Political round up.............

First topic message reminder :

CaledonianCraig wrote:

GSC wrote:The Scots voted to remain part of the UK.

The UK voted to leave the EU. Every Scottish vote counted the same as every other UK citizen. I don't see the issue.

The Scots (a good number if you look at post-ref stats from neutral sources) decided to vote no on varying issues. One of the main ones was because they feared losing their place in Europe. That won loads of votes for Better Together and has proved to be fruitless for the voters as they are now out of Europe.

The issue is that many Scots sees Scotland as its own country - sure not independent - but very close to it as they have their own government. However, when they vote by 62% to remain in Europe and end up being taken out of Europe it becomes a big issue to many. Yes we know the UK voted to exit but there are perhaps a million plus Scots who fail to recognize or accept being part of the UK or see themselves Scottish first and foremost and feel how they vote should hold more water than it does in the current union.

Sorry Craig, but that's democracy. Why should somebody in Edinburghs vote count more than someone's in London? Almost as ridiculous as Mhairi Black complaining that a region with more inhabitants had more MPs representing it than another region with less MPs.

But such is the politics of the SNP, always phrasing as Scotland vs the rest of the UK (or more accurately England) when Scotland voted to be part of the UK.

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

Yeah it's just more debt though.

It is and it isn't.

You can get a better rate on the mortgage with a higher deposit and the rate on the equity loan is quite reasonable.

It has some flaws undoubtably. I'd like to see more 5% mortgages available.

Lack of housing is the killer.

If there was much more supply against demand, you'd see enticing schemes drummed up.

Help to buy is a 5% deposit mortgage basically. In that you're paying 5% of the 25% deposit.

5% mortgages are dangerous though. Downturn in the housing market = negative equity, lose your job and you can't even sell the house to repay your mortgage.

Scottrf wrote:

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Scottrf wrote:

Ent wrote:Yes schemes such as help to buy are a good start.

Yeah it's just more debt though.

Chuck in the lack of housing...............Things like negative equity and non fixed mortgages...

I don't like the policy.

I dunno. Like Ent says a mortgage on an equal house is probably 50% of rent. Helping people with deposit seems to make sense in that case.

Upping taxes on buy-to-rent to help give away more as a freebie might make it more affordable.

Hostage to bank rates and slumps in the market........Open to abuse....Private property companies giving incentives to tenants to buy their homes and then moving them out as soon as they have bought them.......

But I do see the pros.............But not for me.

LionsV2 wrote:It was a great decision as far as I'm concerned hence why I'm such a fan of BoJo and JRM.

Currently a matter of 'when', not 'if', he becomes party leader.

Duty281 wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:It was a great decision as far as I'm concerned hence why I'm such a fan of BoJo and JRM.

Currently a matter of 'when', not 'if', he becomes party leader.

I just cannot see him appealing to a larger audience at all.

- We need to appeal more to the young.
- Let's get a homophobic, misogynistic, hard brexiteer as our next leader.
- Brilliant!

Hero wrote:

Duty281 wrote:

LionsV2 wrote:It was a great decision as far as I'm concerned hence why I'm such a fan of BoJo and JRM.

Currently a matter of 'when', not 'if', he becomes party leader.

I just cannot see him appealing to a larger audience at all.

Well, I was merely talking about his prospects of becoming Tory leader.

The Tory membership love him and if JRM gets into the final two of a Tory leadership ballot (the point when members are allowed to vote), he will surely have a walk-in.

Unsure of his appeal to a wider audience. Can't be worse than Theresa, though!

Duty281 wrote:Can't be worse than Theresa, though!

I'll take that bet.

Mad for Chelsea wrote:- We need to appeal more to the young.
- Let's get a homophobic, misogynistic, hard brexiteer as our next leader.
- Brilliant!

Should there be a leader contest...

Factor in a fair few mps aren't happy with Johnson's conduct over the last few weeks...

Remember the MPs will have the final say on the final two candidates.............For sure Johnson will probably win if he can make the ballot but he didn't when May v Leadsom were the final two in 2016.

You have other Brexiteers like Priti Patel who have a following.......I imagine it will be between a Remainer and Leaver.....Rudd vs......

As the membership are mainly brexiteers...Could be worth backing Patel if you are into a gamble.

Wasn't Leadsom tipped to win the contest against May? The fact she'd backed Leave IIRC was considered a big advantage with members. But yes, the way the Conservatives elect their leaders could make things interesting. In particular the noises coming from MPs are that Johnson's recent behaviour has really annoyed them, and that he'd probably not make the final two.

JRM's face is punchable enough that I'd expect him to lose vs Corbyn.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:

Mad for Chelsea wrote:- We need to appeal more to the young.
- Let's get a homophobic, misogynistic, hard brexiteer as our next leader.
- Brilliant!

Should there be a leader contest...

Factor in a fair few mps aren't happy with Johnson's conduct over the last few weeks...

Remember the MPs will have the final say on the final two candidates.............For sure Johnson will probably win if he can make the ballot but he didn't when May v Leadsom were the final two in 2016.

You have other Brexiteers like Priti Patel who have a following.......I imagine it will be between a Remainer and Leaver.....Rudd vs......

As the membership are mainly brexiteers...Could be worth backing Patel if you are into a gamble.

The membership is pretty split with regards to Brexit hence why we ended up with Theresa May in the first place as well as Leadsom falling on her sword after the mother comment.

He didn't enter the contest in 2016 though remember, it will between him and Davidson with the MPs effectively deciding; on a personal level I want BoJo but Davidson would be a sure fire bet against Corbyn.

The members didn't have a say in the last election though did they? It's all MPs up to the final two, and Leadsom pulled out before that could be put to a members vote. I thought Conservative voters were much heavier Leave backers, something around 2/3 for 1/3 of remainers IIRC, and would expect the membership, which (as in all political parties) tends to be more hard-line, to be possibly even more that way inclined?

Na conservatives are good at making money so they would probably be reluctant remainers - generally, only the very richest who can absorb economic collapse and profit enormously from the ruins - the disaster capitalists like the legatum institute, some MP's and morons like Minford are for brexit (with full understanding of the consequences). The rest of the support comes from desperate people hoping for a better chance, just like the people who voted for trump - anti-corporate, anti-exploitation etc etc and they voted for the guy who does those things.

Edit: Also old people who think that they are immune from pension cuts.

ShahenshahG wrote:Na conservatives are good at making money so they would probably be reluctant remainers - generally, only the very richest who can absorb economic collapse and profit enormously from the ruins - the disaster capitalists like the legatum institute, some MP's and morons like Minford are for brexit (with full understanding of the consequences). The rest of the support comes from desperate people hoping for a better chance, just like the people who voted for trump - anti-corporate, anti-exploitation etc etc and they voted for the guy who does those things.

Most of his vote were people voting on party lines.............Best to remember that 80% of the vote isn't personal and candidates go after the other 20 percent.

People voted for Trump I expect because they thought with a struggling economy a succesful businessman was better......Some were taken by his personality perhaps and celebrity......Some probably hated Clinton............Some probably voted for the worst of two evils............

Let us not stereotype millions of people..

Some very good sources believe moves are a foot to get the 47 mps to force a contest...

Not sure whether they can get 47 but it's close apparently.

TRUSSMAN66 wrote:Some very good sources believe moves are a foot to get the 47 mps to force a contest...

Not sure whether they can get 47 but it's close apparently.

The Tories are all primed for *sigh* another General Election next year, with their new leader (likely to be *shudder* Boris) set to deliver the huge majority that Theresa somehow failed to muster.

Problem with JRM (one of many)

-Just think of him wearing a red stripey top and a hat then hanging around the back of big political meetings

Another obvious one. A man with 6 (six!) kids who has never changed a nappy...

He does look like where's wally.

Plenty of men about who haven't changed nappies.

I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

Ent wrote:
I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

What goes around, comes around in action

Could well be, two wrongs don't make a right though.

Alternatively it could be the majority being intolerant of the minority and nothing has really changed except the context.

Ent wrote:He does look like where's wally.

Plenty of men about who haven't changed nappies.

I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

There's an intolerance, rightly IMO, of religion informing policy. What bunkum people want to believe, themselves and in their own home, is entirely up to them.

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:He does look like where's wally.

Plenty of men about who haven't changed nappies.

I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

There's an intolerance, rightly IMO, of religion informing policy. What bunkum people want to believe, themselves and in their own home, is entirely up to them.

Spot on, religion shouldnt come into politics.

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:He does look like where's wally.

Plenty of men about who haven't changed nappies.

I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

There's an intolerance, rightly IMO, of religion informing policy. What bunkum people want to believe, themselves and in their own home, is entirely up to them.

Spot on, religion shouldnt come into politics.

Or children.

Why shouldn't religion come into it, if that's what people believe then that's their choice, we don't have to agree but it's their right. A major part of our democracy is acceptance of religion.

Scottrf wrote:

Samo wrote:

navyblueshorts wrote:

Ent wrote:He does look like where's wally.

Plenty of men about who haven't changed nappies.

I can see him being quite religious as an issue, there is an intolerance of that in modern society imo.

There's an intolerance, rightly IMO, of religion informing policy. What bunkum people want to believe, themselves and in their own home, is entirely up to them.

Spot on, religion shouldnt come into politics.

Or children.

I lost it.

People can believe what they like, policies should be driven by fact not beliefs however.

LionsV2 wrote:Why shouldn't religion come into it, if that's what people believe then that's their choice, we don't have to agree but it's their right. A major part of our democracy is acceptance of religion.

There is acceptance of religion but there should be lines drawn as to how far such ideas should influence policy.

Lets take for an example Wally's views on abortion. He's welcome to think what he likes but if he was in a position of power to act on those beliefs and tried to do so I think a lot of people might feel that was a problem.

I do think that Mogg is hopelessly out of touch of what life is like for the majority of the population, lacks experience, ability and charisma.

I know you could say that too many politicians on both sides are out of touch (what do politicians know who only know politics?) but I think he really takes that to the extreme.

Which all reminds me. I saw the following recently - having read it I am not sure if I should laugh or cry

https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/08/j-p-floru-how-to-inoculate-your-children-against-socialism.html

GSC wrote:People can believe what they like, policies should be driven by fact not beliefs however.

It depends on who people vote for though surely?

If we look at Germany; the CDU have been the biggest party for over a decade now, the clue is sort of in the name that policy may be driven by religious belief hence why 75% of the party voted against same sex marriage. You may agree or disagree with that but surely they're voting based on the opinions of their voters?

GSC wrote:People can believe what they like, policies should be driven by fact not beliefs however.

Agreed. Many MPs voted against the assisted dying bill because of their religious beliefs (never mind that the vast majority of people support said bill).

Duty281 wrote:

GSC wrote:People can believe what they like, policies should be driven by fact not beliefs however.

Agreed. Many MPs voted against the assisted dying bill because of their religious beliefs (never mind that the vast majority of people support said bill).

Not strictly true and anyway public opinion is not fact.

LionsV2 wrote:Why shouldn't religion come into it, if that's what people believe then that's their choice, we don't have to agree but it's their right. A major part of our democracy is acceptance of religion.

One persons personal religion should not dictact how everyone else lives. Its the old adage "You cant have a doughnut because I'm on a diet".

It's not one persons religion is it, it's millions and the person they vote for is representative of them.

the parliamentary system largely prevents one persons views effecting everyone - we don't live in a dictatorship.

Christianity has largely shaped British society and morality so I doubt decision making will ever truly be divorced from it.


Might religion likely to be a turn off for the electorate should he lead the conservatives into a general election.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jacob-rees-mogg-abortion-pills-abortion-r***-conservative-party-conference-tory-leadership-leader-a7976386.html

A bit on a non story when you read past the headline, we all profit from imperialism but that doesn't mean we agree with it.

It's his own investment firm - you can do what you like with it, his beliefs are fine unless there's a possibility he can make profit from it.

Mogg wrote: don’t manage the funds and haven’t done so since I became an MP. But the funds have to be run in accordance with the requirements of the investors and not according to my religious beliefs.

Given the discussion today would people be reassured by the assertion he puts his religious beliefs second if he became pm?

My big issue with this is he denied it earlier in the week at the conference.

And the ruling just passed in the US is reason why religion and politics no longer should be bedfellows.

See also: Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Turkey.

Hero wrote:And the ruling just passed in the US is reason why religion and politics no longer should be bedfellows.

The electorate voted for him knowing full well he said he'd do this, people seem to think their own personal opinion overwrites the democratic will of the people. I fully disagree with it as a policy but it was voted for.

LionsV2 wrote:

Hero wrote:And the ruling just passed in the US is reason why religion and politics no longer should be bedfellows.

The electorate voted for him knowing full well he said he'd do this, people seem to think their own personal opinion overwrites the democratic will of the people. I fully disagree with it as a policy but it was voted for.

True and accepted, but the point, I would argue, is that in no way should anything religious be informing any public policy. Anywhere.

It'll take time, sure, but humanity will grow up eventually and religion will go the way of the dodo. 'The God of the Gaps' - a great phrase. The more we find out, the less we don't understand and for which the credulous have to propose a 'God' because they simply don't understand something.

Don't get me wrong Navy I fully agree, as far as i'm concerned religion is the source of all evil and no longer has a place in modern society let alone in politics but unfortunately it is.

LionsV2 wrote:

Hero wrote:And the ruling just passed in the US is reason why religion and politics no longer should be bedfellows.

The electorate voted for him knowing full well he said he'd do this, people seem to think their own personal opinion overwrites the democratic will of the people. I fully disagree with it as a policy but it was voted for.

Thery weren't voting for him over this single issue though were they/

No they voted for all his policies.

LionsV2 wrote:No they voted for all his policies.

Well that's what they got.

At least he's so hopeless at actually running government (record numbers of senior positions unfilled etc) that most of the time its all bark and no bite

55p a minute help line for struggling people with Universal credit problems...

This Government doesn't help itself does it...

Deary me..

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/oct/11/imf-higher-taxes-rich-inequality-jeremy-corbyn-labour-donald-trump

This is interesting. While there's an easy joke about how the IMF now stands for the International Marxist Foundation or suchlike, I find it interesting that the generally accepted view that high taxes stifle growth doesn't appear to be backed up by empirical evidence. I've long argued that in the UK (and indeed France when I lived there) there is far too much of a stigma attached to the idea of taxes. It's often accompanied by the word "burden" and a reduction in taxes is almost always seen as a good thing, erroneously IMO.

I'm very pro tax reduction for the rich and do think the word burden is apt, having the top 5% pay for everyone else is in my opinion wrong.