Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least ComRes didn’t bring Nelson Mandela into its controver

SystemSystem Posts: 6,666
edited August 13 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » At least ComRes didn’t bring Nelson Mandela into its controversial poll

All the discussion over alleged leading questions in the ComRes poll have provided a peg fo me to highlight one of my favourite polls ever.

Read the full story here


«134

Comments

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 11,432
    edited August 13
    First (again).
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 53,576
    2nd. Like Hong Kong will be.
  • Chris_AChris_A Posts: 1,152
    Who could ever forget
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    edited August 13
    The ultimate opinion polling:
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514
    @Chris_A

    A phrase about great minds springs to - well, mind!
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325
    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325
    edited August 13
    6th and first on the one languishing in the ether
    PS: Having forgotten I posted 5th actually
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,966
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    Well, I'll let you know what I think!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,217
    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 3,622
    Ideally opinion poll questions should be as objective and unbiased as the summing up in a criminal court:
  • RogerRoger Posts: 11,801
    Nothing beats yougov's 'Does Tony Blair being married to Cherie make you more likely to vote for him or less'?

    The Daily Mail. where else?
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325
    Anorak said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    Well, I'll let you know what I think!
    Hopefully you don't think it is rotgut
  • AnorakAnorak Posts: 5,966
    malcolmg said:

    Anorak said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    Well, I'll let you know what I think!
    Hopefully you don't think it is rotgut
    Well, I've paid for it so I'm going to drink it regardless.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
  • Roger said:

    Nothing beats yougov's 'Does Tony Blair being married to Cherie make you more likely to vote for him or less'?

    The Daily Mail. where else?

    What were the findings?
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    edited August 13
    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,989

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 31,034
    "What first attracted you to the anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn?"

    :innocent:
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,989

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    And sending the odd troll onto discussion forums to point out how anybody who doesn’t believe in the no deal project is a scaremongering idiot.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 5,883

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    It's been their standard operating procedure for decades. Normally, when it was merely traducing an eminently decent and reasonable Labour leader like EdM, Tories neither noticed, nor cared.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025

    "What first attracted you to the anti-Semite Jeremy Corbyn?"

    :innocent:

    When I looked at the icon, I thought you meant his cap! :warning: His Soviet Cap! :warning:
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Good afternoon, my fellow Second Punic War enthusiasts.
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    nichomar said:

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    And sending the odd troll onto discussion forums to point out how anybody who doesn’t believe in the no deal project is a scaremongering idiot.
    I think the only people who are idiots are the ones taken in by the Brexit supporting media! You and I are probably on the same page on that one :smile:
  • The_TaxmanThe_Taxman Posts: 2,025
    dixiedean said:

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    It's been their standard operating procedure for decades. Normally, when it was merely traducing an eminently decent and reasonable Labour leader like EdM, Tories neither noticed, nor cared.
    That is true, it seems though, the Brexit supporting newspapers have fallen to the lowest level of degradation in their efforts to enact a Brexit that will wreck the British economy in a No Deal. I could never understand the Bacon Sandwich pictures and anyone influenced by that should not have the vote IMO...
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,906

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    You approve (I assume) of a level playing field within a country.

    But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.

    How do you reconcile?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    FPT
    Chris said:

    Chris said:

    kinabalu said:

    Funny I voted Leave for the same reason in reverse. I want us (and the EU) to compete. You say competition is unattractive but I say it is desirable. Conflict is bad but competition is good.

    Competition as opposed to conflict is a good thing. It makes us better ourselves. It makes us not rest on our laurels. It drives us forwards. It sparks new ideas and by different groups implementing different ideas it helps us evolve. We can learn more.

    Competition tests us. It invigorates us. It makes us be the best version of us we can be.

    I want to leave the EU so we can compete with Europe. Because the rest of the world won't stop competing with us either.

    My view is that competition is not a good thing or a bad thing but a POWERFUL thing.

    It can drive great progress and achievement (as you say) but it can just as easily cause great misery and injustice.

    The latter is IMO more likely when nationalist agendas are in the ascendancy. When nations are all intent on proving themselves to be superior to others it does not bode well for most of their citizens.
    It should bode well for their citizens, so long as it is funnelled positively.
    Racism doesn't bode well for anyone, no matter how it's "funnelled."
    Who said anything about racism? We were talking about competition.
    You'd better check the post you were responding to. You must not have read it.
    I don't see race or racism mentioned. Nations, nationalism and competition are mentioned, but race isn't mentioned anywhere and wasn't in the entire conversation we were having.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,989
    edited August 13

    dixiedean said:

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    It's been their standard operating procedure for decades. Normally, when it was merely traducing an eminently decent and reasonable Labour leader like EdM, Tories neither noticed, nor cared.
    That is true, it seems though, the Brexit supporting newspapers have fallen to the lowest level of degradation in their efforts to enact a Brexit that will wreck the British economy in a No Deal. I could never understand the Bacon Sandwich pictures and anyone influenced by that should not have the vote IMO...
    Forty years of this rots the mind

    https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Ds4jZ90XgAUiE1Y.jpg
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    kinabalu said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    You approve (I assume) of a level playing field within a country.

    But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.

    How do you reconcile?
    Democracy. Each country democratically elects how its own playing field is ran.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,906

    The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    "No Deal Brexit Can Ward Off Dementia!"
  • BurgessianBurgessian Posts: 42
    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
    I'm intrigued. Do you drink it straight, with water, or (possibly a terrible suggestion) with a mixer? Never tried Bourbon - just malt with a dash of water.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954
    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,906
    Not keen on bourbon myself. Be surprised if Nelson Mandela was either.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,338
    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Singapore is a highly regulated economy. People who say it is unregulated don't know what they're talking about.

    Singapore is also a city state and massive natural port at the nexus of the world's fastest growing economies.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
  • nichomarnichomar Posts: 1,989
    rcs1000 said:

    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Singapore is a highly regulated economy. People who say it is unregulated don't know what they're talking about.

    Singapore is also a city state and massive natural port at the nexus of the world's fastest growing economies.
    Where does the ‘myth’ come from?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    But that’s completely unsustainable and will only lead to conflict and resentment.
  • Looks like we might be getting a new Brexit currency folks:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/967005/brexit-news-currency-brexit-coin-stamps-eu-referendum

    Sounds like a good idea to me. It should help distract from the collapse in the value of the currency.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 28,060
    kinabalu said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    You approve (I assume) of a level playing field within a country.

    But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.

    How do you reconcile?
    Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954
    Sean_F said:

    kinabalu said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    You approve (I assume) of a level playing field within a country.

    But do not approve of a level playing field across countries.

    How do you reconcile?
    Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.
    Like those in London and those in Nuneaton?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    But that’s completely unsustainable and will only lead to conflict and resentment.
    Its perfectly sustainable, it is democracy.

    Trying to force everyone to be the same and taking power away from the people at the ballot box is what will lead to conflict and resentment.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,217
    edited August 13

    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
    I'm intrigued. Do you drink it straight, with water, or (possibly a terrible suggestion) with a mixer? Never tried Bourbon - just malt with a dash of water.
    As you like it - with ice for me (which melts which ends up like your dash of water) or the classic drink at the Derby, or any time really, is a mint julep. Very nice also although perhaps not this one although I'm sure @malcolmg wouldn't turn a hair.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325

    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
    I'm intrigued. Do you drink it straight, with water, or (possibly a terrible suggestion) with a mixer? Never tried Bourbon - just malt with a dash of water.
    I take it with some ice, it is as smooth as a malt. If you were buying the cheap stuff you may need a mixer.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    But that’s completely unsustainable and will only lead to conflict and resentment.
    Its perfectly sustainable, it is democracy.

    Trying to force everyone to be the same and taking power away from the people at the ballot box is what will lead to conflict and resentment.
    People do not want the freedom to be oppressed by corporations. That’s what removing regulations always leads to.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,818

    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
    So be specific. What regulations do you want to remove which would enable this competition you want with the EU? Employment regulations? Health and safety? Ones relating to Working Time? Or food standards? Or labelling? Or environmental? Or in relation to medicines? Or in relation to accounting or misleading advertisements? Or over the sale of financial products? Or over what constitutes market abuse? Or what?

    Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325
    edited August 13
    kinabalu said:

    Not keen on bourbon myself. Be surprised if Nelson Mandela was either.

    I like a nice dark rum as well , just with ice. Plan to try this one next , Ableforth’s Rumbullion.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    edited August 13

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    But that’s completely unsustainable and will only lead to conflict and resentment.
    Its perfectly sustainable, it is democracy.

    Trying to force everyone to be the same and taking power away from the people at the ballot box is what will lead to conflict and resentment.
    People do not want the freedom to be oppressed by corporations. That’s what removing regulations always leads to.
    Corporations are companies people choose to use and competition is good for them too. Corporations live or die by providing value to their customers - fail to do that and any corporation can go out of business.

    Same isn't true with politicians. Corporations are more honest than politicians/bureaucrats - both want your money, but one forces you to hand it over and the other offers you a choice of something you want so that you do.
  • The Brexit supporting media have definitely thrown the kitchen sink into trying to get their agenda enacted. I noticed the Daily Express calling people traitors again but their online edition seems to have now given that story less prevalence (Have they not learned the lesson of what happened to Jo Cox?). The same Brexit supporting newspaper also used a picture of Dominic Grieve who had nothing to do with a story, about a Remainer MP claiming Tory Remainer's had given up on stopping Brexit. All complete fabrication and abuse of their position as publishers I hasten to add.

    I have to say if Brexit is so popular and such a good thing why do the Daily Telegraph, Daily Express, The Sun and the Daily Mail have to distort things so massively? Dodgy polls, endless stories about this person or that person distantly related to somebody who once did X or Y. It is beyond parody, do they really think we can be led by this onslaught into backing Johnson, the Tories and No Deal Brexit?

    Look, if Brexit were such a good thing we'd have done it by now, and other countries would be eyeing up the prospect of following us. The value of the £ would be soaring, our credit rating would be at pre-referendum levels or higher, and business confidence would be at an all-time high. Best of all, PB would be devoid of posters trying to reasuure us that it won't be as bad as we fear.

    What a selling point! 'Won't be as bad as all that, Sir!' :smile:
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
    So be specific. What regulations do you want to remove which would enable this competition you want with the EU? Employment regulations? Health and safety? Ones relating to Working Time? Or food standards? Or labelling? Or environmental? Or in relation to medicines? Or in relation to accounting or misleading advertisements? Or over the sale of financial products? Or over what constitutes market abuse? Or what?

    Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.
    I want our politicians to be accountable and responsible for all of those, yes.

    In some areas we may reach the same goals as the EU and set the same rules, in others we may want stricted rules than they do, and in some we may want looser. Either way it should be our choice.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    But that’s completely unsustainable and will only lead to conflict and resentment.
    Its perfectly sustainable, it is democracy.

    Trying to force everyone to be the same and taking power away from the people at the ballot box is what will lead to conflict and resentment.
    People do not want the freedom to be oppressed by corporations. That’s what removing regulations always leads to.
    Corporations are companies people choose to use and competition is good for them too. Corporations live or die by providing value to their customers - fail to do that and any corporation can go out of business.

    Same isn't true with politicians. Corporations are more honest than politicians/bureaucrats - both want your money, but one forces you to hand it over and the other offers you a choice of something you want so that you do.
    I’m sorry but this is ideological nonsense.

    The consumer does not have the ability, time, or knowledge to make rational decisions in every purchase.

    No consumer looks at medicine in a pharmacy and thinks “I wish the company that manufactured this had the freedom not to make this drug in a safe manner”.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 741

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    So if smaller means, means more competative, means better, then you should be in favour of an independent Colchester with it's own national government, being able to agree different free trade deals with Ipswich, Harwich, Norwich etc.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954
    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.
  • StuartDicksonStuartDickson Posts: 1,274
    Legal bid to stop Westminster shutdown goes to court

    A group of MPs and peers wants the Court of Session in Edinburgh to rule that suspending parliament to make the UK leave the EU without a deal is "unlawful and unconstitutional".

    Cross-party backing
    More than 70 politicians have put their names behind the move, including Lib Dem leader Jo Swinson and SNP MP Joanna Cherry.

    The case is beginning in the Scottish courts because they sit through the summer, unlike their English counterparts.

    The Commons Speaker John Bercow has said the idea of the parliamentary session ending in order to force through a no-deal Brexit is "simply not going to happen" and that that was "so blindingly obvious it almost doesn't need to be stated".

    One of the petitioners, Edinburgh South Labour MP Ian Murray, said: "When Boris Johnson unveiled his vacuous slogan 'taking back control', voters weren't told that this could mean shutting down parliament. The prime minister's undemocratic proposal to hold Westminster in contempt simply can't go unchallenged."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-49320773
  • A bit of light relief....I got 9/15...mostly guesses, as I only really knew who Lewis Capaldi and Anne Marie were!

    https://www.theguardian.com/music/2019/aug/13/quiz-identify-these-pop-superstars
  • malcolmgmalcolmg Posts: 23,325
    TOPPING said:

    TOPPING said:

    malcolmg said:

    FPT
    Anorak said:

    » show previous quotes
    £23 on Amazon. Just ordered it to see what the fuss is about.

    Have to say I was happy with it having paid £32. It is very nice , smooth and I would say a bully bargain at £23.

    All the locals look down on Makers Mark and wouldn't be seen dead with it; Woodford Reserve is their preferred bourbon.
    I'm intrigued. Do you drink it straight, with water, or (possibly a terrible suggestion) with a mixer? Never tried Bourbon - just malt with a dash of water.
    As you like it - with ice for me (which melts which ends up like your dash of water) or the classic drink at the Derby, or any time really, is a mint julep. Very nice also although perhaps not this one although I'm sure @malcolmg wouldn't turn a hair.

    LOL that is a bit rich for me Topping, pretty as they look.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    eristdoof said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    So if smaller means, means more competative, means better, then you should be in favour of an independent Colchester with it's own national government, being able to agree different free trade deals with Ipswich, Harwich, Norwich etc.
    If Colchester wants to go independent I'd have no objection to that.

    I think we should as a people be free to determine who our compatriots are. Personally I feel English and view the English as my compatriots, with to a lesser extent the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish tagging along with us. I don't view the French as my compatriots. Power to the people though, that should be up to us the people to determine.

    If those in Yorkshire feel they are alien to us and want an independent Yorkshire I'd have no objections. But I don't think they do.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. Punter, almost makes me want to write an exciting new article about how Antoninus Caracalla's antics led to devaluation of the silver currency of Rome, which had a rather negative impact on those wishing to buy things such as food.

    The fact he was a fratricidal lunatic wasn't terribly good either.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 242
    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Mike.

    Why did you not call out 'Peoples' Vote' polls to the same degree?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,906

    Democracy. Each country democratically elects how its own playing field is ran.

    But 'level playing field' refers to fairness. One cannot have genuine competition where the deck is stacked.

    So if that - a stacked deck - is a Bad Thing within the UK, why is it a Good Thing between the UK and other countries?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 242

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,818

    Cyclefree said:

    nichomar said:

    FPT

    Politically.

    The EU harmonises politics that it is involved in. Many areas are issues that even in the USA would be down to the states and not to the federal government.

    Furthermore it was interesting in the reporting that the feedback from Frost talking to the EU last week, that the EU was horrified at the idea we might not have as they call it a "level playing field". We absolutely should not be seeking a level playing field, we should absolutely be seeking every advantage we can get and so should they, that is how you progress.

    Hmmm- the level playing field is necessary to gain the access to the EU market that the UK has said it wants. If it does not want that level of access, then obviously it has much more room to diverge. The question then becomes how helpful that is.

    I do not understand your point about politics.
    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.
    So you’d like a regulation free Singapore style economy then?
    Yes. I'd like to see us more like Singapore with regulations than France, though our own version of it, we shouldn't be exactly like them any more than we should be exactly like France.
    So be specific. What regulations do you want to remove which would enable this competition you want with the EU? Employment regulations? Health and safety? Ones relating to Working Time? Or food standards? Or labelling? Or environmental? Or in relation to medicines? Or in relation to accounting or misleading advertisements? Or over the sale of financial products? Or over what constitutes market abuse? Or what?

    Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.
    I want our politicians to be accountable and responsible for all of those, yes.

    In some areas we may reach the same goals as the EU and set the same rules, in others we may want stricted rules than they do, and in some we may want looser. Either way it should be our choice.
    You’re avoiding my question.

    What regulations do you want to see removed to ensure that Britain can compete?
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 741

    Looks like we might be getting a new Brexit currency folks:

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/967005/brexit-news-currency-brexit-coin-stamps-eu-referendum

    Sounds like a good idea to me. It should help distract from the collapse in the value of the currency.

    Like this you mean
    https://www.historia-hamburg.de/media/product/f94/banknote-ro-110-1-milliarde-mark-reichsbanknote-15-12-1922-ff3.jpg

    A thousand Reichsmarks over printed to be worth a Billion (Milliard in German is 1000 Million)
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    kinabalu said:

    Democracy. Each country democratically elects how its own playing field is ran.

    But 'level playing field' refers to fairness. One cannot have genuine competition where the deck is stacked.

    So if that - a stacked deck - is a Bad Thing within the UK, why is it a Good Thing between the UK and other countries?
    Because we set the laws for our own country and then operate within them, we don't set the laws for other countries. We also maintain the right to change our own laws, we don't have the right to change other countries laws.

    I believe in evolution and survival of the fittest. I believe that is the key to progress. If we think we can improve our country by lowering taxes for example, and another nation believes they can improve theirs by raising taxes and spending on XYZ I see no reason why we shouldn't do what we want, and they shouldn't do what they want. If we realise that XYZ works, then we can copy them - and we benefit from their experimentation. If they realise XYZ is a disaster they can drop it - and we benefit from not copying their failure.

    Either way, the greater the variance, the greater the chance to have successes and failures which leads to progress. Harmonisation leads to stagnation.
  • @Dura_Ace

    You seem very confident in your opinions on the air defence policing procedures for the UK and RoI.

    Does it come from a professional background?
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 5,441

    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Mike.

    Why did you not call out 'Peoples' Vote' polls to the same degree?

    Because the Daily Telegraph did not make them it's front page lead.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
    What is wrong with MiFID II?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,818

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
    So do you want to remove all of it? Or only some parts? If so, which?

    For instance, do you want to remove the obligation to provide details of trades to regulators so that they can monitor for possible insider trading in the markets?

    If so, why? Who do you think will benefit from the removal of this provision? And where might the costs fall?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 20,514

    Mr. Punter, almost makes me want to write an exciting new article about how Antoninus Caracalla's antics led to devaluation of the silver currency of Rome, which had a rather negative impact on those wishing to buy things such as food.

    The fact he was a fratricidal lunatic wasn't terribly good either.

    And yet he's still better than Boris Johnson.
  • eristdooferistdoof Posts: 741

    eristdoof said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    So if smaller means, means more competative, means better, then you should be in favour of an independent Colchester with it's own national government, being able to agree different free trade deals with Ipswich, Harwich, Norwich etc.
    If Colchester wants to go independent I'd have no objection to that.

    I think we should as a people be free to determine who our compatriots are. Personally I feel English and view the English as my compatriots, with to a lesser extent the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish tagging along with us. I don't view the French as my compatriots. Power to the people though, that should be up to us the people to determine.

    If those in Yorkshire feel they are alien to us and want an independent Yorkshire I'd have no objections. But I don't think they do.
    Fair play, that was not the answer I was expecting.

    But would you say that Colchester should become an independent country if 52% of those who voted, voted for independence?


  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    edited August 13
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So be specific. What regulations do you want to remove which would enable this competition you want with the EU? Employment regulations? Health and safety? Ones relating to Working Time? Or food standards? Or labelling? Or environmental? Or in relation to medicines? Or in relation to accounting or misleading advertisements? Or over the sale of financial products? Or over what constitutes market abuse? Or what?

    Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.

    I want our politicians to be accountable and responsible for all of those, yes.

    In some areas we may reach the same goals as the EU and set the same rules, in others we may want stricted rules than they do, and in some we may want looser. Either way it should be our choice.
    You’re avoiding my question.

    What regulations do you want to see removed to ensure that Britain can compete?
    I think its an inappropriate question.

    It doesn't matter what I want to see removed, I am not a dictator and that is not what Brexit means. If I say I want changes to say Working Time, Medicines and Accounting hypothetically to choose 3 from your list, then if we spiral off into debating the merits and cons of changing Working Time, Medicines and Accounting that is a wasted segway. Brexit doesn't mean that.

    Brexit means we all decide. If collectively we decide we want the same Working Time regulations but want to change say Advertisements then that is what we collectively do even if I opposed changing Adverisements and wanted Working Time changed but we do the opposite.

    Furthermore its not just what we change now, it is also about what changes in the future. What if in the future the EU passes regulations you dislike on those and you are powerless to stop them? If Westminster passes regulations you dislike you can vote for another party, if the EU does I don't see how we get it reversed.

    I am a democrat. I want us to democratically control what gets changed. The principle is what I want, not any specifics.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 14,818
    I’ll check in later to review the (doubtless lengthy) list of competition-inhibiting regulations @Philip_Thompson will have provided.

    Laters!
  • Great thread Mike - I never knew these Madiba shenanigans existed before.

    Thankfully I doubt even the combined forces of the Electoral Commission and SNP could utilise Madiba to look good for the #indyref2 question - Although one does wonder what the question will be-

    "Scotland is not yet an independent Country. Should it be?"

    I probably shouldn't give them ideas.

  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743
    eristdoof said:

    eristdoof said:

    The point about politics is I'm saying the level playing field shouldn't exist. Leaving it should be the point so we can compete more.

    So if smaller means, means more competative, means better, then you should be in favour of an independent Colchester with it's own national government, being able to agree different free trade deals with Ipswich, Harwich, Norwich etc.
    If Colchester wants to go independent I'd have no objection to that.

    I think we should as a people be free to determine who our compatriots are. Personally I feel English and view the English as my compatriots, with to a lesser extent the Scots, Welsh and Northern Irish tagging along with us. I don't view the French as my compatriots. Power to the people though, that should be up to us the people to determine.

    If those in Yorkshire feel they are alien to us and want an independent Yorkshire I'd have no objections. But I don't think they do.
    Fair play, that was not the answer I was expecting.

    But would you say that Colchester should become an independent country if 52% of those who voted, voted for independence?


    In a referendum approved by Westminster? Following the election of a Colchester Independence Party perhaps? Yes, why else hold the referendum?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 242

    What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, Mike.

    Why did you not call out 'Peoples' Vote' polls to the same degree?

    Because the Daily Telegraph did not make them it's front page lead.
    Well yes...I sort of get that...and its a fair point.

    But is that really the only issue or is it that it also comes down on (in your view) the wrong side of the argument?
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    So be specific. What regulations do you want to remove which would enable this competition you want with the EU? Employment regulations? Health and safety? Ones relating to Working Time? Or food standards? Or labelling? Or environmental? Or in relation to medicines? Or in relation to accounting or misleading advertisements? Or over the sale of financial products? Or over what constitutes market abuse? Or what?

    Go on. Give us details of what you would like removed and how this would enable competition. So that we can see who this would benefit and who would suffer as a result.

    I want our politicians to be accountable and responsible for all of those, yes.

    In some areas we may reach the same goals as the EU and set the same rules, in others we may want stricted rules than they do, and in some we may want looser. Either way it should be our choice.
    You’re avoiding my question.

    What regulations do you want to see removed to ensure that Britain can compete?
    I think its an inappropriate question.

    It doesn't matter what I want to see removed, I am not a dictator and that is not what Brexit means. If I say I want changes to say Working Time, Medicines and Accounting hypothetically to choose 3 from your list, then if we spiral off into debating the merits and cons of changing Working Time, Medicines and Accounting that is a wasted segway. Brexit doesn't mean that.

    Brexit means we all decide. If collectively we decide we want the same Working Time regulations but want to change say Advertisements then that is what we collectively do even if I opposed changing Adverisements and wanted Working Time changed but we do the opposite.

    Furthermore its not just what we change now, it is also about what changes in the future. What if the passes regulations you dislike on those and you are powerless to stop them?

    I am a democrat. I want us to democratically control what gets changed. The principle is what I want, not any specifics.
    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960
    edited August 13

    @Philip_Thompson I don’t want to compete with other countries, I want to work with them.

    And this is where we philosophically differ completely.

    I want to work with other countries where it suits us [eg CERN is a great example] while simultaneously competing with them as much as we can.
    What if the other people in your own country don't want to bat for your team? What if the company you work for is a multinational whose success benefits other countries as well?
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 242
    Cyclefree said:

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
    So do you want to remove all of it? Or only some parts? If so, which?

    For instance, do you want to remove the obligation to provide details of trades to regulators so that they can monitor for possible insider trading in the markets?

    If so, why? Who do you think will benefit from the removal of this provision? And where might the costs fall?
    MiFID is ill-conceived because it is (in my view) inappropriate for deep, well regulated markets like the UK (and unlike most European financial centres)

    Its most malignant effect has been to suck liquidity out of the market and to reduce the equity price discovery mechanism by effectively destroying the equity research business.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 19,217

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
    MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.

    Then what's the problem?

    If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?

    I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.

    I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.

    Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
  • basicbridgebasicbridge Posts: 242
    TOPPING said:

    Anyway @Philip_Thompson please reply to @Cyclefree as I’m very curious to know what regulations you feel are making us uncompetitive.

    MiFID II
    MiFID II is not making us uncompetitive. Dear god please don't let it be that we have a MiFID II discussion here.
    Completely agree. But MiFID has undoubtedly made London slightly less competitive versus US and Asian centres. And that was the question that was asked....
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 26,075
    As a resident of Colchester council, I would quite like the right to secede from it. It's hopeless.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.

    Then what's the problem?

    If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?

    I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.

    I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.

    Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
    Because the EU gives us, relatively poor consumers, protections against the power of capital and wealth to mislead and control.

    Brexit is a fine example of people being mislead by the power of misinformation to vote against their own self interests.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
    No, my overriding political concern is democracy.

    Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
    No, my overriding political concern is democracy.

    Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
    Once again you are ideologically pretending that voters are rational when they aren’t.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.

    Then what's the problem?

    If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?

    I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.

    I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.

    Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
    Because the EU gives us, relatively poor consumers, protections against the power of capital and wealth to mislead and control.

    Brexit is a fine example of people being mislead by the power of misinformation to vote against their own self interests.
    There's no reason Westminster can't give you those same protections if that is what you want to vote for.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 3,906
    Sean_F said:

    Different peoples will choose differing levels of regulation and taxation.

    But this does not mean the net impact is positive. If it leads to a world in which those things are diverging rather than converging, then quite the opposite.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. Doethur, actually... Caracalla was a real shit of an emperor.

    His father was ruthless but clever. Caracalla was just a savage.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.

    Then what's the problem?

    If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?

    I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.

    I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.

    Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
    Because the EU gives us, relatively poor consumers, protections against the power of capital and wealth to mislead and control.

    Brexit is a fine example of people being mislead by the power of misinformation to vote against their own self interests.
    There's no reason Westminster can't give you those same protections if that is what you want to vote for.
    Westminster is not true democracy. If we had PR I might be more likely to agree with you but then we wouldn’t had left the EU either.

    Westminster can be an elected dictatorship on 30% of the vote.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
    No, my overriding political concern is democracy.

    Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
    Once again you are ideologically pretending that voters are rational when they aren’t.
    No I'm not. If voters were rational, Labour would never win an election. ;)

    Voters can be irrational. I still want them to have control. If voters screw up, they can reverse it at the next election. Democracy trumps everything else.
  • Mr. Punter, almost makes me want to write an exciting new article about how Antoninus Caracalla's antics led to devaluation of the silver currency of Rome, which had a rather negative impact on those wishing to buy things such as food.

    The fact he was a fratricidal lunatic wasn't terribly good either.

    Caracalla...Johnson.....Hmmmm, now who would I prefer?

    Tricky.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    You’re talking in abstract because you know there is no majority or mandate for any of these changes in the UK, even amongst Brexiteers. Its just the classic Libertarian tactic. Sounds fantastic in abstract until you discuss what it actually means.

    As an example. County Durham Brexit voters don’t want a liberalised Labour market. They want strong employment protections and a well paid job for life.

    Then what's the problem?

    If there's no majority and no mandate for any changes then nothing will change. So what's the concern?

    I would rather have the right regulations passed by our elected representatives, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't elect.

    I'd even rather have the wrong regulations passed by politicians that we elect, than the right regulations passed by politicians we don't . . . because at the next election we can demand changes, whereas if the unelected screws up [or circumstances change] we are impotent.

    Democracy is not a libertarian concept. The fact you are trying to segway into Libertarianism or Labour regulations or whatever is why I didn't want to give specific examples. If County Durham voters win elections I respect that. I am backing democracy here, not Libertarianism.

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.
    Because the EU gives us, relatively poor consumers, protections against the power of capital and wealth to mislead and control.

    Brexit is a fine example of people being mislead by the power of misinformation to vote against their own self interests.
    There's no reason Westminster can't give you those same protections if that is what you want to vote for.
    Westminster is not true democracy. If we had PR I might be more likely to agree with you but then we wouldn’t had left the EU either.

    Westminster can be an elected dictatorship on 30% of the vote.
    I view Westminster as a better form of democracy by ensuring the most popular MP in each constituency is the only one elected. If you want to win the election, become more popular - this can lead to huge wipeouts as we saw in Scotland in 2015.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 26,338
    I'm always slightly confused by some of these regulatory discussions.

    Once we leave the EU, we will still be treaty bound to implement into UK law a whole host of regulations set by international bodies made up of unelected beauracrats, under penalty of unlimited fines.

    So, for example, the way that letters are addressed in the UK is set by technical committees of the International Postal Union. Those standards are embedded into UK law. And we then implement them.

    Now, there is an argument (made by @Richard_Tyndall) which is an excellent one. Right now, on many (but not the Internatioanl Postal Union for example) of these standards setting bodies the UK is represented by the EU. Post Brexit, we will have our own representative. That is a genuine and serious reason for wanting a change.

    But it is not true to say that suddently we will be free to have our own standards for fire safety in consumer goods (those are set by UL in the US), or acceptable electromagnetic radiation, or indeed many other things.

    Now, there are areas where regulations are set locally: in particular health & safety, environmental impact, services regulation and employment law. But in most of these cases (with the possible exception of employment), those regulations are simply non tariff barriers that we'll be negotiating in the case of free trade agreements.

    The US, for example, insisted in each of its free trade agreements that (a) US GM products are allowed in, and (b) that they are not discriminated against in any way (such as labelling).

    Leaving the EU is about increasing the linkage between our rulers and our rules. It should mean greater accountability.

    But we need to be honest too: in FTAs our sovereignty will be constrained; and we will still continue to bound by much of the product regulation that we had in the EU.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 50,572
    Mr. Gate, an elected dictatorship?

    Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.

    Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 29,960

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
    No, my overriding political concern is democracy.

    Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
    Yes, you want the laws to be set by people who speak English and don't have foreign-sounding names.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 2,954

    Mr. Gate, an elected dictatorship?

    Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.

    Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.

    I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.

    As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    At elections I will fight for my libertarian values, and I will respect it if I lose, but I want the ability to have elections to control issues. That is the issue not specifics.

    Your libertarian values would be better protected by the guarantee of the four freedoms across our continent, than by giving national governments the ability to disregard them.

    Your overriding political concern is identity, not liberty.
    No, my overriding political concern is democracy.

    Who decides who sets the laws. That is my concern. Identity plays into that.
    Yes, you want the laws to be set by people who speak English and don't have foreign-sounding names.
    No. I never said that. I am not a xenophobe.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 20,536

    Mr. Gate, an elected dictatorship?

    Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.

    Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.

    You might feel differently if every vote you had cast in general elections for thirty five years had counted for nothing.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 22,743

    Mr. Gate, an elected dictatorship?

    Disliking FPTP is one thing, pretending it isn't democracy is rather overegging the cake.

    Mr. Punter, depends if you like your devaluation with or without murderous lunacy.

    I’m not pretending it isn’t a form of democracy, hence elected dictatorship. Its a well known phrase in political science.

    As we don’t have separation of powers, a party can be given a majority on circa 30% of the vote and then essentially have unchecked power over anything for the next 5 years. This is a fact. Parliament is sovereign.
    Yes, it is a good system with accountability. If you don't like what the party does [and no party has ever got a majority on 30%] then you can vote differently at the next election. Votes actually matter.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 5,522

    <
    I think its an inappropriate question.

    It doesn't matter what I want to see removed, I am not a dictator and that is not what Brexit means. If I say I want changes to say Working Time, Medicines and Accounting hypothetically to choose 3 from your list, then if we spiral off into debating the merits and cons of changing Working Time, Medicines and Accounting that is a wasted segway. Brexit doesn't mean that.

    Brexit means we all decide. If collectively we decide we want the same Working Time regulations but want to change say Advertisements then that is what we collectively do even if I opposed changing Adverisements and wanted Working Time changed but we do the opposite.

    Furthermore its not just what we change now, it is also about what changes in the future. What if in the future the EU passes regulations you dislike on those and you are powerless to stop them? If Westminster passes regulations you dislike you can vote for another party, if the EU does I don't see how we get it reversed.

    I am a democrat. I want us to democratically control what gets changed. The principle is what I want, not any specifics.

    For most of history, most people haven't had any say in their lives. We've gone through many forms of tyranny and unfortunately there are too many places where tyranny still rules even with the façade of democracy attached.

    We have unfortunately also seen voters vote away democracy in favour of "strong" Government and last night's ComRes poll reminds us that desire for "strong leadership" isn't far below the surface and you could imagine even the British signing away democracy under the right conditions.

    Democracy means Britain could elect a Marxist Government - democracy also means we could vote away our democratic rights and the latter frightens me as much as the former. We are already seeing some of the supporters of Johnson using the language of the authoritarian against those opposed to Brexit.

    I've seen plenty of Facebook keyboard warriors threatening all manner of civil unrest if unrest if we don't leave on 31/10. Hopefully that's talk - I'm also far from convinced the anger has anything to do with the negation (as they see it) of democracy.
This discussion has been closed.