homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   »   » Oblivion   » Left Wing Politics in the UK (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Left Wing Politics in the UK
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
What a cynical view! My memory is that there was a mood of coming together, not just because people were poor. It was partly out of a sense that people had made sacrifices, therefore we should ensure that everyone had housing, employment, and decent conditions.

Maybe, but there aren't many people who have made sacrifices and left behind dependents who need to be looked after any more. Back then the welfare state would have primarily been looking after the widows and children of dead soldiers, nowadays that's not true.

quote:
For some reason, we have now gone into a position whereby selfishness and mercenary attitudes are seen as ideal.
People look after their own interests - always have, always will. With a few exceptions, poor people vote for high welfare and rich people vote for low taxes. As more people become rich enough to be stung by the higher tax rates they will fall into the second category - and £32,000 really isn't that high an income these days. There are a lot of people who are suddenly "rich" enough to be adversely affected by socialist policies, while not actually being rich at all. It's one thing to rail against the CEOs, but it's quite another to try to persuade middle-income folk like me that we should sacrifice our meagre yet hard-earned salaries in the name of your social ideals.

Point of info Marvin - you don't pay the higher rate at £32000 - you pay it at whatever the threshold is + your personal tax allowance. I think for most people it actually comes in at around £41,000

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Matt Black

Shipmate
# 2210

 - Posted      Profile for Matt Black   Email Matt Black   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

[ 12. September 2013, 11:58: Message edited by: Matt Black ]

--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)

Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.
No. The one I hear is "let's stimulate the economy and create jobs." Because funnily enough, if there aren't enough of them around, then it doesn't matter what steps you take to avoid "welfare dependancy", you will still have X people on the dole where X = number of jobseekers - number of jobs in the economy. There are various interventions that change who those X are, but but actually reduces X are more jobs.

By which we mean real jobs, full time jobs which actually pay enough to support oneself and dependants, not zero-hours contracts where you might get a couple of hours at minimum wage but don't you dare do any other work whilst you're signed up with us matey.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

Then why why do left wing politicians talk about 'creating jobs' as if passing primary legislation can make jobs suddenly appear?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.
I find it strange that the urge to cut benefits comes at exactly the time when those on benefits are least able to get a full-time job! It would be better to get the economy running and then look at the circumstances of those who haven't worked for 12 months. They will be fewer in number, there will be more jobs around for them to do and more resources to train them to do those jobs.

Yes, tax the rich, but do so the stimulate the economy. It's better than printing money (aka 'quantitative easing' and, in the medium term, people will be back in work, paying taxes, claiming less in benefits and everyone's taxes can come down again. Especially if we scrap HS2( the train to nowhere), Trident(the non-independent deterrent with no one to deter) and the aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

Then why why do left wing politicians talk about 'creating jobs' as if passing primary legislation can make jobs suddenly appear?
Do they? There was me thinking that there was this bit I said before "create jobs" that was "stimulate the economy".

No-one's expecting magic.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I was just browsing through the 'Left Unity' website, and there is a certain amount of the usual squabbling always found on the left, but two things stood out for me. One, that Labour is dead and buried. Whereas some left elements used to burble on about Labour being a 'workers' party' which could be resurrected, I think this has gone the way of the dodo. It is finished as any kind of left-wing party; in fact, it probably has been since Harold Wilson, no hang on, since Clem Attlee.

Second, that the proposed split between Labour and the unions is welcomed by some activists, although obviously not all. But if Labour is a corpse, why attach yourself to it?

But I think some trade unionists also feel that disaffiliation is an uncertain road. The fire brigades' union did that a while ago, and some members feel that they have gone off into the wilderness, possibly.

There is a third point, of course. What the hell does 'left' and 'socialism' mean today? Does anybody know? It came to mean top-down dirigiste control either by a Stalinist bureaucracy, or a social democratic bureaucracy, both unpalatable.

What is to be done? as someone once said. Well, Lenin was a clever man, but a dirigiste par excellence.

Still, I welcome Ken Loach's initiative, and others, of course. There is a lot to talk about! My old creaking bones feel a certain movement in them again. Well dug, old mole!

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

By which we mean real jobs

Then why why do left wing politicians talk about 'creating jobs' as if passing primary legislation can make jobs suddenly appear?
Do they? There was me thinking that there was this bit I said before "create jobs" that was "stimulate the economy".

No-one's expecting magic.

I don't believe massive tax and spend programmes do. I think dear old Mrs Thatcher had it spot on when she said 'Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them'.

But the again this isn't a subject on which there is going to be any agreement between us. Linking back to the main subject, I suppose the question is, can a left-wing political party sell such an agenda to the public? To which I think my answer is, no, not anymore. (Thanks partly to the events of the last couple of decades.)

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yet government spending is currently going up, isn't it? Presumably, this is part of the reason for the economic upturn. Departmental outlays rose to £305bn in 2013 from £283bn in the same period in 2012.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171778_323537.pdf

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't believe massive tax and spend programmes do. I think dear old Mrs Thatcher had it spot on when she said 'Socialist governments traditionally do make a financial mess. They always run out of other people's money. It's quite a characteristic of them'.

Outside the world of conservative ideology, even conservative economists would see a role for state spending when - in times like this - private investment is depressed.
Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In fact, this government is increasing spending, see above. See also the stimulus to house buying, not exactly plan B, but maybe A + B.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yet government spending is currently going up, isn't it? Presumably, this is part of the reason for the economic upturn.

Possibly. The main reason it's going up has been because of automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefit, which is why there are plenty of economists both right and left who believe that moderate government spending on growth creation is needed in order to eventually bring down the deficit.

i.e spending a little more to encourage job creation now is the best way of reducing unemployment (and eventual spending) later.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

The spending can vary by quite a lot without any explicit pump priming.

There is obviously the effect of one off payments - but in times like this what will be driving increased spending will be automatic stabilizers kicking in.

Marginally more people are unemployed and claiming housing benefit, much more people are now on very low wages and so claiming government subsidies of one sort or another. During this sort of time more people will chose to enter retirement earlier as they can't re-enter the job market, and so will be drawing on other benifits and so on.

Rather than trying to get spending under control over the mid to long term, they insist on selling the cargo cult idea that a government is like a household, which is why they are now so focused on benefit cuts.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
'Cargo cult idea' is good, in relation to the economy. I will probably nick that.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

There isn't a million miles of difference between what Osborne is doing now and what Alastair Darling said he would do at the 2010 election.

But this does make the far-left sound even more hysterical when they talk about anti-cuts coalitions and marches against austerity and the like.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
...or by trying to end the cycle of welfare dependency?

[cp with Karl]

This is the kind of thing I had in mind. The left wing 'alternative' seems to be 'let's tax the rich some more and spend some more money on welfare and everything will be ok'. I don't think many people buy that any more.
However, it seems like the right-wing solution is to, er, cut the funding to charities and organisations who help people find work, and cut jobs in government departments....resulting in more people out of work. Makes sense.

The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill. The Labour Party joining in with the Tory blaming the poor for their poverty is spitting in the face of the vulnerable in society.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

The spending can vary by quite a lot without any explicit pump priming.

There is obviously the effect of one off payments - but in times like this what will be driving increased spending will be automatic stabilizers kicking in.

Marginally more people are unemployed and claiming housing benefit, much more people are now on very low wages and so claiming government subsidies of one sort or another. During this sort of time more people will chose to enter retirement earlier as they can't re-enter the job market, and so will be drawing on other benifits and so on.

Rather than trying to get spending under control over the mid to long term, they insist on selling the cargo cult idea that a government is like a household, which is why they are now so focused on benefit cuts.

True 'nuff - if the jobs people are getting are part time, low pay, then you're going to be paying out a fortune in top-up benefits. The only way you'll get out of that one is (a) stop paying top-up benefits and let the plebs starve, fuck 'em, or (b) invest in stimulating real job creation.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

Are there any real-life examples where this has worked?

Edited to add: would you accept that for this to work there have to be restrictions placed on immigration, particularly at the lower end of the job market?

[ 12. September 2013, 14:06: Message edited by: Anglican't ]

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

Are there any real-life examples where this has worked?

Edited to add: would you accept that for this to work there have to be restrictions placed on immigration, particularly at the lower end of the job market?

Not necessarily. If the labour market which attracts immigrants seeking low-paid menial work is properly regulated, then it can be revenue raising and expand the economy generally. The problem is when it's exploitative ultra-low pay grey market sort of stuff that doesn't contribute into the tax system because it's all a bit shady and off record.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Especially if we scrap HS2( the train to nowhere), Trident(the non-independent deterrent with no one to deter) and the aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

It's weird. People say "the government needs to spend more to create jobs and stimulate the economy", but then when the government announces massive infrastructure investments that will create jobs and stimulate the economy they shout about what a waste of taxpayer money those things are.

Make your minds up, please!

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

Yes, but if those extra jobs are all in government departments then the amount of tax required to fund them will be higher than if they were all on welfare.

The point isn't to reduce the welfare bill, it's to reduce the amount of tax the government needs to take from us in the first place. Padding out government departments with extra staff may achieve the first, but it doesn't achieve the second.

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

There isn't a million miles of difference between what Osborne is doing now and what Alastair Darling said he would do at the 2010 election.

But this does make the far-left sound even more hysterical when they talk about anti-cuts coalitions and marches against austerity and the like.

Maybe we just don't like four in 10 disabled people with chronic, progressive illnesses like Parkinsons and Multiple Sclerosis being told they can recover well enough to work. This government is targeting the 'workshy' and disabled and practicing eugenics via the welfare state. It is disgusting that any Christian could support such a thing.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
The left-wing alternative actually results in less spending on welfare - investment = more jobs = less unemployment = lower welfare bill.

Yes, but if those extra jobs are all in government departments then the amount of tax required to fund them will be higher than if they were all on welfare.

The point isn't to reduce the welfare bill, it's to reduce the amount of tax the government needs to take from us in the first place. Padding out government departments with extra staff may achieve the first, but it doesn't achieve the second.

The extra jobs wouldn't be in government departments at all [Confused] I just pointed out the stupidity of the government increasing unemployment by cutting spending. I absolutely support cutting EXCESS spending, the problem is that plenty of non-excess and important spending is being cut too. FWIW I fully support HS2 and similar investments in infrastructure, housing etc - I oppose Trident but that's due to pacifism, not economics.

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms

Well it's a system which has worked well in the UK since the last Labour government... Not entirely sure I remember this much fuss when the spare room subsidy was first removed...
Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
practicing eugenics via the welfare state.

I know there are Lib Dems in the Coalition government, but it isn't that left wing.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I don't think it's just possible that govt spending is going up, though, is it? It is going up. So the govt is saying 'keep on with austerity', while coyly doing what they accuse Labour of always doing, a bit of pump priming! Politicians, eh?

There isn't a million miles of difference between what Osborne is doing now and what Alastair Darling said he would do at the 2010 election.

But this does make the far-left sound even more hysterical when they talk about anti-cuts coalitions and marches against austerity and the like.

Maybe we just don't like four in 10 disabled people with chronic, progressive illnesses like Parkinsons and Multiple Sclerosis being told they can recover well enough to work. This government is targeting the 'workshy' and disabled and practicing eugenics via the welfare state. It is disgusting that any Christian could support such a thing.
But surely a bit of social cleansing is good for the body politic? Trim a bit of fat off, eh?

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175

 - Posted      Profile for Pomona   Email Pomona   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms

Well it's a system which has worked well in the UK since the last Labour government... Not entirely sure I remember this much fuss when the spare room subsidy was first removed...
That's a completely different scheme though? It's not actively taxing anyone for, you know, having foster children (foster children's rooms are not counted as bedrooms under the scheme, but by law all foster children must have their own bedrooms).

--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]

Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012  |  IP: Logged
Alicïa
Shipmate
# 7668

 - Posted      Profile for Alicïa   Email Alicïa   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think that there is a lot of apathy surrounding politics, and it seems to me we can't trust either the left or the right which is probably where apathy comes from generally. As for the OP then I would definately like to see more consensus politics on both sides. My own views are broadly to the left according to my own mind and political compass.

In some ways I am pleased that the conservatives are more liberal than they used to be, so is that does that mean they are less right wing? Well not really because on economics they are the same as ever.

The Liberal Democrats turned out to stand for very little, and the last time that Labour was in they were socially of the left but economically in the centre. It's all very confusing to Jo Average so a lot of people seem to fall back to apathy.

It was probably someone from Platos' era who first made the quip: "How do you know a polician is lying? .... (their lips are moving!)"

Sites like Political Compass do help gain some perspective on where we ourselves are coming from but they don't seem to translate into who to vote for because under the current system there does not seem to be much room for nuance. Maybe something like this can change that. It would be good to see if it works.

[ 12. September 2013, 14:43: Message edited by: Alicïa ]

--------------------
"The tendency to turn human judgments into divine commands makes religion one of the most dangerous forces in the world." Georgia Elma Harkness

Posts: 884 | From: Where the Art is. | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
That's a completely different scheme though?

First of all this scheme is not a tax... what a ridiculous piece of lefty propaganda that has somehow managed to seep into media usage...

The scheme introduced years back removed a portion of housing benefit from claimants (thereby requiring them to pay a portion of their rent costs) who had a spare room and were living in private landlord accommodation... it is no different to the current scheme...

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years

??? Evidence?
I've just found this which appears to contradict your optimism.

--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Especially if we scrap HS2( the train to nowhere), Trident(the non-independent deterrent with no one to deter) and the aircraft carriers with no aircraft.

It's weird. People say "the government needs to spend more to create jobs and stimulate the economy", but then when the government announces massive infrastructure investments that will create jobs and stimulate the economy they shout about what a waste of taxpayer money those things are.

Make your minds up, please!

These three are examples of (quite, ultra and very) high-tech projects. Two of them are military and I'm not opposed to military spending but military projects deliver late, over budget and usually fall short. Rail projects are gravy trains (sic) for construction companies, who have been friends of the Conservatives since Marples had them building the motorways 50+ years ago.

As usual, I'm for some lower-tech projects, that need a mix of skilled, semi-skilled and unslikked labour, not the comparatively low number required on high-tech projects.

There. I've made my mind up.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Sergius-Melli
Shipmate
# 17462

 - Posted      Profile for Sergius-Melli   Email Sergius-Melli   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Angloid:
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
I guess you missed the memo that the wealth gap is now at its narrowest in some 30 years

??? Evidence?
I've just found this which appears to contradict your optimism.
Sorry I had better things to do IRL...

Unfortunately this more recent report (it is the news report from the Guardian for those who do not like to connect to such disgusting pieces of left-wing ideology that tax dodges etc. and also so that you can't dismiss it as 'right-wing' propaganda, unlike the article you linked to which is from one of those left-wing think tanks isn't it...) which presents the gap at its narrowest...

Posts: 722 | From: Sneaking across Welsh hill and dale with a thurible in hand | Registered: Dec 2012  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
These three are examples of (quite, ultra and very) high-tech projects. Two of them are military and I'm not opposed to military spending but military projects deliver late, over budget and usually fall short. Rail projects are gravy trains (sic) for construction companies, who have been friends of the Conservatives since Marples had them building the motorways 50+ years ago.

I think that's the first time I've heard shipyard workers and construction workers described as friends of the Tories. Construction companies build houses as well, does that mean we shouldn't pay them to do that?

quote:
As usual, I'm for some lower-tech projects, that need a mix of skilled, semi-skilled and unslikked labour
Such as?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:
[U]nlike the article you linked to which is from one of those left-wing think tanks isn't it...

I'd never heard of the Resolution Foundation before. Apparently its non-dom parent company has avoided up to a third of a billion pounds in tax. Not bad going.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes, but if those extra jobs are all in government departments then the amount of tax required to fund them will be higher than if they were all on welfare.

Contrary to received opinion people working for government departments are actually doing meaningful work that provides goods and services. People on welfare aren't even doing that.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Contrary to received opinion people working for government departments are actually doing meaningful work that provides goods and services.

Some are. The surgeon operating on the patient and the lollipop lady helping children cross the road are doing useful things, obviously. But it doesn't follow that they all are.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159

 - Posted      Profile for Angloid     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sergius-Melli:

Unfortunately this more recent report (it is the news report from the Guardian for those who do not like to connect to such disgusting pieces of left-wing ideology that tax dodges etc. and also so that you can't dismiss it as 'right-wing' propaganda, unlike the article you linked to which is from one of those left-wing think tanks isn't it...) which presents the gap at its narrowest...

Fair response. Except that you can prove anything from statistics. As economics is a closed book to me, and maths much the same, I don't think I'd better get into an involved discussion on this. Just to say that, increasing or not, there is a significant wealth gap and the very poorest are suffering far more than they should. PLus this comment from the linked website:

quote:
comparing the top fifth of income earners to the bottom fifth isn't a good indicator of the gap between the richest and the poorest. The top fifth includes people who many of us wouldn't think of as especially wealthy although they may be much better off than we are.
Better to measure the gap between the very richest and the very poorest and I'd bet my bottom dollar that has widened. In addition, income doesn't give a full picture by any means. Land and property wealth are at least as important.



--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!

Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180

 - Posted      Profile for Cedd007   Email Cedd007       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms and labelling terminally ill people as being fit to work?

Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Cedd007
Shipmate
# 16180

 - Posted      Profile for Cedd007   Email Cedd007       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007 emphasis supplied :
The Old Testament is quite clear that the poor are not to be exploited, and that families should not be allowed to enter a cycle of deprivation.

If this is correct, then presumably Iain Duncan Smith is on the right track...
By penalising people for having spare bedrooms and labelling terminally ill people as being fit to work?

Well, I think it is correct. I happen to have been reading Nehemiah recently, and it was this passage I particularly had in mind:

Nehemiah Chapter 5

4 Still others were saying, “We have had to borrow money to pay the king’s tax on our fields and vineyards. 5 Although we are of the same flesh and blood as our fellow Jews and though our children are as good as theirs, yet we have to subject our sons and daughters to slavery. Some of our daughters have already been enslaved, but we are powerless, because our fields and our vineyards belong to others.”
6 When I heard their outcry and these charges, I was very angry. 7 I pondered them in my mind and then accused the nobles and officials. I told them, “You are charging your own people interest!” So I called together a large meeting to deal with them …

If you are happy, Anglican't, that IDS is doing justice to the Biblical principle exemplified here, I am pleased, but I must say I agree with Jade Constable's interpretation on the effect of his policies. This is not because I am at the bottom left hand side of the 'Political Compass' (which I am) but because the information I have at the moment points me, as it were, in that direction regarding these particular policies.

I think that, in general, if Christians applied biblical principles to the current political and economic situation, rather than automatically indulging in an exchange of the usual political metaphors, cliches and jargon, that would be a good thing. Discussion might open up rather than run in circles, and politicians might be encouraged to inform people of the range of choices facing us as a country and even to engage voters as participants in that discussion rather than the recipients of headlines and mediabytes.

Posts: 58 | From: Essex, United Kingdom | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549

 - Posted      Profile for Dafyd   Email Dafyd   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Cedd007:
If you are happy, Anglican't, that IDS is doing justice to the Biblical principle exemplified here, I am pleased, but I must say I agree with Jade Constable's interpretation on the effect of his policies.

I should point out that the passage uses the word 'tax' and it is a right-wing article of faith that tax is tax is tax, no matter who collects it for what purpose. And that tax is qualitatively different from rent, tolls, fees, charges, and everything else that might be collected by private companies or individuals for whatever purpose or reason.

--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams

Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just browsing through the 'Left Unity' website, and there is a certain amount of the usual squabbling always found on the left, but two things stood out for me. One, that Labour is dead and buried. Whereas some left elements used to burble on about Labour being a 'workers' party' which could be resurrected, I think this has gone the way of the dodo. It is finished as any kind of left-wing party; in fact, it probably has been since Harold Wilson, no hang on, since Clem Attlee. ...

Strange, isn't it then, that throughout my lifetime, this so called 'dead and buried' party has persuaded lots of people to vote for it, has won elections and formed governments, whereas none of these various other groupings have got anywhere.

What is more, it was when the Labour Party did look as though it might be going off in the direction of socialist purity that it lost voters on a large scale. In 1983 it only managed to persuade 26% of them to vote for it. It was only the fact that a lot of its vote was concentrated in safe seats that prevented it going the way of the Liberals in the late 1920s.


Perhaps part of the problem is that so many on the left have seen the world financial crisis as their fantastic opportunity to advocate the same nostra they've always believed in, irrespective of whether they would improve anything. Perhaps they might have more to offer the rest of us, if they genuinely had thought out answers that appeared to be designed to solve the actual problems.

Saying that the answer to the world's crises must be one's own particular version of true socialism, is another version of 'if I have a hammer, the problem must be a nail'.

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Contrary to received opinion people working for government departments are actually doing meaningful work that provides goods and services.

Some are. The surgeon operating on the patient and the lollipop lady helping children cross the road are doing useful things, obviously. But it doesn't follow that they all are.
True, but whether meaningful, constructive or not even ornamental these services have been put into effect through legislation. Many public sector bodies are lumbered with providing statutory services in a way that no commercial outfit would ever contemplate.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
South Coast Kevin
Shipmate
# 16130

 - Posted      Profile for South Coast Kevin   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Sorry if this question had already been asked upthread, but is socialism a realistic option any more, in the modern-day 'global village'. For many wealthy people, relocating seems to be a fairly convenient option, so if their country of residence introduces, say, an 80% tax rate on high earnings many of them will just leave or (with a similar effect on their country's tax take) offshore their business / assets.

I suppose that's a valid option for those (speaking generally, not referring to anyone on this thread) who are happy for their country's GDP to drop in return for a significant increase in financial equality. But I'm guessing this is a minority position...?

If the above isn't an appealing trade-off, what to do? In principle, I'm in favour of regulated business, so that vulnerable people are protected, monopolies not allowed to form, and so on - I did that Political Compass test and came out as 3.75 left-wing on the economic scale - but most of what Labour are proposing strikes me as ridiculous. And as for the hard-left options - no cuts, much higher taxes on wealthy people, a living wage for all - they seem even less realistic to me, with the inevitable consequence of squashing enterprise and eventually sending the UK bankrupt.

Where's the credible left-wing option? Is there one, unless you're proposing economic isolationism?

--------------------
My blog - wondering about Christianity in the 21st century, chess, music, politics and other bits and bobs.

Posts: 3309 | From: The south coast (of England) | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I was just browsing through the 'Left Unity' website, and there is a certain amount of the usual squabbling always found on the left, but two things stood out for me. One, that Labour is dead and buried. Whereas some left elements used to burble on about Labour being a 'workers' party' which could be resurrected, I think this has gone the way of the dodo. It is finished as any kind of left-wing party; in fact, it probably has been since Harold Wilson, no hang on, since Clem Attlee. ...

Strange, isn't it then, that throughout my lifetime, this so called 'dead and buried' party has persuaded lots of people to vote for it, has won elections and formed governments, whereas none of these various other groupings have got anywhere.

What is more, it was when the Labour Party did look as though it might be going off in the direction of socialist purity that it lost voters on a large scale. In 1983 it only managed to persuade 26% of them to vote for it. It was only the fact that a lot of its vote was concentrated in safe seats that prevented it going the way of the Liberals in the late 1920s.


Perhaps part of the problem is that so many on the left have seen the world financial crisis as their fantastic opportunity to advocate the same nostra they've always believed in, irrespective of whether they would improve anything. Perhaps they might have more to offer the rest of us, if they genuinely had thought out answers that appeared to be designed to solve the actual problems.

Saying that the answer to the world's crises must be one's own particular version of true socialism, is another version of 'if I have a hammer, the problem must be a nail'.

Although in the post from which you took that quote, I did argue that nobody knows what 'left' and 'socialism' mean any more, and that in fact, a new organization provides an opportunity to have a conversation about that. The left is haunted by its own past - and the stench of either corruption or tyranny (Stalinism). The idea of 'true socialism' is just an ersatz salvation scheme.

Perhaps you're right, and we just have to accept that capitalism is the most workable solution that is available. Then it's a question of who you want to manage capitalism.

But I would be interested in taking part in such a conversation. One of my hobby-horses is the top-down nature of many left-wing schemes; but what else is available? Some kind of syndicalism? The very word has a sepia-tinged 30s flavour! We shall see.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322

 - Posted      Profile for Enoch   Email Enoch   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps you're right, and we just have to accept that capitalism is the most workable solution that is available. Then it's a question of who you want to manage capitalism. ...

Starting question. Is 'capitalism' really an 'ism', a complete philosophical, economic and political system in the sense that, say, Marxism is? Or was it something just given a name as an 'ism' so that other people had something to accuse 'just doing things' of being?

--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson

Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008  |  IP: Logged
Marvin the Martian

Interplanetary
# 4360

 - Posted      Profile for Marvin the Martian     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally quoted by Angloid:
quote:
comparing the top fifth of income earners to the bottom fifth isn't a good indicator of the gap between the richest and the poorest. The top fifth includes people who many of us wouldn't think of as especially wealthy although they may be much better off than we are.
Better to measure the gap between the very richest and the very poorest and I'd bet my bottom dollar that has widened. In addition, income doesn't give a full picture by any means. Land and property wealth are at least as important.


This is ridiculous. Firstly, it's telling that left wingers aren't willing to talk about the top and bottom fifths any more, because they know that the figures for those categories don't support their position. And yes, the top fifth contains may people who wouldn't be considered particularly wealthy - but isn't that in itself a sign that wealth inequality in the UK isn't as bad as it's made out?

Secondly, only comparing the very richest and the very poorest is stupid - OK, the gap between the Duke of Westminster and a beggar on the street may have widened, but then the gap between someone on minimum wage and a beggar on the street has widened as well, so that tells us nothing!

The rhetoric of "we're only attacking the 1%" is flawed, because there will always be a "1%". Even if everyone in the current "1%" was stripped of their assets, the people who are currently in the "2%" would step up into their position - and be stripped in turn, if the socialists had anything to do with it. Where does it stop? What's the acceptable level of wealth inequality that you're aiming for?

--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar

Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Enoch

No, it's not an ism like that. I would say that it's an economic system which grew spontaneously. I mean, I don't think people thought, this feudalism lark is rubbish, let's invent a new system, although no doubt people did bring about various innovations in banking, insurance, accountancy, and so on, which contributed to the development of the big C. Of course, it gave an almighty kickstart to productivity and various cultural and political ideas, as Marx was the first to state.

[ 13. September 2013, 09:16: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Ad Orientem
Shipmate
# 17574

 - Posted      Profile for Ad Orientem     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
... Perhaps you're right, and we just have to accept that capitalism is the most workable solution that is available. Then it's a question of who you want to manage capitalism. ...

Starting question. Is 'capitalism' really an 'ism', a complete philosophical, economic and political system in the sense that, say, Marxism is? Or was it something just given a name as an 'ism' so that other people had something to accuse 'just doing things' of being?
Economic liberalism? Isn't that what capitalusm essentially is? If it is, then it is certainly an -ism in the same manner as any other -ism.
Posts: 2606 | From: Finland | Registered: Feb 2013  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools