Share this page:
Stay connected:
Welcome to the Citywire Money Forums, where members share investment ideas and discuss everything to do with their money.

You'll need to log in or set up an account to start new discussions or reply to existing ones. See you inside!

Notification

Icon
Error

Politics and Economics-2017 Election
jvl
Posted: 08 June 2017 08:11:15(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 370

Thanks: 222 times
Was thanked: 441 time(s) in 197 post(s)
Prof Eman;47699 wrote:

When I first started teaching/lecturing my mentor advised me as follows- Never take on a class, always take on an individual, you will never win with a class.

Your mentor should have advised you not to try to sell far-left socialism to an investor's board. It's almost insulting that you tried.
jvl
Posted: 08 June 2017 08:16:05(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 370

Thanks: 222 times
Was thanked: 441 time(s) in 197 post(s)
Prof Eman;47703 wrote:
It is a well established fact that fish are being overfished


I'm glad that you clarified the meaning of that sentence with the use of the word 'fish'. With just the "over-fished" in it, I might have thought you meant dogs.
john_r
Posted: 08 June 2017 12:11:24(UTC)

Joined: 18/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 207

Thanks: 259 times
Was thanked: 212 time(s) in 107 post(s)
Lawny;47710 wrote:

No.
Directives are drafted by the Commission as directed by the Presidency and the Council of Ministers. Council of Ministers (ie includes our PM) decides what goes. Regulations, as distinct from Directives, are for each Member State to set based on the DIrective and they vary a lot. Regulatiions are not hard to change and Parliament does it all the time .......

Member States can also apply for derrogations to postpone or nullify part of a Directive that they don't think is right for them......



A persons rhetoric often varies dependent on political leanings. So sometimes you need to go back to the source.
Lisbon Treaty article 288 states quite emphatically:
quote/
"To exercise the Union's competences, the institutions shall adopt regulations, directives, decisions, recommendations and opinions.
A regulation shall have general application. It shall be binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all Member States.
A directive shall be binding, as to the result to be achieved, upon each Member State to which it is addressed, but shall leave to the national authorities the choice of form and methods.
A decision shall be binding in its entirety. A decision which specifies those to whom it is addressed shall be binding only on them.
Recommendations and opinions shall have no binding force."
/quote

Freedom of movement and residence for persons in the EU is the cornerstone of Union citizenship, established by the Treaty of Maastricht in 1992. Despite this substantial implementation obstacles still persist, ten years after the deadline for implementation of the directive.
You say "Member States can also apply for derrogations to postpone or nullify part of a Directive that they don't think is right for them." Cameron tried and got nowhere, whereas with a little support from the EU president on just one issue then we would probably not be having an election today.

Your comment regarding harmonisation of technical standards I find a little misleading. These standards are not politically driven. We are leaving the EU. We are not leaving Europe . Harmonisation of European technical standards has been ongoing long before the EU was formulated and will continue after we have left. In fact this harmonisation of technical standards continues on an international basis (beyond the EU) - and yes we will have our say in the future just as we have in the past.
2 users thanked john_r for this post.
jvl on 08/06/2017(UTC), xcity on 08/06/2017(UTC)
colin overton
Posted: 08 June 2017 13:13:54(UTC)

Joined: 26/04/2008(UTC)
Posts: 258

Thanks: 51 times
Was thanked: 260 time(s) in 127 post(s)
Young people who have never/rarely paid a utility bill/insured their own car/ paid a mortgage at 15% interest with money they have earned, will have a rosy view of the UK and indeed the world. Nothing wrong with that. Experience is hard won and it's difficult for young people to believe that for example the NHS isn't free, even if you're Welsh and get free proscriptions.
I used to tell everyone they should vote, always, never mind which way. Democracy is weaker than many think - the London mayor was last elected with just over 10% of the people who could have voted! Democracy in action, but only just.
However the competency of recent politicians is alarming. A putative senior minister in charge of police thinks they may cost £30 each per year to employ, then she started guessing. A PM who failed to have any plan for the No in a Yes/No referendum - a man who indirectly employs millions of civil servants couldn't be bothered to have ~100 make say a 100 day plan for No!
I still think that even young people should vote - I'd make voting compulsory (it is/was in an EU country I've lived in!). I would ask them to think about who will be paying for the policy of free higher education that they are being promised/may benefit from.
Perhaps a way of getting them to vote would be to say that you'd be in favour of raising the voting age to 25 so that they can gain some experience of paying for government policies they might support with money they have earned. That might do the trick?
6 users thanked colin overton for this post.
Rishan on 08/06/2017(UTC), john_r on 08/06/2017(UTC), King Lodos on 08/06/2017(UTC), Martina on 08/06/2017(UTC), gillyann on 08/06/2017(UTC), c brown on 08/06/2017(UTC)
Andrew Hill
Posted: 08 June 2017 14:12:00(UTC)

Joined: 03/01/2012(UTC)
Posts: 10

Thanks: 10 times
Was thanked: 18 time(s) in 7 post(s)
Colin Overton, You make a very good point.

It would also be good if more of our politicians had experience of the real world which includes making things, selling things, designing things, buying things to a budget, managing people and moving things around.

Far too many of our "leaders" appear to have gone to public school, Oxbridge followed by a career as a special adviser and after a couple of tries get shoehorned into a safe constituency.
2 users thanked Andrew Hill for this post.
Mickey on 08/06/2017(UTC), c brown on 08/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 08 June 2017 16:17:40(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 478

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 29 post(s)
Colin Overton
Not all students have mums and dads who pay all their utility bills, rents etc. Many have part time jobs (if they can be called that), most recently in the gig economy.
Many do not understand, why just because they are intelligent enough to go to uni, they should be rewarded with a £40,000 or bigger debt, and because they worked hard in school/uni and achieved.
Some of them are more mature than you give them credit for.
jvl
Posted: 08 June 2017 17:06:21(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 370

Thanks: 222 times
Was thanked: 441 time(s) in 197 post(s)
As a student I paid my own rent and bills and could understand it. I also noticed student loans wouldn't even start to be repaid until I was earning a certain wage.

If your students can't understand that it's an investment that will be repaid many times over in future increased wages and opportunities, they're either:

a. stupid or
b. studying some useless unproductive subject that they shouldn't be studying

In either case, we shouldn't be subsidising them (except, perhaps, to encourage study of subjects where there's a national need and they won't automatically find high paid employment. E.g. science. Even that's a maybe).
3 users thanked jvl for this post.
john_r on 08/06/2017(UTC), Martina on 08/06/2017(UTC), c brown on 08/06/2017(UTC)
King Lodos
Posted: 08 June 2017 17:41:38(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 3,025

Thanks: 714 times
Was thanked: 4728 time(s) in 1827 post(s)
colin overton;47725 wrote:
I still think that even young people should vote - I'd make voting compulsory (it is/was in an EU country I've lived in!). I would ask them to think about who will be paying for the policy of free higher education that they are being promised/may benefit from.
Perhaps a way of getting them to vote would be to say that you'd be in favour of raising the voting age to 25 so that they can gain some experience of paying for government policies they might support with money they have earned. That might do the trick?


Personally I'd raise both the voting and driving age to 25 .. I don't think there's a worse possible age than 18 to let kids loose with that much power .. I wrote off a Ford Capri at 140mph, and I don't think my political views were any less reckless.

I'd say the biggest threat to Europe and the US's future is our political idealism – the head-in-the-sand approach to immigration, wealth redistribution, maybe to some extent free markets too .. And a large youth turnout is my biggest fear right now.

4 users thanked King Lodos for this post.
Martina on 08/06/2017(UTC), gillyann on 08/06/2017(UTC), Sara G on 08/06/2017(UTC), jvl on 09/06/2017(UTC)
Jim S
Posted: 08 June 2017 17:43:39(UTC)

Joined: 08/12/2016(UTC)
Posts: 246

Thanks: 420 times
Was thanked: 306 time(s) in 153 post(s)
There seems to be quite a widely held view that students should take on a huge debt so that they don't have to be subsidised by others. There are some counter arguments to that:

- it puts off working class kids, thereby reducing the pool of talent in higher education
- it channels students into professions which pay the most, rather than where need or interest is greater
- it encourages students to move abroad after graduation
- the bureaucracy involved in tracking & collecting the loans adds cost
- many loans will have to be written off

I'm sure there are more. Society paying for an effective education system might be better seen as an investment in the future rather than a subsidy

Personally I think a better system would be more generous grants, and that they should also be available (at a similar level) for less academic but more technical courses. Part of these grants could maybe be clawed back later via a small graduate tax over the years, but not in the sense of paying off a huge & growing loan which the stressed graduate keeps being pestered about. Maybe it means the graduate who becomes a fund manager pays back a bit more, and the graduate who becomes a nurse/teacher/electrician pays less.

The main argument in favour of fees is that working class non-graduates shouldn't be subsidising middle class graduates, which is a very valid point. However I do think the system for funding higher education (especially outside uni) could be designed in a much better way so that is not the outcome. Ultimately the future of our economy depends on our having a well educated young workforce. If we are to compete globally, we need to upskill big time.
1 user thanked Jim S for this post.
Andrew Hill on 08/06/2017(UTC)
xcity
Posted: 08 June 2017 17:52:49(UTC)

Joined: 12/04/2015(UTC)
Posts: 489

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 478 time(s) in 255 post(s)
Prof Eman;47703 wrote:
Corbyn is not adopting the Venezualan system, but one fully costed

The acolytes say it is, but it isn't. All the renationalisations are in at no cost, the estimates for increases in tax take are far too high and the cost of all the promises is understated. And that's forgetting the promises that have been added as he goes along.
xcity
Posted: 08 June 2017 18:21:10(UTC)

Joined: 12/04/2015(UTC)
Posts: 489

Thanks: 84 times
Was thanked: 478 time(s) in 255 post(s)
Jim S;47734 wrote:
However I do think the system for funding higher education (especially outside uni) could be designed in a much better way so that is not the outcome. Ultimately the future of our economy depends on our having a well educated young workforce. If we are to compete globally, we need to upskill big time.

Trouble is that there's little evidence that university is an effective way of upskilling for the majority of undergraduates. Far more evidence to support the value of apprenticeships.
I'm not convinced by the loan system and amazed that so many students think that obviously valueless degrees are worth the same cost as degrees that convey far greater future value; but as Martin Lewis keeps pointing out they are not really loans but a graduate tax.
King Lodos
Posted: 08 June 2017 18:51:58(UTC)

Joined: 05/01/2016(UTC)
Posts: 3,025

Thanks: 714 times
Was thanked: 4728 time(s) in 1827 post(s)
I think the big mistake universities made was becoming too inclusive..

I saw a chart not long ago showing how the average IQ of university graduates had dropped from around 110 to (a completely average) 100 over just a decade or two.

The aim stopped being to educate and produce bright minds, and rather just to get kids into universities .. So we got this deluge of Mickey Mouse degrees – from Sound Engineering (which should be an apprenticeship) to Gender Studies (which should be blasted into space).

So now employers don't know what a degree means – it doesn't even guarantee basic writing or numeracy skills – on top of which we've got too many people with irrelevant Social Sciences qualifications, and too few with practical job skills.

I'm not a complete Thatcherite – I do think we need places where people can study "French lesbian poetry" – but what we don't need are Mickey Mouse degrees that neither tell the world you're capable, nor give you any useful job skills .. And we certainly don't need kids getting into £40k debt, nor do we need to subsidise an education system that's become little more than an indoctrination program for young Marxists – although Corbyn's interest in that is fairly self-explanitory.
5 users thanked King Lodos for this post.
Sara G on 08/06/2017(UTC), c brown on 08/06/2017(UTC), jvl on 09/06/2017(UTC), bill xxxx on 10/06/2017(UTC), john_r on 11/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 08 June 2017 19:03:38(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 478

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 29 post(s)
jvi at #123
Wanted to make sure you did not think there was anything fishy about it.
1 user thanked Prof Eman for this post.
jvl on 09/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 08 June 2017 20:02:06(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 478

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 29 post(s)
Dear all
Just wanted to thank you all for participating. You comments have been well thought out, useful and enlightening. In a different class to some of the rubbish in the media, such as Cor Bin. It never ceases to amaze me why some people pay for such news.
Finally I hope whoever gets elected can turn the Brexit vote into something more than a damages limiting exercise, as it has the potential for disaster, as predicted by many past Prime ministers and grandees of different parties including the Conservatives.
Many knowledgeable people fear for our future, the most recent is George Soros who has joined the chorus.
Lawny
Posted: 08 June 2017 20:36:27(UTC)

Joined: 24/11/2009(UTC)
Posts: 90

Thanks: 38 times
Was thanked: 77 time(s) in 42 post(s)
john_r;47723 wrote:
[quote=Lawny;47710]

A persons rhetoric often varies dependent on political leanings....


But aren’t we mostly agreeing here? The original post was to the effect that regulation is best done locally and that regulation set in Brussels is often inappropriate and a hindrance. My argument is that for many things it’s easily better (and cheaper) to do them as partners, plus we did directly agree to almost everything and that it is normally up to Member States to figure out the details. However, there are certainly EU standards and approvals that are only set by European Agencies or groups made up of Member States. They may invite others as observers, but only Member States get to vote in the end.

On immigration, again we seem to agree, but immigration hardly qualifies as lots of annoying regulations for it is surely the key issue. I’m not sure if you can have a derrogation from something as basic as freedom of movement, but plainly Cameron got very little. It leaves me wondering what was going on and with 3 main possibilities:

1) The rest of the EU thought Remain would easily win, so no need to offer any concessions
2) The rest of the EU saw it as a chance to push us out
3) They really didn’t care either way.

I worry that for some the desire to leave the EU would never be altered by anything, but they don’t seem to acknowledge that this might be matched by equally strong views in the EU who could refuse any compromise because, for them, it’s may not be about the money either. Ordinary folk are the ones who get hurt in all this.
jvl
Posted: 09 June 2017 08:07:42(UTC)

Joined: 01/04/2016(UTC)
Posts: 370

Thanks: 222 times
Was thanked: 441 time(s) in 197 post(s)
Cameron got very little because the vast majority of the other 27 states, with their histories, have always wanted something different from the EU while we just see it as a common market.

Re: education. We definitely need to make education the top priority if the young and so much of the general population are stupid enough to vote for neo-Marxism!

I've no idea why the Conservatives didn't push through the electoral boundaries changes as soon as they got into power.

A danger in this result is that no one really knows why the population has voted this way and politicians may draw the wrong conclusions and adjust the wrong way. Was it a Brexit/Remain thing? Was it austerity? Was it anti-robotic politicians? Protest of the old against social care cuts?
1 user thanked jvl for this post.
Jon Snow on 09/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 09 June 2017 08:47:09(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 478

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 29 post(s)
jvi
There are four reasons why people voted the way they did-
-Years of austerity
-Stagnant wages for ten years.
-The triple down effect, which is just a trickle and not working .
- Tactical voting, vote NBA, next best alternative
john_r
Posted: 09 June 2017 08:49:06(UTC)

Joined: 18/06/2010(UTC)
Posts: 207

Thanks: 259 times
Was thanked: 212 time(s) in 107 post(s)
Lawny;47748 wrote:
........... Ordinary folk are the ones who get hurt in all this.


Yes there will be some people who will never accept we remain in the EU.
And why should they. It's in their blood. They were sensibly promised a referendum in 2004 and then shown two fingers as it was taken away "in case we lost".

Instead we adopted an approach of lining our borders with goodies and flinging open doors.
We didn't even make a note of who came through.
And that was it the EU was finally established. It just took a few egotists and a large bulldozer.
The aspirations of the EU may be admirable but uncontrolled immigration and loss of sovereignty are ideals which could be achieved over a couple of generations not imposed in a rush. After all we still haven't agreed on a standardised EU plug and socket.
But right now we are here in the worst of all scenarios and sadly I agree with you, it will be the ordinary folk that suffer. I'm gutted.
colin overton
Posted: 09 June 2017 19:10:18(UTC)

Joined: 26/04/2008(UTC)
Posts: 258

Thanks: 51 times
Was thanked: 260 time(s) in 127 post(s)
Not being a socialist, I have some facility with numbers. JC (not noticed that before!) has stated that he/Labour party won the election? However the Labour party is still ~57 seats smaller than the Tories - in Jeremy speak "not a lot"? Even with the addition of "fellow travellers" it's difficult to see the anti-Tory "alliance" reaching 326.
The Tories fought a rotten campaign and although Brexit was and is the first task of any possible UK government it was not the only or possibly decisive factor in the election. I have long thought that Brexit (i.e. not another penny to the EU, not another law from the EU) was uncertain and may require another shock to the ruling classes if it is to be achieved at all.

Let me offer comfort in these uncertain times.
A non-political friend thought that a Tory landslide may well have produced violence from the outranged Corbynista "nasty brigades". Since they believe they have won, see above, this is now less likely.
The people have spoken in a Liberal approved election (so one that counts?) and the great party only got 2% of the seats, a great victory for the "You don't no what you voted for" Party?
I thought it under Flashman and still think that, if a politician isn't prepared to appear on TV and defend his/her case against even a BBC "picked" audience then they hardly deserve to win. When a seating PM does this, it's almost unforgivable.
The world is still turning, there is air to breath, still no WWIII as was promised after Brexit, so investments will go up or down and people are free to choose their preference or indeed none.
1 user thanked colin overton for this post.
Jon Snow on 09/06/2017(UTC)
Prof Eman
Posted: 09 June 2017 22:52:16(UTC)

Joined: 08/04/2010(UTC)
Posts: 478

Thanks: 94 times
Was thanked: 39 time(s) in 29 post(s)
#140
Apologies for the mistake, wanted to say-
The trickle down effect is not working,nothing to do with the triple lock.
9 Pages«Previous page56789Next page
+ Reply to discussion

Markets

Other markets