Bye Bye Boris!

[NotoriousREV]

It comes down to good governance for me, as we discussed a couple of pages back. If the deal gets the scrutiny and debate it deserves and passes, I don’t think there’s much argument to be had about its validity.

[Gavin]

Funny how people are so paralysed with fear over a possible Corbyn government. What's to be so scared of?

I suppose that depends if you are a tax dodging billionaire or company I guess. If a new government insisted that an corporation that takes the Government coin, must pay tax on their earnings for instance, that is pretty scary.

He is the first politician I can remember who may (maybe not, we may find out) that may actually push through change that benefits the population, rather than getting into power and leaving the status quo.

[GG.]

The stupidity from Letwin's (and other pro-EU tories) perspective

Letwin is in favour of Boris's withdrawal agreement:

Why did Boris want to rush through a vote? I don't think he wants No Deal, but he does want to get us out, with his deal, to bolster his support at the next election. The reason for the rush and the lack of the legislation which, uncannily, is now being brought forward today or tomorrow, is simply to avoid scrutiny. Because it'll be obvious that Boris has caved to so many of the EU's demands in order to get a revised draft withdrawal agreement, and unless rushed through it won't pass the House.

So he is in favour of the withdrawal agreement but put forward an amendment which in your opinion (I don't agree for the same reasons I've note before - its May's deal but without the major pitfalls) reduces the chances of it getting through. I'm not clear that any of that makes sense. Definitely in the context of Letwin being a tory remainer.

[GG.]

Funny how people are so paralysed with fear over a possible Corbyn government. What's to be so scared of?

I suppose that depends if you are a tax dodging billionaire or company I guess. If a new government insisted that an corporation that takes the Government coin, must pay tax on their earnings for instance, that is pretty scary.

He is the first politician I can remember who may (maybe not, we may find out) that may actually push through change that benefits the population, rather than getting into power and leaving the status quo.

Well its nice to know I'm a tax dodging billionaire. What a load of bullshit.

I can't think of a single problem in British society to which Jeremy Corbyn or hard left socialism is the answer.

[Gavin]

Funny how people are so paralysed with fear over a possible Corbyn government. What's to be so scared of?

I suppose that depends if you are a tax dodging billionaire or company I guess. If a new government insisted that an corporation that takes the Government coin, must pay tax on their earnings for instance, that is pretty scary.

He is the first politician I can remember who may (maybe not, we may find out) that may actually push through change that benefits the population, rather than getting into power and leaving the status quo.

Well its nice to know I'm a tax dodging billionaire. What a load of bullshit.

I can't think of a single problem in British society to which Jeremy Corbyn or hard left socialism is the answer.

For a solicitor/lawyer you really are remarkably obtuse at times. And the idea that Corbyn is "hard left" is not really standing up to scrutiny. His policies are more in line with a slightly left of centre.

I really cannot be arsed getting in to an argument about it, you won't change your viewpoint and I cannot be bothered reading your disseminating "answers" to questions posed to you.

How many pages in are we and I have still not seen an answer to which EU laws were affecting your happiness and how Brexit will make your life better?

[Swervin_Mervin]

I suppose that depends if you are a tax dodging billionaire or company I guess. If a new government insisted that an corporation that takes the Government coin, must pay tax on their earnings for instance, that is pretty scary.

He is the first politician I can remember who may (maybe not, we may find out) that may actually push through change that benefits the population, rather than getting into power and leaving the status quo.

Well its nice to know I'm a tax dodging billionaire. What a load of bullshit.

I can't think of a single problem in British society to which Jeremy Corbyn or hard left socialism is the answer.

For a solicitor/lawyer you really are remarkably obtuse at times. And the idea that Corbyn is "hard left" is not really standing up to scrutiny. His policies are more in line with a slightly left of centre.

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes

[DeskJockey]

Well its nice to know I'm a tax dodging billionaire. What a load of bullshit.

I can't think of a single problem in British society to which Jeremy Corbyn or hard left socialism is the answer.

For a solicitor/lawyer you really are remarkably obtuse at times. And the idea that Corbyn is "hard left" is not really standing up to scrutiny. His policies are more in line with a slightly left of centre.

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes

I hold, and always have, that certain assets should be owned by the people for the people. In that category falls: road, rail, utilities, healthcare, telecoms, and natural resources. If he's wanting to take some of that back, then that's worth exploring in my view.

[ZedLeg]

The compulsory purchase of empty properties and stopping right to buy are both good ideas as well imo.

[Rich B]

Why does no one talk of the huge vote of no confidence the Labour Party had in Corbyn? Is there some sort of unwritten rule that it doesn’t get mentioned?

[speedingfine]

Well its nice to know I'm a tax dodging billionaire. What a load of bullshit.

I can't think of a single problem in British society to which Jeremy Corbyn or hard left socialism is the answer.

For a solicitor/lawyer you really are remarkably obtuse at times. And the idea that Corbyn is "hard left" is not really standing up to scrutiny. His policies are more in line with a slightly left of centre.

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes

I'm pretty left of centre and agree with Swerv here. How do you propose it works lefty folks? Genuine question.

[DeskJockey]

For a solicitor/lawyer you really are remarkably obtuse at times. And the idea that Corbyn is "hard left" is not really standing up to scrutiny. His policies are more in line with a slightly left of centre.

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes

I'm pretty left of centre and agree with Swerv here. How do you propose it works lefty folks? Genuine question.

If they can sell it, they can buy it back. Not suggesting it will be simple or easy, though.

[GG.]

Though of course that doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Private school assets were obviously never state assets, for example, and the nationalisations that are planned wouldn't currently be permitted by law under any sort of compulsory purchase regime in place at the moment so would have to be the subject of new law.

There is also then the form that such law would take and whether the compensation for those disenfranchised owners would be at market value. Labour have not committed that it would be (which would be a breach of international law). The only other recent example of expropriation at non-market value is Venezuela. https://www.cityam.com/two-main-advocat ... ket-value/

That completely puts the sword to Gavin's lie that this is just "slightly left of centre" and the idea that they can just "buy it back" is so over-simplistic of the issues involved as to be laughable - though again, perhaps I'm just being obtuse.

[duncs500]

Pmsl. Good one. Seizing privately owned assets is definitely centrist. Oh yes

I'm pretty left of centre and agree with Swerv here. How do you propose it works lefty folks? Genuine question.

If they can sell it, they can buy it back. Not suggesting it will be simple or easy, though.

I suspect that DJ is talking about public services being returned to public ownership. Not the proposed option of private renter having the opportunity to buy privately owned property against the will of the owner, or privately owned schools?

[GG.]

Irregardless - the point re non-market compensation stands for utilities too.

[duncs500]

Not saying I agree, but there's a big difference.

[GG.]

Yes, there is, and the argument is easier to make for utilities and even the above suggestion on empty commercial properties (though of course much less easily justified for residential). Even so, the financial outlay would be ruinous - an estimated 200bn and a 10% increase in the total national debt just for the upfront cost and that doesn't take into account ongoing capex on infrastructure (SSE alone have put in 100bn since privatisation for example), the effect to pension funds who hold shares in theses business, etc. etc..

[DeskJockey]

I don't think I said "just" anywhere. Fundamentally it comes down to how the country is to be run: for the benefit of the few or the many and the long-term.

As for oversimplified issues, can't help but think there's a parallel to Brexit.

[GG.]

Fundamentally it comes down to whether you're in favour of huge borrowing with minimal practical results to further a cultish ideological class war driven agenda which doesn't conform to international law and is justified on an imaginary grievance that people get rich through nepotism and bribes.

If that's your idea of how the country should be run, then you don't need to look far (i.e. Venezuela) to see how badly it ends. As you say, the constitutional checks and balances may stop some of it happening but I'd rather you didn't vote the nutters into power to try, thank you very much.

[duncs500]

I don't think I said "just" anywhere. Fundamentally it comes down to how the country is to be run: for the benefit of the few or the many and the long-term.

As for oversimplified issues, can't help but think there's a parallel to Brexit.

What are the long term benefits to the many of spending more money than we have and accumulating national debt?

[Sundayjumper]

It’s not about the many, it’s about the few.