RugbyRebels

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:Indeed, moving past students and the 18-24 group for now. The issue is the direction of change. The young were more in favour of remain. The old, leave.

So as more young people have become eligible to vote the remain vote increases. As people die the leave vote decreases.

The so called mandate to leave is weak and fleeting bring based on a snapshot. Would it even exist now? Will it by the time we leave?

Frankly we are so much better informed as a nation now than we were when we went to the polls. If we now voted again and still chose leave I would have no problem as at least a decent proportion of the lies will have been debunked.

So are you saying nobody will change their mind as they get older?
Any vote, at any time, about anything is a snapshot. What you’re not happy about is that you don’t like the result not what a referendum stands for. You’d be perfectly happy with that snapshot had it been a snapshot of a remain vote.
As for the lies. There were lies on both sides and if you ran it again there would be new lies on both sides.

I'd like to think that in 10 years time I won't have become a bigot. But if that's not for you, then each to their own I guess

A very rational response. So, everyone who voted for leave is a bigot. Even those who didn’t like the accounts that were never signed off, those who didn’t like the fact austerity was forced on the med countries whilst the EU increased their own budget, that hundreds of millions are spent on moving the parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels, that French farmers receive a disproportionate amount of the EU budget, that they feel the Euro is incompatible with each member country having their own fiscal policy, that the President of the European Commision is an avid federalist and they don’t think that is the correct way forward, that MEP expenses are so poorly policed and that EU pensions are so widely inflated above other comparable organisations etc etc. That nobody could rationally look at the EU and think that the country would be better off without it. I accept all of the above arguments as valid and still voted for Remain as on balance I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. I can also understand that people would weigh up the pluses and minuses and decide that the minuses won, rather than just saying all leavers are bigots and/or thick.
Did Diggers put you up to this?

canta_brian wrote:What do you mean by viable? I just think that now we have even the foggiest what brexit means might be a better time to poll the nation than when all we had was lies on the side of a bus.

there isnt sufficient desire among the electorate for another referendum. The remainers have yet to convince enough people that leaving the EU would be an act of utter folly. To force a change a significant number of leavers would have to be convinced to change sides. Currently that isnt the case.

That may change. Things could get very sticky over the next 12 months as it becomes ever clearer just what we would be giving up. we still have time to change course and events may make that a possibility, particularly if Tory remainers really start to make a case and Labour get off the fence.

Accusing leavers of ignorance, stupidity and bigotry is not a sound idea. I was close to voting leave at one point but eventually went for remain as the leave option is fraught with grave risk. I've since become a very keen remainer, as i've heard nothing from the leave side that convinces me we will be better off in any way. Conversely every thing i've heard, seen or read since the vote convince me that leaving would be completely mad.

Still, there is hope. Grimsby which voted 70/30 to leave still has those seeking an exemption from any tariffs post leaving, and if Grimsby can have an exemption having voted to leave then surely those who voted remain would be in with a shout.

It's not of course as though everyone in Grimsby wants to remain, after the story came out about the seafood processing firms wanting (needing?) an exemption we had the fisherman rallying around a message of leave. The fisherman are more than a little fed up of their fishing quotas, and of course once we're free of the dastardly EU the fisherman will of course be free to fish as they wish in the new light touch regulation UK, and as we all know left to the fisherman fishing as they want all the fish stocks will magically recover.

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: So are you saying nobody will change their mind as they get older?
Any vote, at any time, about anything is a snapshot. What you’re not happy about is that you don’t like the result not what a referendum stands for. You’d be perfectly happy with that snapshot had it been a snapshot of a remain vote.
As for the lies. There were lies on both sides and if you ran it again there would be new lies on both sides.

I'd like to think that in 10 years time I won't have become a bigot. But if that's not for you, then each to their own I guess

A very rational response. So, everyone who voted for leave is a bigot. Even those who didn’t like the accounts that were never signed off, those who didn’t like the fact austerity was forced on the med countries whilst the EU increased their own budget, that hundreds of millions are spent on moving the parliament between Strasbourg and Brussels, that French farmers receive a disproportionate amount of the EU budget, that they feel the Euro is incompatible with each member country having their own fiscal policy, that the President of the European Commision is an avid federalist and they don’t think that is the correct way forward, that MEP expenses are so poorly policed and that EU pensions are so widely inflated above other comparable organisations etc etc. That nobody could rationally look at the EU and think that the country would be better off without it. I accept all of the above arguments as valid and still voted for Remain as on balance I think the pluses outweigh the minuses. I can also understand that people would weigh up the pluses and minuses and decide that the minuses won, rather than just saying all leavers are bigots and/or thick.
Did Diggers put you up to this?

All of those reasons and more are reasons why the EU infuriates, but it's not like UK politics gets everything right at local or national level, but there were chances for us to harry the EU into making improvements, and we never really moved on those opportunities. I'm more than happy to concede there are problems with the EU, but the key part remains that on balance it's nuts 'cause the benefits dramatically outweigh the concerns. And the leave voters are loons who far too often ignore the positives, or claim they can retain the positives.

Some in fairness voted out for reasons of sovereignty and they're fine with that even with it likely to cost the country X billions of pounds, and consequently lower tax receipts, and both of those are very likely to hurt many people who out of anger voted to leave. I can accept those who wanted out no matter what and are willing to pay the price, I'm rather less impressed with those who wanted out and claim we'll be better off, or now claim Grimsby port should remain Brexit exempt, that Cornwall or Sunderland should retain the same level of subsidy. Indeed for the first time in my life rather than looking at some struggling areas and thinking more should be done to encourage education and job creation on those areas I'm more in a camp of thinking feck 'em, they've brought the lower future growth on themselves, and we just have to hope it's only lower growth and not a contraction

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

canta_brian wrote:I'd like to think that in 10 years time I won't have become a bigot. But if that's not for you, then each to their own I guess

Did Diggers put you up to this?

All of those reasons and more are reasons why the EU infuriates, but it's not like UK politics gets everything right at local or national level, but there were chances for us to harry the EU into making improvements, and we never really moved on those opportunities. I'm more than happy to concede there are problems with the EU, but the key part remains that on balance it's nuts 'cause the benefits dramatically outweigh the concerns. And the leave voters are loons who far too often ignore the positives, or claim they can retain the positives.

Some in fairness voted out for reasons of sovereignty and they're fine with that even with it likely to cost the country X billions of pounds, and consequently lower tax receipts, and both of those are very likely to hurt many people who out of anger voted to leave. I can accept those who wanted out no matter what and are willing to pay the price, I'm rather less impressed with those who wanted out and claim we'll be better off, or now claim Grimsby port should remain Brexit exempt, that Cornwall or Sunderland should retain the same level of subsidy. Indeed for the first time in my life rather than looking at some struggling areas and thinking more should be done to encourage education and job creation on those areas I'm more in a camp of thinking feck 'em, they've brought the lower future growth on themselves, and we just have to hope it's only lower growth and not a contraction

I’ll take that as a yes

If we keep a tory government there will be a contraction, because there will be massive capital outflows, and this will create a supply shock, in the absence of state intervention.

What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

They’ve already wargamed it and admitted it’s a possibility.
Of course, for every £ you stop leaving you stop many times more € & $ entering.

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

They’ve already wargamed it and admitted it’s a possibility.
Of course, for every £ you stop leaving you stop many times more € & $ entering.

Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

They’ve already wargamed it and admitted it’s a possibility.
Of course, for every £ you stop leaving you stop many times more € & $ entering.

Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

FFS, it would be like going back to the dark ages of the mid-70s.

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Mellsblue wrote: They’ve already wargamed it and admitted it’s a possibility.
Of course, for every £ you stop leaving you stop many times more € & $ entering.

Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

FFS, it would be like going back to the dark ages of the mid-70s.

I’m not wearing flares.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

FFS, it would be like going back to the dark ages of the mid-70s.

I’m not wearing flares.

With platform shoes I could stand as tall as George Ford, who was given a height of 5'10'' in the Times yesterday or maybe Wednesday, maybe Trump is right about fake news

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

Capital controls, foreign currency limits
...
Might as well invest in some paraffin lamps and ask Baz if to get us some buckshee hex cookers for the black outs.

Mellsblue wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Out of the single market and customers union, no restrictions around nationalising industries and now capital controls, Glorious Leader™ might be using up boxes of tissues fast enough to boost consumer spending and hold off a recession.

Still don't see them being that reckless

FFS, it would be like going back to the dark ages of the mid-70s.

I’m not wearing flares.

Denim suit and skin-head, me.

Got a head start on the skin-head....

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:What would Labour do to stop possible capital outflows? Obviously there's speculation around capital controls given the loons at the top of Labour, but I don't like to think they'd actually be that reckless

You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
You have to have fiscal stimulus of course. Which is something the Tories are ideologically against.

Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
Only they're not, everyone is in practice a Keynesian, it's just the amount that's open to debate and what it'd be spent on. It's also no comment on whether one would bring back capital controls

The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
The Tories have been aiming for a budget surplus, how is that Keynesian?

I'm not mentioning capital controls because no one in Labour has. I'm not sure why you brought it up tbh.

The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:

Digby wrote:
The Tories might be aiming for that. But in reality every year they're borrowing, and all their actual future planning details more borrowing.

That they've some flight of fancy about a balanced budget seems irrelevant to me given both Labour and Tory governments have borrowed for every year of my life. There is a debate on how much borrowing there should be, and what the borrowing should be spent on, that's where reality comes in.

And I mentioned capital controls as someone, perhaps even you, raised concerns on capital outflows and I'd wondered given such concern what Labour might do about that? Others have noted that John as 1st fluffer to Glorious Leader™ has actually discussed exactly that, introducing capital controls that is not fluffing Jeremy

If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

When's the deadline again?

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:

Zhivago wrote:
If you think Keynesian economics is just running a deficit then that's clearly showing a lack of knowledge of economics...

Can you please provide me the quote from the Labour cabinet re capital controls? All I can find is right wing papers labeling Labour's scenario planning as capital controls, without any direct quote...

Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

Potential use of capital controls referenced in this article. Labour have been vague about many of their policies do its hard to point to any document with any certainty (which of course is the point).

https://policyexchange.org.uk/a-policy- ... my-corbyn/

Sandydragon wrote:

Stones of granite wrote:

Digby wrote:
Yawn

Most governments, like most economics schools, are a mix of monetarist and Keynesian thinking, though yes not all borrowed money is spent on stimulating the economy. Though we should be careful here as Keynesian thinking is a little different to modern/post-Keynesian thinking, and too it's arguable if per Keynes we're in a time of suffering, we face problems of low growth not recession, and issues of inequity with large amounts of money not being invested back into the economy, and much higher levels of debt in a much more leveraged economy than Keynes would have been familiar with.

I don't know if Labour have made comments on capital controls, I queried if they might introduce such in response to a concern being raised around capital outflow, another poster noted they've looked into just that, but I'm not minded to trawl the ramblings of McDonnell for quotes, frankly who would want to do that?

Of course you won't find a quote saying he'll introduce capital controls. Why would he give away his tactics for the hypothetical event that he actually gets into power?

Potential use of capital controls referenced in this article. Labour have been vague about many of their policies do its hard to point to any document with any certainty (which of course is the point).

https://policyexchange.org.uk/a-policy- ... my-corbyn/

It's just used as a byword as part of the usual propagandising. Still no quote...

You're wrong.