UK General Election - 12th December 2019 | Con 365, Lab 203, LD 11, SNP 48, Other 23 - Tory Majority of 80

[Fluctuation0161]

I think it was probably unwise, yeah. But I don't think it's evidence of May being antisemitic by itself. Churchill's had some pretty unpleasant views too, but I don't think anyone would say unveiling a statue of him was (necessarily, or primarily) celebrating those views. Or do you?

Ok, how about when combined with Theresa May cosying up with Erdogan? Who also has made anti semitic comments. She was the first western leader to visit him after the 2016 coup and then brought him to the UK for a controversial 3 day official visit in 2018.

I assume that now the example is not by itself, you have 3 instances/examples, you will show a level of concern?

https://www.ft.com/content/366b1d62-e55c-11e6-893c-082c54a7f539

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/24/erdogans-anti-semitism-will-sink-turkeys-economy/

https://www.ft.com/content/5eac7548-5395-11e8-b3ee-41e0209208ec

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

You really think a bit of labour socialism will be worse than a no deal brexit and suckling up to trumps US?

a moderate labour govt. no. But one led by Corbyn/ McDonnell - yes.

I personally don’t think we will have a no deal Brexit with a Tory majority government.

 

[esmufc07]

a moderate labour govt. no. But one led by Corbyn/ McDonnell - yes.

I personally don’t think we will have a no deal Brexit with a Tory majority government.

Why has Farage stood down then? If the Tories get a majority we leave with no deal next year.

Labour won’t win a majority, so most of their ideas won’t be implemented. They just need enough seats to form a coalition and to have a 2nd Ref

 

[finneh]

Epic reply, but your right, we should give away all of our assets to those less fortunate, that also means you giving away your iPhone.

When you look at the list of the top countries by GDP per person (excluding oil states)... You get Ireland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland and Hong Kong (pre riots).

Funny when you look at what those states have in common. Spoiler alert: low taxes and economic/social freedoms (not the tax and spend Tories and not the tax more and spend more Corbynites).

A high tide raises all ships which is something the left is blind too. Mostly because they'd prefer everyone to be poor with no wealth disparity; rather than a large wealth disparity with everyone more wealthy.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Why has Farage stood down then? If the Tories get a majority we leave with no deal next year.

Labour won’t win a majority, so most of their ideas won’t be implemented. They just need enough seats to form a coalition and to have a 2nd Ref

completely disagree. Think Farage has accepted that this version of Brexit is better than remain. he’s not going to get his ideal version of Brexit, but it’s better than nothing. he’s not going to come out and state this, but think he’s reluctantly realised it’s his best option.

if the Tories get a majority they will push through their deal, anything else is scaremongering. A no deal Brexit is far far more likely with a hung parliament.

 

[hobbers]

Farage has probably realised there's a lot more he can do down the line when it comes to the proper trade deal negotiations.

 

[Smores]

The rarity with which you hear people actually just admit their voting a certain way because it's in their selfish interests is always a good indicator to how much bullshit people speak.

There's nothing wrong with admitting selfish interest but don't fecking try and dress it up and worse insult others whilst doing so.

 

[Smores]

completely disagree. Think Farage has accepted that this version of Brexit is better than remain. he’s not going to get his ideal version of Brexit, but it’s better than nothing. he’s not going to come out and state this, but think he’s reluctantly realised it’s his best option.

if the Tories get a majority they will push through their deal, anything else is scaremongering. A no deal Brexit is far far more likely with a hung parliament.

Are you being thick or facetious?

The withdrawal act is not a trade deal, which we certainly won't have with any major economy prior to the end of the transition. Probably well beyond it too.

Farage and Trump want a WTO Brexit and that is what you'll get with the Tories in charge next year. I suppose you could be right and Boris Mogg and his ilk rejected Mays brexit not because Trump said so but because they care too much about the DUP.

 

[ClaytonBlackmoorLeftPeg]

Are you being thick or facetious?

The withdrawal act is not a trade deal, which we certainly won't have with any major economy prior to the end of the transition. Probably well beyond it too.

Farage and Trump want a WTO Brexit and that is what you'll get with the Tories in charge next year. I suppose you could be right and Boris Mogg and his ilk rejected Mays brexit not because Trump said so but because they care too much about the DUP.

reverting to insults when someone doesn’t agree with you - it’s a theme in this thread.

essentially you are implying that any deal with the EU is effectively a no-deal. Ergo any leave option will be a no-deal in your eyes. I respectively (unlike you) disagree.

 

[berbatrick]

When you look at the list of the top countries by GDP per person (excluding oil states)... You get Ireland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland and Hong Kong (pre riots).

Funny when you look at what those states have in common. Spoiler alert: low taxes and economic/social freedoms (not the tax and spend Tories and not the tax more and spend more Corbynites).

A high tide raises all ships which is something the left is blind too. Mostly because they'd prefer everyone to be poor with no wealth disparity; rather than a large wealth disparity with everyone more wealthy.

In Ireland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 25 310 a year, lower than the OECD average of USD 33 604 a year.

 

[finneh]

In Ireland, the average household net-adjusted disposable income per capita is USD 25 310 a year, lower than the OECD average of USD 33 604 a year.

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/disposable-personal-income

I also wonder if you'd be a proponent of an economy similar to the country at the top of the list you quote?

 

[sebsheep]

When you look at the list of the top countries by GDP per person (excluding oil states)... You get Ireland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland and Hong Kong (pre riots).

Funny when you look at what those states have in common. Spoiler alert: low taxes and economic/social freedoms (not the tax and spend Tories and not the tax more and spend more Corbynites).

A high tide raises all ships which is something the left is blind too. Mostly because they'd prefer everyone to be poor with no wealth disparity; rather than a large wealth disparity with everyone more wealthy.

I can't help but feel some analysis is missing there, you may need to start by looking at how these countries support having these high GDPs to see if someone else is being screwed over somewhere down the line.

 

[finneh]

I can't help but feel some analysis is missing there, you may need to start by looking at how these countries support having these high GDPs to see if someone else is being screwed over somewhere down the line.

The post wasn't meant to be conclusive analytical proof of economic utopia.

I would say to look at Ireland's growth since 2010 and the benefits it's brought to every citizen of the country. Likewise Hong Kong from 1980 - 2000 or Singaplore over the last few decades. Switzerland has had it nailed for years, Monaco likewise. Fast growth is the best means of increasing revenue. Increasing spend without fast growth is the best means of stunting revenue.

A mixed bag of varied economic fortunes all outperforming their worldwide equivalents with a low tax (% GDP), low spend (% GDP), high growth mantra.

However we've gone down the French route of tax, spend, stagnant growth and colossal deficit

 

[redshaw]

https://foreignpolicy.com/2018/12/24/erdogans-anti-semitism-will-sink-turkeys-economy/

With the anti-semitism surrounding Labour, if Brexit goes ahead it could be difficult getting help from the US if Labour is in power no matter if it''s republicans or democrats in office. We could cut ourselves from Europe and also put off the US to varying degrees. Whether you think this anti-semitism is valid or not, it's what people, some of Jewish background in the US think. I don't think it will differ from the Rabbi in the UK.

 

[Segment]

I'm actually surprised how popular Labour is here, for some reason I didn't think that would be the case on here. Fair play lads!

 

[berbatrick]

https://tradingeconomics.com/ireland/disposable-personal-income

I also wonder if you'd be a proponent of an economy similar to the country at the top of the list you quote?

I'm not sure why you're showing me that graph, the figures match what I said. 27k/year median income which is lower than the OECD avg apparently. For me the more relvant question is the apparently large gap between between median and mean (since according to your post, the mean income, which is GDP per capita by definition, is among the highest in the world). And that can easily be explained by an unequal income distribution.
Secondly the other things some of those places have in common is that they are the international headquarters of large multinational companies escaping taxes in their actual markets. The massive economic activity in Luxemburg and Ireland is nothing to do with their economy or market but with tax avoidance. That only problem is, if other countries lower their rates
a. these places will quickly be hollowed out
b. the benefits to any one country will not be significant, because the companies will distribute their HQs and tax bases more widely.
Finally, another thing in common among those countries is their miniscule size, and massive financial markets; HK and Singapore can be better compared to London and NY more useful than comparisons to other countries. If you look at net taxes and spending in NYC/London, both those places are in massive surplus and have massive GDP per capita as well.

 

[berbatrick]

With the anti-semitism surrounding Labour, if Brexit goes ahead it could be difficult getting help from the US if Labour is in power no matter if it''s republicans or democrats in office. We could cut ourselves from Europe and also put off the US to varying degrees. Whether you think this anti-semitism is valid or not, it's what people, some of Jewish background in the US think. I don't think it will differ from the Rabbi in the UK.

One rather important person of a Jewish background who is is running for president in America seems to think differently !

Also I can't read the article (paywall) but I think i found it here, and I'm not sure it's arguing what you're saying. It's not arguing that the perception of antisemitism in Turkey is creating problems for it when it tries to get money or do deals with the US, I think it's saying that by focusing on anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Erdogan is unable to correctly diagnose and improve the economy.

 

[BeforeKeanetherewasRobson]

Are you being thick or facetious?

The withdrawal act is not a trade deal, which we certainly won't have with any major economy prior to the end of the transition. Probably well beyond it too.

Farage and Trump want a WTO Brexit and that is what you'll get with the Tories in charge next year. I suppose you could be right and Boris Mogg and his ilk rejected Mays brexit not because Trump said so but because they care too much about the DUP.

Honest question (please don't assume I'm pro or anti any party/leader).

WHY would Boris/Conservative party want a no deal? My limited understanding of it is a no deal would hit the economy hard, so I'm wondering why Boris would want that/what benefits (to him) are?

A worse economy = less taxes/more problems?

Genuinely curious.

 

[Fingeredmouse]

god forbid anyone being successful. You must hate flying on virgin planes and resent playing on your Amstrad (somewhat dated reference!!). Just imagine the assets these guys have?

on a serious note, do you have a threshold of earnings - over which you dislike that person? Is there a limit to what people should earn?

It's not about earnings old chap. It's the voting intent and the society that engenders. I have a high income but that doesn't make me vote for a party that neglects society's vulnerable. You confuse belief in redistribution of wealth with a belief that the pursuit if wealth (within reason) is inherently bad. Your straw man holds no weight with me.

 

[Segment]

One rather important person of a Jewish background who is is running for president in America seems to think differently !

Also I can't read the article (paywall) but I think i found it here, and I'm not sure it's arguing what you're saying. It's not arguing that the perception of antisemitism in Turkey is creating problems for it when it tries to get money or do deals with the US, I think it's saying that by focusing on anti-semitic conspiracy theories, Erdogan is unable to correctly diagnose and improve the economy.

Don't forget Bercow believing that Corbyn isn't Anti-Semeitic -
https://www.gq-magazine.co.uk/politics/article/john-bercow-interview

 

[finneh]

I'm not sure why you're showing me that graph, the figures match what I said. 27k/year median income which is lower than the OECD avg apparently.

I was trying to illustrate improvement, which is what's important as every economy doesn't start from the same baseline. Economic improvement in Ireland in almost every metric over the last decade surpasses (pretty much) every other EU or developed country.

For me the more relvant question is the apparently large gap between between median and mean (since according to your post, the mean income, which is GDP per capita by definition, is among the highest in the world). And that can easily be explained by an unequal income distribution.

The common misconception is that the wealthy take wealth from the poor. If you for one second assume that is fiction and that wealth is infinite you might countenance that the difference between mean and medium is the politics of envy.

I'd prefer a society with 10 people earning £30k, 10 people earning £70k and 10 people earning £5m (whereby the mean is c. 25x the medium), rather than a society where everyone earns £30k and the mean matches the medium. Even from a socialist perspective think of all those juicy taxes you can squeeze from the former category.

Secondly the other things some of those places have in common is that they are the international headquarters of large multinational companies escaping taxes in their actual markets. The massive economic activity in Luxemburg and Ireland is nothing to do with their economy or market but with tax avoidance. That only problem is, if other countries lower their rates
a. these places will quickly be hollowed out
b. the benefits to any one country will not be significant, because the companies will distribute their HQs and tax bases more widely.
Finally, another thing in common among those countries is their miniscule size, and massive financial markets; HK and Singapore can be better compared to London and NY more useful than comparisons to other countries. If you look at net taxes and spending in NYC/London, both those places are in massive surplus and have massive GDP per capita as well.

You act like the decision to not compete with these countries is anything other than a moral stupidity. If one of my competitors decides that he'll take customers to VIP football matches and wine and dine them every week because the business he gets is worth 100x the outlay, if I refuse to entertain on the basis of some strange moral compass who's the victim?

It isn't the wealthy as they don't care about public services... It's the poor who could see the benefit of a huge tax windfall in terms of pounds and pennies (albeit small in terms of ideological %).

If Amazon, Apple, Google and co are happy to pay a fixed rate of £200m per annum (irrespective of declared profit) to domicile in the UK, we'd be idiots to decline.

 

[owlo]

Blair's spending wasn't a problem as a % of GDP as the economy was growing at a rate of knots, however it was a problem in that he increased spending drastically, whilst decreasing productivity on spend because that's what happens when you jizz money left right and centre without rhyme or reason.

"Taking into account the fact that real spending on these public services grew by more than inputs (and therefore by more than outputs), the average “bang for each buck” (outputs over spending) is estimated to have fallen by 13.4% between 1997 and 2007 – an average fall of 1.4% a year. Had “bang for each buck” in 2007 been at the same level as it was in 1997 then, according to these estimates at least, for the same level of spending 15.5% more could have been delivered. Alternatively the same quantity and quality of public services could have been delivered for £42.5 billion less spending. Of this £42.5 billion, £10.8 billion represents the decline in measured productivity (the fall in outputs divided by inputs) while the remaining £31.8 billion (numbers do not sum due to rounding) represents rising pay and prices relative to the general level of prices in the economy. "

I think it's absurd that we didn't have a budget surplus of at least £50b per annum by 2007.

Spoiler: Annual Spending Increases 1979 - 2007

Spoiler: Productivity 1997 - 2007

Please don't cherry pick parts of articles and present it as analysis. The article goes on to say the following:

It should be borne in mind however that the extra inputs received may have improved the quality of the output in ways not measured by UKCeMGA. Furthermore had average public sector wages not been increased relative to private sector wages over the period from 2001 to 2007 then the quality of public services might have deteriorated as a result of difficulties in recruiting and retaining motivated, high performing, staff. It could also be the case that diminishing marginal returns result in every £1 of extra spending on public services delivering less output than the average pound spent. This does not imply that spending should be cut: as long as the benefits derived from the extra spending are greater than the cost then the spending is appropriate. It may also be the case that the impact of extra inputs on outputs only shows up fully with a lag – this could explain why productivity and “bang for each buck” have picked in the most recent one or two years. In particular the large increase in education spending on pre-school age children that has occurred under Labour will not yet have fed through to improved GCSE results (the measure of education quality used by UKCeMGA)

The Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Phillip Hammond has compared measured productivity changes in the public sector with those on average in the private sector over the same period. On this basis Mr Hammond calculates that had public sector productivity kept pace with average private sector productivity over the period from 1997 to 2007 then by 2007 the same quantity and quality of public services could have been enjoyed for £60 billion less. However there may be good reasons to expect productivity growth to differ between these two sectors, and indeed between different subsectors, as, for example, new technologies and management processes may boost productivity in some industries but not others. Similarly it may be harder to bring about productivity improvements in inherently more labour intensive sectors such as health and education. There are also other technical, but important, differences between the ONS’ measures of public and private sector productivity.9 The absence of data from before 1998 – or comparable data from other countries – makes it impossible to say whether Labour’s performance on public service productivity has been relatively impressive or disappointing.

Your conclusion/analysis is obviously erroneous, as the article clearly states. Was this an intentional attempt at propaganda or an honest mistake?

And if 2010-2016 hasn't taught you the dangers of a budget surplus when interest rates are low, then likely nothing will.The problem isn't and never was the deficit, it's productivity stagnation/decline. Under this conservative government, productivity has fallen to almost the 2008 recession level. Brexit will simply harm this further.

Zero hour contracts, too many degrees, austerity, morale, lack of investment (lolol brexit), real wages fall ... again these zero hour contracts and your Romanian cleaners are harming productivity. (less costs, more workers, less productivity).

This is why the Conservatives as I said, have screwed the pooch. Note I'm not saying Corbyn wouldn't be worse. But Brown was most certainly light years ahead.

 

[Cheesy]

When you look at the list of the top countries by GDP per person (excluding oil states)... You get Ireland, Luxembourg, Singapore, Switzerland and Hong Kong (pre riots).

Funny when you look at what those states have in common. Spoiler alert: low taxes and economic/social freedoms (not the tax and spend Tories and not the tax more and spend more Corbynites).

A high tide raises all ships which is something the left is blind too. Mostly because they'd prefer everyone to be poor with no wealth disparity; rather than a large wealth disparity with everyone more wealthy.

You're conveniently (and probably deliberately) ignoring the fact that a lot of the Scandinavian states do quite well in this regard - albeit without the rampant inequality of Hong Kong or authoritarianism of Singapore. To suggest lowering taxes is the only successful method of economic improvement is, in this regard, remarkably dishonest. There are plenty of states who perform strongly on the basis of having strong welfare states with heavy government interventionism, albeit with the private sector still being prevalent as well.

Cases like Luxembourg and Singapore are inherently different to larger states as well - a smaller state has less divergence in terms of geography etc and thus you're a lot less likely to have economic disparity between different regions or states. The population are therefore perhaps more likely to be integrated in this regard - an economic boom for London might not necessarily translate to Glasgow or Belfast or Newcastle, whereas an economic boom for Singapore is more likely to benefit the overall country's GDP.

 

[Volumiza]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

Still going to vote for them ?

You think that clip shows me anything I didn’t already know about the Tories?

but saying that, attitudes like that aren’t limited to families like the Johnsons Sweet Square are they?

 

[Cheesy]

You act like the decision to not compete with these countries is anything other than a moral stupidity. If one of my competitors decides that he'll take customers to VIP football matches and wine and dine them every week because the business he gets is worth 100x the outlay, if I refuse to entertain on the basis of some strange moral compass who's the victim?

It isn't the wealthy as they don't care about public services... It's the poor who could see the benefit of a huge tax windfall in terms of pounds and pennies (albeit small in terms of ideological %).

If Amazon, Apple, Google and co are happy to pay a fixed rate of £200m per annum (irrespective of declared profit) to domicile in the UK, we'd be idiots to decline.

You're completely ignoring his point here though. If everyone does this then the benefits are immediately negated. And as a result all that happens is countries find themselves taking reduced tax receipts while not actually seeing any economic improvements. Races to the bottom like this may have short-term benefits but can end up being disastrous in the long-term when people expect/need increasing investment. Stuff like this was proven literally over a century ago.

 

[Charlie Foley]

It's been said for years: Corbyn is unelectable. Labour have missed an open-goal by sticking with him.

The people who like him, really like him. The people who hate him, really hate him. The people in the middle think he's too much of an idealist. And undecided voters are switched off by his lack of charisma. He offers nothing as a leader.

Corbyn certainly seems very polarising!

Is there anyone in particular within the Labour Party that people such as yourself (I’m guessing) would like to see in the role instead? Is there anyone?

 

[Mockney]

I still intrinsically feel one of the biggest unspoken problems with the new leftish resurgence of Bernie and Corbyn (which isn't really that new, or that left, in real policy terms) is that there's this weird, openly unabashed promotion and embracing of 20th century Marxist socialism, with no attempt to re-define their ideas through the prism of popular policy agenda, as if those old philosophies have no negative connotations or affect on mainstream popularity!

The fact that two 70 odd white dudes are fronting these movements is not particularly great, sure, but they're made significantly worse by the bullheaded association their followers insist on making with such antiquated ideas of "socialism"... as if the many popular polices they promote can only be understood through this one, contestable interpretation of general fairness, proposed by a handful of largely unpopular and unsuccessful Germans 100 years ago... I mean... Why!?

The right wing have spent decades re-packaging the same old evil racist shit as "not actually this horrible thing you know about...trust us!".... And you don't see a lot of them reference Niche too much anymore.

And yet for some baffling reason the left are still trying to argue how great our ideas are by saying "Socialism!... Yes, that socialism!... Well, not exactly that one, but a better one. No, not that one either. Well, essentially it doesn't exist yet, but it works in theory!"

Just say all the good things, and act like they're normal FFS! Like all the hugely popular and technically socialist amenities we already have! But that people don't know are socialist, because they weren't promoted as such!

When John McDonnell gives a speech in front of a sea of soviet flags, it isn't some cool counterculture statement, it's just a short old man with big eyebrows acting tough in front of a bunch of incel Ricks from The Young Ones...

 

[kidbob]

Honest question (please don't assume I'm pro or anti any party/leader).

WHY would Boris/Conservative party want a no deal? My limited understanding of it is a no deal would hit the economy hard, so I'm wondering why Boris would want that/what benefits (to him) are?

A worse economy = less taxes/more problems?

Genuinely curious.

I'm not even British but I'm assuming that this bunch of rich people want to avoid the new tax avoidance laws. Maybe even they want to crash the country because rich people can use that to make incredible profits (ala written by JRM's father). Honestly a recession is only bad for poor people, while Boris and the rest can buy low and make a killing. Also they can enact this while conveniently avoiding the new EU tax laws. The EU ain't perfect but the fact you trust a bunch of Eton kids with paid degrees and whose only interaction with the poor in their growing up years was their illegal immigrant maid is worrying. You do realise by the way, with your hated of foreigners, that rich people are the biggest employers of illegal immigrant because they ca exploit them?

So why would they do it when "A worse economy = less taxes/more problems?" Because they don't give a feck about you. They were brought up different so have no concept of your problems and they have used their propaganda to successfully get you to do their bidding. Control the media and you control the people. You know what can control the media? Money. You know who has that? The people who can profit from Brexit and afford to run away when the shit hits the fan.

 

[Cheesy]

I still intrinsically feel one of the biggest unspoken problems with the new leftish resurgence of Bernie and Corbyn (which isn't really that new, or that left, in real policy terms) is that there's this weird, openly unabashed promotion and embracing of 20th century Marxist socialism, with no attempt to re-define their ideas through the prism of popular policy agenda, as if those old philosophies have no negative connotations or affect on mainstream popularity!

The fact that two 70 odd white dudes are fronting these movements is not particularly great, sure, but they're made significantly worse by the bullheaded association their followers insist on making with such antiquated ideas of "socialism"... as if the many popular polices they promote can only be understood through this one, contestable interpretation of general fairness, proposed by a handful of largely unpopular and unsuccessful Germans 100 years ago... I mean... Why!?

The right wing have spent decades re-packaging the same old evil racist shit as "not actually this horrible thing you know about...trust us!".... And you don't see a lot of them reference Niche too much anymore.

And yet for some baffling reason the left are still trying to argue how great our ideas are by saying "Socialism!... Yes, that socialism!... Well, not exactly that one, but a better one. No, not that one either. Well, essentially it doesn't exist yet, but it works in theory!"

Just say all the good things, and act like they're normal FFS! Like all the hugely popular and technically socialist amenities we already have! But that people don't know are socialist, because they weren't promoted as such!

I kinda go back and forth with this one...because in certain respects there's a fairly solid argument that Corbyn and McDonnell are a bit stuck in the past and unable to perceive how the world has changed, especially when it comes to their views on Europe etc. But to be fair to them their broadband policies could at least be seen as quite forward-looking and modern insofar as they're looking at problems needing addressed outside the usual areas of health, education etc.

 

[kidbob]

I still intrinsically feel one of the biggest unspoken problems with the new leftish resurgence of Bernie and Corbyn (which isn't really that new, or that left, in real policy terms) is that there's this weird, openly unabashed promotion and embracing of 20th century Marxist socialism, with no attempt to re-define their ideas through the prism of popular policy agenda, as if those old philosophies have no negative connotations or affect on mainstream popularity!

The fact that two 70 odd white dudes are fronting these movements is not particularly great, sure, but they're made significantly worse by the bullheaded association their followers insist on making with such antiquated ideas of "socialism"... as if the many popular polices they promote can only be understood through this one, contestable interpretation of general fairness, proposed by a handful of largely unpopular and unsuccessful Germans 100 years ago... I mean... Why!?

The right wing have spent decades re-packaging the same old evil racist shit as "not actually this horrible thing you know about...trust us!".... And you don't see a lot of them reference Niche too much anymore.

And yet for some baffling reason the left are still trying to argue how great our ideas are by saying "Socialism!... Yes, that socialism!... Well, not exactly that one, but a better one. No, not that one either. Well, essentially it doesn't exist yet, but it works in theory!"

Just say all the good things, and act like they're normal FFS! Like all the hugely popular and technically socialist amenities we already have! But that people don't know are socialist, because they weren't promoted as such!

I'm pretty sure I get what you mean but I can't find a way to necessarily put my words into a direct response. Kind of like universal healthcare just makes sense from a humanity point of view and that's that because it's simply the right thing to do in this and any day and age? Like it's not an argument of sorts but more that I care about other people and that's how it should be? Or have I read it wrong?

 

[Mockney]

I kinda go back and forth with this one...because in certain respects there's a fairly solid argument that Corbyn and McDonnell are a bit stuck in the past and unable to perceive how the world has changed, especially when it comes to their views on Europe etc. But to be fair to them their broadband policies could at least be seen as quite forward-looking and modern insofar as they're looking at problems needing addressed outside the usual areas of health, education etc.

Oh I agree entirely!... My issue is with the idea of promoting all these great positive social changes, through the prism of "socialism" or, on occasion even "Marxism"... rather than "these really cool and actually quite fair things we should probably do!"

The Right don't do this. Largely because they know that defining their awfulness will inevitably lead to a fascist aesthetic (because fascism is really all about aesthetics!) and yet for some reason the left still insist on defining all our good ideas as "Socialist" rather than "THIS REALLY GOOD THING".. despite knowing that whole swathes of people associate that as old and bad, for whatever reasons... So, rather than contesting it - easy solution - just don't fecking mention it!... Americans think the idea of "socialism" is inherently evil, but aren't aware that public schools, police, ambulances etc are technically just that, because they aren't told they are!... so STOP feckING MENTIONING IT, OWEN JONES!!

Unlike @esmufc07 I actually quite like Ash Sakar. I think she's smart, clued up and pretty personable. However her insistence on pretending she's a "luxury communist" is just fecking daft, isn't it!? There's literally no acceptable way, let alone any need to "reclaim" that word, or attempt to make it trendy that doesn't seem like a wanky riff on Citizen Smith. It actually only serves to undermine all the positive social ideas she proposes. Yet its emblematic of the left believing they can hipsterfy old and unpopular ideologies for some kind of weird clout... Just, why!? Stop it! Just, fecking, stop it FFS!

I'm pretty sure I get what you mean but I can't find a way to necessarily put my words into a direct response. Kind of like universal healthcare just makes sense from a humanity point of view and that's that because it's simply the right thing to do in this and any day and age? Like it's not an argument of sorts but more that I care about other people and that's how it should be? Or have I read it wrong?

Fun fact: America did once upon a time have a purely capitalist fire service, which you had to pay for to ensure they'd put out your fire. It essentially, and inevitably, descended into pure gangsterism, where different blocks had to pay protection money to different fire services, which was not only morally awful at a base level, but didn't even work, as the different private fire services would occasionally turn up to the same job, and rather than work together to put out the fire, ended up fighting each other for the privilege. So naturally, they changed it.

It's only socialism when you tell them it's socialism.

 

[berbatrick]

...

just so i'm clear - is the problem the branding or the people/policies?

When John McDonnell gives a speech in front of a sea of soviet flags, it isn't some cool counterculture statement, it's just a short old man with big eyebrows acting tough in front of a bunch of incel Ricks from The Young Ones...

you take that back, just look at this perfect placement


edit - one of the most cucked (for lack of a better term) leftist unions in india, has the order as marx-engels-lenin-stalin-rajiv gandhi. the last guy is one of the forces behind the liberalisation/globalisation/privatisation of the indian economy, and under whom unions started their decline.

 

[Grinner]

Oh I agree entirely!... My issue is with the idea of promoting all these great positive social changes, through the prism of "socialism" or, on occasion even "Marxism"... rather than "these really cool and actually quite fair things we should probably do!"

The Right don't do this. Largely because they know that defining their awfulness will inevitably lead to a fascist aesthetic (because fascism is really all about aesthetics!) and yet for some reason the left still insist on defining all our good ideas as "Socialist" rather than "THIS REALLY GOOD THING".. despite knowing that whole swathes of people associate that as old and bad, for whatever reasons... So, rather than contesting it - easy solution - just don't fecking mention it!... Americans think the idea of "socialism" is inherently evil, but aren't aware that public schools, police, ambulances etc are technically just that, because they aren't told they are!... so STOP feckING MENTIONING IT, OWEN JONES!!



Fun fact: America did once upon a time have a purely capitalist fire service, which you had to pay for to ensure they'd put out your fire. It essentially, and inevitably, descended into pure gangsterism, where different blocks had to pay protection money to different fire services, which was not only morally awful at a base level, but didn't even work, as the different private fire services would occasionally turn up to the same job, and rather than work together to put out the fire, ended up fighting each other for the privilege.

It's only socialism when you tell them it's socialism.

Didn't that method of firefighting originate in London? You still see the firemarks on some buildings of a lot of companies, some of which became big insurance companies.

 

[Mockney]

just so i'm clear - is the problem the branding or the people/policies?

Entirely the branding. Many socialist policies are popular. Many of the greatest policies in the western world are socialist in principle. And yet the idea of "socialism" as perceived by many in the mainstream, is of a failed, unattainable, eventually totalitarian philosophy loved by short men in woolly coats and those kind of but-not-quite peaky-blinders hats!

Who cares what people think about the 19th century definition of a relatively open ended doctrine of fairness. If people have entirely the wrong idea about it, why keep insisting they learn the right one? Who cares!? Why not just tell them all the good shit they like about it, and call it something else? Or just not define it at all!

Again, what equivalent Right wing ideology do conservatives continue to insist we return to? Is there one? I mean, they're not gonna exactly say "Nazism" are they? But then when the likes of Sakar or Bastani try and pretend Communism is cool, however many rye smiles the may elicit in a coked up Hackney house party, they're quite obviously still alienating a massive amount of people. And in a culture war we're obviously losing... What the feck is the actual point of that, eh?

 

[caid]

Economic improvement in Ireland in almost every metric over the last decade surpasses (pretty much) every other EU or developed country.

Ireland was more or less bankrupt a decade ago, I'm not sure reaching below average is that impressive an achievement. Especially when so much of our current economy is built on picking the pockets of the rest of Europe.
Corporation tax is basically the only government income thats going to survive automation so racing to ever lower tax rates just seems a self evidently, blatantly crap plan for everyone who doesn't have serious money invested in the stock market.

 

[Ultimate Grib]

I still intrinsically feel one of the biggest unspoken problems with the new leftish resurgence of Bernie and Corbyn (which isn't really that new, or that left, in real policy terms) is that there's this weird, openly unabashed promotion and embracing of 20th century Marxist socialism, with no attempt to re-define their ideas through the prism of popular policy agenda, as if those old philosophies have no negative connotations or affect on mainstream popularity!

The fact that two 70 odd white dudes are fronting these movements is not particularly great, sure, but they're made significantly worse by the bullheaded association their followers insist on making with such antiquated ideas of "socialism"... as if the many popular polices they promote can only be understood through this one, contestable interpretation of general fairness, proposed by a handful of largely unpopular and unsuccessful Germans 100 years ago... I mean... Why!?

The right wing have spent decades re-packaging the same old evil racist shit as "not actually this horrible thing you know about...trust us!".... And you don't see a lot of them reference Niche too much anymore.

And yet for some baffling reason the left are still trying to argue how great our ideas are by saying "Socialism!... Yes, that socialism!... Well, not exactly that one, but a better one. No, not that one either. Well, essentially it doesn't exist yet, but it works in theory!"

Just say all the good things, and act like they're normal FFS! Like all the hugely popular and technically socialist amenities we already have! But that people don't know are socialist, because they weren't promoted as such!

When John McDonnell gives a speech in front of a sea of soviet flags, it isn't some cool counterculture statement, it's just a short old man with big eyebrows acting tough in front of a bunch of incel Ricks from The Young Ones...

The problem is that they see themselves as purists and are either all in or not at all. They cannot bring themselves to water down the ideology to make it relevant for the time we live in. They need to pick and choose their fights and go with what’s popular and leave the unpopular things unsaid, but the way I see it is they’re looking for justification in wanting the public to accept everything about their view with the good and the bad which is why they’re struggling to come close to beating the worst leaders and governments this country has ever seen.

 

[Smores]

reverting to insults when someone doesn’t agree with you - it’s a theme in this thread.

essentially you are implying that any deal with the EU is effectively a no-deal. Ergo any leave option will be a no-deal in your eyes. I respectively (unlike you) disagree.

I make absolutely no apology for my distaste at your post. If you equate judgement on the content of your posts with personal insult feel free to be offended I'm sure you'll recover.

You don't seem to understand the difference between the withdrawal act and a trade deal so i think that answers my question anyway. Our new withdrawal act sets a very narrow window for any deal to be made during transition and in reality leaves us in the same place as a no deal would. Call it what you want to disguise whatever argument you wish.

Honest question (please don't assume I'm pro or anti any party/leader).

WHY would Boris/Conservative party want a no deal? My limited understanding of it is a no deal would hit the economy hard, so I'm wondering why Boris would want that/what benefits (to him) are?

A worse economy = less taxes/more problems?

Genuinely curious.

All brexit hits the economy hard so why indeed.

All Boris wants is to ride whatever horse will keep him in power, i don't think he personally cares about brexit or no deal..or the rest of us or his children etc etc

The main reason the ERG lot want no deal or WTO brexit as they prefer is because they want trade liberalisation and to lessen regulatory standards particularly alignment. A close ties trade deal with the EU harms any US trade deal which is why they had it taken out of the WA. It seems a mixed bunch between those funded by american think tanks and those who want us to change the makeup of our society/economy.

We're about to be in a very vulnerable position and Boris if he wins will need a trade deal. That won't come within the transition so they'll have no choice but to fall into trading on WTO with europe making us even more vunerable. And yet the Tories say they'll walk away from any bad deal, in reality politically and economically we will be desperate so how much confidence can anyone have that we won't make major concessions?

 

[Smores]

Tweet

— Twitter API (@user) date

It's the hope that hurts.

If we do end up with a hung parliament and we have to go through another general election i think Labour will need to change leader. Stick Starmer in charge, drop a few policies such as broadband and royal mail nationalisation and then go again. I think the momentum of the rest of the manifesto and a new face over them might convince enough for a majority. I'd bet on it being Starmer vs Gove

 

[Classical Mechanic]

Are you being thick or facetious?

The withdrawal act is not a trade deal, which we certainly won't have with any major economy prior to the end of the transition. Probably well beyond it too.

Farage and Trump want a WTO Brexit and that is what you'll get with the Tories in charge next year. I suppose you could be right and Boris Mogg and his ilk rejected Mays brexit not because Trump said so but because they care too much about the DUP.

I tend to think the short window to strike the trade deal was simply aesthetics for this election, to make it look to the electorate that the ordeal would be over soon. With a majority they can pass any extension with no issue and it would be so early in their term that I doubt it would carry much weight into the next election. Personally I’d be surprised if Boris’s true intent would be to no deal in a years time.

 

[T00lsh3d]

The problem is that they see themselves as purists and are either all in or not at all. They cannot bring themselves to water down the ideology to make it relevant for the time we live in. They need to pick and choose their fights and go with what’s popular and leave the unpopular things unsaid, but the way I see it is they’re looking for justification in wanting the public to accept everything about their view with the good and the bad which is why they’re struggling to come close to beating the worst leaders and governments this country has ever seen.

I think you’re right but I think Corbyn is rejected by the public mostly based on personality, or rather media projection of his personality, rather than his policies. When I see his policies, although I’m not in favour of them myself, it baffles me that they aren’t a bit win for voters, because by and large they increase income for poorer families. Only think I can conclude is that a) personality > policies b) media play a massive role c) his brexit position is an unequivocal disaster