spending had to get rid of people because the money was not coming in because people had no money. Austerity was also a barely disguised attack on public sector. It took jobs and practically starved the NHS. It left the country in a weakish position when Brexit hit.

    You did not quote all my statement on Universal credit. I agree that it was an attack on the public centre. They could hardly cut jobs in the private sector. The NHS was not starved. It was ringfenced.

  • Telford wrote: »
    'Austerity' was a coalition oolicy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Austerity was a ideologically convenient policy for the conservatives whose foundations were built on a spreadsheet error, and saw even its academic supporters distance themselves from the UK implementation.
  • Telford wrote: »
    'Austerity' was a coalition oolicy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Austerity was a ideologically convenient policy for the conservatives whose foundations were built on a spreadsheet error, and saw even its academic supporters distance themselves from the UK implementation.

    It was so unpopular that the Conservatives won more seats and the election in 2015.

  • Telford wrote: »
    It's not obtuse at all. Every voter in the UK had to make a decision about the future of the UK, not their part of the UK.

    Sure - but what were those voters thinking about? What was best for the UK as a whole, or what was best for them and people like them? I'll bet you anything you like that the vast majority of people were thinking about the second thing.


  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    'Austerity' was a coalition oolicy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Austerity was a ideologically convenient policy for the conservatives whose foundations were built on a spreadsheet error, and saw even its academic supporters distance themselves from the UK implementation.

    It was so unpopular that the Conservatives won more seats and the election in 2015.

    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
  • KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    'Austerity' was a coalition oolicy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Austerity was a ideologically convenient policy for the conservatives whose foundations were built on a spreadsheet error, and saw even its academic supporters distance themselves from the UK implementation.

    It was so unpopular that the Conservatives won more seats and the election in 2015.

    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    Telford wrote: »
    It's not obtuse at all. Every voter in the UK had to make a decision about the future of the UK, not their part of the UK.

    Sure - but what were those voters thinking about? What was best for the UK as a whole, or what was best for them and people like them? I'll bet you anything you like that the vast majority of people were thinking about the second thing.

    I agree with you

  • Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    'Austerity' was a coalition oolicy, in order to reduce the cost of the public sector and reduce the deficit.

    Austerity was a ideologically convenient policy for the conservatives whose foundations were built on a spreadsheet error, and saw even its academic supporters distance themselves from the UK implementation.

    It was so unpopular that the Conservatives won more seats and the election in 2015.

    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters


    Non-sequitur. Plenty of stupid and counter-productive policies have been popular with voters, and plenty of sensible, beneficial ones unpopular.
  • Telford wrote: »
    This government could have done a lot better but we will not know how well we have done compared with others untill the crisis is over.

    "We won't know how much damage bullets do until we've emptied the entire magazine into our feet."

    Honestly, the state of this. You're the man who only realises he's in a hole after the shovel breaks.
  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    This government could have done a lot better but we will not know how well we have done compared with others untill the crisis is over.

    "We won't know how much damage bullets do until we've emptied the entire magazine into our feet."

    Honestly, the state of this. You're the man who only realises he's in a hole after the shovel breaks.

    I'm the man who waits to see all the evidence before making a judgement.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things

    The deficit reduced far less than the tories hoped. There are two things to consider with a policy - whether it achieves the stated aims and whether the aims were beneficial in the first place. I think we can all accept that controlling the growth of public debt is, all other things being equal, a positive thing. The problem is that austerity doesn't achieve that, which is why after a decade of spending cuts the debt has more than doubled even before covid.
  • Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things

    The deficit reduced far less than the tories hoped. There are two things to consider with a policy - whether it achieves the stated aims and whether the aims were beneficial in the first place. I think we can all accept that controlling the growth of public debt is, all other things being equal, a positive thing. The problem is that austerity doesn't achieve that, which is why after a decade of spending cuts the debt has more than doubled even before covid.

    The debt rose because we were obliged to borrow money to service the debt as well as pay for everything else. Would I have prefered it if we hadn't had austerity? Of course I would

  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things

    The deficit reduced far less than the tories hoped. There are two things to consider with a policy - whether it achieves the stated aims and whether the aims were beneficial in the first place. I think we can all accept that controlling the growth of public debt is, all other things being equal, a positive thing. The problem is that austerity doesn't achieve that, which is why after a decade of spending cuts the debt has more than doubled even before covid.

    The debt rose because we were obliged to borrow money to service the debt as well as pay for everything else. Would I have prefered it if we hadn't had austerity? Of course I would

    No, the cost of borrowing is lower than it's been for a long time. The debt rose because tory cuts undermined the economic recovery, reducing tax take and requiring more to be paid out in benefits as more people were on low incomes.
    https://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/SN05745/SN05745.pdf
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things

    The deficit reduced far less than the tories hoped. There are two things to consider with a policy - whether it achieves the stated aims and whether the aims were beneficial in the first place. I think we can all accept that controlling the growth of public debt is, all other things being equal, a positive thing. The problem is that austerity doesn't achieve that, which is why after a decade of spending cuts the debt has more than doubled even before covid.

    The debt rose because we were obliged to borrow money to service the debt as well as pay for everything else. Would I have prefered it if we hadn't had austerity? Of course I would

    No, the cost of borrowing is lower than it's been for a long time. The debt rose because tory cuts undermined the economic recovery, reducing tax take and requiring more to be paid out in benefits as more people were on low incomes.

    I disagree with some of that but not sufficiently to persue the matter

  • DafydDafyd Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?
    You said introduced the policy as a coalition policy, so you were including the Liberal Democrats then. You are leaving the Liberal Democrats out of the calculation when you say how popular the policy was.

    You can measure whether a policy was any good by looking at the actual results of it and seeing whether it succeeded in its aims.
    Looking at whether the voters think of the policies tells you nothing unless you know how to compensate for lack of information or misinformation from the media, pre-existing bias on the part of the voters, and so. Even if one accepted the premise of your argument - that other ways of assessing the success of a policy are unreliable, it would be the logic of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost.
    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things
    I exaggerated when I said it was out of control. However, if you discount the one-off spending by Brown to take over control of the banks the annual deficit under the Conservatives prior to the Covid crisis was still higher than it was under Labour. (Obviously the deficit has shot up as a result of the Covid crisis: it would be unfair to consider that as part of the Conservative's overall economic competence. Whether the Conservatives have spent the extra money effectively is another matter entirely. Needless to say, Brown did spend the one-off money effectively: his actions did stabilise the economy and prevent it from getting worse.)
  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    KarlLB wrote: »
    That "plopping" noise you may have heard was goal posts being hurriedly pulled up to plant elsewhere. No-one was talking about the relative popularities of the two main parties in 2015.
    No gols posts were moved. My statement reflected the fact that the government policies had not been unpopular with the voters
    First: that's not a fact. The combined vote share of the Conservatives and Liberal Democratics fell from 59% of votes cast to 45% of all votes cast.
    Second, it's irrelevant. Whether the policies were unpopular with the voters or not is a different question from whether the policies were any good.
    You said it was a policy to reduce the deficit: the facts are that as a result of the policy the deficit has got wildly out of control. That is the case whether or not the policy is popular with the voters, especially if the voters have been misinformed about the effectiveness of the policy. That few academic economists think the theory behind the policy has any merit and those few that do think it was badly implemented is a fact, regardless of whether the policy is popular or not, especially if the voters do not understand economics and the media are either ignorant or lying to them.

    Moving the goal posts means either changing the subject in an argument without acknowledging that that is what you are doing or else dragging in irrelevant propositions as if they are relevant. You did one or the other.

    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?

    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things

    The deficit reduced far less than the tories hoped. There are two things to consider with a policy - whether it achieves the stated aims and whether the aims were beneficial in the first place. I think we can all accept that controlling the growth of public debt is, all other things being equal, a positive thing. The problem is that austerity doesn't achieve that, which is why after a decade of spending cuts the debt has more than doubled even before covid.

    The debt rose because we were obliged to borrow money to service the debt as well as pay for everything else. Would I have prefered it if we hadn't had austerity? Of course I would

    No, the cost of borrowing is lower than it's been for a long time. The debt rose because tory cuts undermined the economic recovery, reducing tax take and requiring more to be paid out in benefits as more people were on low incomes.

    I disagree with some of that but not sufficiently to persue the matter

    They are mostly statements of fact.
  • Dafyd wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    I accept that the Conservatives did not get the majority of the votes, just more than any other party. Very unpopular policies usually lose governments elections. If you ignore what the voters think of policies, how do you measure whether or not they were any good ?
    You said introduced the policy as a coalition policy, so you were including the Liberal Democrats then. You are leaving the Liberal Democrats out of the calculation when you say how popular the policy was.

    You can measure whether a policy was any good by looking at the actual results of it and seeing whether it succeeded in its aims.
    Looking at whether the voters think of the policies tells you nothing unless you know how to compensate for lack of information or misinformation from the media, pre-existing bias on the part of the voters, and so. Even if one accepted the premise of your argument - that other ways of assessing the success of a policy are unreliable, it would be the logic of the drunk looking for his keys under the lamppost.
    The deficit was reduced. It did not rise out of control. You have confused the deficit with the debt. They are two different things
    I exaggerated when I said it was out of control. However, if you discount the one-off spending by Brown to take over control of the banks the annual deficit under the Conservatives prior to the Covid crisis was still higher than it was under Labour. (Obviously the deficit has shot up as a result of the Covid crisis: it would be unfair to consider that as part of the Conservative's overall economic competence. Whether the Conservatives have spent the extra money effectively is another matter entirely. Needless to say, Brown did spend the one-off money effectively: his actions did stabilise the economy and prevent it from getting worse.)

    The purpose of the policy was to reduce public spending. The public were told about the 20,000 less Police officers and the closure of Libraries etc. I was shocked that the Conservatives won outrght in 2015. I expected a Labour win or a coalition. The facts are that the voters rejected Brown in 2015 and tended generaslly suupported Cameron in 2015 but that might have been down to his promise of a referendum.

  • Telford wrote: »
    The purpose of the policy was to reduce public spending. The public were told about the 20,000 less Police officers and the closure of Libraries etc. I was shocked that the Conservatives won outrght in 2015. I expected a Labour win or a coalition. The facts are that the voters rejected Brown in 2015 and tended generaslly suupported Cameron in 2015 but that might have been down to his promise of a referendum.

    And accompanied by an anti-Semitic campaign against the opposition by the right wing media.
  • Telford wrote: »
    The purpose of the policy was to reduce public spending. The public were told about the 20,000 less Police officers and the closure of Libraries etc. I was shocked that the Conservatives won outrght in 2015. I expected a Labour win or a coalition. The facts are that the voters rejected Brown in 2015 and tended generaslly suupported Cameron in 2015 but that might have been down to his promise of a referendum.

    And accompanied by an anti-Semitic campaign against the opposition by the right wing media.

    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

  • Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    This government could have done a lot better but we will not know how well we have done compared with others untill the crisis is over.

    "We won't know how much damage bullets do until we've emptied the entire magazine into our feet."

    Honestly, the state of this. You're the man who only realises he's in a hole after the shovel breaks.

    I'm the man who waits to see all the evidence before making a judgement.

    Keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have had more than enough evidence.
  • Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    This government could have done a lot better but we will not know how well we have done compared with others untill the crisis is over.

    "We won't know how much damage bullets do until we've emptied the entire magazine into our feet."

    Honestly, the state of this. You're the man who only realises he's in a hole after the shovel breaks.

    I'm the man who waits to see all the evidence before making a judgement.

    Keep telling yourself that. The rest of us have had more than enough evidence.

    I see that Italy now has worse figures but I will still wait for the final figures

  • Telford wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    The purpose of the policy was to reduce public spending. The public were told about the 20,000 less Police officers and the closure of Libraries etc. I was shocked that the Conservatives won outrght in 2015. I expected a Labour win or a coalition. The facts are that the voters rejected Brown in 2015 and tended generaslly suupported Cameron in 2015 but that might have been down to his promise of a referendum.

    And accompanied by an anti-Semitic campaign against the opposition by the right wing media.

    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

    Associating Jews with Communism with hating the country of which they're citizens is an anti-semitic trope a good century old and change. The bacon sandwich debacle also had some pretty clear anti-semitic overtones.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    Telford wrote: »
    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

    Is this meant to refer to Ed Miliband? The secular Jewish guy who while Labour leader was pilloried for not showing enough enthusiasm for eating a bacon sandwich?
  • ArethosemyfeetArethosemyfeet Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Ruth wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

    Is this meant to refer to Ed Miliband? The secular Jewish guy who while Labour leader was pilloried for not showing enough enthusiasm for eating a bacon sandwich?

    I think Telford is attempting to excuse the multi-page spread about Ed Miliband's father headlined "the man who hated Britain".
    Edit: it's interesting looking back to see how the far right attempted to paint Ed Miliband as a communist. It looks even more ridiculous 7 years later than it did at the time.
  • Ruth wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

    Is this meant to refer to Ed Miliband? The secular Jewish guy who while Labour leader was pilloried for not showing enough enthusiasm for eating a bacon sandwich?

    No, his father
  • Telford wrote: »
    Ruth wrote: »
    Telford wrote: »
    If you are on about Mr Milland Snr, the cricticisms were about his communism, not his jewishness.

    Is this meant to refer to Ed Miliband? The secular Jewish guy who while Labour leader was pilloried for not showing enough enthusiasm for eating a bacon sandwich?

    No, his father

    I was referring to Ed Miliband. But also what @Arethosemyfeet said.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    From the Grauniad today:
    https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/16/fish-could-still-sink-brexit-deal-says-eu-ursula-von-der-leyen

    Sounds as though our Lord Protector of the Little Fishes may just about be working himself up to a Deal, but those blessed Fishes persist in getting in the way...

    Otherwise, it all seems to have gone quiet, at least down here in Farage-Garage-Land, whilst our rulers decide whether or not to allow us to kill each other at Yuletide.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Winning an election does not mean voters approve of a policy. It could be that voters believe a party is best for them or the country. When Brown lost u remember lots of young voters who had not really voted before saying they would vote for Conservatives because they wanted a change.
  • Bishops FingerBishops Finger Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    The Grauniad reports that a trade Deal (or, presumably, No Deal) needs to be decided by Sunday 20th:
    https://theguardian.com/politics/2020/dec/17/european-parliament-sunday-deadline-post-brexit-trade-deal

    Where's The Lord Protector? Spending some quality time with his families, rummaging through his dressing-up box for a new and exciting costume, or leading the country?
  • I hereby nominate Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson for the post of Lord of Misrule 2020!
  • *sings*

    Misrule Britannia, Britannia waives the rules...
    Britons ever, ever, ever, shall be Fools!
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    All seems to have gone quiet on the Brexit front. Is that a good thing ?
  • Hmm.

    Quiet enough on the M20 motorway here in Kent, as there's a 5-mile queue of lorries trying to get to Dover...although that's by no means a hitherto unknown phenomenon...
    :grimace:

    Brexshit may, for the moment, be overshadowed by the impending Tier 4 (Yes! The world-beating Tier 4!) Covid restrictions about to be imposed on London and SE England.
  • Wesley JWesley J Shipmate
    edited December 2020
    Even Continental WesShire is now being affected by the whole mess! - Due to the current chaos of getting goods into Blighty, caused by some rather unsurprising stockpiling in case of a non-agreement, there are now delays in getting imports to British wholesalers. CNN has an article and video here. Hornby are temporarily suspending all non-UK orders, as reported in the Guardian and other news outlets.

    Luckily, I ordered most things I needed from the UK in the last couple of months, and they've all arrived - except one particular item, which, according to the UK business I'm dealing with, is stuck en route to Britain. Brilliant. NOT.
  • What? No sunlit uplands, graced by dancing Unicorns?
    :open_mouth:

    IIRC it was indeed reported the other day that there were long queues of lorries trying to access the Port of Calais....
  • Personally, I think what really killed Ed Milliband’s chances is that he competed with his brother to win the Labour leadership.

    Rather like Gove stabbing Johnson in the back, it made him look fundamentally untrustworthy to a lot of people.

    It left a difficult decision in the voting for party members like myself, who did not want continuity Blair (e.g. David Milliband) but were deeply uncomfortable with that dynamic.
  • I found that attitude so strange. The older brother doesn't own the younger's support, and I'm not aware of any duplicity in Ed's candidacy. Comparing with Gove's frontstabbing doesn't really stand up.
  • It's all gone quiet. Seems a bit fishy to me...wasn't today supposed to be the last deadline?
  • DooneDoone Shipmate
    It's all gone quiet. Seems a bit fishy to me...wasn't today supposed to be the last deadline?

    Good question, BF!
  • I found that attitude so strange. The older brother doesn't own the younger's support, and I'm not aware of any duplicity in Ed's candidacy. Comparing with Gove's frontstabbing doesn't really stand up.

    It wasn’t deceitful in the same sense, no. But it has the same sort of energy as marrying your brother’s ex-girlfriend, after she dumped him.

    But it did also underline the unhealthy amount of relatives amongst the Labour MPs too.
This discussion has been closed.