Jump to content
Jools

The Positive Brexit Thread

Recommended Posts

47 minutes ago, KernowCanary said:

Effin’ typical of our scum media. They just love making us worry, cause stress and try to send us to an early grave.

But this time they can't blame the Unions or a Labour Government.

Will they dare blame themselves for telling everyone to vote for liars? To cancel and leave a system that worked just so we can have blue passports?

Thatcher had her Falklands to hide her failings. This cnut has had his pandemic (which he also lied through his teeth about) but is about to disappear once again while the siht hits the fan.

I assume he swats up on metaphors while he goes into hiding.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fen Canary said:

I don’t believe I mentioned the minimum wage so that point is a non starter.

I only mentioned two policies; wages councils, and the minimum wage. Your exact words in response were:

"That would be the same policies that almost caused the country to go bankrupt in the 70’s, that almost every country has since abandoned?"

So yes you certainly did refer to the minimum wage, or is it that you have no grasp of the standard English use of the plural?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Well b back said:

I will try one more time, why did Farage and Johnson say these jobs are for British workers and the ‘ British workers ‘ will be queueing up for these jobs ?. It was lie as was the £350 million for the NHS, we have now had to raise NI by 1.25 % just to cover the booster jab programme.

If the money is right there’s no reason they can’t employ British workers. Would you work the long hours in haulage for the pay on offer though? I know I wouldn’t personally yet you seem happy to exploit those from poor nations who will

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, horsefly said:

I only mentioned two policies; wages councils, and the minimum wage. Your exact words in response were:

"That would be the same policies that almost caused the country to go bankrupt in the 70’s, that almost every country has since abandoned?"

So yes you certainly did refer to the minimum wage, or is it that you have no grasp of the standard English use of the plural?

Find where I wrote the words minimum wage in my comment and I’ll reply. You can’t because I didn’t, and the reason I didn’t us because I believe the minimum wage is vital to prevent exploitation. Debate the points I made, rather than the ones you want to 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

I don’t believe I mentioned the minimum wage so that point is a non starter.

Secondly no I’m not in favour of wage councils. The minimum wage is needed to prevent exploitation but above that I believe the economy should function as supply and demand except in industries where monopolies form such as utilities. I don’t believe wage rates should be set externally, whether by government or council, and I don’t believe industry should be allowed to import vast amounts of workers whenever there is a shortage in order to prevent wages climbing.

You always try to argue on technicalities rather than the overarching point don’t you Horsey?

You got things totally wrong in your previous post so resort yet again to an attempt to distract from that fact and not answer the criticisms I made. Never mind, that's exactly what I expect from you. However, I would have thought even you might notice the blatant contradiction that lies at the heart of your very limited view of how the economy works, or should work. On the one hand you support the old-fashioned free-marketeer's view that the economy should rely upon the mechanism of supply and demand, and then without the slightest intention to be ironic you tell us the government should intervene to slap all sorts of prohibitive conditions (" I don’t believe wage rates should be set externally, whether by government or council,") on the employment of foreign workers coming to the country on visas. Dear oh dear! What a mess!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, How I Wrote Elastic Man said:

I understand your point, but the shortage of labour has been an issue for many years. We had a shortage of HGV drivers even before the vote 

We need to have our industries functioning properly, we can't allow disruption of the scale we have seen this summer to prevail. If the haulage industry is unable to supply goods around the country,  we can't simply point the finger at them and say its their fault for employing foreigners in the past and not doing enough training. We need that industry to function 

 

Yes, you are quite right that the problem should have been fixed long ago, and not just in the hauliage business. I guess having this large pool of cheap workers available meant that no one was prepared to initiate a plan. Added, that lobby groups, and RHA is a lobby group, wanted to keep the current system and fought against Brexit for the five year period after the referendum.  So to put a plan in place for attracting new drivers would have run counter to their lobbying. Indeed, the finger is being pointed at the RHA as one of the suspects in creating the fuel shortage panic in order to get those cheap EU drivers back which will help their members increase profitability. 

Some blame also has to go to the government, too. They must have game planned a post-Brexit world and foreseen what a withdrawal of cheap EU labour would mean. Though Covid would have made any predictions much worse in outcome, as we are seeing.  

If nobody takes the initiative then the market will eventually sort it out but there will inevitably be unwelcome swings if purely left to the market, so it is better if the government starts letting us know what its post- Brexit, post-Covid strategy is. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

Find where I wrote the words minimum wage in my comment and I’ll reply. You can’t because I didn’t, and the reason I didn’t us because I believe the minimum wage is vital to prevent exploitation. Debate the points I made, rather than the ones you want to 

FFS! Do you seriously not understand how English language works? It's really quite simple; I mentioned only two policies in my post (wages councils, and the minimum wage), if you then reply that those "policies" (note your use of the plural) brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy, then by the laws of grammar you are referring to BOTH the policies mentioned. How can you fail to understand this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, horsefly said:

You got things totally wrong in your previous post so resort yet again to an attempt to distract from that fact and not answer the criticisms I made. Never mind, that's exactly what I expect from you. However, I would have thought even you might notice the blatant contradiction that lies at the heart of your very limited view of how the economy works, or should work. On the one hand you support the old-fashioned free-marketeer's view that the economy should rely upon the mechanism of supply and demand, and then without the slightest intention to be ironic you tell us the government should intervene to slap all sorts of prohibitive conditions (" I don’t believe wage rates should be set externally, whether by government or council,") on the employment of foreign workers coming to the country on visas. Dear oh dear! What a mess!

 

 

Why is that contradictory? I don’t believe the government/wage councils should be dictating wages as a whole, but I also don’t believe industry should be allowed to import vast numbers of workers to tilt the balance on their favour and keep wage costs down. If imports are needed then the terms of conditions in the work visa should ensure that industry pays a premium on wages for the privilege to ensure they aren’t undercutting the local workforce.

It’s definitely protectionist but certainly not contradictory as you claim 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, horsefly said:

FFS! Do you seriously not understand how English language works? It's really quite simple; I mentioned only two policies in my post (wages councils, and the minimum wage), if you then reply that those "policies" (note your use of the plural) brought the country to the brink of bankruptcy, then by the laws of grammar you are referring to BOTH the policies mentioned. How can you fail to understand this?

You’re an idiot. You’re arguing over a point I clearly haven’t made 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Fen Canary said:

You’re an idiot. You’re arguing over a point I clearly haven’t made 

You really are a moron if you don't understand how plurals work in the English language. This is primary school level knowledge. Jesus Christ! no wonder you make so little sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Van wink said:

Strong whiff of Bill wafting over these exchanges 

Tiny Winkie back with his usual profound contribution. Take a look you buffoon, it was FC who started the abuse, and as is my policy I respond in kind to such behaviour. You should know that all too well since it is always you who starts off with an insult.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I see the govt. are considering drafting in the army next week to deliver fuel. Operation Escalin.  I guess they'll undercutting the local workers too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, horsefly said:

Tiny Winkie back with his usual profound contribution. Take a look you buffoon, it was FC who started the abuse, and as is my policy I respond in kind to such behaviour. You should know that all too well since it is always you who starts off with an insult.

Have you considered psychiatric help?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting comments from the EU side about how they are trying to tackle driver shortages there. Most of the complaints I've seen from UK drivers are about the working conditions : the lack of facilities, having to sleep overnight in a layby etc, rather than the £30k+ a year average salary, and that the facilities on the continent were already far superior.

https://inews.co.uk/news/hgv-shortage-eu-drivers-snub-boris-johnsons-uk-petrol-crisis-brexit-visa-offer-1217320

“There are driver shortages right across Europe as well, but the EU has committed to improving driver facilities and haulage companies are committed to improving pay and conditions. Until the UK offers the same pay and working conditions as drivers have in the EU then many will stay away.”

Earlier this week, Brussels committed to a financial package to building new truck parking areas with improved facilities across the EU. 

Last year, the EU also introduced new rules on road transport to end the distortion of competition in the sector while providing better working conditions for drivers.

The pay disparity between drivers from western and eastern Europe has also been levelling out since Covid and the logistics sector has face a huge rise in demand.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Fen Canary said:

If the money is right there’s no reason they can’t employ British workers. Would you work the long hours in haulage for the pay on offer though? I know I wouldn’t personally yet you seem happy to exploit those from poor nations who will

But that’s not what they said, I remember because I voted for it. They said these jobs are to be for the British, not Europeans and the British would be queueing up, however you are now saying nobody wanted those jobs as they were low paid so basically they lied. Even if I still agreed with the way I voted what point was there as Europeans are now being brought in to do the jobs, so I don’t get the point why was there a vote for them not to do it ?

If you or your children were not prepared to do the jobs, why did we vote to change the status quo, I understood people like yourself were desperate for these jobs so I understood I was helping people, now you say you never wanted the jobs, I was conned.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said:

Have you considered psychiatric help?

Just go back to watching the predominately British team lose at the golf, there's a good chap. 😀

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

I see the govt. are considering drafting in the army next week to deliver fuel. Operation Escalin.  I guess they'll undercutting the local workers too.

Why, there isn’t a problem, is there ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, A Load of Squit said:

Just go back to watching the predominately British team lose at the golf, there's a good chap. 😀

What an appropriate username you have.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media tells us there’s a petrol shortage at a handful of petrol stations and 24 hours later we run out of fuel, people really need to turn their TVs off.

I hope the media never tell us there’s a deadly virus……

Edited by KernowCanary

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Yellow Fever said:

That's the sort of electoral winner headline policy.

So long as they don't add loads and loads, as it felt like last time. Keep it simple. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Really decent piece here. Balanced, succinct and (ultimately) rather dispiriting.

The petrol queues seem like a throwback. But at least in the 70s our leaders weren’t so callow

We’re faced with empty shelves and driver shortages. Yet those in charge today seem totally out of their depth

September 2021

Among the words that will send the collective British psyche into panic, three are among the most potent: Christmas, petrol, and winter. Put them together, and you have the perfect ingredients for a crisis, made all the more surreal by the fact that one of its key causes – Brexit – is a word no one in politics wants to mention.

Despite ministers’ assurances that the lack of fuel is all in our heads, queues at garage forecourts extend into the distance. Supermarkets are full of empty shelves; rising energy prices threaten household budgets. Everybody knows that the UK’s labour shortages are dire, and that a deficit of 100,000 hauliers is serious indeed.

The government, meanwhile, is once again all over the place, first refusing to look at its impossibly stringent visa rules, before announcing yet another U-turn. We are now, it seems, offering EU workers who have gone home the most Brexity of re-enticements: 5,000 fuel tanker and lorry drivers, along with 5,500 “poultry workers”, will apparently be eligible to work in the UK until Christmas Eve … whereupon, having ensured the festive season can go ahead, they will be sent packing.

Headlines over the past week have repeatedly drawn comparisons with the fabled winter of discontent of 1978-79. For a few people, that might also evoke hopes of some Margaret Thatcher-esque saviour sooner or later coming to clean up the mess. But most seem to implicitly acknowledge that, with the endless consequences of Brexit and the unfolding effects of the climate crisis, life is going to be full of trouble and uncertainty for a long time to come. That, in turn, leads to two questions: who might have the skills to somehow lead us through it all? And why do our current front-rank politicians hardly inspire confidence?

The answer to the latter question, it seems to me, is partly generational. Not long after the 2008 crash, I interviewed Denis Healey, the Labour elder statesman who had been chancellor from 1974 to 1979, in truly dreadful circumstances. When we met, Gordon Brown was sliding towards eventual defeat, while the comparatively callow David Cameron and George Osborne prepared for power.

Healey’s time as chancellor, he told me, had been defined by “****ing disaster”. We talked about inflation, strikes, shortages and a plunging pound. And about the stress such things caused: he had developed shingles, as well as repeatedly suffering colds and flu. “I wanted to make a success of the job,” he said. “It was very tiring, but I’d been in the army for five years in the war, so I’d learned to put up with things.”

This latter point was rather understated: his political generation had come of age in the 1930s, put their lives on the line as the world fell apart (while serving with the Royal Engineers, Healey was a beachmaster at the Battle of Anzio in 1944), and then played their part in both postwar reconstruction and managing the social and political disasters that followed the oil price shock of 1973. What they experienced highlighted something latter-day politicians often seem not to understand – that power is usually not about great political victories or even modest success, but crisis management, the probability of failure, and the skills and experience needed to cope.

As well as recklessness and ideological zeal, Thatcher – who was born in 1925 – had some of the war generation’s air of heft and seriousness, but such qualities began to dwindle away in the John Major years. And when New Labour took power, though Brown often resembled the kind of politician that had defined the decades after the war, Tony Blair heralded the arrival of something much flimsier. Healey told me it eventually amounted to “**** and nothing else”; JG Ballard caught its essential flavour when, at the end of the Blair years, he wrote about a politics of “fleeting impressions, [and] an illusion of meaning floating over a sea of undefined emotions”.

And then came people of my age, members of what was termed Generation X. On the whole, the more privileged members of that cohort had cut their teeth in a world that was economically stable, in which consumerism was king. Some were maligned as slackers, but other accounts of Generation X tended to include such adjectives as “pushy” and “motivated”. After the Berlin Wall came down, party politics was eventually erased of much ideological content, and personal ambition often seemed to be the main currency. Besides, among many who either considered themselves bright and capable or were told they were, politics seemed to be the last thing anyone wanted to get involved in (“I saw the best minds of my generation accept jobs on the fringes of the entertainment industry,” wrote Zadie Smith).

These days, I sometimes wonder whether the few members of my generation who chose that vocation simply ended up in over their heads. The years of Cameron, Osborne and Nick Clegg, and the calamities they caused, are a good case in point. So too is the recent history of the Labour party: in 2015, in the race to succeed the Gen-Xer Ed Miliband and up against three leadership candidates of a similar age, the then 66-year-old Jeremy Corbyn presented a picture of conviction and authenticity and won a massive victory. But when the baton was then passed to his younger parliamentary allies, the movement he had spawned fell apart.

In the US, Gen X’s lack of impact on liberal politics speaks volumes: the Democratic party’s last nomination contest came down to a choice between Joe Biden and Bernie Sanders, and radical hope now lies with that inspirational millennial Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

Boris Johnson and Keir Starmer are at the upper end of the Generation X demographic; given that he was born in 1962, Starmer might actually belong in the dread category of Boomer. But they and many of their colleagues fit the profile of people big on ambition yet devoid of substance and grit. In search of those things, both reach for scripts left behind by previous political generations: Johnson has his Churchill fixation; and in his half-cocked confrontations with his party’s left and use of a very clunky political argot (repeated mentions of people who “work hard and play by the rules”, the tired cliche of “hardworking families”), Starmer looks like someone bumbling through a school play about Blair.

Given time, perhaps younger people who have come of age in an increasingly troubled world and have no notion of returning to old and comfortable certainties might do a better job. For now, there is only the unsettling combination of a mounting social and economic crisis, and political responses so unconvincing they suggest the Nirvana lines to which I and my fellow Gen X-ers once bellowed along, almost as an apology: “Oh well, whatever, never mind.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Well b back said:

But that’s not what they said, I remember because I voted for it. They said these jobs are to be for the British, not Europeans and the British would be queueing up, however you are now saying nobody wanted those jobs as they were low paid so basically they lied. Even if I still agreed with the way I voted what point was there as Europeans are now being brought in to do the jobs, so I don’t get the point why was there a vote for them not to do it ?

If you or your children were not prepared to do the jobs, why did we vote to change the status quo, I understood people like yourself were desperate for these jobs so I understood I was helping people, now you say you never wanted the jobs, I was conned.

I voted to change the status quo because I believed that firms being able to import vast amounts of workers from poorer countries was keeping wages in those sectors lower than they should be. I believe wages are largely set by supply and demand in the private sector and the free movement laws were being abused to allow companies to have plenty of supply of labour, and thus never have to compete for workers by offering better pay and working conditions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, horsefly said:

You really are a moron if you don't understand how plurals work in the English language. This is primary school level knowledge. Jesus Christ! no wonder you make so little sense.

I’ll ask one more time and then I’m done. Where have a written that I’m against the minimum wage in any way, shape or form? If you can find it please quote it for everybody to see, otherwise kindly stop replying to my comments with childish insults.

I have a question for those on here who disagree with me on the EU referendum, which to be fair is most on this board. Do you find Horses antics ruin a sensible discussion, or do you think his attitude towards those he disagrees with is the correct one? I like to think I can hold a reasonable debate with most on here even if we don’t agree on the subject, but I find Horse frankly to be childish and shuts down and drowns out any sensible discussion that may take place

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rock The Boat said:

Petrol is a fossil fuel, don't forget. It is what you lefties and climate changers voted for, remember? This is yet another glimpse of the future that awaits us unless we get back to sane living. In the future every time the wind drops we'll all be stranded without power. Some of us who remembers Ted Heath's 3 day week will be looking forward to 7 day weeks of power shortages and empty supermarkets, if we live long enough.  

Think that's a bit of a cheap shot RTB. You can use climate change to trump anything. It's a bit like saying "yeah, but we're all going to die anyway"...a truth but not really relevant to the point in hand. I was making reference to the planning that went into Brexit and the subsequent problems in implementation. It's not unreasonable to want decent stewardship from a government.

I don't disagree with the thrust of your latter point...maybe you're a green voter to be (!) but as to us "lefties" - again that's just labelling. I've posted another article link (John Harris) on the Brexit thread, which raises interesting questions and challenges left and right politicians and the poverty of leadership (like going back to the 1970s but this time with less gravitas and depth). 

I remember those 3 day weeks btw.

The future has to be based on more collaboration, community and not empty rhetoric about left and right.

Edited by sonyc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, sonyc said:

Think that's a bit of a cheap shot RTB. You can use climate change to trump anything. It's a bit like saying "yeah, but we're all going to die anyway"...a truth but not really relevant to the point in hand. I was making reference to the planning that went into Brexit and the subsequent problems in implementation. It's not unreasonable to want decent stewardship from a government.

I don't disagree with the thrust of your latter point...maybe you're a green voter to be (!) but as to us "lefties" - again that's just labelling. I've posted another article link (John Harris) on the Brexit thread, which raises interesting questions and challenges left and right politicians and the poverty of leadership (like going back to the 1970s but this time with less gravitas and depth). 

I remember those 3 day weeks btw.

The future has to be based on more collaboration, community and not empty rhetoric about left and right.

I think the poverty of leadership stems from a lack of diversity in parliament. I don’t mean skin colour or sex but lack of diversity in terms of upbringings or life experiences. I don’t agree so much with the article you posted that it is generational as such (at least that was how I read it) but more to do with the fact almost all of those at Westminster come from the same comfortable backgrounds, went to university studying similar courses then straight into jobs for the political parties. None have worked in factories, on farms or building sites, been involved in haulage, worked as teachers or nurses etc.

While this means they’re able to navigate politics, I’m not sure it leaves many with too much understanding of the country outside of politics. The election between Cameron, Clegg and Miliband being a prime example, if it wasn’t for the colour tie they were wearing you’d barely know which party they were representing 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"This is all happening because David Cameron was scared of losing a few seats to Nigel Farage."

Remember this next time you're blathering on about wages or the forgotten and making excuses for absolutely trashing this fine country.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...