[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 81441)
Message
File  []
close
History to Soon Repeat.jpg
814418144181441
>> No. 81441 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 2:22 pm
81441 We're Going to Get Brexit Harder Than We Ever Imagined
>Brexit: UK to leave single market, says Theresa May

>Theresa May has said the UK "cannot possibly" remain within the European single market, as staying in it would mean "not leaving the EU at all". But the prime minister promised to push for the "greatest possible" access to the single market following Brexit.

>She said: "This agreement should allow for the freest possible trade in goods and services between Britain and the EU's member states."It should give British companies the maximum possible freedom to trade with and operate within European markets and let European businesses do the same in Britain. But I want to be clear: what I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market. It would, to all intents and purposes mean not leaving the EU at all. That is why both sides in the referendum campaign made it clear that a vote to leave the EU would be a vote to leave the single market."

>She told the remaining 27 EU member states: "We will continue to be reliable partners, willing allies and close friends. We want to buy your goods, sell you ours, trade with you as freely as possible, and work with one another to make sure we are all safer, more secure and more prosperous through continued friendship." Mrs May, who backed Remain in the referendum, called for a "new and equal partnership" with the EU, "not partial membership of the European Union, associate membership of the European Union, or anything that leaves us half-in, half-out. We do not seek to adopt a model already enjoyed by other countries. We do not seek to hold on to bits of membership as we leave."

>After Mrs May's speech Liberal Democrat leader Tim Farron said: "Hard Brexit was never on the ballot paper. Ripping us out of the single market was not something proposed to the British people. This is a theft of democracy."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38641208

Correct me if I'm wrong lads but I seem to remember some sort of Norway/Switzerland relationship was being pushed very hard by the Brexit campaign? Could this be the beginning of the end for Theresa if her government collapses on the leave vote?
Expand all images.
>> No. 81442 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 2:51 pm
81442 spacer
Why the fuck is this unelected harridan still in charge?
>> No. 81443 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:05 pm
81443 spacer
>>81442

Shut up, dude. She might hear you...
>> No. 81445 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:10 pm
81445 spacer
>>81441
Look at adorable bushy-tailed Tim Farron. Where'd you dig this up from OP?
>> No. 81446 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:18 pm
81446 spacer
This was always on the cards. Soft Brexit was remaining in the EU in all but name and a mixture of people unwilling to face up to what's happening grasping at straws and newspapers creating waffle to fill their pages.

>Correct me if I'm wrong lads but I seem to remember some sort of Norway/Switzerland relationship was being pushed very hard by the Brexit campaign?

48:06 to 48:23:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gZNoogkhnzw

>>81442
>unelected harridan

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/politics/constituencies/E14000803
>> No. 81448 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:30 pm
81448 spacer
>>81442
If you think that's bad, just look at the EU organs. You've got the Council made up of the ministers of the member governments, and the Commission appointed by those ministers. Thank goodness we have a more democratic setup where a couple of hundred politicians pick our leader.
>> No. 81449 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 3:43 pm
81449 spacer
>>81441
The Norway and Switzerland models still include free movement, which is the thing racists many voters objected to. Switzerland currently has curbs on services but in return is not part of the internal market for services. The EU has made it clear that while it may make allowances on goods and services, free movement of labour underpins the other three (goods, services and capital) and is non-negotiable.
>> No. 81452 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 4:34 pm
81452 spacer

Screen Shot 2017-01-17 at 16.28.25.png
814528145281452
Agree with it or not, a fascinating and well written quote by May and her team. Definitely one for the history books.
>> No. 81453 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 5:29 pm
81453 spacer
Fucking proud. Didn't think she (or anyone else in Parliament) would have the balls to do it.
>> No. 81454 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:03 pm
81454 spacer
Yesterday, the big financial headlines were "Pound plummets due to fears PM will announce intentions for hard Brexit."
Today: "Pound skyrockets after PM announces intentions for hard Brexit."

Every day I read through business news, and the attempts of journalists to derive some sort of story out of the day-to-day ups-and-downs of the markets is always absolutely woeful.
>> No. 81455 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:29 pm
81455 spacer
>>81452
This coming from someone who supported Remain.
>> No. 81456 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:35 pm
81456 spacer
>>81454
It's almost as if currency prices were determined by a market with different participants who hold different views.
>> No. 81459 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:43 pm
81459 spacer
>>81454
Monitoring things like the £ and the FTSE on a daily basis is sheer lunacy. There is no need for such immediacy.

One of the reasons the $ has done well recently is because the US is doing better than anticipated (https://www.ft.com/content/30fb1d4c-e002-11e5-b072-006d8362ba3 & https://www.ft.com/content/059952aa-d542-11e6-944b-e7eb37a6aa8e) but it's far more simplistic to run a daily Brexit commentary.
>> No. 81460 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:43 pm
81460 spacer
>>81452
On the contrary, it reads just like typical pollie bollocks. Just like the "red, white and blue Brexit" thing she's used a lot of words to say approximately fuck all.
>> No. 81461 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:45 pm
81461 spacer
>>81460
>Just like the "red, white and blue Brexit" thing she's used a lot of words to say approximately fuck all.

Red, white and blue Brexit is five words. That's norra lot, as Cilla used to say.
>> No. 81462 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 6:55 pm
81462 spacer
>>81461
Well I stand corrected there. For a minute there I thought she said a load of stuff while stood on that carrier, but apparently she took the mic, said those five words and then fucked off. What do the rest of us know, eh?
>> No. 81463 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 7:00 pm
81463 spacer
>>81462
Don't be silly. We don't have any carriers.
>> No. 81464 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 7:03 pm
81464 spacer
>>81463
Apparently we were able to salvage one, but it only does helicopters.
>> No. 81465 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 8:13 pm
81465 spacer
May's Brexit model: Have cake and eat it.

Let's see how good her team negotiates.
>> No. 81466 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 8:20 pm
81466 spacer
>>81464
A fucking copter carrier? Christ, that must be the naval equivalent of having your mum buy you two stripe tracky bottoms whilst all your mates wear Adidas.
>> No. 81467 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 11:07 pm
81467 spacer
>>81465
I'm fucking sick of this phrase, one because its repeated all the fucking time and two nobody seems to know how to use it or what it means.

Additionally, it doesn't even apply.
>> No. 81468 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 11:17 pm
81468 spacer
>>81467
Why, you're right. The analogy of eating one's cake and expecting to have it still clearly doesn't apply to leaving the EU and expecting to retain the status we enjoyed while we were in it.
>> No. 81469 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 11:21 pm
81469 spacer
>>81468
1. No, it doesn't. Have cake and eat it implies it is consumed. You cannot consume trading status. You can not be a member of the EU and enjoy all the benefits, but it is practically impossible and a pointless academic exercise.
2. It doesn't apply because... well, what can I say? How does it apply? Show me you're not just the nth thousandth person to have said this cool phrase they heard on telly recently. Reminds me of 'Mary Sue' after the Star Wars film came out.
>> No. 81470 Anonymous
17th January 2017
Tuesday 11:32 pm
81470 spacer
>>81469
>Have cake and eat it implies it is consumed.
No more than it implies that the thing at issue needs to be edible.
>> No. 81471 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 9:14 am
81471 spacer
>>81469
Are you aware that someone from the brexit team was papped with this phrase as their actual strategy?
>> No. 81472 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 9:30 am
81472 spacer
>>81445
I searched on google images 'Tim Farron Theresa May'. Labour won the election if you're wondering.

>>81446
So all this talk of Norway and Switzerland models was for nothing. Honestly, why do I even argue with you people?

>>81448
Yeah that directly elected parliament and council of ministers appointed by democratically elected governments. Come off it lad, we're passed this now.

>>81465
What if we have our cake but eat around the bits we don't like?
>> No. 81473 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 12:10 pm
81473 spacer
>>81472
Then you've only got the bits you don't like left, having already eaten the bits you did like.
>> No. 81474 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 12:59 pm
81474 spacer
We are eating the cake and then going to our m8s house to go and see if we can bake a muffin.

All the European papers are talking about cherrypicking and other such annoying phrases. They don't seem to have been paying attention - we're not opting for some rules but not others, we're leaving.
>> No. 81475 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 1:33 pm
81475 spacer
>>81474
No, you don't seem to have been paying attention. One does not simply walk into Brexit. Talk of cherry picking is legitimate, since it's exactly what the government have talked about doing. We're leaving, but apparently speculating over which benefits we're going to negotiate to keep when we leave. Such as involvement in the single market, trade access on par with or close to other members, access to the EAW and other EU policing and security measures (I'm sure they'd love to cooperate now they know we've been involved and/or complicit in state-level operations against them).
>> No. 81476 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 3:52 pm
81476 spacer
>>81475
>We're leaving, but apparently speculating over which benefits we're going to negotiate to keep when we leave.
No, that's the wrong way around. This is a discussion of what we can collaborate on as a third party outside the EU, not what we keep as an exiting member. That was the point of May's speech yesterday - she's redrawing the baseline as being the UK as a third party state looking in rather than a first party state looking out. You may think this doesn't matter but it is of great importance.

I wrote something else but then deleted it because I know you'd ignore it.
>> No. 81478 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 6:57 pm
81478 spacer
>>81476
>I wrote something else but then deleted it because I know you'd ignore it
If it was as bad as the rest of that post I can see why.
>> No. 81479 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 7:13 pm
81479 spacer

Brexitminister.jpg
814798147981479
This thread demonstrates that the Tory government's plans for Brexit are clearly half-baked. Some would say that they know which side their bread is buttered, but in my opinion it really takes the biscuit.

I can't sugar coat this- I propose we sack the Brexit minister David Davis. He clearly has his fingers in too many pies. And I know just the chap to replace him.
>> No. 81480 Anonymous
18th January 2017
Wednesday 7:52 pm
81480 spacer
>>81479
I too think David Davis should be sacked so he can work on the IPA again.

I agree with your choice. He's clearly got things sorted for Baxit. Theresa May deserves some credit for at least beginning to give some direction (which she's managed to do quicker than Corbyn), but there's still a lot of empty rhetoric there. She's talking a good showstopper but it doesn't look good for the technical. There's a real risk that we're going to be left with a soggy bottom. Or Michael Gove, as he's properly known.
>> No. 81485 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 2:17 pm
81485 spacer
I don't normally do this but I was bored so decided to take a more in depth look at the figures on the latest YouGov survey. Here's a summary of things that stood out to me, it's mostly expected. In general, the poor favoured all things regarding brexit and the proposals than the rich.

Voting intention of Leave voters: 58% CON, 10% LAB, 3% LD, 24% UKIP
Voting intention of Remain voters: 26% CON, 40% LAB, 20% LD, 0% UKIP

Women appear significantly more likely to vote Labour (23% of men, 28% of women)

The Tories are ahead with all age groups except 18-24 which are 25% CON, 45% LAB, 11% LD, 5% UKIP

This is interesting: Labour support is higher with ABC1 social grades:

ABC1: 42% CON, 26% LAB, 14% LD, 9% UKIP
C2DE: 41% CON, 25% LAB, 8% LD, 17% UKIP

London: 41% CON, 35% LAB, 11% LD, 7% UKIP
Scotland: 26% CON, 19% LAB, 11% LAB, 41% SNP

Remain voters seem marginally more likely to vote in the next election than Leave voters but only by a smidge.
38% of 18-24 year olds 'Absolutely certain to vote' versus 72% of 65+. 16% of 18-24 year olds 'Certain not to vote'.

Scotland is far and away the place people are most likely to vote with 75% 'Absolutely likely', the other regions 55-60%. Voter disilluisonment seems highest in the Midlands/Wales/North, somewhat unsurprisingly.

46% believe Britain was right to vote to leave the EU, 42% believe Britain was wrong.
6% of Remain voters believe it was right, 4% of Leave voters believe it was wrong.

7% of Remain voters believ ethe government is negotiating Britain's exit 'very well', versus 3% of leave voters. 15% of remain voters believe it's doing 'fairly well', versus 42% of leave voters.

When it comes to the effect of Brexit on individual issues (jobs, NHS, immigration, influence) people are broadly pretty split in thirds across 'better, no change, worse', the two standout ones are immigration and pensions - people strongly believe brexit will mean less immigration (55%) versus 3% who believe it'll mean more. Pensions, 9% believe it'll be good, 28% bad and 34% no difference. 30% say they don't know. 11% of 50-64 year olds believe it'll be good for pensions, 8% of 65+ year olds.

On the topic of May's speech:

74% of people believe having control over immigration from EU countries is the right thing to do, including 54% of Remain voters, 94% of Leave voters. Interestingly that includes 70% of Londoners.

57% believe that seeking to leave the single market with 'the greatest possible' access is the right thing to do, 21% believe it is the wrong thing to do. 51% of Londoners and 50% of Scots agree. Figures on all things regarding the single market are pretty much the same for the question about the customs union, I doubt any more than a handful of the people questioned have the foggiest what the customs union is though.

77% of people believe it's right that we guarantee the rights of EU citizens in exchange for that being reciprocated. 18-24 year olds are actually less likely to think this is right than 65+ year olds.

85% of people believe continuing to work with the EU on security and law enforcement is the right thing to do.

Taking all things together 55% of people believe that May's suggestion would be good for Britain versus 19% who think it would not be good. 32% of Remain voters good, 38% bad. 41% of 18-24 year olds good, 25% bad.

62% believe May's proposal respects the result of the referendum. 56% of Remain voters think so too, with 19% disagreeing.

53% of people would be 'happy' with this outcome, 26% 'unhappy'.

47% of people have a lot/a fair amount of confidence May can achieve what she proposes, 28% not much/no confidence.

20% believe other member states will agree, 56% that they will not.
>> No. 81486 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 2:20 pm
81486 spacer
>>81480
David Davis is exactly my pick for Brexit secretary, but then Mrs May needs a David Davis to slap her when she starts trying to implement silly shit like IPA.

We need to clone him.
>> No. 81487 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 5:27 pm
81487 spacer
Labour MPs will be forced to vote in favour of triggering Article 50, says Jeremy Corbyn

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/19/labourmps-will-forced-vote-favour-triggering-article-50-says/

It's official, lads. The Tories are free to do as they please over Brexit.
>> No. 81490 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 6:02 pm
81490 spacer
>>81479
I don't think they had a plan.
>> No. 81494 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 7:07 pm
81494 spacer
>>81487
Why is he doing this? To get back the racist voters who drifted off to UKIP?
>> No. 81495 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 7:23 pm
81495 spacer
>>81494
Since when has Corbyn cared about appealing to voters?

Why do you think his staffers were celebrating when Brexit won? Why do you think he sabotaged the Labour Remain campaign? Why do you think he called for Article 50 to be triggered as soon as possible? Brexit is one of his dreams coming true.
>> No. 81496 Anonymous
19th January 2017
Thursday 9:04 pm
81496 spacer
>>81487

Labour's thinking on Brexit has been undeniably muddled, but if you think fighting Article 50 would win him back the voters you're most concerned about you are unconscionably bone headed.
>> No. 81497 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 2:26 am
81497 spacer
>>81495
>Why do you think his staffers were celebrating when Brexit won? Why do you think he sabotaged the Labour Remain campaign? Why do you think he called for Article 50 to be triggered as soon as possible?
Because that's what 52% of the country wants :^)
>> No. 81498 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 6:32 am
81498 spacer
>>81496

It just makes him look weak. The overwhelming majority of Brexiters see Corbyn as an inept pinko and will simply see his support of Article 50 as capitulation to a superior leader. His natural supporters are predominantly remainers, who will see his support of Article 50 as capitulation to Tory scum.

Fighting Article 50 would have been an opportunity to look strong and principled. He could have tried to negotiate concessions for remainers. He could have fought for a compromise deal. He could have framed May's proposed hard Brexit as an attack on worker's rights. He could have held her feet to the fire over things like the working time directive, demanding a Brexit strategy that protects the good bits of EU membership while gaining the freedoms of independence. Instead, he's taking the one position that manages to alienate everyone.
>> No. 81500 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 7:09 am
81500 spacer
>>81498
Corbyn isn't wedded to Brexit, but he doesn't want that to be misinterpreted, nor does he rule it out.
>> No. 81501 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 7:30 am
81501 spacer
>>81500

Strong words from a strong man.
>> No. 81502 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 9:08 am
81502 spacer
>>81498
> His natural supporters are predominantly remainers,

What a bizarre world the 21 st century is
>> No. 81503 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 12:19 pm
81503 spacer
>>81498
This is basically the turning point for me. I'll continue to defend him from the unjustified attacks in the media but he has to go, he's made too many mistakes. Bring in Clive Lewis.
>> No. 81504 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 1:30 pm
81504 spacer
>>81503

How would the former host of Whose Line Is It Anyway help matters?
>> No. 81509 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 8:18 pm
81509 spacer
>>81498

So what you're saying is, he should have decided his course of action based on political expediency at the expense of his actual views; he should have lied through his teeth and made up empty devil's advocate arguments because that would score more points in the tabloids.

That's the 21st century in a nutshell for you really isn't it. We live in a system nobody wanted because someone made an argument they didn't want to make, against something they agreed with in principle but had to show strength because otherwise they'd never win the election, and whats the point of being in politics if you don't intend to get in to power in order to bring about change, especially when that change is change that you didn't want to make in the first place but went along with it in order to get into power in order to implement change.

Fuck sake.
>> No. 81510 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 9:13 pm
81510 spacer
>>81509
>he should have lied through his teeth and made up empty devil's advocate arguments because that would score more points in the tabloids.
Either that, or realise that his views were not compatible with the leadership of a major political party and stand aside.
>> No. 81511 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 9:40 pm
81511 spacer
>>81510
He is the sen--Leadership.
>> No. 81512 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 10:40 pm
81512 spacer
>>81511
Erm, yes. Have you been under a rock for the last 18 months?
>> No. 81513 Anonymous
20th January 2017
Friday 11:11 pm
81513 spacer

gettyimages-521111588.jpg
815138151381513
>>81509

No. I'm saying that in a representative democracy, it is the job of our representatives to represent us. 65% of people who voted Labour at the last election voted for remain in the EU referendum. 75% of Corbyn's constituents voted for remain.

The views of the 48% deserve to be represented in parliament. We're leaving the EU, that's already settled, but Corbyn could at least try to steer the direction of brexit. He could have said "my party will support brexit if we have assurances that workers rights will be protected, if we have a solution to the Irish border issue, if we have trade deals in place to minimise the loss of jobs". Instead, he just capitulated; a three-line whip for the Article 50 vote, no strings attached. He put his own beliefs ahead of the interests of the people he is supposed to represent.

Opposing the invocation of Article 50 would have done Corbyn no favours in the tabloids. They'd have called him a bremoaner, they'd have accused him of ignoring the will of the British people. He would have been crucified for it, but at least someone might have felt that Corbyn was fighting in their corner. At least he'd be sticking up for the underdog. At least he'd be doing his job. As it is, he has taken the easy road and earned the trust of precisely nobody. It's another nail in the coffin of the Labour party, hammered home with characteristic clumsiness.

Corbyn purports to be a man of strong convictions, when in fact he vacillates wildly on almost everything. His position on brexit is as clear as mud. He was an unabashed eurosceptic, but he still half-heartedly supported the remain campaign. He makes up policies and rescinds them on the fly, as we just saw with the pay cap proposal, as we saw with free movement, as we saw with a swathe of other issues. He cares more about being seen to be in the right than doing the right thing. That act was almost convincing when he was on the backbenches, when he had the luxury of rebelling without proposing amendments or alternative legislation. Now that he's party leader, the mask has slipped. He has no plan, he has no coherent vision, just the certainty that he's right.

His tin ear for public opinion might be acceptable if he had an unshakeable set of principles, but he doesn't. He's not an ideologue, nor is he a populist. He is completely directionless, shambling from one self-imposed crisis to the next.

For all the good he's doing, he might as well hand his seat over to a Tory. Theresa May is trashing the country, but Labour is dying in the polls. The general public don't trust Corbyn to run a meat raffle and I don't blame them. He knows that he can't win a general election, he knows that communities across the country will lose their Labour MPs and councillors, he knows that the country is swinging hard to the right, but he doesn't have the first idea how to fight back. He doesn't have the courage to lead public opinion or the humility to follow it. Until he does the decent thing and stands aside, we're all fucked.
>> No. 81514 Anonymous
21st January 2017
Saturday 1:30 am
81514 spacer
>>81513
>communities

Don't even fucking start, that thing that was once the bread and butter of Labour that is now the antithesis.

Labour is doomed. It'll be a footnote in history in fifty years. It failed to adapt and when it did it was past its sell by date.
>> No. 81515 Anonymous
21st January 2017
Saturday 6:20 pm
81515 spacer
>>81498
I always admired Corbyn, because of his principles and policies. But what you've said here has really resonated with me and has made him look like a very ineffectual weak leader.

With the Labour party still in turmoil like this, we can't have an effective opposition. Len McCklusky hinted at Corbyn stepping down, he's probably right.
>> No. 81519 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 1:29 am
81519 spacer
>>81515

>I always admired Corbyn, because of his principles and policies.

Like the time he lied about train seats. His support for Venezuelan socialism. Being an advocate for Hamas. I could go on.

Labour to lose Copeland and Stoke Central by a huge margin.

Maybe Corbyn 2.0 should get together with Lily Allen on the millionaires for peace populist agenda.
>> No. 81520 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 3:56 am
81520 spacer
i just want the world to collapse at this stage
i hate everyone and all my hope is gone

the world can't get better, so why not just make everyone suffer? everyone is complicit. there is no need for THINGS to get better anymore. Make them worse, teach people what happens when you mis-step an inch from the road to a better word. You're all out of lives, Mario. Back to stage 1:1 for you.

for a brief moment, satiate my primal needs.
then club me to death in this brave old world.

devoted too much time to politics to give up, yet enough time to realize it's hopeless.
please kill me.

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 81521 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 5:03 am
81521 spacer
>>81520

I will kill you, but it's important you know it's because of your refusal to capitalise your sentences and nothing else.
>> No. 81522 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 7:25 am
81522 spacer

methode/sundaytimes/prod/web/bin/8c86882.jpg
815228152281522
>>81519
>His support for Venezuelan socialism

It turned out there's only one nation in the world with a legal maximum wage cap. I wonder where he could have come up with the inspiration for such an idea...
>> No. 81523 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 10:08 am
81523 spacer
>>81520

>the world can't get better

In 1990, 47% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty; by 2015, only 14% did. Global child mortality halved over the same period. The number of people with access to clean drinking water doubled.

http://www.un.org/millenniumgoals/2015_MDG_Report/pdf/MDG%202015%20rev%20(July%201).pdf

Last year, there were only 35 cases of polio worldwide in just three countries. Polio is likely to be completely eradicated by 2020.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poliomyelitis_eradication
>> No. 81524 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 5:33 pm
81524 spacer
>>81523
Fine.

Britain can't get better.

I really don't care about the rest of the world.
>> No. 81525 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 6:27 pm
81525 spacer
>>81523
Most of that occurred in the People's Republic of China because of wise Marxist-Leninist leadership
>> No. 81526 Anonymous
22nd January 2017
Sunday 6:50 pm
81526 spacer
>>81523
Most of that occurred in the People's Republic of China in spite of unwise Marxist-Leninist leadership.
>> No. 81527 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 4:09 am
81527 spacer
>>81523
>In 1990, 47% of the world's population lived in extreme poverty; by 2015, only 14% did
A few people have said this, so I want to know whether it's true or not:

Do they actually game this so that working 16 hours a day in a factory with suicide nets is considered better than being a sustenance farmer, since the factory work entails direct monetary compensation (even if in practice it's yielding a lower standard of living)
>> No. 81528 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 8:44 am
81528 spacer
>>81527
>in a factory with suicide nets
Foxconn has a lower suicide rate than China as a whole, but us silly westerners are incapable of getting away from clickbait nonsense.
>> No. 81529 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 9:03 am
81529 spacer
>>81528
>Foxconn has a lower suicide rate than China as a whole
I think that's the point of the nets.
>> No. 81530 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 10:22 am
81530 spacer
>>81527

Factory work is unquestionably better than being a subsistence farmer. Your ancestors made that choice, as hundreds of millions of people across the developing world are currently making.

If you work in a factory, you earn a wage. If you earn a wage, you don't starve if there's a drought or a frost. You can get your bad teeth filled, your wife can give birth in a hospital, your kids can go to school, maybe even university. You can save up to buy a television, a house, a car, your own business.

Chinese factory workers prefer dormitory accommodation. Dorms are extremely cheap, so they can save up more money and send more money home. Factories that don't provide dormitories and subsidised canteens can't get good staff.

Shenzhen is the electronics manufacturing capital of the world. Foxconn do most of their manufacturing there, as do dozens of other huge ODMs and contract manufacturers. The wage of the average factory worker in Shenzhen has quadrupled in the last ten years. Low-value, low-tech manufacturing is spilling out across Guangdong province and into the less-developed provinces of central China in search of lower wages, but that still isn't putting a crimp on rampant wage growth. The textile industry in China is almost dead, because even rural factories struggle to compete on price with Bangladesh or Indonesia.

In the coastal cities of China, it is completely normal for a factory to lose hundreds of workers on the same day, because a factory down the street has a rush job and is offering an extra 10rmb a day. Staff turnover is extremely high because of competition over wages; employers are constantly struggling to retain staff.

If you talk to Chinese factory workers, you get a completely different understanding of their situation. They're not slave labourers, they're grafters with a plan, just like the Poles who come to Britain. Lì is saving up to start a shop, Xiùyīng wants to start a hairdressing salon, Wěi is going to return to the village and modernise the family farm, Qiáng is taking night classes and wants to be shift supervisor. Their kids will go to university and become teachers, doctors, engineers and accountants. They've got a future ahead of them with real opportunities, which is more than can be said for a lot of British workers.
>> No. 81531 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 11:55 am
81531 spacer
>>81530

>They've got a future ahead of them with real opportunities

Except they fucking don't do they.
>> No. 81532 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 12:37 pm
81532 spacer
>>81530
This comes across as outright propaganda, but maybe I'm just vaguely jealous that Lin-Xi Maoping isn't a mopey cunt who's realized the best days of his nation are behind it.

Though the only point of contention I can be bothered to raise is that many ancestors didn't have a choice in moving towards factory labour, they were made redundant by improving technology and didn't own the land so had to fuck off. There's a reason they smashed up Threshing Machines.
>> No. 81533 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 2:28 pm
81533 spacer
>>81532

Don't get me wrong, China has some serious problems. Everything you eat, drink and breathe is probably poison. There's endemic corruption, although the situation is improving. The hukou system is still manifestly unfair. There aren't nearly enough university places to keep up with demand. Housing shortages in the big cities are getting ridiculous.

With that said, China is still a phenomenally efficient machine for turning peasants into middle-class workers. A lot of the problems in China are a direct consequence of that. There are housing shortages because they literally can't build quickly enough to keep up with the numbers of new city dwellers. There's a shortage of university places because vastly more kids are finishing high school. Pollution is tolerated as a cost of rapid economic and industrial growth; developing industry and transport in a clean way is slower and more expensive.

IMO, you really have to compare China with India. They have roughly similar populations, they both had roughly similar levels of economic development thirty years ago. China is within spitting distance of completely eradicating extreme poverty, while India is still decades away. Aside from the smog, most Chinese cities are now clean and modern; Indian cities are littered with human shit and the decaying bodies of the indigent. Chinese industrial development is ugly and messy and corrupt, but it works.
>> No. 81534 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 5:38 pm
81534 spacer
>>81533

>Everything in China that's terrible is because the social mobility is just too efficient

No, really, how much are they paying you?
>> No. 81535 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 5:47 pm
81535 spacer

China_Sex_By_Age_2010_census.png
815358153581535
What is the generation that can't get laid going to do, though?
>> No. 81536 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 6:41 pm
81536 spacer
>>81535

Wank themselves senseless? That's what I do anyway.
>> No. 81537 Anonymous
23rd January 2017
Monday 10:03 pm
81537 spacer
>>81534

五毛
>> No. 81697 Anonymous
12th February 2017
Sunday 1:23 am
81697 spacer
>>
Chinese for oh furrin ell, presdah Truh goh furrin fuk Chinah conomeh yeh. Furrin rell, bling on Macc Radds

Warey!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dvVtSFm_-_o
>> No. 81817 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 12:08 am
81817 spacer
>>81452
>Diversity is strength

has this ever been true?
I'm not normally one to quote the bible but "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25
>> No. 81818 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 12:21 am
81818 spacer
>>81817

Sure it has. People who aren't me have pointed how stupid I'm being on many, many, many occasions. I never listened to any of them, but I'd probably be Grand-Duke of the entire Solar System by now if I had.
>> No. 81819 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 12:41 am
81819 spacer
>>81817
>has this ever been true?
Remember how haemophilia was once called the "royal disease"? That's because all the inbreeding and intermarriage among European royalty kept the disease in the family.

>I'm not normally one to quote the bible but "And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand." - Mark 3:25
Diversity doesn't have to mean division.
>> No. 81820 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 1:23 am
81820 spacer
>>81819
But it does anyway.
>> No. 81821 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 1:26 am
81821 spacer
>>81820
To racists like yourself maybe.
>> No. 81826 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 1:37 pm
81826 spacer
>>81821
So yes, it does.
>> No. 81827 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 2:21 pm
81827 spacer
>>81826
To a racist, obviously. But then you have to realise that minorities aren't the ones who should be lined up against the wall and executed... It's the racists that should face that. Then we can all have a great and happy world.

Kill yourself.
>> No. 81830 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 8:08 pm
81830 spacer
>>81827
The vast majority under the axe would be the minorities themselves m8.
>> No. 81831 Anonymous
23rd February 2017
Thursday 8:37 pm
81831 spacer
>>81830
If they are racists, then sure.
>> No. 81870 Anonymous
27th February 2017
Monday 6:25 pm
81870 spacer
>>81466
Heli carriers are more useful than you'd think, what with Crowsnest and anti - sub capability. The real problem is that building carriers takes ages and the cost cutting SDSR that scrapped Ark Royal happened before IS existed and Russia was stirring up shit, not to mention the pressure of recession. Which has left us with a capability gap but thems the breaks and the new QE class tubs look pretty amazing, Wonder if the money could've been better spent getting Sodexo away from the slop jockeys mind.
>> No. 83297 Anonymous
23rd August 2017
Wednesday 1:17 pm
83297 spacer
>>81519
>Like the time he lied about train seats.
Will you be apologising for acting as the useful idiot of Branson et al.?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=47fqjA8CwGE
The guy stubbornly refuses to disavow inconvenient views and statements from decades past as you are pointing out and in the same breath you call him a liar. How much sense does that make?

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password