Politics - Page 1161 - NFL UK Forums
NFL UK Mobile Logo
Go Back   NFL UK Forums > Miscellaneous > Off-Topic - Entertainment/News

  #11601  
Old 06.10.2016, 10:27 PM
BritishBronco's Avatar
BritishBronco BritishBronco is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 10.10.2007
Posts: 5,018
Default

Seems to be two main factions in Ukip. One is the libertarian right which is what Ukip were originally: all free market and no government. That's what originally attracted a lot of old Tories and that's what defines the likes of Carswell, Suzanne Evans and even Neil Hamilton.

Now though Ukip think of themselves as replacing Labour in working class areas so no problem with being big state, anti-globalisation and very anti-immigration. It's like the BNP when they were at their peak - they also targeted northern working class Labour voters.

The two visions are pretty much incompatible and when Ukip are also full of pretty awful personalities then you have a toxic mix. Amazing how a party with little history and only one MP can be such an all round shambles.
Reply With Quote
  #11602  
Old 07.10.2016, 09:36 AM
BoatmanReturns BoatmanReturns is offline
Pro
 
Join Date: 09.09.2016
Posts: 65
Default

Diane Abbott as shadow home sec.

I am now convinced that Corbyn is a Tory plant with the sole purpose of making Labour unelectable.
Reply With Quote
  #11603  
Old 07.10.2016, 10:51 AM
davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_Duper View Post
Fair point but has the extra costs to consumers not gone back into US economy anyway, insteading of Chinese company pockets? What about the effect on spending power from all those US tyre companies and employees not buying and selling goods or homes and being simply out of a job now?

Would you rather spend £20/30 more on a tyre if you knew it was from a UK company and even better a local business?

Or cheap tyre, money to UK based franchise only, out the back door with tax returns and little to nothing put back into UK economy, aside a few jobs or just maybe delivery guys with the imported tyres.

We all want cheap and cheaper, it comes at a cost and works it's way up from the breadline eventually to snare us all, that is global capitalism for you.

Walmart effect, low profit margin, high volume sales, it works, and real well, always at a cost to everyone eventually. Once the global capitalists have taken over everything, then we really will be a slave race again.
Cost matters. Being able to obtain things cheaply is the nuts and bolts of economic growth. It means you have to spend less hours working to buy something or can buy more somethings with the same amount of working hours. It is the practical definition of wealth and it is why you can have a TV, a car and a washing machine. Yes, these could be more expensive. Your car could be individually handmade in West Sussex rather than mass produced in Swindon. Which explains a lot of the cost difference between a Rolls Royce (West Sussex) and a Honda (Swindon). But if the only cars are Rolls Royces a lot of people wouldn't be able to afford one at all.

Imports get a bad press. It's a mystery why. If you buy a TV from Japan then you get a nice new TV. Lovely! What do the Japanese get? They get Pounds Sterling. British money. Which is only paper. Or digits on a spreadsheet. Of course they don't want Pounds Sterling really so they exchange it for Yen, but the bottom line in that transaction is simply this. You gave somebody on the other side of the world some paper and they gave you a TV. What is so bad about that?

What happens to the paper is rather beautiful. The exchange trader who ended up with it sells it to somebody who wants to buy something British and then they buy our exports. Or they spend it in a London hotel.

You can't export unless you import and you can't import unless you export. We sell things to other countries that we can produce more efficiently or with greater quality than they can. Such as tourism, financial services, cars, machines, medicines, aircraft. We buy things from oher countries that they can produce more efficiently or with greater quality than we can. Like toys, rice, white goods and peaches. We get toys, rice, white goods and peaches more cheaply and they get tourism, financial services, cars, machines, medicines and aircraft more cheaply. So we both have lower costs and so we are both wealthier as a result.

Floating exchange rates ensure that the money that leaves the country comes back. It's the only place where it is useful after all.

The loser in this is the tyre factory up the road. But in economic terms, it shouldn't be there. If your local tyre plant gets priced out by foreign competition the market should re-allocate it's capital and labour - to the export sector say, where demand will increase as those pounds sterling come back.

This can be hard on the poor 50 year old tyre maker who doesn't know how to do anything else, but economies do change. Factories, industries and entire commodities are rendered obsolete by time and technology. This is the price of wealth and prosperity. It is why the Luddites were wrong to break the looms. If we had given in then our textiles would still be hand woven and you would be spending half of your money on woollen underpants.

Propping up local industries with trade barriers and subsidies is inefficient and unfair. It discourages investment and good business practice. It makes industry dependent and changes the incentives that encourage efficiency. Put it another way. If the local tyre plant can't compete with the French (say), why is that? Should you have to pay more for your tyres because the manager of the local tyre plant is rubbish at making tyres. Or because he pays himself fat dividends so he can drink champagne every night instead of investing in new machinery? Is it wise to write him a blank cheque? What is his managerial time best spent on? Improving efficiency at his factory or endlessly lobbying for higher trade barriers so he doesn't have to bother? Will you feel obliged to keep buying his tyres when they are 50, 100, 200 pounds more expensive? Who is the slave now?

Where exchange rates do not float (i.e. the Euro), it is more murky because if two countries use the same currency there is no stabilising feature that matches imports with exports. This has caused serious problems in Europe because the Germans export furiously but they do not import much. They prefer to save. This is only really possible because of the Euro.
Reply With Quote
  #11604  
Old 07.10.2016, 11:10 AM
davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JensonF View Post
Here's one, but there are lots of similar pieces in the nationals:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/...new-work-visas

The general idea seems to be to put British workers first and before cheap labour from abroad -- assuming there are still people here willing to work for not much money. And cut down on the number of people sneaking into the country dodgily and just overstaying.
What is all this about cheap labour? Mystifying. We have a minimum wage for goodness sake, which the Tories plan to increase to £9 per hour by 2020. If somebody is violating that then it seems unlikely they are going to advertise the fact.

How any legal instrument is meant to control anybody hiring illegal labour is equally baffling. Do we expect an Indian restaurant (say) with illegal migrant workers to report their origin truthfully?

What is all this about jobs anyway? Unemployment is low. The last figures put it at under 5% which is relatively healthy. There is always some unemployment as people leave jobs on purpose, go on gardening leave etc.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit...mployment-rate

Unemployment was comparably low at the height of the boom but in fact unemployment has not been actually this low since the mid 1970's.

There are not legions of British workers who can't get a job because of immigrants. Unemployment is at a 40 year low.

This is why there are illegal workers and EU workers and Non-EU workers in the first place. Because the UK economy has an unquenchable thirst for labour. We have given them all jobs and we still have jobs available.
Reply With Quote
  #11605  
Old 07.10.2016, 01:08 PM
JensonF's Avatar
JensonF JensonF is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 03.09.2009
Posts: 6,554
Default

With Labour unelectable with clunker Corbyn in charge, Tony B. Liar is on the verge of saving the nation by launching his own political party. The high priest of spin, lies and self-enrichment is worried by the prospect of Britain becoming a one-party state, which is not being run for the benefit of the rich and sleazy.
Reply With Quote
  #11606  
Old 07.10.2016, 05:41 PM
mattchew's Avatar
mattchew mattchew is offline
All Pro
 
Join Date: 09.09.2007
Posts: 2,491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoatmanReturns View Post
Diane Abbott as shadow home sec.

I am now convinced that Corbyn is a Tory plant with the sole purpose of making Labour unelectable.
That woman is as mad as a box of frogs. I've spent a lot of time trying to get behind and support Jezza, not sure there's anything positive to say about this appointment
Reply With Quote
  #11607  
Old 07.10.2016, 08:16 PM
davidjones178@hotmail.co.uk
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

I can't figure Theresa May out at all.

What is her philosophy? To listen to her recent keynote speech you would think she was taking the Tory Party towards the centre. Her tone was quite interventionist. Yet a lot of the things she rails against; tax avoidance by multinationals for example, have practically been Tory policy to date. It's been a while since Labour has been in power. If things are broken, her party has expressed very little interest in fixing it to date. Building lots of new homes is something every Government has promised to do for an age, but none has done. She says the Tories won't pick winners or prop up failing industries, shortly after doing exactly that with Hinkley C.

And with respect to the economy, she said this:

"Because while monetary policy – with super-low interest rates and quantitative easing – provided the necessary emergency medicine after the financial crash, we have to acknowledge there have been some bad side effects. People with assets have got richer. People without them have suffered. People with mortgages have found their debts cheaper. People with savings have found themselves poorer. A change has got to come. And we are going to deliver it. "

Which is just baffling.

Who is she talking about? Who are these poor people who have enormous savings - enough to generate an income - but no assets? People with vast cash deposits at the bank perhaps but no house or stocks or shares? Why are they more deserving than people with no savings but who own assets? Surely they are all the young people who the Government have encouraged to buy houses and take on huge mortgages under the help to buy scheme? Are they to be vilified now?

The "bad side effects" are not because of monetary policy. They are because of the financial crash and our rather fragile economy.

Are the Tories going to abandon monetary policy? Are they going to start borrowing a lot more money? But our National Debt is rising. Despite austerity.

The whole thing is strange and incoherent. It just seems like they don't know what they are talking about. Or really what they want to achieve.
Reply With Quote
  #11608  
Old 07.10.2016, 09:07 PM
European Bob's Avatar
European Bob European Bob is offline
MVP
 
Join Date: 11.01.2012
Posts: 8,299
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark_Duper View Post
Fair point but has the extra costs to consumers not gone back into US economy anyway, insteading of Chinese company pockets? What about the effect on spending power from all those US tyre companies and employees not buying and selling goods or homes and being simply out of a job now?

Would you rather spend £20/30 more on a tyre if you knew it was from a UK company and even better a local business?

Or cheap tyre, money to UK based franchise only, out the back door with tax returns and little to nothing put back into UK economy, aside a few jobs or just maybe delivery guys with the imported tyres.

We all want cheap and cheaper, it comes at a cost and works it's way up from the breadline eventually to snare us all, that is global capitalism for you.

Walmart effect, low profit margin, high volume sales, it works, and real well, always at a cost to everyone eventually. Once the global capitalists have taken over everything, then we really will be a slave race again.
Protectionism doesn't foster high quality domestic products though. It fosters low quality, high priced domestic products. No pressure, no competition, so no need to innovate. That's why everything in North Korea is terrible - nothing to keep them on their toes. Paying more for high quality local stuff works only with free competition - that's Germany. If you cut off competition and shelter German firms they would lose their edge. They compete by offering high quality stuff made using highly skilled labour and leave the cheap stuff of inferior quality to China.

In summary, I'd rather spend £20-30 on a superior quality product that's locally made but not a product of inferior quality just because it is local. I would rather money be spent on retraining workers for something else or something better instead of propping up industries that can't compete on quality or cost.
Reply With Quote
  #11609  
Old 08.10.2016, 02:27 PM
lee harris 10's Avatar
lee harris 10 lee harris 10 is offline
Hall of Fame
 
Join Date: 05.09.2010
Posts: 10,236
Default

Can the americans just cancel there election.Trump who is now been "hit" by a decade old video of him speaking lewedly about a woman or Hilary who has somemore lraked e-mails coming out but has also Bill by her side who has not just said but done a lot worse.The next debate on sunday is going to kill SNF in the ratings again.
Reply With Quote
  #11610  
Old 08.10.2016, 03:32 PM
HSTDriver's Avatar
HSTDriver HSTDriver is offline
Super Moderator
 
Join Date: 22.08.2009
Posts: 11,277
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lee harris 10 View Post
Can the americans just cancel there election.Trump who is now been "hit" by a decade old video of him speaking lewedly about a woman or Hilary who has somemore lraked e-mails coming out but has also Bill by her side who has not just said but done a lot worse.The next debate on sunday is going to kill SNF in the ratings again.
To be fair to Donaid it was 11 years ago, when he was much younger and more immature. He was only 60 at the time.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 02:00 AM.