Jump to content

CornwallRam

Member
  • Content count

    2,985
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About CornwallRam

  • Rank
    Resistance isn't futile
  • Birthday 25/01/1968

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Derby

Season Ticket Holder

  • Season Ticket
    West Lower - Block L

Recent Profile Visitors

925 profile views
  1. CornwallRam

    Matej Vydra

    He often played on the right side of a three for Watford when they got promoted. Scored lots of goals from there as well. He wasn't asked to track back though.
  2. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    So Momentum didn't support remain then?
  3. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    If you read that before posting you would have noticed that Momemtum's position was that members were free to campaign on whichever side they wanted. And Corbyn said the day after the referendum - 'Article 50 must be invoked immediately and that a Leave vote prevailed because of anger against marginalisation and austerity.' Jon Lansman was Tony Benn's chief of staff when he campaigned for the UK's withdrawal from the EEC.
  4. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    Cameron is an old Etonian, pig bothering, child neglecting arseling who caused this mess in the first place by stirring up xenophobia and seeking to shift the blame for his fiscally incompetent policies onto the EU. The fact that Cameron failed doesn't mean that anyone else would. The situation has also changed in that the threat of Brexit is now very real. When Cameron tried the EU appeared to believe that the UK would never dare vote to leave. The anti democratic argument doesn't hold water. Democracy functions because it regularly tests public opinion. Democracy isn't a single vote which is then irreversible, unless a nation happens to vote in a totalitarian regime who subsequently end democracy. The only way the Brexit will be reversed is if a new government comes to power after campaigning on a manifesto to either end Brexit or on the promise of a second referendum. It is a standard function of democracy that the latest vote supersedes all previous ones. That would allow the government to legitimately pause Brexit. Then the final decision would have to go to the people in a new referendum, but that vote would need to be on the type of Brexit, not just a vague abstract principle. Another leave vote and te question is settled beyond doubt. A remain vote and the leave side would have a legitimate reason to carry on their campaign - which a savvy prime minister could use as an argument to keep the EU AT BAY. Having said that, I can't see a current way for it to happen. Although I expect Theresa May to go shortly, no Tory PM could really change direction without formally splitting the party in two. Labour won't reverse Brexit under Corbyn as Marxists hate the EU as much as Farage. Momentum have infiltrated Labour to such a degree that any replacement for Corbyn will still be from the hard left. Unless Labour splits they won't reverse Brexit. Neither party will split because they know that such a move will leave a clear path for the other to govern for years. Indeed - Bexiteers should be thanking Corbyn with all their hearts. If Labour had a decent leader I doubt that Brexit would happen. As it stands, I can't see a realistic mechanism for it not to happen.
  5. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    Big business has been kept at arm's length by the EU. It has more power than I'd like,, but I believe that it's current ability to shape the UK's culture and laws is nothing to what will happen in a post Brexit world. You may well disagree, but that's the nature of debate. We have had greater peace and prosperity inn the UK since we joined the EEC than during any other period in history. Most of our wars have been fought against European adversaries. Now we talk regularly to those nations, the tensions and misunderstandings simply don't boil over in the way they used to. I don't believe that it's a coincidence but can't 100% guarantee that it's not. I used the term 'risk averse'. I simply don't want to take the risk of making war more likely and prosperity less likely. Am I on the extreme of remain? I certainly wasn't, as I tried to explain. Maybe I am now. But I've done a lot more research now.
  6. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    I think that you are conflating the notion of trade driven wealth creation with the theory of trickle down economics. The former is just a fact. It is the bedrock of civil society and predates capitalism. It allows humans the time to do more than simply subsist. The latter is the basis of modern Tory ideology and is, IMO, completely discredited. You need strong businesses to create wealth. You need people to gain from hard work and investment. You don't need to deliberately make the poor more impoverished. Indeed, the economic model that I subscribe to is trickle up. The poor spend more of their income, so if you make them richer, the real economy is stimulated. If you make the rich richer, they 'invest' in hedge funds and derivatives, making bankers richer and everyone else poorer.
  7. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    Yes Cameron did try to renegotiate, and failed to get anything substantive. I believe that the referendum result gives a new government more leverage. The EU do not want the UK to leave. They want our contributions and they do not want us having the chance to show that there is life outside the EU. A successful Brexit is the beginning of the end for the EU. The EU need to make a post Brexit UK suffer badly. That will in turn hurt the EU through a loss of trade. It is far better for the EU to keep us in, and a new negotiator could effectively say, 'this is what we need to stay'. OK, it might not work out that way, but it seems the best solution for all sides. If we stay in the EU there are three immediate possibilities. 1, we negotiate a better deal which leads to lower contributions and more of a say in how the EU is run. The UK continues to thrive and the worst excesses of the EU are kept in check. 2, we simply forget about Brexit and carry on as memebers on the same terms as before. That would be good for the economy, but would keep the Brexit question front and centre of UK politics. It is far from ideal, but at least doesn't risk immediate economic and social calamity. If the EU doesn't address the UK's problems, at some point a staunchly Brexit government will come to power and enact a hard and fast Brexit. 3, we rejoin on worse terms than before, most likely Thatcher's rebate will be removed and Boris's bus will actually be true. Within a couple of years the new British Prime Minister, Nigel Farage would triumphantly end UK membership of the EU the day after being appointed. In the long term it's hard to predict the direction of the EU. It might make adoption of the Euro compulsory, or try to impose a single tax regime. Maybe it'll try to remove the power for its members to make their own foreign policy. These things are far more likely if the UK is not part of the decision making process. EU membership isn't, and never will be, some utopian fairy tale. Yet I fear that non-membership could easily become a dystopian nightmare.
  8. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    The problem is that improved communications facilitate trade across borders. I'd say that technology has created the power of the corporations. Nations are then obliged to provide a trading environment that favours big business as to do otherwise would lead to such businesses moving their custom elsewhere. That results in lower economic activity, which feeds through in a lower tax take and causes recessions. The UK has deregulated because it had to. The only other option was economic disaster. Indeed, you suggested the other day that Corbyn was a Nordic style social democrat. I knew enough about the Nordic economic model to know that Corbyn is far from that, but your post led me to do a little more research. Would it surprise you to know that Scandinavian nations impose far less regulation on businesses than the UK? There is no minimum wage, no statutory redundancy pay, businesses can hire and fire almost at will and zero hours contracts are allowed. Governments advocate free trade and do not support failing businesses. Other than in Norway (which nationalised all German owned large companies after the war and has generally retained state control of them), there is very little nationalisation of the means of production. The Nordic economic model is diametrically opposed to Corbyn's traditional socialism. It is classic Social Democracy as it embraces capitalism but uses its profits to enrich the lives of the many The bit of the model which Socialists cling to is the high taxation, large public sector and mass unionisation. Indeed, it is these things which really make the Nordic model work so well. It is a free labour market, so employers can offer poor terms and conditions - although they do have to recognise unions and abide by collective bargaining agreements. The reason that so few Scandinavians are paid poorly is that the benefits system is so generous. If you are made redundant you generally get 90% of your last year's salary paid for up to two years before it starts to tail off. That means that people are not forced into taking poor jobs just to survive. Therefore, employers who offer sub-standard employment simply can't recruit anyone. In this way the state also effectively pays redundancy pay, thus relieving Nordic employers of the risk of employing extra staff. Scandinavian business are far more nimble at reacting to changes in trading environments. The state also provides free education, including university, for all and provides the unemployed with free retraining opportunities. This in turn makes them more prosperous - business is at the very core of Nordic Social Democracy. Heath and social care is also free at the point of need, although often delivered by private companies. If Corbyn really was a Nordic style Social Democrat I'd be his most vociferous supporter. Reducing the state helps the strong, the rich and the powerful, whilst hurting the weak, the poor and the average - I agree with him on that. I'm sure that he shares the large state ideal, along with their more egalitarian salary graph. The problem is that such policies cost a lot to fund. That money has to either be borrowed or taken in tax. Although borrowing can create a Keynesian boom where economic activity accelerates because the government has put more money into the system, eventually that effect wears off. If that boom hasn't created structural economic benefits (eg a new road can help trade and pay for itself by cutting delays and wasted working hours), the debts become a burden on future taxpayers. That leaves taxation to fund a massive state. Taxation relies on wealth creation and economic activity. The Scandinavians realise this and ensure a positive environment for businesses to thrive - including light regulatory regimes. This balances the high taxation needed to run the large state. Corbyn's policies create a hostile trading environment for businesses and are likely to lead to a decline in economic activity. Even raising taxation to Scandinavian rates wouldn't provide enough cash for the state. The UK would rapidly head towards bankruptcy. Socialism can't pay for a large state - Social Democracy can.
  9. CornwallRam

    Brexit or Eurin?

    I've never been a particular fan of the EU. I don't like its lack of democratic control. I don't like its 'one size fits all' approach. I don't like the Euro. I don't like that the CAP is basically designed so that Britain and Germany pay out to keep the French countryside beautiful. I don't like that the CFP is weighted against UK boats (although it has done a good job in making fishing sustainable). I don't like it that the UK sticks to the rules and other countries appear to view them as guidelines to be broken apparently without sanction. I don't like what they did to Greece. i don't like it that we pay in more than every nation except Germany. I'm certainly not the EU's greatest fan. BUT we have seen peace and prosperity in the UK since we joined the EEC. The arch-Brexiteers argue that it's just a coincidence and we'd have done even better if we had not been members. However, I can't see that there are any realistic models of what would have happened if we hadn't joined. Personally, I'm a bit risk averse when it comes to peace and prosperity and would rather not take the chance. That's why I voted remain - even though I was a pretty soft remainer. Since the referendum I've really started to appreciate just how global the modern economy is. Big corporations now sit astride many different borders. If they don't like a law or tax in one place, they simply move that arm of operations to somewhere else. And there are plenty of countries desperate enough to increase their economic activity, that they will roll over and allow give the multi national what they want. That carries an implicit threat that any government policy which a big company doesn't like could result in financial diminished for that nation. Big business is most powerful lobby group imaginable. Not doing what they want risks tipping the economy into recession. Recessions only end when economic activity increases, which only happens when business have the confidence to expand. Simply put, as an independent nation, the UK has to do exactly what it is told by multi national corporations. Yet, as part of a large trading bloc, a lot of that power imbalance is redressed. Toyota can easily walk away from the UK, but it needs a base in Europe or it loses 35% of its market and goes bust. In the modern world we need to be part of a trading bloc. Donald Trump's comments yesterday are very worrying and an early indication of what Brexit truly means. An independent UK would need US support. That will come at a high price. TTIP was a horrendous idea and would have meant the end of the NHS. That was a US proposal to a strong trading partner. Any deal done with the US following Brexit will be far worse than TTIP. We will have to comply with all US demands, and much of those are diriven by the multi nationals. There'll demand complete liberalisation of trade, an abandonment of worker's rights and health and safety legislation, low taxation and low public spending. There'll be no Commons votes about joining US wars - we'll just be taking orders on who to bomb, who to invade and who to torture. Brexit is such a shockingly bad idea. From what I can see there are three outcomes. 1 - total independence, sounds good but with no trading agreements the economy tanks, we enter decades of depression, famine is rife and all law and order breaks down. 2 - soft Brexit, the UK becomes a vassal state of the EU. Economically we do OK, but general elections are pointless as all law is made in Brussels and Strasbourg. The EU also sets our contributions and they will not fall. 3 - hard Brexit with trade deals, we become a vassal state of the US. The economy bumps along without disaster. Indeed, the rich actually do rather well, but the poor are damned to eternal poverty and servitude. Civil society is changed immeasurably with the welfare state abandoned. UK laws are made in Washington. We need a change of government - although at a time when we need political giants we're blessed a bunch of dim-witted Lilliputians. We need to suspend article 50. We need to renegotiate the terms of our EU membership. Then we need another referendum. The alternatives are truly horrifying.
  10. CornwallRam

    Match Policing Costs

    What we don't know is what the internal security costs of the match are. From that article it seems that DCFC use more police inside and directly outside the ground than the London clubs. But does that mean we use fewer stewards and private security people? If we pay £20k for police and £5k for our own people, it might actually be cheaper than Chelse paying £2k for police and £50k for their own staff. Until we know the internal costs it's impossible to make a direct comparison.
  11. CornwallRam

    Season Tickets

    Are we getting new cards this season? If so, has anyone had theirs yet?
  12. CornwallRam

    Embargo

    The rules have changed now. Breaking FFP doesn't automatically trigger an embargo. There's a special'fair play' panel which meets to examine each case and decide on the punishment, whilst taking into account factors like whether the club is now trying to reign in spending. There is a whole raft of punishments available including fines, embargoes, points deduction or even instant relegation. A s there's been nothing rumoured about us being refereed to the fair play panel, I suspect that this is either just made up rubbish, or it's based on truth, but DCFC is not one of the clubs involved. Even if we are, I can't see us knowing that we're about to be fully embargoed. If Mel knew he could't do anymore transfers for, say, three windows, I reckon our spend this summer would measured in eight figures already.
  13. CornwallRam

    Famous Fans

    Michael Socha
  14. CornwallRam

    Famous Fans

    Brian Clough🙊
  15. CornwallRam

    Tory party eats itself

    And you have just given a prime example of the problem with Corbynistas. Whenever they lose the argument they resort to name calling and labels. I am a pragmatist. I don't believe that dogma has all the answers. I don't agree with the simplistic ideas of either the far right or the far left. I'm naturally more attuned with the policies of the hard left, but they are so often not backed up by practical analysis - often they come directly from the political theories put forward by Marx and Engels. To support an idea because it was written in an old book is directly comparable with religious beliefs - and I don't share any of those either for the same reasons. Most of the Brexiteers are the mirror image of the Corbyn faction. They also follow a dogma of nationalism, small state ideology and inflexible trickle down economics. I also disagree with them, but despise them far more than the hard left, who I believe at least are trying to help the majority, albeit in a naive and unworkable way. The hard right are just as detached from the real world, but nasty and unpleasant with it. I don't care whether something is publicly owned or not. I do care that the economy is strong and sustainable and that the state helps those who need help with efficiency and effectiveness. If it turns out that a private hospital can do hip replacements in a local area cheaper and quicker than an NHS hospital, whilst providing the same quality care, paying it's staff properly and not destroying the environment, then I think it is right that the NHS should use that facility. Yet if the private hospital cuts costs and makes the lives of its staff miserable, whilst offering a poorer service than the local NHS hospital, then clearly the NHS should do those opps in house. I believe that politics should be driven by thought, analysis and practicality, not archaic notions and closed minds.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.