Brexit the economy and house prices part 6

cogito

Herzlos wrote: »

I wouldn't say Democracy is broken, it works pretty well on the whole. The problem is that we allow Populism to override it on occasion. There's essentially no penalty for lying or diverting the Democratic process.

It seems that those who are diverting the democratic process are those who are doing everything they can to keep us in the EU and I doubt that they would meet your definition of populism, whatever that is. Perhaps you could tell us.

ukcarper

Moby wrote: »

Again how many Brexiteers foresaw the consequences for the Irish issue when they voted. Very interesting poll showing the attitude of Eire towards the border issues. Almost two thirds (61%) of Irish people would like to see Irish unification on the back of Brexit negotiations.

While just a quarter of the population (26%) believe that the Good Friday agreement should be altered to accommodate Theresa May’s Brexit negotiations.

Almost half of those polled believe that Brexit will result in a ‘hard’ border (47%), as Britain’s deadline to leave the EU looms.

https://news.paddypower.com/politics/2018/10/14/united-ireland-brexit-poll-pp/?AFF_ID=21488

In my opinion that's another thing to blame the remain campaign for I don't remember hearing anything about it and for something that is very high profile now it las very low profile in run up to vote. Saying that I'm not sure it would have made much difference especially to vote outside NI.

Joan_number_1_2

Backbiter wrote: »

I looked for the report you referred to, but couldn't find it. Can you provide a link?

I did find this in the Telegraph from 3 SEPTEMBER 2018 :
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2018/09/03/economic-growth-already-2pc-lower-would-without-brexit-says/



Those figures aren't based on guess work but on what's happened since June 2016.


https://fullfact.org/economy/uk-worlds-5th-or-9th-largest-economy/

So a 2% reduction in size represents a yearly loss to the economy of $52.6 billion, which amounts to roughly £80billion in the two years since the Brexit vote.

Grim stuff, as I'm sure you'll agree.

It would be grim if it was true but it's all BS.
I'm sure it's been posted before in this very thread too.
For our economy to be 2% smaller our rate of growth would otherwise have to have been over 3% per annum, our tax receipts have gone down and our deficit would have to have increased, none of which have happened.
So more Project Fear BS it is, then.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

It seems to be quite prominent now and the biggest offenders at moment are Labour from what I can see they are trying to buy everybody's votes from pensioners through students to unemployed.

Labour's manifesto claims have been fully costed, with the exception of the ones made up by the right-wing press (like Corbyn promising to wipe out all student loan debt - it didn't happen). It's done by (largely) restoring tax for higher earners to before the last Tory price cut.

cogito wrote: »

It seems that those who are diverting the democratic process are those who are doing everything they can to keep us in the EU and I doubt that they would meet your definition of populism, whatever that is. Perhaps you could tell us.

Not blindly following a non-binding referendum with a 52/48 split doesn't count as diverting the democratic process.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/populism
primarily #2 here. The populism in this case is the anti-intellectualism and promising everything to everyone. The Leave campaign was "sick of experts" and promising that Brexit would be "the easiest deal in human history" giving us all the perks of being in the EU but without the payments and laws. That everything would run exactly as it did before but we could have Blue passports and an extra £350m/week for the NHS.


And it was all manure. Yet there's nothing in place to stop such lies winning people over, and the liars from wandering away going "not my problem, guv". Leave campaign was fined a puny amount for overspending by millions, and that's it. No criminal convictions, no invalidating of the results. Tell the public whatever lie you want to get a result and pay a pocket-change fine at the end.

Joan_number_1_2

cogito wrote: »

It seems that those who are diverting the democratic process are those who are doing everything they can to keep us in the EU and I doubt that they would meet your definition of populism, whatever that is. Perhaps you could tell us.

A (deliberate?) miscomprehension of patriotism perhaps.

ukcarper

Herzlos wrote: »

Labour's manifesto claims have been fully costed, with the exception of the ones made up by the right-wing press (like Corbyn promising to wipe out all student loan debt - it didn't happen). It's done by (largely) restoring tax for higher earners to before the last Tory price cut.







Not blindly following a non-binding referendum with a 52/48 split doesn't count as diverting the democratic process.


https://www.dictionary.com/browse/populism
primarily #2 here. The populism in this case is the anti-intellectualism and promising everything to everyone. The Leave campaign was "sick of experts" and promising that Brexit would be "the easiest deal in human history" giving us all the perks of being in the EU but without the payments and laws. That everything would run exactly as it did before but we could have Blue passports and an extra £350m/week for the NHS.


And it was all manure. Yet there's nothing in place to stop such lies winning people over, and the liars from wandering away going "not my problem, guv". Leave campaign was fined a puny amount for overspending by millions, and that's it. No criminal convictions, no invalidating of the results. Tell the public whatever lie you want to get a result and pay a pocket-change fine at the end.

Claims it obvious to any body with a modicum of sense it isn't.

Corbyn is promising everything to every one I am a long term Labour voter and I won't be voting for his party and I suspect I'm not the only one.

Herzlos

ukcarper wrote: »

Claims it obvious to any body with a modicum of sense it isn't.

Sorry, I don't follow this at all.

Corbyn is promising everything to every one I am a long term Labour voter and I won't be voting for his party and I suspect I'm not the only one.

I don't think he is promising everything to every one, and nor do I think most of it will be particularly expensive to do. I've seen a lot of claims from Tory sources (usually claiming to be ex-Labour voters) about how it'll bankrupt us.



I'm not a big Labour fan either, but I honestly can't see how they could do any worse than the Tories at this stage.

ben501

Herzlos wrote: »

Labour's manifesto claims have been fully costed

Who by, Ms Abbott?:rotfl:


I just had a quick look at the manifesto. Plenty of 'We'll spend billions on this and that', but not much about where these magic money trees will be found.


Perhaps you'd care to elaborate for those of us less proficient at searching the web.

Enterprise_1701C

Herzlos wrote: »

Labour's manifesto claims have been fully costed, with the exception of the ones made up by the right-wing press (like Corbyn promising to wipe out all student loan debt - it didn't happen). It's done by (largely) restoring tax for higher earners to before the last Tory price cut.

So he just gets his own people to lie?

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/key-ally-of-jeremy-corbyn-caught-on-video-making-pledge-to-wipe-off-student-debts-a3595646.html

And one thing they can never understand is that by taxing the high earners higher they lose that tax because they simply relocate. They do not have to hang around in this country. The lower taxes bring in more money because they stay in this country.

kabayiri

BobQ wrote: »

I am sure we will adapt as he suggested. To provide balance, the programme pointed out that it was one thing for a clothing importer like NEXT that gets most of its stuff from non-EU countries and is merely inconvenienced by a delay in importing. Its quite another for those with complex supply changes that require just in time transfers of components across borders or those importing food which deteriorates in those bonded warehouses.

In short, winners and losers.

Now if you happen to believe you will benefit, why wouldn't you make that choice?

I don't believe we have had a UK-wide view on many things for years, if not decades.

Divided people will make divided decisions. Surely Cameron knew this.