Support NeoGAF

[CyclopsRock]

I don't believe it's a matter of generations. When someone directly benefits from immigration, when their life is immeasurably better than it might otherwise have been thanks to immigration, they don't have a right to then say we should take this opportunity from others.

It could be first, second or fifth generation. If immigration led to the life they have now, what right do they have to say others shouldn't be allowed to make the same journey?

It's no different from the 'fuck you, I got mine' mindset. You've benefited, now you want to make sure others don't.

Eh, I can't help but feel like you wouldn't take this stance with basically any other issue. You can't complain about climate change if you benefitted from coal power stations! You can't complain about Iraq if you benefitted from the RAF in WW2! You can't complain about the NHS if you've ever visited A&E, or complain about the police if they've ever caught your burglar, or public sports funding if you went to any of the Olympics.

Yet none of this is actually relevant. Whether he's right or he's wrong - and I think we both agree he's wrong - this guy's opinion is that more immigration will make the UK (ie his home) worse. So what's he meant to do?

 

[Beefy]

Have you looked at each manifesto?

A bit and have watched the debates as well. I think I have just become disillusioned with politics. I like most of what the Cons say, but hate how they go after the poor and easy to target, rather then go after the rich. I will read the manifestos in more detail after work.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Brown actually got us out of recession before the last election, the Tories plunged us back into it

We haven't even had a recession under this government. We had stagnation for a few years though (now thought by economists to be caused by the mass QE in 09/10) , even then that can hardly be attributed to the coalition as it takes a couple of years for new policies to take affect. Same thing will happen afer this election, no matter who gets in, it will be coalition policies which will determine the economy for at least a couple of years

As for the last recession, it would have happened regardless of who was in power. The hypothetical is would it have been as bad if the tories were in?. Both were in favour of deregulation, however the main issue was enforcement of any of the regulations. Brown created the FSA and also put in the appointments to run it. Problem was the people in charge at the FSA, were also the same people breaking regulations whilst working also at the banks.

The tories however were a bit split on the issue, with alot of them wanting regulation to remain under the Bank of England (especially alot of senior tories). Some even warned of the dangers of the FSA, accurately describing the issues which did come to pass.

Regardless of this hypothetical situation though, Labour & Brown had a very large part to play in the economic mess that happened. Both Balls & Miliband also played their part, as they were both in the treasury during the time when the pieces to help a financial crash were put into play by the Labour government

 

[CyclopsRock]

I also think it's worth pointing out that "regulation" and "deregulation" only tell a small bit of the story. What's more important is how good the quality of the regulation (and enforcement) system is, because it doesn't matter how much regulation you have if that regulation either doesn't actually achieves the goals it sets out to do or is otherwise unenforceable. So a party being one that's pro de-regulation doesn't automatically mean they want the banks to go mental.

 

[Ding-Ding]

I also think it's worth pointing out that "regulation" and "deregulation" only tell a small bit of the story. What's more important is how good the quality of the regulation (and enforcement) system is, because it doesn't matter how much regulation you have if that regulation either doesn't actually achieves the goals it sets out to do or is otherwise unenforceable. So a party being one that's pro de-regulation doesn't automatically mean they want the banks to go mental.

The good example is the libor scandle. Before or after deregulation doesn't matter. Its always been illegal.

What we now know is the FSA knew about it (told by American regulators) and promptly did nothing. The debate still to be had, was how much did Brown & co know, as there is evidence to suggest it landed on someones table

 

[Miles Quaritch]

Eh, I can't help but feel like you wouldn't take this stance with basically any other issue. You can't complain about climate change if you benefitted from coal power stations! You can't complain about Iraq if you benefitted from the RAF in WW2! You can't complain about the NHS if you've ever visited A&E, or complain about the police if they've ever caught your burglar, or public sports funding if you went to any of the Olympics.

Yet none of this is actually relevant. Whether he's right or he's wrong - and I think we both agree he's wrong - this guy's opinion is that more immigration will make the UK (ie his home) worse. So what's he meant to do?

Immigration is entirely different to those issues.

My issue is with people benefitting from coming here or any well off country, building a good life for themselves and their family and then having the gall to say "no more", stop others from doing what we did. Stop others from trying to have a better life, just like we did. Stop them from trying to give their children a better life with more prospects. How dare they do what we did or what my parents did. The bastards! The sheer nerve!

It's a disgusting attitude to hold. Truly disgusting.

His opinion is founded on nonsense, I'd argue he should educate himself on the benefits of immigration and how it's not the big bad scary monster who will come here and destroy our precious British values or way of life.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Immigration is entirely different to those issues.

My issue is with people benefitting from coming here or any well off country, building a good life for themselves and their family and then having the gall to say "no more", stop others from doing what we did. Stop others from trying to have a better life, just like we did. Stop them from trying to give their children a better life with more prospects. How dare they do what we did or what my parents did. The bastards! The sheer nerve!

It's a disgusting attitude to hold. Truly disgusting.

His opinion is founded on nonsense, I'd argue he should educate himself on the benefits of immigration and how it's not the big bad scary monster who will come here and destroy our precious British values or way of life.

You're doing a huge amount of projecting there.

"Stop them from trying to give their children a better life with more prospects. How dare they do what we did or what my parents did. The bastards! The sheer nerve! "

I mean this stuff, you're literally making it up. There are arguments for immigration and there are arguments against immigration, but what you've described is some sort of pantomime caricature of someone who doesn't exist. If that was actually their argument, I'd agree with you, but it isn't.

 

[Miles Quaritch]

You're doing a huge amount of projecting there.

"Stop them from trying to give their children a better life with more prospects. How dare they do what we did or what my parents did. The bastards! The sheer nerve! "

I mean this stuff, you're literally making it up. There are arguments for immigration and there are arguments against immigration, but what you've described is some sort of pantomime caricature of someone who doesn't exist. If that was actually their argument, I'd agree with you, but it isn't.

I mean, you're free to pretend that's not the unspoken element when people argue we should limit immigration, it's just easier to pretend that side doesn't exist whenever immigration is talked about in the abstract.

No one will ever be truly honest about what limiting immigration means for those who want to come here, so of course when someone goes beyond the empty rhetoric to look at what it actually means, it comes across as outlandish or ridiculous.

 

[CyclopsRock]

I mean, you're free to pretend that's not the unspoken element when people argue we should limit immigration, it's just easier to pretend that side doesn't exist whenever immigration is talked about in the abstract.

No one will ever be truly honest about what limiting immigration means for those who want to come here, so of course when someone goes beyond the empty rhetoric to look at what it actually means, it comes across as outlandish or ridiculous.

Well, it's certainly true that it's easier to conduct character assasinations when you don't actually have to worry about what people have said, when you just know what they realllllly think.

And yeah, if you take the position that everyone who opposes immigration is specifically doing it to spite people, I can see why you'd think an immigrant's children would be hypocritical. Kind of. Even then it's just shitty rather than hypocritical, because again, you can't be hypocritical with regards to decisions you didn't make. Hypocrisy is when you say one thing and do another, but this guy didn't actually do anything.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So it's probably going to be another Conservative led coalition? If the Conservatives maintain a few more seats than Labour they will get the first chance to form a government. And Lib Dems are probably the only party capable and willing to form a coalition with the tories.

That's not how it works. The sitting Prime Minister always has the first turn when it comes to forming a government. Even the Conservatives won 0 seats, David Cameron could submit a government to the Queen. Which individual party has the most seats doesn't directly matter, it's which combination of parties who agree on not voting down a particular government get the most seats.

 

[CyclopsRock]

That's not how it works. The sitting Prime Minister always has the first turn when it comes to forming a government. Even the Conservatives won 0 seats, David Cameron could submit a government to the Queen. Which individual party has the most seats doesn't directly matter, it's which combination of parties who agree on not voting down a particular government get the most seats.

Zero seats, eh? Is it constitutionally (lol) possible for someone not sitting in either house to become the PM? I mean, let's say ... I dunno, Rupert Murdoch controlled a majority in parliament by threatening to leak their dick pics to the public, could he technically become the prime minister without first being elevated to the Lords?

 

[Best]

As an economist this general election is so frustrating. The amount of economic misunderstanding and just plain bullshit is astounding. In a competition of macro competence between the last labour government and this tory government, the labour government wins by an absolute landslide.

I was pretty happy to vote labour until their pledge not to fund policies by borrowing more money.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Zero seats, eh? Is it constitutionally (lol) possible for someone not sitting in either house to become the PM? I mean, let's say ... I dunno, Rupert Murdoch controlled a majority in parliament by threatening to leak their dick pics to the public, could he technically become the prime minister without first being elevated to the Lords?

It's unclear. All of these things are largely determined on the basis of precedent, and there's no precedent for a Prime Minister not from either House. That said, there's nothing explicitly forbidding it, either. Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, so I think that if the legislature could be persuaded to vote for it, it could indeed be done.

 

[Ding-Ding]

As an economist this general election is so frustrating. The amount of economic misunderstanding and just plain bullshit is astounding. In a competition of macro competence between the last labour government and this tory government, the labour government wins by an absolute landslide.

I was pretty happy to vote labour until their pledge not to fund policies by borrowing more money.

So let me get this straight, you are an economist thats wants more borrowing? (guessing you believe in Keynesian economics)

Even though there is an elephant in the room. That elephant being that at some point before the 2020 general election, we will be at great risk of another recession, because we will have come to the end of current economic cycle.

 

[CyclopsRock]

It's unclear. All of these things are largely determined on the basis of precedent, and there's no precedent for a Prime Minister not from either House. That said, there's nothing explicitly forbidding it, either. Parliamentary sovereignty is absolute, so I think that if the legislature could be persuaded to vote for it, it could indeed be done.

Let's do it. I want someone with the power to declare war not in an elected position.

 

[PJV3]

That's not how it works. The sitting Prime Minister always has the first turn when it comes to forming a government. Even the Conservatives won 0 seats, David Cameron could submit a government to the Queen. Which individual party has the most seats doesn't directly matter, it's which combination of parties who agree on not voting down a particular government get the most seats.

Cameron and Clegg sort of ended that tradition last election.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Let's do it. I want someone with the power to declare war not in an elected position.

Nah, it would be more fun if after the GE, no matter who got in (even if they did get a majority) she decided to withhold Royal Assent for the next 5 years.

Just because it would be a laugh

 

[Best]

So let me get this straight, you are an economist thats wants more borrowing? (guessing you believe in Keynesian economics)

Even though there is an elephant in the room. That elephant being that at some point before the 2020 general election, we will be at great risk of another recession, because we will have come to the end of current economic cycle.

Even if he we hit another recession in 2020, just borrow more. We have our own central bank in case we get a worst case scenario.

 

[pulsemyne]

https://twitter.com/TheMurdochTimes/status/588708618523947008

LOL you really have to hand it to the Sun, they are really fucking low!

 

[CyclopsRock]

https://twitter.com/TheMurdochTimes/status/588708618523947008

LOL you really have to hand it to the Sun, they are really fucking low!

The Managing Editor of The Sun has come out and said it's not true, for what it's worth.

Edit:

Stig Abell ‏@StigAbell 3h3 hours ago

Private Eye is a wonderful organ, but this (insofar as it relates to the Sun) is total balls.

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/588715905032593408

 

[Rodhull]

Cameron and Clegg sort of ended that tradition last election.

Didn't Labour negotiate with the Lib Dems before they went to the Tories? I thought the Lib Dems made some demands that Labour wouldn't be willing to meet and so Labour pulled out of negotiations. Obviously Labour wouldn't put forward themselves as a Government if they knew the opposition would likely form a majority.

 

[Ding-Ding]

Even if he we hit another recession in 2020, just borrow more. We have our own central bank in case we get a worst case scenario.

Ed Balls with the Bank of England acting as a piggy bank.

God I wish I was rich with a private jet to escape that scenario

Didn't Labour negotiate with the Lib Dems before they went to the Tories? I thought the Lib Dems made some demands that Labour wouldn't be willing to meet and so Labour pulled out of negotiations. Obviously Labour wouldn't put forward themselves as a Government if they knew the opposition would likely form a majority.

If anything, I think the Lib Dems would have probably said 'no way' to Brown remaing as PM

 

[industrian]

Didn't Labour negotiate with the Lib Dems before they went to the Tories? I thought the Lib Dems made some demands that Labour wouldn't be willing to meet and so Labour pulled out of negotiations. Obviously Labour wouldn't put forward themselves as a Government if they knew the opposition would likely form a majority.

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have got mauled by the media, as our voting system would essentially mean that it was "two losers winning".

Even if it succeeded I would have given it a year at most before it broke down, another election called, and delivering an absolute Tory majority.

 

[phisheep]

As an economist this general election is so frustrating. The amount of economic misunderstanding and just plain bullshit is astounding. In a competition of macro competence between the last labour government and this tory government, the labour government wins by an absolute landslide.

Of course, if we were governed by professional economists then everything would be blindingly clear and obvious to everyone - the course would be set with no dissent or disagreement, the future assured and political parties irrelevant appendages to our true all-seeing economic masters.

The hell it would.

Same as if we were governed by the police we'd all be locked up all night "for our own safety".

 

[mclem]

A Labour/Lib Dem coalition would have got mauled by the media, as our voting system would essentially mean that it was "two losers winning".

Did no-one listen to Nick Berry?

 

[Ding-Ding]

Did no-one listen to Nick Berry?

Thanks alot. Suddenly I feel very old

 

[pulsemyne]

The Managing Editor of The Sun has come out and said it's not true, for what it's worth.

Edit:

Stig Abell ‏@StigAbell 3h3 hours ago

Private Eye is a wonderful organ, but this (insofar as it relates to the Sun) is total balls.

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/588715905032593408

Hmm who to believe...I think I'd believe Private eye.

 

[Best]

Of course, if we were governed by professional economists then everything would be blindingly clear and obvious to everyone - the course would be set with no dissent or disagreement, the future assured and political parties irrelevant appendages to our true all-seeing economic masters.

The hell it would.

Same as if we were governed by the police we'd all be locked up all night "for our own safety".

If professional economists took over in 2010 everyone in this thread would be a lot better off. I think some things are just plain black and white. Austerity whilst at the zero lower bound in a recession. Concerns over the deficit. All wrong.

Where debate is fair game is with issues about fairness. At what point should inheritance tax kick in etc.

 

[JonathanEx]

The Managing Editor of The Sun has come out and said it's not true, for what it's worth.

Edit:

Stig Abell ‏@StigAbell 3h3 hours ago

Private Eye is a wonderful organ, but this (insofar as it relates to the Sun) is total balls.

https://twitter.com/StigAbell/status/588715905032593408

I'd guess they knew what line they were going to take from the off, just hadn't actually made the front page or written up the story.

 

[Ding-Ding]

If professional economists took over in 2010 everyone in this thread would be a lot better off. I think some things are just plain black and white. Austerity whilst at the zero lower bound in a recession. Concerns over the deficit. All wrong.

Where debate is fair game is with issues about fairness. At what point should inheritance tax kick in etc.

As someone who works in the civil service, I can tell you that you cant swing a cat without hitting an economist. However, economist do have different views from each other and the differences between their workings are often far apart. The team of economists that I have to go to, fight like cats and dogs

So such a general statement of turn everything over to economists, simply will not work (further highlighted that they are so buried in figures, common sense is often missed)

 

[tomtom94]

Didn't Labour negotiate with the Lib Dems before they went to the Tories? I thought the Lib Dems made some demands that Labour wouldn't be willing to meet and so Labour pulled out of negotiations. Obviously Labour wouldn't put forward themselves as a Government if they knew the opposition would likely form a majority.

A Labour-Lib Dem-Green-SNP-Plaid etc coalition would have been such a tenuous majority as to essentially render it impossible to get any meaningful legislation through parliament, let alone survive a vote of no confidence.

 

[kmag]

This is going to be an absolute car crash. The question is do they all gang up on Ed or do the 4 'lefties' just give Nige a kicking.

 

[Juicy Bob]

....where the fuck is our Prime Minister?

 

[offshore]

Who insists on these cringeworthy opening/closing pitches?

They're awkward as hell.

 

[RiggyRob]

....where the fuck is our Prime Minister?

Miliband couldn't make a point of it quick enough.

 

[kmag]

Miliband couldn't make a point of it quick enough.

He's at a function tonight telling the audience he's not at the debate because he's not been invited.

 

[Saiyar]

This is going to be an absolute car crash. The question is do they all gang up on Ed or do the 4 'lefties' just give Nige a kicking.

It would make more sense for all of them to gang up on Dave & Nick since they aren't there to offer any retort.

 

[kmag]

It would make more sense for all of them to gang up on Dave & Nick since they aren't there to offer any retort.

I imagine they'll start that way but the format means it'll descend into a squabble. Ed and Nige are the obvious targets. My money is on Nige saying something which pisses the other 4 off so much they turn on him.

 

[MrS]

I imagine they'll start that way but the format means it'll descend into a squabble. Ed and Nige are the obvious targets. My money is on Nige saying something which pisses the other 4 off so much they turn on him.

Green party should be easy meat as their policies are as pie in the sky as UKIPs

 

[schlongdog]

No one watching?

 

[kmag]

That Farage quip fell flat there. Absolute silence.

 

[RedShift]

Poor Nige looks like someone who's at a party where he doesn't know anyone.

 

[kmag]

They're ganging up on Ed.

 

[UtterlyPerplexed]

I'm starting to forget that Nigel is actually there.

 

[Juicy Bob]

Everyone's basically saying 'Tories are shit. Please, Ed, don't be Tory-lite if you get in.'

 

[kmag]

This is kmag's liver. Kmag stupidly decided to take a shot every time Ed said 'Change'. I'm barely holding on here...

 

[UtterlyPerplexed]

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Cameron and Clegg sort of ended that tradition last election.

Not really. Brown could have submitted a proposal to the Queen, he just chose not to because he knew it would have been defeated.

 

[kmag]

Ed murdering the answer on housing.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

This whole debate is totally pointless. None of them can figure out whether they're supposed to attacking the Conservatives or each other. Farage couldn't be more out of place if you sent him to the Night Watch.