General Election, June 8th

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If a nuke is headed our way and there is at least one nation who will respond (and there will be), then our population is pretty much screwed whether our leader chooses to "defend" them or they don't.

 

There is no such thing as a limited nuclear war when two or more nations with opposing aims have them. The deterrent argument makes very little difference. 

So we rely on others? What if their government decides the same approach and only rogue unstable nations are left with nuclear warheads? Or what if other nations are looking at us for that protection right now?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

 

Labour want to increase it by 2.50. That's about 20 quid a day per employee.

 

Is it more profitable to save 20 quid or have an employee serving customers, making goods?

 

Any hit a company does have would be reintroduced into the economy by increased spending - something that's currently declining.

 

The economy needs a boost to stop the expected long-term decline in consumer spending. A rise in National Minimum wage could be just that.

Says somebody who doesn't employ anyone. £20 a day, 5 day week? That's only an extra £100 per employee per week. Easy, everyone knows small business owners have millions in the bank.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

 

Labour want to increase it by 2.50. That's about 20 quid a day per employee.

 

Is it more profitable to save 20 quid or have an employee serving customers, making goods?

 

Any hit a company does have would be reintroduced into the economy by increased spending - something that's currently declining.

 

The economy needs a boost to stop the expected long-term decline in consumer spending. A rise in National Minimum wage could be just that.

All your points are fair cop.  Would you also like to consider the cost for the entrepreneurs who risk much for their chosen venture and that £20 a day could be the difference (x per employee) from making enough to be worth wile and not bothering in the first place. Just balancing the thoughts...

[Foxxed]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

How much of this extra income will be spent on the internet on foreign made tat?The effect on the economy won't be that great.

My friend works in mobile games. He'll be happy with the increase in spending. Foreign made tat like Adidas trainers? Trainers are sold to you by in-store staff, which are delivered by lorry drivers, who are employed by logistics companies? Trainers which were advertised to you by people employed in advertising agencies. Trainers which you browsed online which were created by web developers?

 

I reckon the effect on the economy would fairly decent.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Any all those who choose a different path in life should pay for it..yes?

They do pay for it, through higher earnings. I see that policy as a speculate to accumulate. The country benefits from having educated people....yes?

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

My friend works in mobile games. He'll be happy with the increase in spending. Foreign made tat like Adidas trainers? Trainers are sold to you by in-store staff, which are delivered by lorry drivers, who are employed by logistics companies? Trainers which were advertised to you by people employed in advertising agencies. Trainers which you browsed online which were created by web developers?

 

I reckon the effect on the economy would fairly decent.

And all those people involved have just had a 25% pay rise. How much extra will those trainers cost?

[Webbo]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

My friend works in mobile games. He'll be happy with the increase in spending. Foreign made tat like Adidas trainers? Trainers are sold to you by in-store staff, which are delivered by lorry drivers, who are employed by logistics companies? Trainers which were advertised to you by people employed in advertising agencies. Trainers which you browsed online which were created by web developers?

 

I reckon the effect on the economy would fairly decent.

Not if they're bought off the internet, which would be more likely as the shop would have to increase prices to pay for the increase in costs.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

2 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They do pay for it, through higher earnings. I see that policy as a speculate to accumulate. The country benefits from having educated people....yes?

But I ask again, those that don't go into higher education get nothing....they just have to work in whatever job they find/choose and they will indirectly be paying towards the extra tax burden all free higher education costs. They should pay for this yes?

[leicsmac]

14 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

My point is simple.  By saying you will fire is the best form of defense. Would you prefer us not to have that defense?  I would hazard a guess you would be in a small minority feeling so.

 

 

I'm saying that the minimum nuclear deterrence factor, viz. two nations (three tops) with opposing aims and enough total nukes in their arsenal to cause worldwide problems is enough to maintain a global peace, without other nations having them.

 

I'm also saying that in the event that we are attacked by a nation holding nuclear weapons, our response is irrelevant as it will be either the first or one of the moves leading directly to global catastrophe.

 

14 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

It's working between India and Pakistan, 3 wars before nuclear arms, zero after

I'm reasonably sure that if either India or Pakistan began shooting nukes off, either everyone would or everyone would still feel the effects.

 

In any case, the idea above still applies worldwide so it applies to them too and the current stability between them is a good regional (rather than global) example of my point. Who, exactly, has a direct beef with us and no other nation and has nukes ready - now or in the near future?

 

12 minutes ago, Strokes said:

So we rely on others? What if their government decides the same approach and only rogue unstable nations are left with nuclear warheads? Or what if other nations are looking at us for that protection right now?

 

 

Yes, that is exactly what we do. We rely on the self interest of a couple (or three) of the nations with the biggest arsenals (who of course will never fully disarm, so it will never just be "rogue nations" with them) to make sure nuclear war doesn't happen. That is all that is needed.

 

The protection we may or may not offer other nations will still stand in that case.

[Strokes]

Just now, Dirkster the Fox said:

But I ask again, those that don't go into higher education get nothing....they just have to work in whatever job they find/choose and they will indirectly be paying towards the extra tax burden all free higher education costs. They should pay for this yes?

They don't have too, if they have a choice. Society is enriched by education, the country will be more enticing to business with an educated workforce. The current system stifles progress. We would all benefit from it, some directly some indirectly.

[Jon the Hat]

4 minutes ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

But I ask again, those that don't go into higher education get nothing....they just have to work in whatever job they find/choose and they will indirectly be paying towards the extra tax burden all free higher education costs. They should pay for this yes?

Yes.  We all benefit from a better educated workforce.  Shit degrees should be culled though.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 Yes, that is exactly what we do. We rely on the self interest of a couple (or three) of the nations with the biggest arsenals (who of course will never fully disarm, so it will never just be "rogue nations" with them) to make sure nuclear war doesn't happen. That is all that is needed.

 

The protection we may or may not offer other nations will still stand in that case.

Which 3 countries are you going to ask for protection from?  Do we pay them for that protection? Mates rates or even a freebie?

 

Trump? 

Russia?

??

 

Really.......are you for real?

[Dr The Singh]

Just now, leicsmac said:

I'm saying that the minimum nuclear deterrence factor, viz. two nations (three tops) with opposing aims and enough total nukes in their arsenal to cause worldwide problems is enough to maintain a global peace, without other nations having them.

 

I'm also saying that in the event that we are attacked by a nation holding nuclear weapons, our response is irrelevant as it will be either the first or one of the moves leading directly to global catastrophe.

 

I'm reasonably sure that if either India or Pakistan began shooting nukes off, either everyone would or everyone would still feel the effects.

 

In any case, the idea above still applies worldwide so it applies to them too.

 

Yes, that is exactly what we do. We rely on the self interest of a couple (or three) of the nations with the biggest arsenals (who of course will never fully disarm, so it will never just be "rogue nations" with them) to make sure nuclear war doesn't happen. That is all that is needed.

 

The protection we may or may not offer other nations will still stand in that case.

It's one of those things which has Corbyn stuck, the reason why India or Pakistan haven't had a war, is because of there nuclear deterant, more so is both sides know they each have strong leadership that would not hesitate to use them for the right reasons.  China, Russia, US all show the relative respect because of strong leadership.......Corbyn does not come accross as a strong leader.

[Strokes]

2 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm saying that the minimum nuclear deterrence factor, viz. two nations (three tops) with opposing aims and enough total nukes in their arsenal to cause worldwide problems is enough to maintain a global peace, without other nations having them.

 

I'm also saying that in the event that we are attacked by a nation holding nuclear weapons, our response is irrelevant as it will be either the first or one of the moves leading directly to global catastrophe.

 

I'm reasonably sure that if either India or Pakistan began shooting nukes off, either everyone would or everyone would still feel the effects.

 

In any case, the idea above still applies worldwide so it applies to them too.

 

Yes, that is exactly what we do. We rely on the self interest of a couple (or three) of the nations with the biggest arsenals (who of course will never fully disarm, so it will never just be "rogue nations" with them) to make sure nuclear war doesn't happen. That is all that is needed.

 

The protection we may or may not offer other nations will still stand in that case.

I respectfully disagree, I think disarming is an unnecessary risk. We could lose influence and the ability to pick and choose our allies.

[Foxxed]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

All your points are fair cop.  Would you also like to consider the cost for the entrepreneurs who risk much for their chosen venture and that £20 a day could be the difference (x per employee) from making enough to be worth wile and not bothering in the first place. Just balancing the thoughts...

 

It completely depends on the make-up of our economy I think. No one working in a bar, no one working in retail, no one working a call centre is going to get fired for £20 a day.

 

I don't know the entire entrepreneurial make-up. But my experience of start-ups the tech people get paid much more than national minimum wage due to financial backing.

 

I'm not sure about sales or marketing though. A while back a company I worked with employed four sales staff to ring people up.

 

I suspect they were on national minimum wage. So we're talking about 60 quid a day. 300 quid a week. That's not even an extra person a week.

 

If you can change the situation to work out a person less would have been employed then it's a fair argument against it.

 

It's possible it could be a bad idea but we'd need proof the profits are so low and funding is so poor that it pushes the risks far too high.

 

But if all it does is cut into profits and increases our declining consumer spending I think it may be a benefit for the economy.

[Dr The Singh]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I'm saying that the minimum nuclear deterrence factor, viz. two nations (three tops) with opposing aims and enough total nukes in their arsenal to cause worldwide problems is enough to maintain a global peace, without other nations having them.

 

I'm also saying that in the event that we are attacked by a nation holding nuclear weapons, our response is irrelevant as it will be either the first or one of the moves leading directly to global catastrophe.

 

I'm reasonably sure that if either India or Pakistan began shooting nukes off, either everyone would or everyone would still feel the effects.

 

In any case, the idea above still applies worldwide so it applies to them too.

 

Yes, that is exactly what we do. We rely on the self interest of a couple (or three) of the nations with the biggest arsenals (who of course will never fully disarm, so it will never just be "rogue nations" with them) to make sure nuclear war doesn't happen. That is all that is needed.

 

The protection we may or may not offer other nations will still stand in that case.

Relying on other nations is very risky, Infact it would leave us less influential In the world.

[Foxxed]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Not if they're bought off the internet, which would be more likely as the shop would have to increase prices to pay for the increase in costs.

Mine weren't Also, website need web developers, they need web designers, they need testers, they need server people, they need translators, they need marketers, they need data analytics, they need legal help to conform to national laws. The economy is amazing webbo.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

Which 3 countries are you going to ask for protection from?  Do we pay them for that protection? Mates rates or even a freebie?

 

Trump? 

Russia?

??

 

Really.......are you for real?

 

You wouldn't ask for protection from any of them. You would be operating on the premise that one nuclear attack anywhere in the world from one of them would result in inevitable and catastrophic escalation from both parties. What the UK does or does not by itself in that situation doesn't come into it.

 

Just now, Dr The Singh said:

It's one of those things which has Corbyn stuck, the reason why India or Pakistan haven't had a war, is because of there nuclear deterant, more so is both sides know they each have strong leadership that would not hesitate to use them for the right reasons.  China, Russia, US all show the relative respect because of strong leadership.......Corbyn does not come accross as a strong leader.

 

Right. Again, a good local example of the "two nations" theory working. But the UK has, nor is it likely to have in the near future, a direct opponent in that way.

 

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

I respectfully disagree, I think disarming is an unnecessary risk. We could lose influence and the ability to pick and choose our allies.

Fair enough. I think one of the few reasons to keep them is the international influence they bring, but that is outweighed by the other factors...but so it goes.

[Foxxed]

2 minutes ago, Dr The Singh said:

Relying on other nations is very risky, Infact it would leave us less influential In the world.

NATO. Also Trident relies on the US every four months for maintenance.

[Guest Dirkster the Fox]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

They don't have too, if they have a choice. Society is enriched by education, the country will be more enticing to business with an educated workforce. The current system stifles progress. We would all benefit from it, some directly some indirectly.

So you thing all those that decide to go into work at 16/18 its tough and they should be happy to pay for those in higher education until 21/23?

 

My view is you need to balance the needs of the nation for education, with the general population.  Expecting those who aren't clever enough or unwilling to go to university to pay for those that do (fully) is morally wrong.  The state has to consider the needs of all.  Simply to pay for everyone in higher education with a blank cheque is not only too expensive, but biased against all those choosing alternative futures.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

 

It completely depends on the make-up of our economy I think. No one working in a bar, no one working in retail, no one working a call centre is going to get fired for £20 a day.

 

I don't know the entire entrepreneurial make-up. But my experience of start-ups the tech people get paid much more than national minimum wage due to financial backing.

 

I'm not sure about sales or marketing though. A while back a company I worked with employed four sales staff to ring people up.

 

I suspect they were on national minimum wage. So we're talking about 60 quid a day. 300 quid a week. That's not even an extra person a week.

 

If you can change the situation to work out a person less would have been employed then it's a fair argument against it.

 

It's possible it could be a bad idea but we'd need proof the profits are so low and funding is so poor that it pushes the risks far too high.

 

But if all it does is cut into profits and increases our declining consumer spending I think it may be a benefit for the economy.

What do you think happens to people on £10 per hour currently when the minimum wage shoots up 25%? Do you think they will be happy on £10 still?

[Dr The Singh]

1 minute ago, Foxxed said:

NATO.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Dirkster the Fox said:

So you thing all those that decide to go into work at 16/18 its tough and they should be happy to pay for those in higher education until 21/23?

 

My view is you need to balance the needs of the nation for education, with the general population.  Expecting those who aren't clever enough or unwilling to go to university to pay for those that do (fully) is morally wrong.  The state has to consider the needs of all.  Simply to pay for everyone in higher education with a blank cheque is not only too expensive, but biased against all those choosing alternative futures.

Yeah I do, as I said I think they will benefit from it themselves, even if it's indirect. 

[Dr The Singh]

9 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

Yes.  We all benefit from a better educated workforce.  Shit degrees should be culled though.

That's Coventry and Derby University screwed then

[Webbo]

3 minutes ago, Foxxed said:

Mine weren't Also, website need web developers, they need web designers, they need testers, they need server people, they need translators, they need marketers, they need data analytics, they need legal help to conform to national laws. The economy is amazing webbo.

A central warehouse needs as many people as a chain of shops?