UK Politics - hookers and blow edition

[ab aeterno]

 

 

 

Funny how earlier you equated newness with good and old with bad now your doing the opersite.

 

 

I've done no such thing. I was merely pointing out that nothing has changed in that regard. I made no policy recommendation, I merely opined that this wasn't a particularly impaction issue. 

 

 

 

I really don't care to reply to this line by line. Generally speaking though, just about everything that you've listed is regressive. The same old "throw money and government at it and the problem will go away," which is just as bad as the argument that blithely throwing the market at it will make it go away. We need new tools, new policies and new, more holistic approaches, not renationalisation and re-unionisation.

 

Those things may be, as you say, "my pet issues," but they would demonstrate that he is more of a forward looking politician. Because those issues are the types of issues that are likely to shape our future economy, not re-nationalisation, not unionism, and not printing money.

 

 

As it is, there's nothing for me to get particularly worked up about, because Labour aren't going to sniff power for a long time anyway, so Corbyn's policies are irrelevant. Unfortunately the same isn't true of the Tories. 

 

[McCracken]

Again the regressive argument.  Just becuase something has been done before doesnt make it bad.

 

You can call his policies 'throwing money and governement at it' i would call it investing in our future.

 

I think it easy to demand radical, new policies that will reshape our economy without spending money or adding more regulation but in reality there no silver bullets.

 

Renationalising some industries, reversing punitive measures on unions and investing in our infrastructure are all sensible policies

 

Are they radically new? no Will they solve all our problems? no

 

But will they help reverse some of the damage done to society over the past three decades? Yes

 

Besides Corbyn will have years to promote of new policies, from what i hear he wants people with ideas to come forward and suggest them.  So if you have some great policies for the future i'm sure he would be all ears.

[ab aeterno]

So basically he has so little knowledge and policy experience that he needs me to propose policies for him? :lol:

 

 

Old doesn't mean bad, it just means that it has been tried before, either didn't work or stopped working, and won't just miraculously start working again. You can't recapture the past. He's not talking about using old policies in bold new ways, he's talking about using old policies in old ways.

 

There are no silver bullets, of course. Nor did I suggest there were. But long term reform, political, economic and social, and gradual change will do far more good then renationalisation and empowering unions. 

[The guy from the Vale]

Or alternatively, in the past something stopped working and as a result the child was thrown out along with the bathwater, and he's proposing recovering the child (but not the water).

[McCracken]

"So basically he has so little knowledge and policy experience that he needs me to propose policies for him?"

 

No.  He just recognises that the old style of leadership where the top dictate to policy to everyone else is ineffective and undemocratic.  No one person has a monopoly on good ideas.

 

"Old doesn't mean bad, it just means that it has been tried before, either didn't work or stopped working, and won't just miraculously start working again".

 

A very nieve interpratation of politics.  Maybe it just wasn't working for the right people?  

[Biglose]

 

 

No.  He just recognises that the old style of leadership where the top dictate to policy to everyone else is ineffective and undemocratic.  No one person has a monopoly on good ideas.

Shit has to taste delicious, billions of flys can't be wrong!

The problem is not that there is a shortfall of Ideas. Go to any kindergarden and you find plenty!

The point is, that good ideas are not labeled and people do not recognise the "good" idea. Actually (as bad as it is) people are more likely to get behind the wrong idea (have to find the research behind that, but yeah that was tested).

 

This hole idea that if you just include enough voices there will emerge a better solution is just idiotic. Everyting in human nature is woring to prevent it.

We do not like things we do not understand, but how probable is it that the correct solution is generally understandable. Just look in the realm of natural science. How many of those truth would have made it in a basic democratic process?

[McCracken]

The whole idea isn't that if you just include enough voices there will emerge a better solution.

 

Corbyn isn't going to set up some sort of political x-factor here.  Promising ideas will be researched and deliberated on, maybe adjusted or expanded.

 

The point is that opening up discussion allows different points of views to be heard.  Having a tiny group of people from similar backgrounds make decisions without in put from people who will have different perspective is both ineffective and undemocratic when those dicisions will impact on millions of people.  Those people have a right to have their views heard.  Also these people may have different perspectives that allow for a greater span of ideas.  Their have been plenty of studies that show groups make better decisions when they are more diverse. 

 

For example if your going to set up a policy on domestic violence.  It would be sensible to talk to domestic abuse charities and other stake holders such as lawyers if the policy involves changing the law.  To not do so is idiotic.

 

Your views seem pretty undemocratic.  The people are idiots they should shut up and do what we tell them because we know best.  Pretty arrogant position to take.

[ab aeterno]

"So basically he has so little knowledge and policy experience that he needs me to propose policies for him?"

 

No.  He just recognises that the old style of leadership where the top dictate to policy to everyone else is ineffective and undemocratic.  No one person has a monopoly on good ideas.

 

 

This is what we call "Nationalisation," a process whereby the government takes control of companies or industries and dictates what they should produce and how they should produce it. It is ineffective and undemocratic in the vast majority of cases. 

 

The fact that no-one has a monopoly on good ideas is exactly why nationalisation is not a good idea. By spreading ownership out across many different groups there is a greater chance of good ideas being able to emerge than if everything is centrally controlled and run by a committee. All you do when you concentrate power and control is to increase the chances of failure and to increase the consequences of that failure.

 

 

 

 

A very nieve interpratation of politics.  Maybe it just wasn't working for the right people?  

 

Haha. It works well enough for the majority of the body politic. (See: Election, General; UK 2015). I made a general statement on an online forum because I didn't feel like getting into the level of detail I might in a policy paper or journal article, but the very idea of Corbyn becoming PM, and of his policies being implemented, that is what is naive. It shows a child-like failure to understand the realities of power and perception that is characteristic of the hard left.

 

The truth is that the reason that the vast majority of the time these exuberant, people-centric, "progressive", movements fail to achieve their goals is because for the majority of people, even if the way things are isn't perfect, it's usually good enough. Most people don't want radical change, they're happy with relatively small policy tweaks and an extra £100 per month in their pockets. Leaders like Corbyn just appeal to a particularly loud segment of the population, not a particularly large one.

 

 

Or alternatively, in the past something stopped working and as a result the child was thrown out along with the bathwater, and he's proposing recovering the child (but not the water).

 

You're right of course. You've caught be being overly broad. Generally speaking, however, I think there is little reason to assume that some of the broad policies Corbyn has talked about would be any more successful this time around. 

 

I'm all in favour of a pragmatic, moderate, leader willing to cross party lines and seek about successful policies or approaches from across the political spectrum. A fresh mind, free from the traditional ideological debates that Corbyn is a part of, who is willing to look back at the past and see which ideas might have become more appropriate and more impaction in the world of today is what we really need. Corbyn, it seems to me, just wants to turn back the clock. He's a product of his time, and his time is past.

 

 

 

 

Corbyn isn't going to set up some sort of political x-factor here.  Promising ideas will be researched and deliberated on, maybe adjusted or expanded.

 

 

Every leader says this. Then all the researchers and experts come from their own segment of political thought, and surprisingly, their recommendations line up with what the government wanted to do anyway. Look at the current government, and the Coalition before it. They've been doing exactly that since 2010.

[McCracken]

"This is what we call "Nationalisation," a process whereby the government takes control of companies or industries and dictates what they should produce and how they should produce it. It is ineffective and undemocratic in the vast majority of cases. 

 

The fact that no-one has a monopoly on good ideas is exactly why nationalisation is not a good idea. By spreading ownership out across many different groups there is a greater chance of good ideas being able to emerge than if everything is centrally controlled and run by a committee. All you do when you concentrate power and control is to increase the chances of failure and to increase the consequences of that failure."

 

Things aren't so simple in real life.  Some industries work better privatised for the reasons you state but others dont as they cannot be or are inpratical to spread around different groups like you say.  Like the railways which would work much better under single co-ordinated ownership that aims to serve the public not make a profit.  You can't have real compitition with trains as they need to use the same infrastructure.  What can happen with componies owning certain industries like the train of energy providers is you have quasi monopolies that rip off consumers and feed off government subsidies.  Lots of research shows the trains are better run when they are in public ownership.

 

 

You claim to not be ideological but your position seems ideological to me.  You assume that all services are better provided by the market but the evidence shows this not to be the case.  Just look at healthcare.  Do you think the NHS should be sold off to private companies?

 

"Haha. It works well enough for the majority of the body politic. (See: Election, General; UK 2015)"

 

As someone argued earlier people don't always know what policies are best for them.  I always found this argument stange anyway.  Just becuase a country votes for a government in an election doesn't vindicate all that government's policies.  Governement's have won election on the back of nationalisation in UK before.  Were those electorate wrong and the 2015 one right?  Governement win election's around the world on the back nationalisation is the UK's electorate right and other countries wrong? Also 9.3 million voted labour in the last election compared to 11.3 million conservative. So it's hardly all the electorate even in the 2015 UK election

 

"The very idea of Corbyn becoming PM, and of his policies being implemented, that is what is naive. It shows a child-like failure to understand the realities of power and perception that is characteristic of the hard left."

 

I think the tone of this conversation is slipping a bit. Thats my fault i shouldn't of called you nieve earlier I'm sorry.  Lets try to keep the conversation polite.  

 

I agree that Corbyn is extremely unlikely to become PM but anything is possible.  Another economic crash or other big all changing event could happen before 2020.  No one can predict the future.  Not so long ago everyone would of laughed at the idea of JC becoming leader of the opposition.  Labour were delighted when Margerat Thatcher became leader of the Conservatives, noboday thought she had a chance.  Strange and unpredictable things can and do happen in politics.  

 

"Every leader says this. Then all the researchers and experts come from their own segment of political thought, and surprisingly, their recommendations line up with what the government wanted to do anyway. Look at the current government, and the Coalition before it. They've been doing exactly that since 2010."

 

True.  But one thing you can't accuse JC of is inauthetencity.  When he says he wants to open up the debate I believe him and so far there is every indication that that is what he is doing.  Obviously JC has certain aims and beliefs such as that inequality is bad and he wants to reduce it but i believe he will listen to different opinions on how to achieve that aim.

[DJDonegal]

You guys need to invest in some avatars. I feel like this thread is just one person arguing with themselves.

[ab aeterno]

 

 

I'm finding it difficult to pick apart all the text into which is mine and which is yours, but I guess there are three main things:

 

1) I can't really say that I'm non-ideological, though I try to be as evidence based as possible. Primarily I'm opposed to the use of force to achieve goals, regardless of whether that force is legal, actual or otherwise. After that I tend to try to favour the policies which will lead to the best long term outcomes. I'm sure I fail frequently, but I try. I suppose I'm non-ideological iin that if I were to identify my favoured policies they would fall in different places across the political spectrum, but more generally I'd probably stick to describing myself as a liberal.

 

I don't think that nationalisation is necessarily always bad in every circumstance, but I do think that the situations where having a single-payer or single provider is the best solution are very limited. In a country such as the UK, healthcare, road and rail maintenance are probably good examples - not that those that are currently state run are necessarily run well, but they would probably just cost as much and not really deliver improved outcomes if they were more market driven. I generally think that government intervention in the economy is not a good idea, but I'm in favour of investment in infrastructure and targeted regulation, for example.

 

2) I agree that an election victory doesn't vindicate all of a government's policies (thank goodness!) I was a little blasé about it but my point was really that, generally speaking, unless things get pretty bad, most people tend to settle for the status quo, or something pretty similar to it. I think the lesson of a great many elections, especially in the UK, is that the electorate gets fed up with the people as much as, if not more than the policies. I just don't get the sense that there is a particularly broad clamour for change. There are a lot of things I would like done differently as well, but in the end, I just don't think people are motivated enough by those issues.

 

3) I agree, if there's one thing he is, it's pretty genuine. I think that it is that, as much as his policies, that enthuses a lot of his supporters. I hope you're right that he listens to some different and non-traditional opinions; I think it's all too easy to fall back on taxing the wealthy and bringing in punitive measures to address inequality, but in this day and age, people and companies will leave - we're no longer the power and centre we once were.

 

We do need to address inequality, and I don't pretend to know exactly how, but I think that if it is going to be successful it needs to be a broad approach and one that isn't seen as hostile to wealth, or to business. Reducing inequality needs to be seen as something that benefits everyone, and I worry that too many of Corbyn's supporters would be eager to take a traditional bash-the-rich approach that won't help anyone. 

 

 

I think the tone of this conversation is slipping a bit. Thats my fault i shouldn't of called you nieve earlier I'm sorry.  Lets try to keep the conversation polite.  

 

 

Yes, apologies on my part as well. I thought I'd grown out of getting snippy in political discussions, but I guess not! Just to be clear though, I didn't intend to call you child-like, I was referring more to the belief among some on the old left that there is always a revolution just around the corner. In some ways it's quite admirable, but it's unrealistic, IMO.

 

 

You guys need to invest in some avatars. I feel like this thread is just one person arguing with themselves.

 

Does this include me? My avatar is showing up for me.  :dunno:

[McCracken]

1) I'm not sure how much can be achieved without force.  In fact I'm not I understand your position, are you really against say the enforcement of criminal law or taxes?  I can't imagine a nation faring well without using force.

 

2) I partly agree with you here.  Government tend to lose elections rather than oppositions win them.  Something needs to happen like an economic crisis or the deteriation of services or a scandal before voters will gamble on a change.

 

3) As i said in an earlier post many other countries are far more equal than the UK.  So I don't buy that the UK can't do better.  If by bashing you mean making them pay more tax, i think this is a neccasary step if we want to tackle inequality which is bad for everyone.  In the long run inequality is bad for growth and creates unstable societies that are vulnerable to corruption, civil unrest and facism.  Just look at Greece and the rise Golden Dawn to see what can happen.

[ab aeterno]

1) I'm not sure how much can be achieved without force.  In fact I'm not I understand your position, are you really against say the enforcement of criminal law or taxes?  I can't imagine a nation faring well without using force.

 

 

 

I didn't really mean it specifically in relation to this discussion, it's more that I'm generally opposed to enforcing change on people. Even if I disagree with what people are doing, or think the changes would benefit them, they have the right to make their own decisions. The same goes for free speech issues, generally. Outlawing threats is one thing, but it's technically illegal to insult or upset someone in the UK, even though it's rarely enforced. I don't agree with that. All you achieve by using force against people is to encourage them to use force in response. Like the recent moves to ban "non-violent extremism" for example.

 

 

 

2) I partly agree with you here.  Government tend to lose elections rather than oppositions win them.  Something needs to happen like an economic crisis or the deteriation of services or a scandal before voters will gamble on a change.

 

 

Most likely. I'm not sure I see that happening though, at least not in a way that will be blamed on the government here. If someone goes massively wrong in the next 5 years it's likely to come from overseas, IMO.

 

 

 

3) As i said in an earlier post many other countries are far more equal than the UK.  So I don't buy that the UK can't do better.  If by bashing you mean making them pay more tax, i think this is a neccasary step if we want to tackle inequality which is bad for everyone.  In the long run inequality is bad for growth and creates unstable societies that are vulnerable to corruption, civil unrest and facism.  Just look at Greece and the rise Golden Dawn to see what can happen.

 

 

I suppose what I mean is that it's about two things:

 

Firstly, I think that while ensuring that people pay their full tax liability and perhaps realigning the tax system are good policies to begin to address inequality, they're not long term solutions and they'll only really do a small amount of the work. I think the approach to this needs to be more around increasing the infrastructure, skills, accessibility and wellbeing around the less well off rather than focusing too much on punitive policies towards wealthy individuals and companies. 

 

Secondly, and related to this, it's about tone and approach. You can increase the contributions from the wealthy and from the corporate sector without creating a culture of hostility and antagonism towards them. It needs to be done in a consensual way that builds the case for why these policies are beneficial for companies and wealthy individuals, rather than creating a narrative where wealthy people and firms are seen as immoral, abusive or otherwise negative. It's not an easy balance to strike, but it's necessary.

 

If you create a stable but more redistributive system without creating the impression that you are anti-business or anti-wealth you can build a strong economy around that. The Scandinavian countries you mentioned previously have often taken this approach. Denmark's Flexicurity policy is one interesting idea, and the idea of a guaranteed minimum income (which was ironically advocated by Milton Friedman, he of Thatcher fame.)

[McCracken]

1) I think I agree with you about forcing change.  I'm very liberal when it comes to social policy and don't believe anything should banned if doesn't harm others.  For example I think drugs and prostitution should be legalised.

 

2) I agree it's unlikely.  Though I don't agree that it really matters if a downturn is caused by international factors.  Labour were ruined by the 2008 financial crash which really had nothing to do with them.  They should of regulated the banks but the Tories were calling for less regulation (and ironically promising to match labour spending) and aren't doing anything to protect the UK from antoehr crisis.

 

Anyway I read a good analysis of how labour lost the last election and what stratergy is needed for the next: https://gqrr.app.box.com/s/ro3k2ep7ao1px0hq8dnpkty9y16kfxdr

 

It makes very grim reading for me.  If it's analysis is correct, and i suspect it is, then labour cannot win without taking on positions that I find morally unacceptable and economically illiterate.  

 

3) What you describe sounds very much like the New Labour approach.  That infamous Mandelson quote comes to mind "I very relaxed about people getting filthy rich as long as they pay their taxes".  I don't agree with this approach.  Inequality is problem in of its self, check the ling for arguements why https://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/resources/the-spirit-level.  I don't think inequality can be tackled without dammanding a lot more tax from the top.  In my opinion no one needs to earn more than 500K a year when other people are starving or homeless.

 

I don't believe in bashing the rich retorically though.  They are not evil and it's understandable that they would be worried and scared of giving up their life style.  But I don't think any party has really done this.  Any time someone suggests the rich should be taxed a little more their are screams of injustice, class war and the politics of envy.  So anyone who wants to change things will be accused of bashing the rich.  I haven't heard Milliband or even Corbyn say anything bad about the rich, just that they need to pay more tax or pay their workers a living wage.

 

The truth is the opposite is happening.  The poor are being demonised so that punitive policies against them can pushed through.

 

Just thought I'd link Oborne's asessment of Corbyn's foraign policy as i makes an interesting read

 

http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/corbyn-troublemaker-1532484034

[HexMachina]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/07/alistair-carmichael-legal-challenge

 

Alistair Carmichael's election as Scotland's only Lib Dem MP is being contested

 

 

The hearing, at a specially convened election court, began with judge Lady Paton saying the court would focus on legal debate surrounding section 106 of the Representation of the People Act 1983. It makes it a criminal offence to release a “false statement” about the character and conduct of an election candidate.

[DJDonegal]

Nicola Sturgeon was not an election candidate.

 

Case closed.

[mormont]

Nicola Sturgeon was not an election candidate.

 

Case closed.

 

Unfortunately this may yet prove to be true. However, it doesn't change the facts: Alistair Carmichael

 

- Authorised the leak of confidential information

- That was untrue

- With the intention to damage his direct opponent in the election

- And he then publicly lied to the electorate about having done so

- And he then narrowly won the election on the basis of these lies

- And he then refused to resign when he was finally caught.

 

That he can't be recalled here because the lies were not directly about the character of the man standing against him in that constituency, should not stop us all - regardless of political preferences - from acknowledging that this was absolutely shitty behaviour, unscrupulous and shameful. Maybe this attempt to get rid of him will fail, but he should be got rid of. 

 

In other news: power-sharing in NI actually appears to be in serious trouble.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-21200389

 

This is a worrying state of affairs.

 

Also, we'll show our 'extraordinary compassion' by doing, er, less than other European nations for Syrian refugees. That's... not actually how the word 'extraordinary' works.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34171148

 

ps it appears that these kids will be deported when they turn 18. Extraordinarily compassionate!

[Ser Arthur Hightower]

 

This is what we call "Nationalisation," a process whereby the government takes control of companies or industries and dictates what they should produce and how they should produce it. It is ineffective and undemocratic in the vast majority of cases.

 

The fact that no-one has a monopoly on good ideas is exactly why nationalisation is not a good idea. By spreading ownership out across many different groups there is a greater chance of good ideas being able to emerge than if everything is centrally controlled and run by a committee. All you do when you concentrate power and control is to increase the chances of failure and to increase the consequences of that failure.

 

But if the fail were to be nationalised it would not be one of those, since it is overwhelmingly supported by the British public.

 

Where do you get the idea that nationalised industries are inefficient? Is the British train system more effective than continental counterparts? Is American Healthcare more efficient than of most other advanced countries? I don't argue that nationalised services can't be inefficient, but that is why politicians and civil servants actually have to work to keep those services functioning properly. In general nationalised services offer more reliable service at a lower cost to the public.

 

The idea that privatisation "spreads" ownership is a popular neoliberal myth, when an industry is privately owned the ownership over everything generally goes quite quickly to a few dozen individuals (sometimes far fewer), who are less accountable than the managers who run public companies because their job doesn't depend on the government in power, they have the money in influence the political process, and they are generally more anonymous than government officials.

[Lummel]

 

...Also, we'll show our 'extraordinary compassion' by doing, er, less than other European nations for Syrian refugees. That's... not actually how the word 'extraordinary' works.

 

Can one not say that our compassion is extraordinary when it is extraordinarily less than that of our peers?

[SeanF]

Can one not say that our compassion is extraordinary when it is extraordinarily less than that of our peers?

The UK has spent a hell of a lot more on the ground than our peers, and thereby saved a lot more lives than our peers. Every pound or euro spent in the Middle East goes a lot further there than in Europe.