Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

It isn't very impressive. That doesn't mean I need to believe outright lies about incomes falling. In the end, some might be, but to generalise INCOMES FALLING! COUNTRY DOOMED! CAN'T FEED OUR CHILDREN! is nonsense of the highest order. My wages haven't fallen, I'm better off than I've ever been, even with self inflicted inflation, you keep trying to get me to side with you that things aren't impressive? It depends where you're looking, at the minute, I'm on the highest income I've ever been on, coupled with the highest sense of job security I've ever had since we literally have back orders for the next 2 years. I couldn't care less whether the bottom 5% are earning 2% more, 50% more or 50% less. It doesn't affect me one bit, and certainly won't affect the way my vote goes. 

And that, my friend, is why you vote Tory.

Edited 21 October 2017 by Guest

[Buce]

58 minutes ago, toddybad said:

And that, my friend, is why you vote Tory.

 

And the difference between Left and Right.

 

 

[Strokes]

Its funny how you claim to care about the poor but when the poor vote for brexit, you call them thick racists. 

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Strokes said:

Its funny how you claim to care about the poor but when the poor vote for brexit, you call them thick racists. 

 

Perhaps they wouldn't be if they had more fulfilling lives, and access to better education and life-chances.

[Guest]

5 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Its funny how you claim to care about the poor but when the poor vote for brexit, you call them thick racists. 

I haven't called anybody thick racists. I think Brexit happened because the poor have seen their quality of life become RELATIVELY worse and the public services to support them decimated. Invariably you they look at who should be blamed and most of the papers are right wing and have been feeding readers negativity about the EU and immigration for years. 

[Webbo]

16 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Its funny how you claim to care about the poor but when the poor vote for brexit, you call them thick racists. 

The difference between right and left.

[Alf Bentley]

21 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The difference between right and left.

 

The difference between Right and Left?

 

The Left believe that capital exists to serve humanity and society.

The Right believe that humanity and society exist to serve capital.

[Sampson]

If we're straw-manning...

 

The difference between the Right and Left?

 

The Left believe that humans are innately evil and the State should have to force them to make the decisions they want to make because they're not smart or well intentioned enough to do it themselves.

 

The Right believe humans are innately good and the millions of individual decisions billions of different people make every day should drive human progress and each individual should have the liberty to make their own decisions.

Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson

[Strokes]

54 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Perhaps they wouldn't be if they had more fulfilling lives, and access to better education and life-chances.

Perhaps they are the ones best placed to decide what is causing their oppression. 

[leicsmac]

15 minutes ago, Sampson said:

If we're straw-manning...

 

The difference between the Right and Left?

 

The Left believe that humans are innately evil and the State should have to force them to make the decisions they want to make because they're not smart or well intentioned enough to do it themselves.

 

The Right believe humans are innately good and the millions of individual decisions billions of different people make every day should drive human progress and each individual should have the liberty to make their own decisions.

OK, lemme try...

 

The Right believes that humans should be free to engage in competition in every arena, viz. the evolutionary principle, as it is "human nature" and is the best driver of progress (which it often is). As such, decisions that extend beyond the end of ones lifetime (or a tiny bit longer, if we're counting descendants) don't really matter. This decision pattern, as well-intentioned and well-repeated through the animal kingdom as it is, has been shown throughout the history of the Earth to end only one way.

 

The Right believes in the freedom to choose inevitable extinction.

 

The Left believes that though humans are capable of great things, as a species we have the flaw noted above and so we must strive to overcome it, by coming to decisions through consensus and cooperation, rather than competition between tribes, counties, nation-states and the like. They believe in the individual but also something bigger than one life and what is done before it ends.

 

Fun, isn't it? 

 

14 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Perhaps they are the ones best placed to decide what is causing their oppression. 

Only if you believe that every human is sovereign and aren't open to influence from any source.

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

 

Only if you believe that every human is sovereign and aren't open to influence from any source.

Not at all but to believe that you are better placed to make that call on someone elses behalf because you are better educated, is at best patronising and at worst.....

And as is my point, its hardly in keeping with the comments above.

[Sampson]

17 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

OK, lemme try...

 

The Right believes that humans should be free to engage in competition in every arena, viz. the evolutionary principle, as it is "human nature" and is the best driver of progress (which it often is). As such, decisions that extend beyond the end of ones lifetime (or a tiny bit longer, if we're counting descendants) don't really matter. This decision pattern, as well-intentioned and well-repeated through the animal kingdom as it is, has been shown throughout the history of the Earth to end only one way.

 

The Right believes in the freedom to choose inevitable extinction.

 

The Left believes that though humans are capable of great things, as a species we have the flaw noted above and so we must strive to overcome it, by coming to decisions through consensus and cooperation, rather than competition between tribes, counties, nation-states and the like. They believe in the individual but also something bigger than one life and what is done before it ends.

 

Fun, isn't it? 

 

Only if you believe that every human is sovereign and aren't open to influence from any source.

Nothing to do with human nature and the evolutionary principle - it's because it brings people out of poverty and accepts that we shouldn't try to force billions of very different people with very different goals to all think and follow the same thing and allows the freedom of people to make their own individual decisions to match their own individual goals in life and has made the Western world far more peaceful. Conflict happens when people are impoverished and can't eat not because of business competition.

 

"Coming to decisions by consensus and cooperation" is a good euphemism for the State to force people to live a particular way and to have particular goals which are decided by the State and to lose their individualism rather than people taking responsibility of their own individual decisions.

Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Sampson said:

Nothing to do with human nature and the evolutionary principle - it's because it brings people out of poverty and accepts that we shouldn't try to force billions of very different people with very different goals to all think and follow the same thing and allows the freedom of people to make their own individual decisions to match their own individual goals in life and has made the Western world far more peaceful. Conflict happens when people are impoverished and can't eat not because of business competition.

 

"Coming to decisions by consensus and cooperation" is a good euphemism for the State to force people to live a particular way and to have particular goals which are decided by the State and to lose their individualism rather than people taking responsibility of their own individual decisions.

 

I thought that the benefits of unfettered competition in free markets were closely connected to the evolutionary principle? Free individuals/firms compete against one another on a level playing-field, the most successful gain more customers and/or make more profits, benefiting society through investment, growth, employment etc. Meanwhile, the firms that are unsuccessful in evolutionary competition die out. There's a lot to be said for that idea if something approaching free competition and a level playing-field exists. It's not so successful in some economic sectors under advanced capitalism, though, as massive corporations are able to use their muscle in various ways to ensure that they remain dominant as monopolies, quasi-monopolies or cartels, while smaller firms, which might be more beneficial to society in the long-run, find no free market or level playing field in which to compete.

 

So WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Balkans and Iraq were all conflicts caused by poverty and hunger, were they?  No sense that the protection/promotion of national interests, including economic interests (in turn including business interests) played any part?

 

Your final sentence could certainly apply to the more extreme cases of state dominance: e.g. life in China under the Chinese Communist Party. But there's a long sliding scale, surely, with democratic left-wing governments not crushing individualism in the way you suggest, even if they intervene more than you would like. I grew up in the 70s, before Thatcher cut back the role of the state. Not everything was perfect, just as not everything is perfect now. But I certainly didn't feel that Harold Wilson was forcing me to live in a particular way, to have particular goals or to lose my individualism. The only forces doing that were the reactionary bunch who ran my secondary school and few elements of civil society who had socially conservative expectations. At the other end of the sliding scale, surely only a tiny minority of the Right want the state removed from every part of our lives: e.g. no state education, no NHS, no police service, no state-run army, instead handing education, health, justice and defence over to free-market competition? Most on the Right want less state intervention than most on the Left, but most on the Right want some state intervention - and most on the Left want a lot of individual freedom and are happy with a lot of competition so long as it is fair competition and society and individuals are not harmed by unscrupulous or over-powerful businesses. 

[Sampson]

1 hour ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I thought that the benefits of unfettered competition in free markets were closely connected to the evolutionary principle? Free individuals/firms compete against one another on a level playing-field, the most successful gain more customers and/or make more profits, benefiting society through investment, growth, employment etc. Meanwhile, the firms that are unsuccessful in evolutionary competition die out. There's a lot to be said for that idea if something approaching free competition and a level playing-field exists. It's not so successful in some economic sectors under advanced capitalism, though, as massive corporations are able to use their muscle in various ways to ensure that they remain dominant as monopolies, quasi-monopolies or cartels, while smaller firms, which might be more beneficial to society in the long-run, find no free market or level playing field in which to compete.

 

So WW1, WW2, Vietnam, the Balkans and Iraq were all conflicts caused by poverty and hunger, were they?  No sense that the protection/promotion of national interests, including economic interests (in turn including business interests) played any part?

 

Your final sentence could certainly apply to the more extreme cases of state dominance: e.g. life in China under the Chinese Communist Party. But there's a long sliding scale, surely, with democratic left-wing governments not crushing individualism in the way you suggest, even if they intervene more than you would like. I grew up in the 70s, before Thatcher cut back the role of the state. Not everything was perfect, just as not everything is perfect now. But I certainly didn't feel that Harold Wilson was forcing me to live in a particular way, to have particular goals or to lose my individualism. The only forces doing that were the reactionary bunch who ran my secondary school and few elements of civil society who had socially conservative expectations. At the other end of the sliding scale, surely only a tiny minority of the Right want the state removed from every part of our lives: e.g. no state education, no NHS, no police service, no state-run army, instead handing education, health, justice and defence over to free-market competition? Most on the Right want less state intervention than most on the Left, but most on the Right want some state intervention - and most on the Left want a lot of individual freedom and are happy with a lot of competition so long as it is fair competition and society and individuals are not harmed by unscrupulous or over-powerful businesses. 

Which is exactly why we have anti-monopoly and anti-cartel laws. If they're not being properly enforced that's a problem of a lack of enforcement for some of the relegation we actually need in free markets. 

 

Of course I believe I state intervention to an extent and a reasonable welfare state, the NHS, education, police force, military, emergency services and roads - almost everyone Right of Centre believes in that (though we might disagree on the extent of the Welfare State or the NHS) and of course I don't believe the Left all believe in the full Socialist state. We were doing cartoonist parodies of both sides  (or at least I hope we were).

 

But take an example like free tuition fees which is one that the Left of Centre and Right of Centre do disagree on in this country. It's a policy which ultimately favours the individual choices of one person over another - if someone chose to go to university then great, that's a grown-up responsible decision weighing up the pros and cons a person can make for their particular goals in their particular life knowing at a university education costs a hell of a lot of money to maintain buildings, offer extra academic resources, hiring staff, buying resources etc. etc. And you can take a very fair loan with a very low interest rate which you only pay back at a certain wage level, gets wiped after a certain time period so most people don't pay it off and doesn't affect you're credit score - even though it's called a loan, it works for all intents and purposes as a graduate tax payed by the individual who made the individual responsible decision to attend. Or you allow that person to go to university on the burden of the tax payer and millions of people who decide that university is not for them and not for their goals which they wish to achieve in life and want to go into work at 18 and to the job market have to pay for the other people's higher education because the State considered one's choice more worthy than the other rather than leaving the responsible choice to that particular individual based on their own particular goals in life. And we're already at a point where university education only pays for itself if you attend a red brick university, most people who don't, don't reap the benefit of the cost of attending university as degrees are becoming less and less valued in the workplace as more and more people are attending - it's a case where the State does not allow the indivudal to make their own decision based on their own circumstances despite knowing the responsibility which comes with either decision beforehand and instead allows one side to burden less of their own personal responsibility for their own choice.

 

In terms of what set them off, WWII was absolutely caused because of the poverty and starvation of the Weimar Republic, WWI was caused by an uprising against the subjugation of Slavic people by the overbearing emperor of Austria-Hungary, Balkans was a bizarre race war by a totalitarian State and Iraq and Vietnam were reactions to muderous overly powerful states. Of course there are exceptions to the rule - My point was though, people violently rise up when they are hungry and impoverished - and free-trade and open markets between nations has greatly increased peace between those nations and within those nations - and weak States, free markets and free trade doesn't lead to war at all, in fact quite the opposite. It's strong State-planned Economies who deal in Protectionism to try and avoid competition to create a government monopoly who are the ones who lead to uprisings and make wars a hell of a lot more than ones which promote competitive markets and free trade. 

Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson

[bovril]

17 minutes ago, Sampson said:

In terms of what set them off, WWII was absolutely caused because of the poverty and starvation of the Weimar Republic, WWI was caused by an uprising against the subjugation of Slavic people by the overbearing emperor of Austria-Hungary, Balkans was a bizarre race war by a totalitarian State and Iraq and Vietnam were reactions to muderous overly powerful states. Of course there are exceptions to the rule - My point was though, people violently rise up when they are hungry and impoverished - and free-trade and open markets between nations has greatly increased peace between those nations and within those nations - and weak States, free markets and free trade doesn't lead to war at all, in fact quite the opposite. It's strong State-planned Economies who deal in Protectionism to try and avoid competition to create a government monopoly who are the ones who lead to uprisings and make wars a hell of a lot more than ones which promote competitive markets and free trade. 

The wars in Yugoslavia which I assume you're talking about (I always think 'Balkan Wars' is misleading and should refer to pre-WW1 conflicts) were caused as much by the turbulent state of the Yugoslav economy in the late 1980s, made worse by the collapse of the Soviet Union. This led to a rise in nationalist sentiment as former communists reinvented themselves which in term led to various constituent republics declaring independence. This was encouraged by some Western countries (most notably Germany) who were already pressuring the foreign-debt laden country to westernise their country as the other Eastern bloc nations had and who, by and large, preferred smaller, pro-NATO countries in central Europe than a larger, loosely-pro Russian one.

Without wishing to come across a bit tin-foil hat, RT watcher, I think there has been a concerted effort to portray the conflict in the terms you described in your post, although the reality is quite a lot more complicated. 

 

I realise of course you could still use this to prove your original point about the failings of leftist politics!

Edited 21 October 2017 by bovril

[leicsmac]

4 hours ago, Strokes said:

Not at all but to believe that you are better placed to make that call on someone elses behalf because you are better educated, is at best patronising and at worst.....

And as is my point, its hardly in keeping with the comments above.

I think this ties into what was said immediately below: it comes down to when is a good spot to intervene and make that call? Are there no circumstances where that is justifiable, even when a person or group of persons are going to take an action that will be destructive in the long run not only to themselves but to everyone around them?

 

 

4 hours ago, Sampson said:

Nothing to do with human nature and the evolutionary principle - it's because it brings people out of poverty and accepts that we shouldn't try to force billions of very different people with very different goals to all think and follow the same thing and allows the freedom of people to make their own individual decisions to match their own individual goals in life and has made the Western world far more peaceful. Conflict happens when people are impoverished and can't eat not because of business competition.

 

"Coming to decisions by consensus and cooperation" is a good euphemism for the State to force people to live a particular way and to have particular goals which are decided by the State and to lose their individualism rather than people taking responsibility of their own individual decisions.

 

I'm sorry, but what you talk about here has everything to do with the evolutionary principle - freedom of action in this way comes hand in hand (like it or not) with the freedom to act in a destructive or otherwise competitive fashion to other individuals in order to get the best deal for yourself and your descendants, which is a tenet of natural selection.  So...how far, exactly, does that freedom extend?

 

I'll be the first to say that the rights of the individual should be sacrosanct, but for instance, when the responsibility for one's actions are not felt until after that individual is dead the lines start to get a little blurry. And again, like it or not, there are people using that freedom you describe to carry out actions that not only endanger themselves but also the future of every single human alive.

[Sampson]

23 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

I think this ties into what was said immediately below: it comes down to when is a good spot to intervene and make that call? Are there no circumstances where that is justifiable, even when a person or group of persons are going to take an action that will be destructive in the long run not only to themselves but to everyone around them?

 

 

 

I'm sorry, but what you talk about here has everything to do with the evolutionary principle - freedom of action in this way comes hand in hand (like it or not) with the freedom to act in a destructive or otherwise competitive fashion to other individuals in order to get the best deal for yourself and your descendants, which is a tenet of natural selection.  So...how far, exactly, does that freedom extend?

 

I'll be the first to say that the rights of the individual should be sacrosanct, but for instance, when the responsibility for one's actions are not felt until after that individual is dead the lines start to get a little blurry. And again, like it or not, there are people using that freedom you describe to carry out actions that not only endanger themselves but also the future of every single human alive.

 

I don't think we're that far off agreeing with each other.

 

Tge potential abuse of industry is exactly why we have laws and regulations - and that freedom extends to exactly the point as to when you are hurting others - but at the same time the liberties of the individual should as you say be sacrosanct exactly to the point as to when the State is hurting people and restricting their freedoms too. It isn't an easy balance to maintain, of course it isn't. But industry can at least be regulated by the State whereas the State does not have anyone above it who can impose on it and it can get away with shortages at will and is open to myriad examples of corruption from elected officials, which is why, except in absolutely the most essential facets which a functioning society needs such as a military, police force, fire service, healthcare, education, roads etc., I believe nationalisation should be avoided - as the State has just as much potential for corruption, manipulation and exploitation as any private monopoly would.

 

I don't think we should be doing away with incentives to reduce carbon emissions or regulations on the environmental dangers which can lead to climate change for example because they are actively harming our future, but for example neither do I think the State should be nationalising our future's robots and technologies or forcing Uber to become a co-operative - this is where I draw the line to the point where the State is beginning to overstep its boundaries and become too powerful.

Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson

[Sampson]

Anyway... Yet another anti-establishment populist has just won in Europe. Really not sure where this huge collective surge in populism over the past 3 or 4 years is taking us. Just hope it doesn't end the same way it did last time in the 1930s.

 

Czech election: Billionaire Babis wins by large margin - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41708844

Edited 21 October 2017 by Sampson

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

Anyway... Yet another anti-establishment populist has just won in Europe. Really not sure where this huge collective surge in populism over the past 3 or 4 years is taking us. Just hope it doesn't end the same way it did last time in the 1930s.

 

Czech election: Billionaire Babis wins by large margin - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-41708844

It's obviously the financial crisis of 2008 and the slow progress of the world to recover that's causing all of this. Economic hardship over prolonged periods is what causes civil unrest and war. Brexit was obviously our version possibly to be followed by a political lurch in the opposite direction to those other European states that are lurching right. But then we've had our major right wing party in power for the last few years. And the further right UKIP were only ever a one policy party. I'd have thought it's more likely to end in isolationism than war this time around but the world really does need to get to grips with the problems people are facing. Kinda like a larger scale version of the discussions we have here with likely about the same level of agreement.

Edited 21 October 2017 by Guest

[Guest MattP]

22 hours ago, Buce said:

And the difference between Left and Right.

I'd say the main difference is those on the right believe people can run their own lives rather than having the state running it for them.

 

I find it bizarre how the left now seem to view intentions as more important than outcomes. I've spoken to Corbyn supporters who have told me even if the country collapses under him he's still the right choice as he "cares about people".

 

I just can't get my head around that mindset at all.

[Claridge]

22 hours ago, Buce said:

 

Perhaps they wouldn't be if they had more fulfilling lives, and access to better education and life-chances.

Many of them have had these opportunities and have not taken them. 

[bovril]

14 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'd say the main difference is those on the right believe people can run their own lives rather than having the state running it for them.

 

I find it bizarre how the left now seem to view intentions as more important than outcomes. I've spoken to Corbyn supporters who have told me even if the country collapses under him he's still the right choice as he "cares about people".

 

I just can't get my head around that mindset at all.

Haven't you expressed similar sentiments about Brexit?

People are pretty ideological. We find it difficult to let go of our beliefs even when most of the evidence starts to suggest they might be wrong.

[Guest MattP]

30 minutes ago, bovril said:

Haven't you expressed similar sentiments about Brexit?

People are pretty ideological. We find it difficult to let go of our beliefs even when most of the evidence starts to suggest they might be wrong.

Probably, although long term I believe Brexit will be good for us if we get trade priorities right.

 

Less and less of our trade is being done within that bloc and most of the World's fastest developing economies are outside of it.

[Guest]

59 minutes ago, MattP said:

I'd say the main difference is those on the right believe people can run their own lives rather than having the state running it for them.

 

I find it bizarre how the left now seem to view intentions as more important than outcomes. I've spoken to Corbyn supporters who have told me even if the country collapses under him he's still the right choice as he "cares about people".

 

I just can't get my head around that mindset at all.

Why would the country collapse? Its as loaded a mindset as my mindset about Brexit. If you're allowed to piss into the wind against all of the advice of experts on Brexit, why can't the left ignore the right on corbyn?

 

 

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

Probably, although long term I believe Brexit will be good for us if we get trade priorities right.

 

Less and less of our trade is being done within that bloc and most of the World's fastest developing economies are outside of it.

 

I can't be bothered to get into an argument abhor the rights and wrongs of Brexit. Obviously almost all experts say we'll be worse off but if you haven't believed them until now you aren't likely to change your mind now. The only point I'm make is that we can't even quickly agree anything to do with our own borders or debts with a bloc that we have an the same rules as, let alone reach trade deals with countries where we'd need to harmonise and set up or scale up entire trade relationships.

[Guest MattP]

17 minutes ago, toddybad said:

Why would the country collapse? Its as loaded a mindset as my mindset about Brexit. If you're allowed to piss into the wind against all of the advice of experts on Brexit, why can't the left ignore the right on corbyn?

You can, I've never said you couldn't. 

 

Why would the country collapse? It can collapse in many ways but I suppose financially would be the main concern given the Chancellor in the next Labour government appears to be totally incompetent has already admitted they would have to plan for a run on the pound.

 

You've still not given any explanation on how you would raise interest rates or enforce capital controls to do so either, because I think deep down you know it's bollocks as well.