Scrutable

break a few windows, pay a few people to fix em, economics is easy innit.

But we've got a £32billion divorce bill to pay first

plodder wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:01 pm break a few windows, pay a few people to fix em, economics is easy innit.

Remember when people ranted and raved about how that 350 million a week was a lie?

Looks like it wasn't.

sheldrake wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 10:05 pm

plodder wrote: Mon Jan 06, 2020 9:01 pm break a few windows, pay a few people to fix em, economics is easy innit.

Remember when people ranted and raved about how that 350 million a week was a lie?

Looks like it wasn't.

It was Boris that said it wasn't going to happen

Boris has put a much larger increase than 350 million a week in the Queen's speech

So you're banking on Boris's promises?

dyqik wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:15 am So you're banking on Boris's promises?

It's made it to the queen's speech which means its part of tue legislative program of a govt. with a large majority. It is unlikely to be abandoned or fail to pass.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:07 am

dyqik wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:15 am So you're banking on Boris's promises?

It's made it to the queen's speech which means its part of tue legislative program of a govt. with a large majority. It is unlikely to be abandoned or fail to pass.

The point is that as soon as the referendum was won, he made it clear that the £350m was not going to be going to the NHS.

His intention was that it would not happen - so he made it a lie.

He may have resiled on that since, but it was a lie.

Hang on, there's hardly any talk about who should lead the Labour Party and loads of bitching about Brexit and Johnson.

I'm not sure this properly reflects the labour leadership election, which now runs until April for some reason.

Angela Rayner has gone full on angry northerner.

AND BLT has said

I think we need to have a fair immigration system, but we can’t nod towards quite dangerous politics ... And I understand the reasons why that was done in the election campaign. There are concerns... We do need as a party to make a stronger argument, because I don’t think we’ve every set out the economic case as to why immigration is a positive force.

But she has no clue what should replace free movement.

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:10 am

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:07 am

dyqik wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:15 am So you're banking on Boris's promises?

It's made it to the queen's speech which means its part of tue legislative program of a govt. with a large majority. It is unlikely to be abandoned or fail to pass.

The point is that as soon as the referendum was won, he made it clear that the £350m was not going to be going to the NHS.

His intention was that it would not happen - so he made it a lie.

He may have resiled on that since, but it was a lie.

Turns out it wasn't after all. Isn't life funny ?

I want to see someone who adopts my “party of small businesses” strategy. It seems an obvious political winner to me.

- 6 million SMEs in UK (Small & Medium Enterprise, < 50 employees)
- 17 million people work for a SME
- Everyone thinks they hate big business and bankers: exploiting workers, not paying tax, CEOs with huge pay, bankruptcy scandals etc etc
- Everyone pretends to like local small business, thinking it’s good to buy local and British and from the little high street shop (even if they actually buy at Tescos and Amazon)

Labour has to present itself as being a safe choice on the economy and good for businesses and prosperity, yet simultaneously attack the Conservatives as being controlled by billionaires and tax dodgers.

Become the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

And it works really well with local constituency campaigning in the northern areas they need to win back - Labour candidates can spend the next 4 years championing the small businesses in their areas. Campaign for a local shop losing out to Amazon or a little construction company hurt by govt spending cuts or a small exporter struggling due to the red tape created by Johnson’s policies. Constantly boast about how much PAYE, tax, rates and VAT these companies pay, unlike the companies that own the Conservative Party.

What, the New Labour strategy? I'm sending you for reeducation.

Small businesses make profit, lpm. Profit is immoral and disgusting.

lpm wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:08 amBecome the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

This is correct, but unfortunately is what rules out Thornberry.

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:38 am

lpm wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:08 amBecome the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

This is correct, but unfortunately is what rules out Thornberry.

Yes, it does. WTF was she thinking of?

El Pollo Diablo wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:38 am

lpm wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:08 amBecome the party of small businesses and you win votes from “white van man” - the patriotic, Brexity type voters who work hard and don’t like scroungers. You are on the side of the underdog, always popular in England, against the wealthy elites. An economy for the many businesses, not the few global exploitative big businesses.

This is correct, but unfortunately is what rules out Thornberry.

It's not that unfortunate, she'd make a dreadful leader.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:01 am

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:10 am

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 8:07 am

It's made it to the queen's speech which means its part of tue legislative program of a govt. with a large majority. It is unlikely to be abandoned or fail to pass.

The point is that as soon as the referendum was won, he made it clear that the £350m was not going to be going to the NHS.

His intention was that it would not happen - so he made it a lie.

He may have resiled on that since, but it was a lie.

Turns out it wasn't after all. Isn't life funny ?

The fact he had to change his mind doesn't stop it from having been a lie.
£350m going to the EU each week was (of course) another part of the lie.

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 12:50 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 11:01 am

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 10:10 am

The point is that as soon as the referendum was won, he made it clear that the £350m was not going to be going to the NHS.

His intention was that it would not happen - so he made it a lie.

He may have resiled on that since, but it was a lie.

Turns out it wasn't after all. Isn't life funny ?

The fact he had to change his mind doesn't stop it from having been a lie.
£350m going to the EU each week was (of course) another part of the lie.

Not a lie. If we'd stayed in we'd have lost our rebate, and all the online arithmetic remainers used to deny this number are based on treated budget the EU spends in the UK as if it should be subtracted from the total when leavers think any budget not controlled by parliament should still count as EU contribution. It's a matter of interpretation, not a lie.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:32 pm Not a lie. If we'd stayed in we'd have lost our rebate,

What makes you think that we'd have lost the rebate?

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:37 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:32 pm Not a lie. If we'd stayed in we'd have lost our rebate,

What makes you think that we'd have lost the rebate?

Statements like this from EU officials https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1MM1PV

The loss of rebate was agreed years before

cvb, you live in a fantasy world of ignorance you project onto others.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:58 pm

Gfamily wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 2:37 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 1:32 pm Not a lie. If we'd stayed in we'd have lost our rebate,

What makes you think that we'd have lost the rebate?

Statements like this from EU officials https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-brit ... SKCN1MM1PV

The loss of rebate was agreed years before

cvb, you live in a fantasy world of ignorance you project onto others.

Britain would have to agree to this. That's the difference.

At least I am honest.

cvb wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:29 pm
Britain would have to agree to this. That's the difference.

Wrong. It is negotiated as part of the MFF every seven years and must be unanimously agreed. We can lose our rebate without our consent and EU commission staff made very clear we would in 2020.

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:36 pm

cvb wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:29 pm
Britain would have to agree to this. That's the difference.

Wrong. It is negotiated as part of the MFF every seven years and must be unanimously agreed. We can lose our rebate without our consent and EU commission staff made very clear we would in 2020.

How is the MFF decided?

The Council has a central role in the MFF legislative process.

Before the ongoing MFF expires, the European Commission makes a proposal for a new MFF regulation.

This is used as a basis for negotiations within the Council, which will ensure that all member states are part of the agreement: unanimity is required to find a deal.

From MFF

is there a facility on this site where we get an alert when this is talking about Labour?

cvb wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:54 pm

sheldrake wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:36 pm

cvb wrote: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:29 pm
Britain would have to agree to this. That's the difference.

Wrong. It is negotiated as part of the MFF every seven years and must be unanimously agreed. We can lose our rebate without our consent and EU commission staff made very clear we would in 2020.

How is the MFF decided?

The Council has a central role in the MFF legislative process.

Before the ongoing MFF expires, the European Commission makes a proposal for a new MFF regulation.

This is used as a basis for negotiations within the Council, which will ensure that all member states are part of the agreement: unanimity is required to find a deal.

From MFF

The default is no rebate. Unanimity is required to pass a rebate. When you express doubt that the UK would've lost its rebate, you are arguing against the EU Commission itself. I think you are experiencing cognitive dissonance.