Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[leicsmac]

16 hours ago, Sampson said:

 

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.

Yeah, can't say that I disagree with much of that at all. The State and big private industries should act as a bulwark against each other - having either too powerful or having them not act in a way where one regulates the other is not a good thing.

 

Glad you also agree on the environmental stuff too - sad that so many people with power don't seem to see it.

 

 

1 hour 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.

1

The same question posited above applies, though: just how far should that freedom go?

[bovril]

1 hour 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.

The centre-right (at least in the UK and US) seem to be more in favour of immigration controls than the centre-left and are less in favour of personal choice when it comes to, for example, drugs and abortion. So I wouldn't say it's quite as simple as your statement suggests. 

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, MattP said:

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.

As you know very very well, he was talking about the prospect of there being an immediate reaction by the city to a left wing government getting in. He wasn't talking about the prospect of his own policies failing.

 

What I think is I want to core of their manifesto carried out but I also want them to show business that they have ideas to support them as well as bringing in the higher corporation tax. If government could provide more support for small businesses, then perhaps the small increase in corporation tax (given there'd be a lower level tax for small businesses) might be cushioned. 

 

I absolutely don't think it's bollocks that the current system has led to 1 or 2 generations using everything to their own benefit with sod all left for those coming after. Short sighted me-first politics has led to this. I absolutely want people to have the ability to choose their own paths in.life but also to have government look after the main requirements of our people - energy, utilities and transport for example. 

[Guest]

Turns out borrowing to invest is perfectly fine if you wear a blue rosette. Who'd have thought, eh?

 

Housing crisis: we will borrow to invest in new homes, says Sajid Javid

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/22/housing-crisis-we-will-borrow-to-invest-in-new-homes-says-sajid-javid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

[the fox]

 speechless

 

The government has said the term “pregnant woman” shouldn't be used in a UN treaty as it “excludes” trans people

 

 

[The Doctor]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/capitalism-broken-top-business-leaders-shriti-vadera-financial-times-robert-swannell-carolyn-a8014616.html

 

"The underlying promise of western capitalist economies - that a rising tide lifts all boats - has been broken; a better model is needed"

 

Is this the part where toddybad says he told you so? 

[Carl the Llama]

14 hours ago, toddybad said:

Turns out borrowing to invest is perfectly fine if you wear a blue rosette. Who'd have thought, eh?

 

Housing crisis: we will borrow to invest in new homes, says Sajid Javid

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2017/oct/22/housing-crisis-we-will-borrow-to-invest-in-new-homes-says-sajid-javid?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

 

Getting bored of McDonnell's pie in the sky economically-illiterate policies.  And he thought he could fool us using the alias Sajid Javid like that's a real name.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, the fox said:

 speechless

 

The government has said the term “pregnant woman” shouldn't be used in a UN treaty as it “excludes” trans people

 

 

Ugh.

 

Trans folks come in for enough discriminatory BS and this, while well-meaning, really doesn't help.

[Carl the Llama]

1 minute ago, The Doctor said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/capitalism-broken-top-business-leaders-shriti-vadera-financial-times-robert-swannell-carolyn-a8014616.html

 

"The underlying promise of western capitalist economies - that a rising tide lifts all boats - has been broken; a better model is needed"

 

Is this the part where toddybad says he told you so? 

It's the part where anyone with who has seen first-hand the despondency of the lowest income classes and understood that their problems stem from a broken, exploitative attitude to capitalism by the haves in this country (not malevolent Europeans ruling us from an ivory tower across the sea), anyone who understood the implication of the charts showing disparity in wage growth this past decade or anyone who tried suggesting that austerity and promoting poor job security that favours employers wasn't the way to solve our problems asks "now do you believe us"?

 

But of course the answer will still be no because go team Tory, crush the jealous outsiders who just want our big business tax dodges.

[the fox]

10 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Ugh.

 

Trans folks come in for enough discriminatory BS and this,well-meaning really doesn't help.

i don't see it like that at all! this is like a bald man saying "don't talk about hair/shave it off because if i can't have it, you shouldn't"

doing my had in,  now you are gonna tell women that the word "pregnant" shouldn't be used just because you can't have babies. that's is petty and pathetic

Edited 23 October 2017 by the fox

[the fox]

thinking about it, the word "pregnant" excludes men too, what about us, do we not matter

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, the fox said:

i don't see it like that at all! this is like a bald man saying "don't talk about hair/shave it off because if i can't have it, you shouldn't"

doing my had in,  now you are gonna tell women that the word "pregnant" shouldn't be used just because you can't have babies. that's is petty and pathetic

Yeah, I agree - but evidently someone thought it was a good idea and meant well to implement it, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. That's my point here.

 

It's ridiculous that someone thought it a good idea - but someone evidently did.

[The Doctor]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

i don't see it like that at all! this is like a bald man saying "don't talk about hair/shave it off because if i can't have it, you shouldn't"

doing my had in, stay in your lane, now you are gonna tell women that the word "pregnant" shouldn't be used just because you can't have babies. that's is petty and pathetic

When mac says well-meaning, he's talking about the idea of being more inclusive (not all women can get pregnant etc.) but in reality just singling them out - "remember, you're different". It's meant to be supportive but achieves absolutely nothing. It's well meaning towards trans-people but unhelpful, rather than vindictive against cis-people.

[Guest]

30 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/capitalism-broken-top-business-leaders-shriti-vadera-financial-times-robert-swannell-carolyn-a8014616.html

 

"The underlying promise of western capitalist economies - that a rising tide lifts all boats - has been broken; a better model is needed"

 

Is this the part where toddybad says he told you so? 

 

 

[the fox]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I agree - but evidently someone thought it was a good idea and meant well to implement it, otherwise it wouldn't have happened. That's my point here.

 

It's ridiculous that someone thought it a good idea - but someone evidently did.

i'm almost convinced that some people are hired just to be trolls and distract the general from other topics, you can't just sit down and think "you know what, we are trying to include more trans people in, what about we tell women that they are not allowed to use the word "pregnant" because others are not physically able to experience it, and while you at it, there are a lot of people who are lactose intolerant, so, from today onwards, dairy products are illegal"

there is a right way to do things, your rights stop when others starts.

Edited 23 October 2017 by the fox

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, the fox said:

i'm almost convinced that some people are hired just to be trolls and distract the general from other topics, you can't just sit down and think "you know what, we are trying to include more trans people in, what about we tell women that you are not allowed to use the word "pregnant" because others are not physically able to experience it, and while you at it, there are a lot of people who are lactose intolerant, so, from today onwards, dairy products are illegal"

there is a right way to do things, your rights stop when other starts.

1

The spin doctor is a time-honoured governmental tradition.

[Guest]

On 21/10/2017 at 14:49, 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.

This is quite honestly the biggest load of bollocks I've ever read.

 

My go:

 

The right assumes greed is man's natural state and so offers financial reward in the form of low taxation. It believes strongly that those that are net recipients from the state are a drag on net contributors and the language and ideology of the right is based on this. Nothing that cannot be measured in economic units has value to the right.

 

The left believes in the value of non financial products - so a low paid artist in receipt of benefit potentially adds non financial value to society. The nation's assets should be shared between its people. The left believes that the state should deal with the nation's needs in terms of health, education, energy etc but has no problem with business operating in any other sphere. 

 

Student debt is a perfect example of the difference between right and left.

[Webbo]

The problem with capitalism is is that people have forgotten what the alternatives are like. The average person in Cuba or Venezuela would love to be living on benefits in Britain.

[The Doctor]

12 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The problem with capitalism is is that people have forgotten what the alternatives are like. The average person in Cuba or Venezuela would love to be living on benefits in Britain.

You talk as if it's an all or nothing between communism and ruthless crony capitalism. Why can't we have ethical capitalism, where capital works to serve humanity rather than t'other way round, and suffering of the poorest isn't considered to be of lower importance than increased profit?

Edited 23 October 2017 by The Doctor

[Webbo]

2 minutes ago, The Doctor said:

You talk as if it's an all or nothing between communism and ruthless crony capitalism. Why can't we have ethical capitalism, where capital works to serve humanity rather than t'other way round, and suffering of the poorest isn't considered to be of lower importance than increased profit?

Do you mean free health care and education, an extensive welfare state and regulation of business? That kind of thing? 

[Webbo]

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Do you mean free health care and education, an extensive welfare state and regulation of business? That kind of thing? 

They're a start, but also a minimum wage that actually provides enough to live on, not seeing inflation rise faster than wages, making the poor poorer in real terms would help  just have a rising tide lift all boats rather than sinking the dinghys.

[Webbo]

Just now, The Doctor said:

They're a start, but also a minimum wage that actually provides enough to live on, not seeing inflation rise faster than wages, making the poor poorer in real terms would help  just have a rising tide lift all boats rather than sinking the dinghys.

Re read the last 10 pages, I can't be arsed to go through all that again.

[The Doctor]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Re read the last 10 pages, I can't be arsed to go through all that again.

You can go through it all you want, fact is you're wrong - wages have dropped in real terms. In absolute terms they may be up, but that's irrelevant. 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Webbo said:

The problem with capitalism is is that people have forgotten what the alternatives are like. The average person in Cuba or Venezuela would love to be living on benefits in Britain.

 

Yawn.