Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

11 minutes ago, Strokes said:

That depends what you're defining as rich? You earn more than me toddy, maybe you are rich and should pay more.

 

Yeah, right.

 

You're even richer than Jon The Hat.

[Strokes]

13 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

Yeah, right.

 

You're even richer than Jon The Hat.

Na, i wish.

I can earn half decent money if i put in the hours or do some private work but i cant be bothered these days. I just let my wife go back fulltime instead. That way we can earn more for less hours. Its not worth pushing past £45,000 on £16.50 per hour.

[Alf Bentley]

56 minutes ago, Strokes said:

The alternative to watching the tories take off us to give to wealthy, is letting labour take it off us and give to the banks. I think we are still paying for that one

 

Also Germany have been running budget surpluses reguarly for some time, the tories do that and they are evil.

Swedens healthcare system is part privatised, if the tories do it that they are evil...

Social justice is just some empty bullshit buzzwords that mean nothing and deliver the same.

 

 

 

The 2008 bank bailout might just have been exceptional circumstances, don't you think?  Go ahead and say if you think Labour should have let the banks go bust, or if the Tories would have done so - or if the Tories would have avoided the crash by imposing more regulations on the financial sector and/or global capital flows. 

We're certainly still paying for the failure of the unregulated model of global capitalism in 2008, that's certainly true - well, us lot are, I'm not sure how much top bankers, big business and the super-rich are contributing. Maybe the current govt should do something about that - they've been in power for 8 years.

 

I do rather agree with you about "social justice", a term that needs to be defined, if used at all....not just thrown about as vague virtue-signalling.

 

Swedish healthcare might be part-privatised, but Swedish social spending is much higher than here, while those Reds in Germany have trade union reps on company boards. As for budget surpluses, maybe they manage that partly because people - and particularly the wealthy - pay more tax there: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us

 

"A comparison of personal tax rates across Europe, Australia and the US by Guardian Money reveals how average earners in Britain on salaries of £25,000, or “middle-class” individuals on £40,000, enjoy among the lowest personal tax rates of the advanced countries, while high earners on £100,000 see less of their income taken in tax than almost anywhere else in Europe. Our survey found that someone earning £100,000 in the UK in effect loses about 34.3% of their pay to HM Revenue & Customs once personal allowances, income tax and national insurance are taken into account. The one-third reduction is roughly the same as the US, Australia and Spain, but a long way behind the 38% in Germany, 41% in Ireland, 45% in Sweden and up to 59% in France".

 

Anyway, as a pauper who spends his time batting for the rich, what do you do with the rest of your time? Jump on the Nottingham train to buy season tickets for Forest fans? 

 

Busy day, so I'm off to vegetate on Facebook. Have a good weekend - and roll on the bloody World Cup....and the Brexit deal, so that we have something real to argue about!

[Strokes]

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

 

The 2008 bank bailout might just have been exceptional circumstances, don't you think?  Go ahead and say if you think Labour should have let the banks go bust, or if the Tories would have done so - or if the Tories would have avoided the crash by imposing more regulations on the financial sector and/or global capital flows. 

We're certainly still paying for the failure of the unregulated model of global capitalism in 2008, that's certainly true - well, us lot are, I'm not sure how much top bankers, big business and the super-rich are contributing. Maybe the current govt should do something about that - they've been in power for 8 years.

I think we should have let the banks crash yes, absolutely.

I doubt the tories would have done but id like to think that they wouldnt have needed to borrow as much in that position due to not running a deficit whilst in boom.

4 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I do rather agree with you about "social justice", a term that needs to be defined, if used at all....not just thrown about as vague virtue-signalling.

 

Swedish healthcare might be part-privatised, but Swedish social spending is much higher than here, while those Reds in Germany have trade union reps on company boards. As for budget surpluses, maybe they manage that partly because people - and particularly the wealthy - pay more tax there: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/may/27/tax-britons-pay-europe-australia-us

 

"A comparison of personal tax rates across Europe, Australia and the US by Guardian Money reveals how average earners in Britain on salaries of £25,000, or “middle-class” individuals on £40,000, enjoy among the lowest personal tax rates of the advanced countries, while high earners on £100,000 see less of their income taken in tax than almost anywhere else in Europe. Our survey found that someone earning £100,000 in the UK in effect loses about 34.3% of their pay to HM Revenue & Customs once personal allowances, income tax and national insurance are taken into account. The one-third reduction is roughly the same as the US, Australia and Spain, but a long way behind the 38% in Germany, 41% in Ireland, 45% in Sweden and up to 59% in France".

 

Anyway, as a pauper who spends his time batting for the rich, what do you do with the rest of your time? Jump on the Nottingham train to buy season tickets for Forest fans? 

 

Busy day, so I'm off to vegetate on Facebook. Have a good weekend - and roll on the bloody World Cup....and the Brexit deal, so that we have something real to argue about!

Im not batting for the rich, if that was the case why did i vote for and still support brexit? Thats still going to bankrupt us all right?

 

I'm just pointing out that socialist policies in a developed country similar to ours, is as unprecedented as brexit and voting for it is as much as a shot in the dark as brexit was/is. I rarely disagree with any of you on the ills of this country, I'm just not convinced that your opinion on the cure is right. As you disagree with mine.

I just took exception to toddys 'oh my god the sky is going to falling in' comment. When its the same tactic he has been using for months with brexit.

I've considered voting for Labour and i cant see me voting conservative next time around but I'm still very unsure that i can trust them. All political parties have dodgy MPs but so many have been backstabbing and betraying their parties and leaderships lately i will probably abstain again.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

That depends what you're defining as rich? You earn more than me toddy, maybe you are rich and should pay more.

I pay higher rate. Don't know if that's more than you or not. I'm not complaining.

[Wymsey]

If anything, the NHS is bound to benefit from Brexit.

Perhaps it needed it in order to obtain much-needed cash to cover the next few years or so, and illustrate how important it is to the national economy etc.

Edited 25 May 2018 by Wymeswold fox

[Guest]

1 hour ago, Strokes said:

I think we should have let the banks crash yes, absolutely.

I doubt the tories would have done but id like to think that they wouldnt have needed to borrow as much in that position due to not running a deficit whilst in boom.

Im not batting for the rich, if that was the case why did i vote for and still support brexit? Thats still going to bankrupt us all right?

 

I'm just pointing out that socialist policies in a developed country similar to ours, is as unprecedented as brexit and voting for it is as much as a shot in the dark as brexit was/is. I rarely disagree with any of you on the ills of this country, I'm just not convinced that your opinion on the cure is right. As you disagree with mine.

I just took exception to toddys 'oh my god the sky is going to falling in' comment. When its the same tactic he has been using for months with brexit.

I've considered voting for Labour and i cant see me voting conservative next time around but I'm still very unsure that i can trust them. All political parties have dodgy MPs but so many have been backstabbing and betraying their parties and leaderships lately i will probably abstain again.

At the moment the evidence suggests that Brexit is having significant negative consequences. You might believe it to be a boon over the longer term but if you choose to be honest with yourself you'd have to admit that growth has fallen, foreign investment head fallen and EU NHS workers have fallen since the vote. 

[Guest]

Just now, Wymeswold fox said:

If anything, the NHS is bound to benefit from Brexit.

Perhaps it needed it in order to obtain much-needed cash to cover the next few years or so.

By ****ing our economy and ending easy migration for medical staff from our neighbours?

[Buce]

1 hour ago, toddybad said:

By ****ing our economy and ending easy migration for medical staff from our neighbours?

 

No, he means the extra £350m a week it’ll be getting. 

 

 

[Sampson]

5 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Successful UK-like country under socialism?........... UK 1945-51

 

Want a current one? ......... Well, depends how you define socialism, but Germany & Sweden are more like the UK than Venezuela is.

They are also closer to socialism than the UK is - and more economically and socially successful by most measures.

 

Will people with wealth just sit there and watch socialism take it away?

Well the people without wealth just sit there and watch while the Tories take their wealth away (social wealth, i.e. public services) and hand it out to their mates in corporation tax cuts....

Are you rich bastards less patriotic than us poor bastards, then?  

 

What do you mean "depends how you define Socialism?" Socialism has always meant only one very simple thing - public/collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

 

It's only manipulative populists like Bernie Sanders or Owen Jones or from people who really haven't read Socialist theory or really thought through what Socialism actually means in practice but who just use it as a trendy buzzword because it stands for equality who are trying to muddy the waters on its very clear definition to make it more pallateable.

 

Now how you define the "means of production" in the modern day as it was meant for an early industrialised world, given it, as a 19th Century philosophy, meant factories and farming machinery, is perhaps more of a grey area - but things like the internet, website, work computers, shops, warehouses, office buildings, cranes, scaffolding etc. obviously fall under that in our modern more service driven Western world.

 

But Germany and Sweden socialist? Britain in 1951 socialist? Or even they are "more Socialist" and using that as a way to tactictly or not so tacitly criticise Capitalism and romance Socialism? That's the kind of shit I really hate that I keep seeing on here from otherwise genuinely intelligent people.

 

It's true that certain elements of their economies may be publically owned like the railways, but their general business practices are capitalist. These are capitalist economies - the means of production are overwhelmingly owned by private firms and private individuals in all these examples. The overwhelming majority of companies own their own land, warehouses and factories and computers and lease the internet - these things are not democratically and collectively owned either by their own individual employees or by the state.

 

There is absolutely nothing against the law in starting a Socialist company in any Western country btw - but no one does it because it's such an obviously silly idea and if you did it you'd last 5 minutes - imagine starting a new business on your own passion but as soon as you needed to hire a couple of people to do admin for you, they get equal and democratic control over everything you make, your IT systems, the website, the little office building on the side or your house etc. 2 new staff who could just be doing this for 6 months before they plan to go to university for all you know suddenly you only have 33% of the vote on what to do these things and the direction to take your start up company in either though it's something you've always wanted to do but you just need some help for admin from people who don't really care about your passion but just want some income for a few weeks in the summer but who now have equal say in both the long-term and day-to-decision making of the business. This is one of the main reasons Socialism causes such a lack of choice and liberty - because the only way you can really get that collective long-term decision making to work is if workers work their long-term - so you can't just try and find a new job if you don't enjoy it or want a new passion or you can't just move halfway across the country to a new job if you fall in love with someone who lived halfway across the country either.

 

I have no problem with people debating whether certain things like the health care and railways being under public control are a good or bad thing, but equating that with the actual overthrowing of Capitalism and creating a Socialist country or still romantasicing Socialism in the 21st century in the way John MacDonell does? Those are 2 very, very different things and absolutely nothing like saying "certain parts of our macro-economy could be a bit more like Germany or Sweden" (which are both absolutely nothing like Socialist countries) or for staggard taxes or different tax levels (which again, has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism - and taxes in general say nothing about whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist).

Edited 26 May 2018 by Sampson

[Alf Bentley]

2 hours ago, Strokes said:

I think we should have let the banks crash yes, absolutely.

I doubt the tories would have done but id like to think that they wouldnt have needed to borrow as much in that position due to not running a deficit whilst in boom.

Im not batting for the rich, if that was the case why did i vote for and still support brexit? Thats still going to bankrupt us all right?

 

I'm just pointing out that socialist policies in a developed country similar to ours, is as unprecedented as brexit and voting for it is as much as a shot in the dark as brexit was/is. I rarely disagree with any of you on the ills of this country, I'm just not convinced that your opinion on the cure is right. As you disagree with mine.

I just took exception to toddys 'oh my god the sky is going to falling in' comment. When its the same tactic he has been using for months with brexit.

I've considered voting for Labour and i cant see me voting conservative next time around but I'm still very unsure that i can trust them. All political parties have dodgy MPs but so many have been backstabbing and betraying their parties and leaderships lately i will probably abstain again.

 

I wouldn't have shed a tear for the banks or their top execs if they'd gone to the wall. But what about the individuals who lost their life savings, the firms who lost their liquidity or loans for investment capital, the low-level employees who lost their jobs, the institutional investors (representing people's pensions or insurance) whose shares were suddenly worthless? I suppose the govt could have bailed all of them out without bailing the banks out, in theory, but I imagine they'd have still suffered a lot more damage and disruption, and it might not have been any cheaper than bailing the banks out...... Can't imagine it would have done much for confidence in the wider UK economy, either.

 

As I recall, about 80% of the deficit Labour accrued was due to the crash, only about 20% due to Labour's pre-existing deficit. So, if the Tories had been in office and had bailed out the banks (as they would have done), most of the deficit would still have been there. Certainly, the deficit might have been a bit lower - but much of that extra Labour spending went on schools, hospitals, tax credits etc. So, with the Tories, we might have had a slightly lower deficit but worse public services and less money in the pockets of low/middle-earning families on tax credits.....the usual marginal differences and political preferences. Granted, Labour wasted some money - but the Tories have wasted plenty in the past, too.

 

I was just being playful talking of "batting for the rich". Who knows what Brexit will bring? That will depend greatly on the terms of the deal (if there is a deal - and if we leave the EU, neither of which seems 100% certain yet). I doubt that it will "bankrupt us all". It might bankrupt a fair number of small/medium-sized businesses, particularly those involved in trade, those dependent on supplying big trading corporations or those selling non-essential goods/services. I'd assume that more people will end up unemployed or on low pay. I imagine that big corporations are unlikely to go bankrupt, though they might have lower profits or losses, might have to reduce their workforce and might end up gradually shifting some work abroad over a number of years. No doubt, some businesses will succeed through diversification or tapping into new markets, and some people will do well, as they always do. With tax revenues down and the benefits bill up, I assume that the govt will have to either make further austerity cuts or increase some taxes. I imagine that we'll end up with more squalor, more crime and more racism, some degree of chaos at ports and over food supplies, plus bumpy diplomatic and trading relationships interspersed with occasional crises......whether major or minor problems, who knows? Then, depending on whether or not we have brilliant leaders in politics and business, things might get markedly better over a couple of decades or they might get markedly worse....but I'll be either dead or too old to care by then, and my daughter's life may have been badly damaged by then. I don't expect you to agree with much of that, of course, and maybe I'll be wrong. I guess we'll just have to wait and see! 

 

If I thought that a Labour Govt would attempt to do everything that it has said (mass nationalisations, massive public spending increases etc.), I'd be as concerned as you about the prospect. But they have moderated some of their plans in opposition - and I'd expect them to moderate them even more in government, if they ever win power. I'm sure that it would be a more left-wing govt than we've had for 70 years, and there'd be the odd hair-raising event, but I'd expect them to moderate their policies in power.

I know McDonnell likes to indulge in red rhetoric sometimes, but I think deep down he's quite bright on economics and quite pragmatic about strategy. He won't want to risk trashing the nation for the sake of introducing a list of hard left policies (I have less confidence in Corbyn, admittedly) - and there will still be a lot of moderate Labour MPs who wouldn't allow them to introduce a raft of crazy policies, anyway. I just hope that the Brexit solution isn't too crazy, as that and the damage it could do are a lot more imminent than a majority Labour govt, unless politics gets even more dramatic than it has been over the last few years....

 

Yep, both main parties are bitterly divided and the high-stakes politics we're now playing make it worse. Some sort of political realignment would make more sense, with both main parties splitting in two - but our electoral system prevents that, as it is so hard for any new force to win any/many seats, even if it gains quite a lot of support - as both the SDP and UKIP found out.

[Alf Bentley]

10 minutes ago, Sampson said:

What do you mean "depends how you define Socialism?" Socialism has always meant only one very simple thing - public/collective and democratic ownership of the means of production.

 

 

Lots of people would disagree with that: e.g. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. However, there have been common elements identified by scholars. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport analysed forty () definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital – as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); an agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. In The Concepts of Socialism (1975), Bhikhu Parekh identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation and planning. In his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996), Michael Freeden states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change".

 

Just because you want something to be "very simple" and to have one definition that you can loath, ridicule and trash, that doesn't make it true.

 

Stalin didn't arrange for Trotsky to get an ice-pick in the head because "socialism has always meant one very simple thing". There isn't a multiplicity of minor "socialist" parties because they all agree on one simple definition. There hasn't always been a ferment of debate within every mainstream left-wing party because they all agreed on one very simple definition.

 

Anyway, well past bed time. I doubt that I'll return to this discussion as I can only see it heading for a load of angry, pedantic and pointless argument, which is no fun.

[Carl the Llama]

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

[so much text]

 

Your opening paragraph is the simple, broad definition of socialism, pure socialism if you will, but the reality is much more nuanced than that for instance you can have market socialism and planned socialism (which itself can be centralised or de-centralised). Or you can have socialist policies to protect a capitalist economy or members of the society living under one and this is the area of socialism that I'm pretty sure everybody who's defending the term is advocating for.

 

One of the problems here is that people like you and Foxin are choosing to define the term in its most extreme form then going agog that anybody would defend the more balanced ideas which fall under the umbrella of socialist thought because you've linked them to the bad word.  Case in point:

1 hour ago, Sampson said:

I have no problem with people debating whether certain things like the health care and railways being under public control are a good or bad thing, but equating that with the actual overthrowing of Capitalism and creating a Socialist country or still romantasicing Socialism in the 21st century in the way John MacDonell does?

Who's equating defending health care or nationalisation of key infrastructure with overthrowing capitalism?  I'm not.  Alf, Toddy, Buce, Mac et al. aren't either. You're doing that.  Stop it.

Edited 26 May 2018 by Carl the Llama
punctation & clarification

[Guest]

6 hours ago, Sampson said:

I have no problem with people debating whether certain things like the health care and railways being under public control are a good or bad thing, but equating that with the actual overthrowing of Capitalism and creating a Socialist country or still romantasicing Socialism in the 21st century in the way John MacDonell does? Those are 2 very, very different things and absolutely nothing like saying "certain parts of our macro-economy could be a bit more like Germany or Sweden" (which are both absolutely nothing like Socialist countries) or for staggard taxes or different tax levels (which again, has absolutely nothing to do with Socialism - and taxes in general say nothing about whether a country is Socialist or Capitalist).

 

It may have escaped your notice but Labour have only talked about.nationalising key infrastructure. McDonnell has openly courted business (just not by promising taxation bungs as the Tories do).

Edited 26 May 2018 by Guest

[Sharpe's Fox]

Wow a lot of ignorant posters on this forum who obviously think the debate on the left is constrained to the meaning of words and not policy or ideas. We on the left just want to see the means of wealth creation extended to all British people equally and if not possible collectivise the ownership and benefits of capital to everyone in Britain. British people are the best in the world and every private citizen deserves the chance to have access to capital and wealth equally.

[Buce]

22 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Wow a lot of ignorant posters on this forum who obviously think the debate on the left is constrained to the meaning of words and not policy or ideas. We on the left just want to see the means of wealth creation extended to all British people equally and if not possible collectivise the ownership and benefits of capital to everyone in Britain. British people are the best in the world and every private citizen deserves the chance to have access to capital and wealth equally.

1

 

Something of a contradiction there, Sharpey.

[Strokes]

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I wouldn't have shed a tear for the banks or their top execs if they'd gone to the wall. But what about the individuals who lost their life savings, the firms who lost their liquidity or loans for investment capital, the low-level employees who lost their jobs, the institutional investors (representing people's pensions or insurance) whose shares were suddenly worthless? I suppose the govt could have bailed all of them out without bailing the banks out, in theory, but I imagine they'd have still suffered a lot more damage and disruption, and it might not have been any cheaper than bailing the banks out...... Can't imagine it would have done much for confidence in the wider UK economy, either.

I thought I was batting for wealthy.

People who have shit, lose shit. Wealth or debt.

The wider economy would have suffered but it has anyway, the fact we are still feeling it a decade later shows that.

 

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

As I recall, about 80% of the deficit Labour accrued was due to the crash, only about 20% due to Labour's pre-existing deficit. So, if the Tories had been in office and had bailed out the banks (as they would have done), most of the deficit would still have been there. Certainly, the deficit might have been a bit lower - but much of that extra Labour spending went on schools, hospitals, tax credits etc. So, with the Tories, we might have had a slightly lower deficit but worse public services and less money in the pockets of low/middle-earning families on tax credits.....the usual marginal differences and political preferences. Granted, Labour wasted some money - but the Tories have wasted plenty in the past, too.

I cant argue with much of that, just that if you’re bailing the banks out with surplus cash obviously the dent is less severe.

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

I was just being playful talking of "batting for the rich". Who knows what Brexit will bring? That will depend greatly on the terms of the deal (if there is a deal - and if we leave the EU, neither of which seems 100% certain yet). I doubt that it will "bankrupt us all". It might bankrupt a fair number of small/medium-sized businesses, particularly those involved in trade, those dependent on supplying big trading corporations or those selling non-essential goods/services. I'd assume that more people will end up unemployed or on low pay. I imagine that big corporations are unlikely to go bankrupt, though they might have lower profits or losses, might have to reduce their workforce and might end up gradually shifting some work abroad over a number of years. No doubt, some businesses will succeed through diversification or tapping into new markets, and some people will do well, as they always do. With tax revenues down and the benefits bill up, I assume that the govt will have to either make further austerity cuts or increase some taxes. I imagine that we'll end up with more squalor, more crime and more racism, some degree of chaos at ports and over food supplies, plus bumpy diplomatic and trading relationships interspersed with occasional crises......whether major or minor problems, who knows? Then, depending on whether or not we have brilliant leaders in politics and business, things might get markedly better over a couple of decades or they might get markedly worse....but I'll be either dead or too old to care by then, and my daughter's life may have been badly damaged by then. I don't expect you to agree with much of that, of course, and maybe I'll be wrong. I guess we'll just have to wait and see! 

Actually I don’t disagree in its entirety, I think it will be less severe but obviously it’s going to be tough and have initial consequences. Granted it will be a self inflicted downturn but it’s not like we are infallible to them before. The hardest question to solve is Northern Ireland and the border but I think we should just give the Northern Irish the choice.

7 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

If I thought that a Labour Govt would attempt to do everything that it has said (mass nationalisations, massive public spending increases etc.), I'd be as concerned as you about the prospect. But they have moderated some of their plans in opposition - and I'd expect them to moderate them even more in government, if they ever win power. I'm sure that it would be a more left-wing govt than we've had for 70 years, and there'd be the odd hair-raising event, but I'd expect them to moderate their policies in power.

I know McDonnell likes to indulge in red rhetoric sometimes, but I think deep down he's quite bright on economics and quite pragmatic about strategy. He won't want to risk trashing the nation for the sake of introducing a list of hard left policies (I have less confidence in Corbyn, admittedly) - and there will still be a lot of moderate Labour MPs who wouldn't allow them to introduce a raft of crazy policies, anyway. I just hope that the Brexit solution isn't too crazy, as that and the damage it could do are a lot more imminent than a majority Labour govt, unless politics gets even more dramatic than it has been over the last few years....

 

Yep, both main parties are bitterly divided and the high-stakes politics we're now playing make it worse. Some sort of political realignment would make more sense, with both main parties splitting in two - but our electoral system prevents that, as it is so hard for any new force to win any/many seats, even if it gains quite a lot of support - as both the SDP and UKIP found out.

Quite, the back and forth and petty political point scoring over brexit, antisemitism, windrush etc etc has really turned me off politics. 

[Buce]

8 minutes ago, Strokes said:

Quite, the back and forth and petty political point scoring over brexit, antisemitism, windrush etc etc has really turned me off politics. 

3

 

I think this is true of a huge swathe of the electorate, Strokes, and is something that I find quite worrying from a societal perspective because it leaves elections open to manipulation by clever marketing (like the Facebook thing). If you have little understanding of the issues, you are going to be increasingly basing your voting on soundbites ("let's give that money to the NHS"). I know you got the result you wanted in the EU referendum, so it maybe bothers you less than it would, but I think hand-on-heart you probably recognise that the majority of those voting did so from a position of ignorance.

[Strokes]

11 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

I think this is true of a huge swathe of the electorate, Strokes, and is something that I find quite worrying from a societal perspective because it leaves elections open to manipulation by clever marketing (like the Facebook thing). If you have little understanding of the issues, you are going to be increasingly basing your voting on soundbites ("let's give that money to the NHS"). I know you got the result you wanted in the EU referendum, so it maybe bothers you less than it would, but I think hand-on-heart you probably recognise that the majority of those voting did so from a position of ignorance.

I do recognise that buce but if the result had gone the other way, the same could be levied at a large portion of the remain voters. 

There are a huge numbers in this country that vote on sound bites and social media has given a lot of idiots a voice/platform. 

I dont regret voting leave (we would never have had a another chance) but I do regret how divisive both campaigns were because ultimately we needed to be more united going into this.

 

Edited 26 May 2018 by Strokes

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I do recognise that buce but if the result had gone the other way, the same could be levied at a large portion of the remain voters. 

There are a huge numbers in this country that vote on sound bites and social media has given a lot of idiots a voice/platform. 

2

 

Of course, when I said 'voting from a position of ignorance' I meant the entire electorate, not just those who voted to leave. Had the result gone the other way, I'd feel much as you do - glad of the result but still concerned at how it was achieved.

 

It perhaps should be in the 'Unpopular Opinions Thread' but I think democracy is actually dangerous when it gives a voice to the ignorant.

 

3 minutes ago, Strokes said:

I dont regret voting leave (we would never have had a another chance) but I do regret how divisive both campaigns were because ultimately we needed to be more united going into this.

 

 

 

I think it will be a cold day in Hell when the country is reunited over Brexit. I'm not going to re-hash old arguments - and you know I respect your opinion - but I'll never be convinced it was the right decision and is something (like capital punishment) that we should never have trusted the public to decide on.

[leicsmac]

Political polarisation has become a much much bigger issue of late. I'm not sure how much social media has done to magnify it (if anything), but things have certainly been pushed in a rather unpleasant direction where the political has become personal to a lot of people.

 

I saw a lot of it in the US (the dividing lines between race and rich/poor etc there are plain and stark and even more so since the present administration came to power, "post-racial society" my arse) and it's not quite so pronounced in the UK - thankfully - but the Brexit vote has shown some pretty nasty polarisation based on stances that it's going to be difficult to get over.

 

I'm sorta with Buce above on this tbh - while democracy seems to be the best system we have right now and direct democracy is in theory the best system of governance with an informed populace, what's going on at present highlights some pretty big flaws in it as a form of governance wrt application - simply because it's not possible to inform every single citizen and guarantee their understanding of every situation - and given its complexity the Brexit vote was one that should never have been given to the populace in the first place.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

It perhaps should be in the 'Unpopular Opinions Thread' but I think democracy is actually dangerous when it gives a voice to the ignorant.

 

I’d have been pretty pissed off with this comment not that long ago and i would have probably accused you of saying only the educated should get a vote but I certainly understand the sentiments. Coupled with social media, democracy is becoming quite worrying.

[Sampson]

8 hours ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Lots of people would disagree with that: e.g. Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

 

"There are many variations of socialism and as such there is no single definition encapsulating all of socialism. However, there have been common elements identified by scholars. In his Dictionary of Socialism (1924), Angelo S. Rappoport analysed forty () definitions of socialism to conclude that common elements of socialism include: general criticisms of the social effects of private ownership and control of capital – as being the cause of poverty, low wages, unemployment, economic and social inequality and a lack of economic security; a general view that the solution to these problems is a form of collective control over the means of production, distribution and exchange (the degree and means of control vary amongst socialist movements); an agreement that the outcome of this collective control should be a society based upon social justice, including social equality, economic protection of people and should provide a more satisfying life for most people. In The Concepts of Socialism (1975), Bhikhu Parekh identifies four core principles of socialism and particularly socialist society: sociality, social responsibility, cooperation and planning. In his study Ideologies and Political Theory (1996), Michael Freeden states that all socialists share five themes: the first is that socialism posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals; second, that it considers human welfare a desirable objective; third, that it considers humans by nature to be active and productive; fourth, it holds the belief of human equality; and fifth, that history is progressive and will create positive change on the condition that humans work to achieve such change".

 

Just because you want something to be "very simple" and to have one definition that you can loath, ridicule and trash, that doesn't make it true.

 

Stalin didn't arrange for Trotsky to get an ice-pick in the head because "socialism has always meant one very simple thing". There isn't a multiplicity of minor "socialist" parties because they all agree on one simple definition. There hasn't always been a ferment of debate within every mainstream left-wing party because they all agreed on one very simple definition.

 

Anyway, well past bed time. I doubt that I'll return to this discussion as I can only see it heading for a load of angry, pedantic and pointless argument, which is no fun.

But it doesn't matter whether it is market based or state based or collective based or there is no state or 100% state controlled - the core concept of Socialism is absolutely and always had been public ownership of the means of production and the core concept of Capitalism has always been the private ownership of the means of production.

 

Absolutely there are many ways you can do that and there have been many different ways that have been proposed to create both - but that absolutely is both the academic and politic definition which has defined both.

 

That has always been the accepted definition and core concept of Socialism and you'll find virtually every author until recent years say that - that isn't what I want it mean at all, that's what the revolutionaries of 1848 wnd everyone from Marx to Proudhon to Chomsky and every other influential Socialist thinker all wanted it to mean. If some populists like Bernie Sanders want to try and change the definition in modern times to seem more pallateable, that is both an incredibly dangerous thing to try and make the ideology more pallateable and the kind of shit Mussolini did with fascism. And I would be saying the same thing if people on here started calling Trump fascist or whatever- as much as I hate Trump you are sanitizing things which shouldn't be sanitised and it's dangerous.

 

I have no idea why you think I think Stalin murdering Trotsky has anything to do with that? I never said it did.

8 hours ago, Carl the Llama said:

Your opening paragraph is the simple, broad definition of socialism, pure socialism if you will, but the reality is much more nuanced than that for instance you can have market socialism and planned socialism (which itself can be centralised or de-centralised). Or you can have socialist policies to protect a capitalist economy or members of the society living under one and this is the area of socialism that I'm pretty sure everybody who's defending the term is advocating for.

 

One of the problems here is that people like you and Foxin are choosing to define the term in its most extreme form then going agog that anybody would defend the more balanced ideas which fall under the umbrella of socialist thought because you've linked them to the bad word.  Case in point:

Who's equating defending health care or nationalisation of key infrastructure with overthrowing capitalism?  I'm not.  Alf, Toddy, Buce, Mac et al. aren't either. You're doing that.  Stop it.

 

But that *is* the broad definition of Socialism exactly - what you guys are advocating is nor Socialism! I'm not having a go at your opinions, I'm having a go at anyone on here romantasicing Socialism by saying "We should be more like Germany" 

 

Please don't think I am criticising your opinions or beliefs - I am not - I am saying that what you are advocating isn't socialism and trying to connect Germany or Atlee's Britain to Socialism and romance it and refuse to criticise the term as some on here absolutely do is dangerous.

 

I'm not saying on here that anyone (other than Sharpe's Fox, who is obviously very tongue-in-cheek) in here says they want to overthrow Capitalism and turn the country Socialist - that was a reference to John MacDonnell.

 

3 hours ago, toddybad said:

It may have escaped your notice but Labour have only talked about.nationalising key infrastructure. McDonnell has openly courted business (just not by promising taxation bungs as the Tories do).

 

Yes, Labour have talked about these things because Corbyn, MacDonell and Abbott are being heavily moderated by their party - hence why the rest of their party kept talking about the manifesto and not the leadership in the last election.

 

But as I've said several times on here, Corbyn, MacDonell and Abbott make it pretty open and have made it pretty open throughout their political history they are all much hardcore than that and their (MacDonnell and Abbott especially) constant sabre rattling and romantasicing of Socialism is not a positive thing - we have polls now that more Americans under 25 view the word "Socialism" more positively than "Capitalism" and that's in America, I imagine it's even worse here - and the term has been completely desentasised in young people which allows the gateway for some pretty shitty governments to come in the West in the future - exactly as it had done with Trump and the 5 star movement in Italy with people being sick of pragmatism and becoming decentacised to complicated and Economic political debate.

2 hours ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Wow a lot of ignorant posters on this forum who obviously think the debate on the left is constrained to the meaning of words and not policy or ideas. We on the left just want to see the means of wealth creation extended to all British people equally and if not possible collectivise the ownership and benefits of capital to everyone in Britain. British people are the best in the world and every private citizen deserves the chance to have access to capital and wealth equally.

I never said anything of the sort. How you define the Left is up to you, I don't care about that. It's the basterdisation of the term Socialism to try and make it more pallateable I object to and what I can only see decending into some rotten governments because people begin to like the sanitised virue signalling idea of it (whuch has nothing to do with Socialism) and then vote for anything under than banner - I never implied anything like Socialism being the only philosophy related to Left or that they don't have any ideas or never even mentioned the Left. I'm not really fussed about that, Left, Right And Centre are such meaningless terms these days and change depending on the point the politician is trying to make I'd rather they were scrapped altogether.

[Sampson]

39 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Political polarisation has become a much much bigger issue of late. I'm not sure how much social media has done to magnify it (if anything), but things have certainly been pushed in a rather unpleasant direction where the political has become personal to a lot of people.

 

I saw a lot of it in the US (the dividing lines between race and rich/poor etc there are plain and stark and even more so since the present administration came to power, "post-racial society" my arse) and it's not quite so pronounced in the UK - thankfully - but the Brexit vote has shown some pretty nasty polarisation based on stances that it's going to be difficult to get over.

 

I'm sorta with Buce above on this tbh - while democracy seems to be the best system we have right now and direct democracy is in theory the best system of governance with an informed populace, what's going on at present highlights some pretty big flaws in it as a form of governance wrt application - simply because it's not possible to inform every single citizen and guarantee their understanding of every situation - and given its complexity the Brexit vote was one that should never have been given to the populace in the first place.

Completely agree with everything apart from direct democracy being in theory the best system - Plato was right about direct democracy being the worst form of government and will inevitibly lead to tyrrany and many, many bad decisions.

 

Representative democracy where we elect experts but have the chance to kick them out if they mess up is tthe best form of government we undoubtably have come up with in practise and theory, but direct democracy really isn't a good idea and things like Brexit absolutely should not have been a public vote, just as the voting style reform shouldn't have been and just as the Irish abortion vote right now shouldn't be (as much as I'd like to see the latter two change).

Edited 26 May 2018 by Sampson

[SouthStandUpperTier]

Wish the World Cup would hurry up and get here. Anyone know if and how you can ignore a thread?