He wrote a book about Zurich that I'd read a review of, turns out. Tim Shipman, being who I was speaking of.Originally Posted by Lewis
He wrote a book about Zurich that I'd read a review of, turns out. Tim Shipman, being who I was speaking of.
The best and most sensible explanation is that people don't particularly like the European Union.
You could, but two of them would be wrong.
Am loving how clearly far away from the original point we are. Britain can't claim to be a 'liberal' country anymore.
Of course it is and you're off your rocker if you think otherwise.
I don't think it implied that.
People on both sides of the poltical spectrum aren't allowed to speak in public. You even railed against no platforming.
People who use the internet have every detail logged in case they commit a crime in the future.
There are more CCTV cameras in the UK than any other nation on earth. Our CCTV technology allows us to recognise people based on their gait ffs.
You can be sued for refusing business as a private enterprise on religious and political grounds.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
Lewis and I live on far different belief systems but I think the idea that we're 'liberal' can be quantified as a joke by both sides.
This all depends on what you take 'liberal' to mean.
But it's a bit pointless anyway because saying that ridiculous surveillance and censorship bills are okay because they won't be implemented properly because we're too liberal a country (whatever you take it to mean) is worryingly complacent.
Burundi is probably quite liberal in that case.
The surveillance is already happening and has been for years, they've just legalised it now.
But that wasn't the point I was arguing, mine was specifically about the porn bill, which just isn't going to be enforced.
And North Korea represents the sort of police state you seem to want.
Have to say, some third world countries have more rights than us is a new argument for less of them.
Oh, well, that's fine then, isn't it?
And as I said, it's not about this porn bill. It's about them being able to legalise censorship.
No law is about just the law itself, it's about the precedent it sets.
If a Labour government was doing this, you'd all be shitting the bed about the nanny state and the impending red terror.
I didn't say it was.
Hardly.
Neither side wants small government. Both sides just want to focus on big governing the things they care about most.
Give over. Given the constant right wing circlejerk on here if this was Labour you and GS would be tossing each other off about how this represents another reason Labour should stay out of power.
As part of their wider incompetence. When the Tories bring with them impending economic doom, we'll draw full comparison.
I don't have a huge issue with an opt in for porn in households with children / another mechanism for controlling access for children. It's still parental choice, albeit you're requiring them to actively make one. I haven't given any thought to a system for that, mind you.
However, adults should be able to go about their lives without the state sticking their nose in all over the show. This, and the accompanying shit legislation on surveillance, is horrendous state overreach. It shouldn't happen, but alas here we are.
Regrettably, this sort of thing is what governments legislate on and the opposition oppose for the sake of opposition regardless of which party is in government. It doesn't actually matter who's in government, because the exact same thing would happen - roles would just be reversed. Groupthink of the worst kind in government circles.
That depends how you define liberalism. If by liberalism you mean "progressive" (that is, this much fabled "progressive majority"), then I would agree - but the " anymore " is redundant as the "progressive majority" is a myth. Presumably one the likes of Caroline Lucas and Tim Farron need to justify why they bother.
Just on the last point, we don't directly elect the executive branch so it's irrelevant that she wasn't leader at the last election. It's about commanding the confidence of the house, and it's either willful ignorance of the system or outright stupidity to not understand this.
After all, the last four PMs who won a majority left office during the parliament and we didn't have an election. The last time we did was Eden in 1955, but even then the Tories had been in since 1951 and one was due.
Have literally been in control of the economy for a decade. Still Labours fault.
Pass terrible state control bills. Still Labours fault.
A decade? It's been six years.
With this and the kid born in 2000, I clearly have lost all perception of time.
The economy is fine.
Why would The Nigel want to emigrate to America, dare we ask?
Literally, mate. Literally.
It's six years, and perhaps Cameron's only significant achievement will be the strong economic growth and "jobs miracle" since the Tories came in.
On the latter point, you can read what I said or just ignore it and make up a response based on what you wanted it to say. It's up to you.
So GS, how long does a government need to be in place before we start blaming them and not the last lot?
You seem awfully happy to blame everything on Labour when between this government and the coalition it's been 6 years. Maybe that's not long enough but I'm intrigued to know how long you intend the blame the last lot for everything wrong with the world.
It depends what you're blaming them for. Which issue specifically are we addressing here?
LOL at delusions of Tory economic success. LOL.
You can pretend otherwise all you want, but economically we're doing fine.
Wage growth hasn't been this bad since the great depression.
We're at record levels of unemployment, and are forecast to have the highest growth in the G7 for this year.
Wage growth hasn't been this bad since the great depression.
Still, I suppose it's nice to overlook the catastrophic economic situation Labour left after their Faustian pact with the City went to shit, and budget deficits from 2002 onwards.
Then again, there is the money tree we can shake.
Wage growth since the 1700s. Now there's a meaningful analysis.
It's the longest period of wage stagnation in nearly a century. That's fine, is it?
And no, I'm not defending New Labour, so don't bother using them as a shield.
According to that graph, we need to go back to the days of the Duke of Portland.
Sounds doozy.Although Portland identified yet as a Whig politician, he was invited to head a Tory government. Was old and ill, leaving his Cabinet to their own devices, largely headed by his Chancellor (Spencer Perceval). Ministry destabilised through multiple disputes between the Foreign Secretary (George Canning) and the War and Colonies Secretary (Viscount Castlereagh), that eventually culminated by way of a duel; Portland resigned in response (dying 26 days after leaving office).
How do you suggest centralised government initiatives can address this? They're raising the minimum wage to about a tenner (let's ignore the cost push inflation impact or potential job losses so businesses can pay it).
Government should create circumstances in which business can thrive and leave them to it. They've created millions of new jobs and we're posting strong economic growth. For a government, that will do well.
The alternative is far less people in work, but you can't have everything.
It's been thoroughly disproved that rising wages lead to less people being employed. See LA, Seattle and (IIRC) California where they doubled the minimum wage and jobs have followed the same curve as across the rest of the nation. When people have more money, they spend it (and the working class is far, far, far more likely to spend it rather than saving it) so you need more people to serve the people that now have money.
Or you could look at Kansas where there's been widespread budget cuts, entitlements slashed and corporation tax halved 'to attract businesses' and the states economy is in crisis.
Or you could just blame Labour.
You can't compare Kansas to the UK. It's about far, far more than just a tax cut.
I would note that if you think that continuing to raise the minimum wage constantly will have no impact on job creation, then you presumably think you could just put it up to twenty quid an hour with no discernible impact. This is, clearly, wrong.
And if people are earning more, business will pass that onto the consumer meaning everybody pays more. A centrally mandated minimum wage may have some sense, where raises are staggered / staged and sensibly implemented, but the blunt truth is that some jobs aren't worth the wage that a nationally mandated minimum would require.
It's the issues that bother me, not what side of the political spectrum they fall on. I've never voted tory, for example.
Pretty much every one of your assertions here is false.
The minimum wage is being raised next year to £7.50 per hour. That is not "about a tenner" in any universe.
There is not strong economic growth. There is tepid growth by any reasonable historical standard - lower than was predicted and it might as well be no growth for all the impact it's having on most people.
The "millions of new jobs" are mostly low-paid casual employment. It's only really job growth because they inherited a depressed economy.
But yeah, government's only job is to look after business, and as long as they do that, other metrics can be ignored and we can declare success! Great one!
You know what can be done. To put it simply, public investment and stop obsessing about deficits.
It's going up to at least nine quid by the end of the parliament. Sustained, steady increases. If you whacked it up in one go, you'd shaft smaller businesses all over the country.
We have record levels of employment. There is a finite number of office, professional jobs needed. If we cut taxes to generate jobs here and not in, say, France, you'd accuse them of engaging in a race to the bottom. It needs private sector growth, which you don't get from taxes and regulation which are prohibitive.
In terms of looking after business, government intervention in the economy seems to be a fetish of the left. Supply side economics works.
Regardless of all this, your last point does pierce all the bullshit. You believe in the magic money tree, and you'll keep shaking it until there's nothing left.
The problem with infrastructure proposals is that more is spent on wanky consultants than actually making it.
'Since 2008' seems like a pretty bollocks economic benchmark given that that marks the point where a decade of non-existent wealth vanished.
You get private sector growth from sound macroeconomics. You're not interested in that.
It does indeed work in terms of shovelling money into the pockets of business, which is all you care about, as you concede.
I believe that long-term deficits must be lower than long-term growth. What is the problem with that proposition?
Back to the Investigatory Powers Bill - Your entire internet history to be viewable by PSNI, taxman, DWP and Food Standards Agency and other government bodies within weeks.
Aye, whatevs. Incognito as fuck.
I can't tell if you're joking.
Amongst all this do the BBC still maintain the myth of tv detector vans?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote