The Politics Thread 2019

[Sith Happens]

11 minutes ago, CWC1983 said:

Fair enough, but most will have a bit of a debate first. 

Not my experience 

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, Norman said:

I assume this was just as Blair opened the floodgates? 

Strange that.

In fairness Blairs government did do well,it only took them 10 years to wreck the healthy economy they inherited from john major

[Rev]

10 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

In fairness Blairs government did do well,it only took them 10 years to wreck the healthy economy they inherited from john major

You say that, but for the last nine years the Tories have been in power, either in coalition with a junior party, or as the ruling party, have things improved since?

[Sith Happens]

Just now, reverendo de duivel said:

You say that, but for the last nine years the Tories have been in power, either in coalition with a junior party, or as the ruling party, have things improved since?

I think so but its a difficult question because we all are affected differently 

I asked a question on here a few days ago to a labour Voter what would labour had done different in 2010 had they won the election.

The pot was dry we know that. What was the answer?

I am not a clever enough person to say. 

Would labour have introduced austerity, what was the alternative, if there was what proof is there it would work?

I applaud Gordon Brown,  his actions prevented a much worse scenario, but it was short term, what was the ideal long term solution.

[GboroRam]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

In fairness Blairs government did do well,it only took them 10 years to wreck the healthy economy they inherited from john major

You mean the global financial collapse was Labour's fault? 

[Van der MoodHoover]

1 hour ago, Paul71 said:

I think so but its a difficult question because we all are affected differently 

I asked a question on here a few days ago to a labour Voter what would labour had done different in 2010 had they won the election.

The pot was dry we know that. What was the answer?

I am not a clever enough person to say. 

Would labour have introduced austerity, what was the alternative, if there was what proof is there it would work?

I applaud Gordon Brown,  his actions prevented a much worse scenario, but it was short term, what was the ideal long term solution.

Alasdair darling had already started to make cuts when the 2010 election came round 

[uttoxram75]

4 hours ago, Angry Ram said:

Domestic Staff eh.. A cross we have to bear. I’ve still got a nanny ?

My domestic staff is a bit of a cross to bear as well.

 

 

 

 

 

Good job Mrs uttoxram75 dunna post on here ?

[1of4]

7 hours ago, G STAR RAM said:

Me personally, yes, as long as it follows the basic premise of what was actually promised during the Referendum campaign.

 

Those promises were?

[uttoxram75]

3 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I think so but its a difficult question because we all are affected differently 

I asked a question on here a few days ago to a labour Voter what would labour had done different in 2010 had they won the election.

The pot was dry we know that. What was the answer?

I am not a clever enough person to say. 

Would labour have introduced austerity, what was the alternative, if there was what proof is there it would work?

I applaud Gordon Brown,  his actions prevented a much worse scenario, but it was short term, what was the ideal long term solution.

It is a difficult question Paul71 and its impossible to answer. The Labour Party of 2010 is very different to the 2019 version. Austerity was one political ideology that has never worked in other countries (if you count "working" as benefitting the majority of the population that is), and it is one the Labour Party of that time may well have gone down. 

The Labour Party of 2019 is a different beast and has gone for the full on explosion of the economy, pumping money into the grass roots rather than hand outs to the top.

Its a massive change to the last 40 years of trickle down capitalism and a full on attempt to force a bottom up economic boost.

[Sith Happens]

10 hours ago, GboroRam said:

You mean the global financial collapse was Labour's fault? 

It was tongue in cheek, i do recognise it was an unusual event.

However it does strike me that despite the insistence labour were blameless that labour supporters in particular will happily put the fact that action needed to be taken purely at the conservatives door.

Labour supporters will criticise that austerity measures had to be taken yet I have not seen anyone suggest what labour would have done differently and offer proof that the country would be better off today.

Interestingly, well for me at least, i had a similar discussion with a labour supporter back in the days of the old thread, who was insistent that labour were blameless, i was accepting of his arguments why, however i did ask him to answer one question honestly and that was had the roles been reversed and the conservatives in power at the time would you today be blaming them for the economic collapse....surprisingly he was very honest and said yes of course he would.

 

[GboroRam]

4 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

Labour supporters will criticise that austerity measures had to be taken yet I have not seen anyone suggest what labour would have done differently and offer proof that the country would be better off today.

I think there would have been an attempt to redistribute wealth by increasing taxation at the very top. The tories cut tax at the top. 

[ramesses]

12 hours ago, Paul71 said:

In fairness Blairs government did do well,it only took them 10 years to wreck the healthy economy they inherited from john major

I assume you’re joking but, in fairness, most blame the wrecking of the economy on the exceptionally greedy banks, their sub-prime mortgages, the housing bubble bursting, and the subsequent awful realisation that all this ‘very bad bank debt’ had been repackaged and sold on as ‘very good bank debt’.  

As a consequence, the exceptionally greedy banks lost so much money/liquidity that they were going bust and the banking system had to be very expensively bailed out by the rest us in order to avoid the very serious risk of another great depression. Unsurprisingly, this major banking crisis and credit crunch led to a lowering in financial confidence, lower consumer spending, reduced investment and a massive reduction in government income (aka the great recession).

PS. Margot Robbie in a bubble bath is a great reason for anyone to watch 'The Big Short'...

 

[in fairness, posted at same time you replied to Gboro]

[Sith Happens]

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

I think there would have been an attempt to redistribute wealth by increasing taxation at the very top. The tories cut tax at the top. 

It hard to say in retrospect isnt it though, but it it easy to criticise. As another poster stated Labour were planning cuts themselves which Darling said would be two parliaments of pain.

 

[Sith Happens]

7 minutes ago, ramesses said:

I assume you’re joking but, in fairness, most blame the wrecking of the economy on the exceptionally greedy banks, their sub-prime mortgages, the housing bubble bursting, and the subsequent awful realisation that all this ‘very bad bank debt’ had been repackaged and sold on as ‘very good bank debt’.  

As a consequence, the exceptionally greedy banks lost so much money/liquidity that they were going bust and the banking system had to be very expensively bailed out by the rest us in order to avoid the very serious risk of another great depression. Unsurprisingly, this major banking crisis and credit crunch led to a lowering in financial confidence, lower consumer spending, reduced investment and a massive reduction in government income (aka the great recession).

PS. Margot Robbie in a bubble bath is a great reason for anyone to watch 'The Big Short'...

I must take look.

 

[G STAR RAM]

8 hours ago, 1of4 said:

Those promises were?

We would leave the single market and customs union, bring an end to freedom of movement, and cease to be overseen by the ECJ.

[GboroRam]

11 minutes ago, Paul71 said:

It hard to say in retrospect isnt it though, but it it easy to criticise. As another poster stated Labour were planning cuts themselves which Darling said would be two parliaments of pain.

 

Don't confuse Darling, Blair and Brown with the current Labour leadership. 

[G STAR RAM]

11 hours ago, Paul71 said:

I think so but its a difficult question because we all are affected differently 

I asked a question on here a few days ago to a labour Voter what would labour had done different in 2010 had they won the election.

The pot was dry we know that. What was the answer?

I am not a clever enough person to say. 

Would labour have introduced austerity, what was the alternative, if there was what proof is there it would work?

I applaud Gordon Brown,  his actions prevented a much worse scenario, but it was short term, what was the ideal long term solution.

I think Labour would have sold our gold reserves to give us a cash boost ?

Just had a look and if we had held on to them gold reserves that we sold for £3.5bn they would be worth approximately £18bn today...that's £350m a week for a whole year...should have stuck it on the bus.

[Sith Happens]

 

2 minutes ago, GboroRam said:

Don't confuse Darling, Blair and Brown with the current Labour leadership. 

You are right, that historical leaders and ideals should not impact how a party or current leadership is viewed today. Although while I am not about to go searching I am willing to bet the name Margaret Thatcher has been mentioned more than once during recent activity on here.

Had it been the current Labour leadership in place in 2010 I am not convinced that increasing tax for higher earners would have been the magic wand to the issues faced back then. They had already increased under labour and remained (to this day) increased, albeit at a slightly lower level.

It is a moot point discussing in reality as no one knows how things may have been different.

 

 

[GboroRam]

12 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

I think Labour would have sold our gold reserves to give us a cash boost ?

Just had a look and if we had held on to them gold reserves that we sold for £3.5bn they would be worth approximately £18bn today...that's £350m a week for a whole year...should have stuck it on the bus.

So you'd sell it now? 

[G STAR RAM]

Just now, GboroRam said:

So you'd sell it now? 

Yes, to pay to import all of the food, fuel and medicines that run dry after Brexit...