The Commons Bar Mk XIII - MHoC Chat Thread

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Well that's true but the hope from those of supporting Brexit is that we will negate that over time.
    I still don't understand how this 'hope' gets translated to an 'expectation', especially as the UK is already falling behind in the industries of the future.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    Once again she does the same thing outside of her job are you going to excuse her of it there as well?
    I'm going to criticise you for continuing to judge a defendce lawyer for defending their client because frankly that's absurd.

    You are claiming that Hilary is both a 'feminazi ' and that she hates rape victims. You can't have it both ways.*
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I'm going to criticise you for continuing to judge a defendce lawyer for defending their client because frankly that's absurd.

    You are claiming that Hilary is both a 'feminazi ' and that she hates rape victims. You can't have it both ways.*
    I am not I am saying her public position is believe all women when really she doesn't believe that and she wouldn't follow through with that it is just a way for her to get votes.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Took me three google pages and a number of different searches but i found episode 2 of the flash this season.

    Thank goodness, it was almost a fate worse than death. I may have had to pay for TV. :eek:
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Took me three google pages and a number of different searches but i found episode 2 of the flash this season.

    Thank goodness, it was almost a fate worse than death. I may have had to pay for TV. :eek:
    There's more than 1 page on google?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Kier Starmer is fantastic. Absolute travesty that Corbyn is leader when they have a talent like Kier in the party.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Kier Starmer is fantastic. Absolute travesty that Corbyn is leader when they have a talent like Kier in the party.
    As backgrounds go he is extremely accomplished.

    Other than being a London MP i don't know much about his beliefs though.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    As backgrounds go he is extremely accomplished.

    Other than being a London MP i don't know much about his beliefs though.
    By the sounds of things he's firmly in the social democratic camp. Not quite a blairite but certainly not a Corbynite. The main thing about him though is that he oozes competence and Prime Ministerialness, unlike Miliband. I can't imagine there's much, if any dirt on him given how rigorous the checks would have been to become DPP.

    Again seeing him hold Davis to account (and get the better of him) today makes it extremely perplexing from a labour perspective just how we've elected Corbyn. I suspect Kier will run at some point.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    By the sounds of things he's firmly in the social democratic camp. Not quite a blairite but certainly not a Corbynite. The main thing about him though is that he oozes competence and Prime Ministerialness, unlike Miliband. I can't imagine there's much, if any dirt on him given how rigorous the checks would have been to become DPP.

    Again seeing him hold Davis to account (and get the better of him) today makes it extremely perplexing from a labour perspective just how we've elected Corbyn. I suspect Kier will run at some point.
    We elected Corbyn because:

    a) Burnham and Cooper had no ideological vision on how to move on and improve from the defeats under Blair and Miliband, where Kendall's ideas were just nowhere near the political desires of the selectorate.
    b) Most of the voters didn't believe Burnham/Cooper would win a General Election anyway - they saw no need to compromise when the compromise choice wasn't even electable.
    c) The change in voting system allowed many to sign up without fully committing to a party who's previous policies they had many quarrels with.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    By the sounds of things he's firmly in the social democratic camp. Not quite a blairite but certainly not a Corbynite. The main thing about him though is that he oozes competence and Prime Ministerialness, unlike Miliband. I can't imagine there's much, if any dirt on him given how rigorous the checks would have been to become DPP.

    Again seeing him hold Davis to account (and get the better of him) today makes it extremely perplexing from a labour perspective just how we've elected Corbyn. I suspect Kier will run at some point.
    While unlikely that i'd ever prefer him to May i agree that he comes across very well and having served during the first three years of Tory government it would be hard to hit him in terms of credibility. I also think that Steven Kinnock comes across very well as well although i suspect he's another lefty.

    At any rate, if Labour ever becomes a threat again i would expect Starmer and Kinnock to be in senior positions.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    While unlikely that i'd ever prefer him to May i agree that he comes across very well and having served during the first three years of Tory government it would be hard to hit him in terms of credibility. I also think that Steven Kinnock comes across very well as well although i suspect he's another lefty.

    At any rate, if Labour ever becomes a threat again i would expect Starmer and Kinnock to be in senior positions.
    I suspect Kier would appeal to the more liberal, pro europe tory who may dislike May's authoritarianism and social conservatism.

    Labour do have some serious talent in the party. Unfortunately, unlike the conservatives, their dross is winning comfortably.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For the first time ever a person who has been on TOWIE has made a useful contribution to society whilst on tv, by breastfeeding her baby:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-37633839*
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    By the sounds of things he's firmly in the social democratic camp. Not quite a blairite but certainly not a Corbynite. The main thing about him though is that he oozes competence and Prime Ministerialness, unlike Miliband. I can't imagine there's much, if any dirt on him given how rigorous the checks would have been to become DPP.

    Again seeing him hold Davis to account (and get the better of him) today makes it extremely perplexing from a labour perspective just how we've elected Corbyn. I suspect Kier will run at some point.
    Corbyn is pretty much a moderate, despite what the media would have you believe about him being a Leninist-Trotskyite revolutionary in slacks.
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Corbyn is pretty much a moderate, despite what the media would have you believe about him being a Leninist-Trotskyite revolutionary in slacks.
    Oh I agree. Economically he believes in a mixed economy, with state genrally controlling necessities and the private sector controlling luxuries.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    I suspect Kier would appeal to the more liberal, pro europe tory who may dislike May's authoritarianism and social conservatism.

    Labour do have some serious talent in the party. Unfortunately, unlike the conservatives, their dross is winning comfortably.
    As the old adage goes, the Tories will vote for the economic position they prefer rather than the social (that's not to say we don't care or that there are not some who put that first) so if Starmer is left of May then it's very hard for him to win those people without being an incumbent.

    Although he was a complete wet fish in policy i thought Burnham was pretty good and also Murphy. Even Miliband himself comes across pretty well now that he's not trying to kick Cameron out of office.

    (Original post by DMcGovern)
    Corbyn is pretty much a moderate, despite what the media would have you believe about him being a Leninist-Trotskyite revolutionary in slacks.
    Although i disagree with such a position i can somewhat respect social democrats from an economic standpoint which is what he's put forward so far (though it would not shock me if he privately believed in a command economy).

    The reason i consider Corbyn an extremist, cannot respect him and consider him a threat that must be castrated at all costs is that he despises the institutions of our great nation. He wants rid of the monarchy, he wants rid of the union and overseas territories, he wants to tear up our membership of NATO and is Putin friendly.. these are not things which we can simply change back after a term.

    This is also what puzzles me most about labour members. It's one thing to want higher taxes, fairness, income equality ect.. but you chose to elect a man who despises the country he lives in.

    I know many Tories think he should be left alone into 2020 however even if the chance of his election is probably say 5%, that is 5% too high given the extremity of his views.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Although i disagree with such a position i can somewhat respect social democrats from an economic standpoint which is what he's put forward so far (though it would not shock me if he privately believed in a command economy).
    I doubt it even I'm not too enthusiastic about that.

    The reason i consider Corbyn an extremist, cannot respect him and consider him a threat that must be castrated at all costs is that he despises the institutions of our great nation. He wants rid of the monarchy, he wants rid of the union and overseas territories, he wants to tear up our membership of NATO and is Putin friendly.. these are not things which we can simply change back after a term.

    This is also what puzzles me most about labour members. It's one thing to want higher taxes, fairness, income equality ect.. but you chose to elect a man who despises the country he lives in.

    I know many Tories think he should be left alone into 2020 however even if the chance of his election is probably say 5%, that is 5% too high given the extremity of his views.
    Those are the institutions that make Britain great? An outdated political system used as a decoration and cash cow, an ancient union established under the yoke of monarchical imperialism and a warmongers’ alliance which is one of the biggest obstacles to peace?

    Monarchy meh, he's said he doesn't want to get rid of her, he wants to reform her role and remove her power over Parliament, union not really, he's hit out at the SNP's “strange” impulse to link Brexit with another Scottish independence referendum, never made clear his exact views on Wales, less so on the OTs, only Ireland which is basically a drain on the UK's resources, and not that the overseas territories actually matter in any economic or rational manner apart from a nationalistic sense, NATO actually does very little for the UK and Putin isn't all that bad considering he's not threatening or threatened by the UK. Corbyn clearly doesn't despise Britain, he's much more interested in "rebalancing our society, dealing with the problems, protecting the environment."
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by joecphillips)
    It's saying attachment not found.

    Is one of them were it says Hillary didn't acid wash her hard drives she used bleachbit ignoring what is actually meant by acid washed.
    Yeah

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    What a load of absolute fluff, but coming from you lately I expect little better.

    For a start, 'equal pay for equal work' is not a policy, it's a soundbite.
    I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't like something being said in 5 words when it could be said in 500 with little extra said in the excess 495

    Secondly Trump doesn't want cuts, to the contrary he wants to massively increase public spending and swell the size of the state. How do you square that with a massive reduction of taxes? You can't of course but logic and consistency have never been the friends of trump supporters.
    It seems that, once again, I'm going to have to ask you to explain your logic to me, because you're still trotting out this line without explaining it. Could you please explain to me why I shouldn't support a candidate I agree with on most things because they are in favour of a bigger government, and instead should support a candidate that is in favour of just as big a government, but I agree with on next to nothing? That is an inherently idiotic position to take.

    *Where has Clinton called for gender identity to be a part of anti discrimination law?
    Ummm, kinda on her own website https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/lgbt-equality/

    Although it is quite funny how she claims to have been pro gay rights all her career.

    And pray do tell me what Trumps health policy actually is because the most detail we have at the moment is that he wants to do 'so many good things'.
    Excellent, you have a pair of websites setting out all the policy positions and you can't manage to look at either of them, how about we try this one for size: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...lthcare-reform


    Or the TL;DR: repeal Obamacare, allow insurance sale over state lines, increasing competition, full deductions of health insurance premiums from individual's tax returns, Health Savings Accounts, introduce price transparency in the industry, effectively devolve medicaid to the states on the basis that most already go above and beyond federal requirements, remove barriers to entry in the drugs market.

    You're about as bad as the people at work who today basically took the position "because I don't know of them Trump has no policies"

    You say you want cuts right? Well you do know trump has pledged extra spending on infrastructure, veterans, education, childcare, defence. His proposed expansion of the military alone would cost $450 billion according to the CRFB (a right wing fiscally conservative think tank). That's before we mention his plans to build a wall and monitor every mosque as well as putting inplace an extreme vetting system, all of which will cost a huge amount.
    You seem to be confusing the idea of wanting spending cutting and wanting ALL spending cutting, most of that I am in favour of, although education depends what and how. Most subsidies would be gone under Trump, definitely in the energy sector and total spending cuts of $1tn. Oh, and that wall, the top end estimates put the price at $25bn

    *
    That's not even mentioning the sheer vagueness of his tax plans. At first he promised to tax small firms at just 15% before it was pointed out that this would cause high earners to masquerade as small businesses and has now been dropped.
    *
    Cutting income tax from 10% to 0% up to $25k, then 10% to 50k, 20% to 150k and then 25% for anything over that (meanwhile Clinton isn't touching it at all unless you're in the top few %) and a corporation tax cut from the highest in the West to one of the lowest.

    So once again please tell me how he squares big tax cuts with huge spending increases.*
    Finally Trump promises to create 25 million new jobs, a mere 20 million more than forecast today without saying how or telling us how. It's like a campaign run by the far left, just promise everyone money, jobs happiness, motherhood and apple pie without having any idea on how to make good your promise.
    I thought you were a firm believer in Keynes, a key part of which is the best way to boost the economy is to boost the income of the lowest earners.

    You might also want to talk to the non partisan Tax Foundation. Their modelling gives an 11% GDP boost, 29% increase in capital investment (believe it or not, low corporate taxes helps things a lot), 6.5% higher wages and those create those extra 5m jobs you were looking for. Decade revenue impact, 9.5tn lost on income tax, an extra 839bn payroll taxes, 1.4tn lost corporation tax, 238bn lost from the estate tax repeal, and a 101bn increase in revenue from "other sources." Would be hard to get congress to consent to it all though, even if there were the trillion a year spending cuts to go with it.

    * As I suspected you don't actually support his policies you just simply pretend his policies are what you want them to be rather than they actually are to make your tribal suppprt seem legitimate.

    *
    You might want to check out the policies for yourself, or given you're too lazy to spend even 5 minutes doing so, let somebody else do it for you.

    Then again, the Supreme court is far more important and I would rather avoid the massive Constitution dismantling leftist blob that Clinton would likely create forming, funnily enough she doesn't want anybody knowing who she is considering.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Lol.
    I said Republicans, not Democrats
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Bornblue Would you mind making up your mind as to whether I'm "Alt-right" or whether I'm just pretending to like Trump's policies given they're inherently contradictory positions?
    Online

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Yeah



    I'm sorry, I forgot that you don't like something being said in 5 words when it could be said in 500 with little extra said in the excess 495
    Firstly learn the difference between a policy and a soundbite. A policy requires detail not just 'everyone is going to be great'.

    ** *It seems that, once again, I'm going to have to ask you to explain your logic to me, because you're still trotting out this line without explaining it. Could you please explain to me why I shouldn't support a candidate I agree with on most things because they are in favour of a bigger government, and instead should support a candidate that is in favour of just as big a government, but I agree with on next to nothing? That is an inherently idiotic position to take.
    Largely because you're making up his policy positions to be what you want them to be rather than what they actually are.

    * *Excellent, you have a pair of websites setting out all the policy positions and you can't manage to look at either of them, how about we try this one for size: https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positio...lthcare-reform


    Or the TL;DR: repeal Obamacare, allow insurance sale over state lines, increasing competition, full deductions of health insurance premiums from individual's tax returns, Health Savings Accounts, introduce price transparency in the industry, effectively devolve medicaid to the states on the basis that most already go above and beyond federal requirements, remove barriers to entry in the drugs market.

    Except of course that he has no idea about that and clearly for someone else to write it for him given that when he was asked what his health policy was at a presidential debate his response was 'so many good things'.

    **You're about as bad as the people at work who today basically took the position "because I don't know of them Trump has no policies"
    It's more about the fact that he doesn't know his own policies given that when asked in a presidential debate about what his health policy was his response was 'so many great things'.


    * You seem to be confusing the idea of wanting spending cutting and wanting ALL spending cutting, most of that I am in favour of, although education depends what and how. Most subsidies would be gone under Trump, definitely in the energy sector and total spending cuts of $1tn. Oh, and that wall, the top end estimates put the price at $
    *

    Except of course you don't support spending increases and always go on about how evil tax is. How is he going to dramatically reduce taxes and dramatically increase spending?*

    *
    * Cutting income tax from 10% to 0% up to $25k, then 10% to 50k, 20% to 150k and then 25% for anything over that (meanwhile Clinton isn't touching it at all unless you're in the top few %) and a corporation tax cut from the highest in the West to one of the lowest.
    There is an argument that cutting corporation tax slightly can lead to increased tax receipts (although not if, like you, you want to keep tax loopholes open) but the same argument simply doesn't apply to income tax, which Rakas has pointed out.

    People are nowhere near as mobile as corporations and if you give wealthy people a tax break, as Bush did, most of the money leaves the economy.


    ** * I thought you were a firm believer in Keynes, a key part of which is the best way to boost the economy is to boost the income of the lowest earners.
    Of course I do but Keynesian economics cannot be squared with massive tax cuts, unless he wants to borrow ridiculous amounts to make up for it.

    You might also want to talk to the non partisan Tax Foundation. Their modelling gives an 11% GDP boost, 29% increase in capital investment (believe it or not, low corporate taxes helps things a lot), 6.5% higher wages and those create those extra 5m jobs you were looking for. Decade revenue impact, 9.5tn lost on income tax, an extra 839bn payroll taxes, 1.4tn lost corporation tax, 238bn lost from the estate tax repeal, and a 101bn increase in revenue from "other sources." Would be hard to get congress to consent to it all though, even if there were the trillion a year spending cuts to go with it. *
    I do want to talk about the Tax Foundation actually. They announced that Trump's tax plan would cost the economy $2.6 trillion to $3.9 trillion over a decade. *

    *Then again, the Supreme court is far more important and I would rather avoid the massive Constitution dismantling leftist blob that Clinton would likely create forming, funnily enough she doesn't want anybody knowing who she is considering.
    *Whereas Trump of course wouldn't choose anyone from the right...*
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: December 4, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.