The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[arbboy]

Disagree and ‘‘tis why democracy works so well. Who gave the logical people superiority over the emotional ones? An emotional vote is equally valid and it’s the leaders who capture hearts and minds that excel. Every one of us chooses to offer our whole life to a partner we love not one who is logically correct.
...

Yes - leaders who capture hearts and minds do excel.

That's precisely the point - the leaders who are good at technical details and knowledge and strategy concerning diplomacy, the law and economics should be the ones who excel.

It's the job of the Government - to govern.

You don't need warm, fuzzy feelings for that. You need facts, analysis and expertise.

That's part of the central problem with democracy - illustrated perfectly by every metaphor and analogy to relationships and families and anything where emotion is meant to play a part.

But those wise logical leaders better not implement policy that is merely logical to them and their sagely nodding friends.

They better implement policy that makes the people happy. Cos a happy workforce is a more productive one that grows the economy.

They did some research in Newcastle where productivity rose by 30% the week after the magpies won. Funny how the economic performance of the region rested upon emotion. Probably because the world is full of people like.

If a policy makes people happy, and that makes people more productive, and that boosts the economy - the logical, rational choice is to implement it.

For example. Having an extra Bank Holiday would make a lot of people happy.
Some politicians would want to do this because it would win them votes - the emotional flaw at the core of democracy.

Rational politicians would want to know - does the extra holiday and boost to general wellbeing mean that people go back to work after with increased productivity?
Or does the disruption just have a negative effect on the economy? - and then they should respond as appropriate.

It doesn't necessarily have to be an economic benefit - an extra Bank Holiday on General Election day, for example, could boost turnout and make people engage more with politics. It would also make a lot of people happy just having the extra  holiday.

The effect of government action might well be emotional - but the instigation of it shouldn't be, and doesn't have to be.

Bank Holiday for a General Election sounds great.

It just seems fundamentally flawed to think happy people work harder, especially when nearly all of them are only making someone else richer by working harder. I like to think happy people have better things to do.

This is why socialism is so pernicious. All of them are making a living for themselves first and generally speaking, working harder has many many benefits to that individual. It's irrelevant if it also makes someone else richer.. Shirley?

My comment is on the flippant side but I think my point is reasonable. There is plenty of room for an adjustment in the distribution of the wealth created by people’s work. We have about 4 million working people in the country who currently live in poverty.

How many of those 4m do you think spend any money on a weekly basis on fags/booze/drugs/takeaways/sky tv/iphones/costa/paying for lunch at work rather than making their own etc.  All of which are totally possible to live without and would potentially stop them being in poverty?

[doubleup]

How many of those 4m do you think spend any money on a weekly basis on fags/booze/drugs/takeaways/sky tv/iphones/costa/paying for lunch at work rather than making their own etc.  All of which are totally possible to live without and would potentially stop them being in poverty?

"poverty" is an income based definition not an expenditure based one, for obvious reasons.

[arbboy]

IMO people make expenditure decisions that put them in poverty by choice.  Their bad use of whatever income they have puts them further into poverty than they need to be.  That was my point. 

[doubleup]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

[arbboy]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

The reality is that as an income definition it implies that, on average, you need a certain level of income to afford to live but you can always do things for less than that average assumption if you are savvy/choose not to live in the SE/have children when you can't afford them etc.

If this income definition is say £300 a week is needed on average to not be in poverty i am fairly certain most people who are earning £290 a week and in 'poverty' could easily fight a little harder to make their money go further and get better deals and avoid wasting money on the things i stated.

[ripple11]

I like this Rory Stewart guy.

His videos are endearing and I like the language he uses.

Purposefully not looking at his past voting record as assume he voted to kill poor people or something. He seems nice. Does he have a chance?

The type of Conservative that appeals to non conservatives. The new Ruth Davidson

I like him, refreshingly different approach. Surely can't win but who knows

We like Rory


Later he tells an anecdote from Afghanistan. He was in a blizzard following 9/11, “completely lost.” “Suddenly I saw bumping towards me two big Toyota Land Cruisers. The electric window came down, and there was an SAS guy who served with me in the Balkans. He stuck his head out and said: ‘You are a f**king nutter.’ And then wound up the window and drove off.”

I worked on a project with Rory Stewart in 2013/14-ish.

Very down to earth and easy going, gave the impression that he was just one of the lads, which in my book is the mark of a true aristocrat

I would vote for him

Was the project to do with Appleby Tom?

No it wasn't Dave. Tony asked about on my diary so I explained a little bit there.

He's such a tiny scrap of a man, probably about 8 stone wet through but his presence seems to fill a room.

Could have got 150/1 two months ago......now as low as 12/1.

[kukushkin88]

Obviously the British press has spent decades studiously building the myth of the sub-section of society who live the life of Riley on benefits/min wage. There’s no evidence that they actually exist, it is a desperate existence for people in these situations. Plentiful supplies of booze/fags and Sky TV, perhaps a little coke for special occasions just isn’t close to the reality.

[BigAdz]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

The reality is that as an income definition it implies that, on average, you need a certain level of income to afford to live but you can always do things for less than that average assumption if you are savvy/choose not to live in the SE/have children when you can't afford them etc.

If this income definition is say £300 a week is needed on average to not be in poverty i am fairly certain most people who are earning £290 a week and in 'poverty' could easily fight a little harder to make their money go further and get better deals and avoid wasting money on the things i stated.

Youre wasting your time here Arb, but I agree.

We see so many programmes about how you can live well for less, I am surprised some people can actually spend £250 a week.

[kukushkin88]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

The reality is that as an income definition it implies that, on average, you need a certain level of income to afford to live but you can always do things for less than that average assumption if you are savvy/choose not to live in the SE/have children when you can't afford them etc.

If this income definition is say £300 a week is needed on average to not be in poverty i am fairly certain most people who are earning £290 a week and in 'poverty' could easily fight a little harder to make their money go further and get better deals and avoid wasting money on the things i stated.

So we’re saying that people in full time employment being so poor that they can’t afford to have children is OK? Seems like there must be a better way to run the 5th richest country in the world.

[arbboy]

Obviously the British press has spent decades studiously building the myth of the sub-section of society who live the life of Riley on benefits/min wage. There’s no evidence that they actually exist, it is a desperate existence for people in these situations. Plentiful supplies of booze/fags and Sky TV, perhaps a little coke for special occasions just isn’t close to the reality.

I am not saying it is easy.  I will ask the question again.  How many of those 4m people spend any money a month of booze and fags alone?   Let's forget about all the other Daily Mail headline stuff although it all applies.  If you are living in 'poverty' booze and fags shouldn't even be able to be bought.  The fact a decent chunk of this 4m can afford to immplies to me that the mythical poverty income levels are mythical.  

If the government deciides £300 a week is the income level for poverty let's say just move to Rotherham or Middlesborough or Doncaster where your £300 will go a lot further.  It is a board average across the whole country which takes no account for regional variations of cost of living.  I would feel skint on £300 a week in Mayfair but i am pretty sure i could live a relatively decent life health wise (albeit without many luxuries) in the grim NE.  When you are skint you don't have choices but the modern day 'poverty' types think they are entitled to having all the choices richer people have.  You don't.  

[ripple11]

Boris going to court over the 350 million poster.......it was actually more.


2016
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate and money returned to the UK: £9.4 billion a year, or £181 million a week.
Payment to Brussels, net of rebate: £13.9 billion a year, or £267 million a week.
Gross payment to Brussels: £18.9 billion a year, or £363 million a week.

As far as the average voter is concerned, £181 million and £350 million both sound like a lot of money. Either would get the point across, with the same force. So why did Boris use the gross figure, when the convention is to use the net figure? Simple: it drives the other side quite loopy. They threaten to sue. And as they explode with anger, the discussion turns to how much of British money is spent to the EU – a conversation subject that suits Brexiteers. This tactic worked so effectively in the referendum because their opponents rose to the bait every time.

[arbboy]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

The reality is that as an income definition it implies that, on average, you need a certain level of income to afford to live but you can always do things for less than that average assumption if you are savvy/choose not to live in the SE/have children when you can't afford them etc.

If this income definition is say £300 a week is needed on average to not be in poverty i am fairly certain most people who are earning £290 a week and in 'poverty' could easily fight a little harder to make their money go further and get better deals and avoid wasting money on the things i stated.

So we’re saying that people in full time employment being so poor that they can’t afford to have children is OK? Seems like there must be a better way to run the 5th richest country in the world.

I have never understood why people think having children is a god given right if you can't afford to look after them.  I know you have a different view to this which i respect but politely disagree with.

[Jon MW]

Obviously the British press has spent decades studiously building the myth of the sub-section of society who live the life of Riley on benefits/min wage. There’s no evidence that they actually exist, it is a desperate existence for people in these situations. Plentiful supplies of booze/fags and Sky TV, perhaps a little coke for special occasions just isn’t close to the reality.

Obviously the media aren't great at representation - but; I do know people who worked for Housing Associations and their impression was that people who were genuinely struggling with paying rent were those who weren't claiming all the benefits they were entitled to.

Many more just chose not to pay their rent because they knew it was hard for them to be evicted.

This was before Universal Credit started rolling out and that may change some things - at least in the short term; but you definitely shouldn't completely disregard the stereotype of benefits scroungers living a 'comfortable' life; even when they would fit the definition of 'poverty' because their taxable income is so low.

[arbboy]

Obviously the British press has spent decades studiously building the myth of the sub-section of society who live the life of Riley on benefits/min wage. There’s no evidence that they actually exist, it is a desperate existence for people in these situations. Plentiful supplies of booze/fags and Sky TV, perhaps a little coke for special occasions just isn’t close to the reality.

Obviously the media aren't great at representation - but; I do know people who worked for Housing Associations and their impression was that people who were genuinely struggling with paying rent were those who weren't claiming all the benefits they were entitled to.

Many more just chose not to pay their rent because they knew it was hard for them to be evicted.

This was before Universal Credit started rolling out and that may change some things - at least in the short term; but you definitely shouldn't completely disregard the stereotype of benefits scroungers living a 'comfortable' life; even when they would fit the definition of 'poverty' because their taxable income is so low.

Exacttly.  A decent chunk of those 4m people will have incomes of higher than the state think so they live in poverty on paper but have a much bigger income because of their role in the black economy/drug dealing/escorting/petty crime or cash in hand work.

[Pokerpops]

Well if that was your point, you should really have started a new thread as it has no relevance to kukushkin's post.

As I said "poverty" is an income definition - how that is composed might be a matter of debate, but someone who earns £40kpa and spends it all on drugs is never going to be in "poverty".

The reality is that as an income definition it implies that, on average, you need a certain level of income to afford to live but you can always do things for less than that average assumption if you are savvy/choose not to live in the SE/have children when you can't afford them etc.

If this income definition is say £300 a week is needed on average to not be in poverty i am fairly certain most people who are earning £290 a week and in 'poverty' could easily fight a little harder to make their money go further and get better deals and avoid wasting money on the things i stated.

Youre wasting your time here Arb, but I agree.

We see so many programmes about how you can live well for less, I am surprised some people can actually spend £250 a week.

The tired old line that people living in poverty can just start drinking Aldi champagne instead of Veuve.

You don’t have to do much in the way of research to discover the truth about poverty in the UK. There is no evidence that foodbank users are Sky subscribers, or that they all have an iPhone 10 or whatever. There is evidence that low incomes, low job security and disproportionate housing expenses do.
https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/uk-poverty-causes-costs-and-solutions

Or you could watch ‘I, Daniel Blake’. Sometimes fiction can be used to expose some difficult truths.