UK Politics: No Bully XL for you

[Kalbear]

8 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

To me deciding whether to send any criminal to prison is about how the community is best served and the best course of action for the reformation of the criminal's long term behaviour. Prison rarely does anything to improve the latter, and prison only really serves the former purpose if the individual represents an ongoing threat to public safety / order.

I don't know how principles of criminal justice reform are best served by sending someone like Bernie to prison despite a visceral desire to see such people suffer because so many other people are suffering worse for less.

The community is often best served by putting people who are the most damaging to the community standards in the most punishment. I disagree strongly that it doesn't serve the purpose unless they represent an ongoing threat. 

Because who we ostracize, punish or shun absolutely reflects on the community - and by not punishing this person like you do any other criminal you damage the community and make it far more likely that others will do similar things. 

As to seeing him suffer because others are doing more for less - I make no comparison about others here. He should go to prison for a very long time because he committed massive fraud and massive monetary damage to the community. That's the case regardless of any of your other laws or choices. 

[Craving Peaches]

There is an idea that crimes such as fraud and embezzlement are less damaging than theft or more 'physical' crimes. This is a bad idea. Fraud can be devastating. You could lose your life's savings. Your identity could be stolen.

[The Anti-Targ]

If people think "lock 'em up" is the best of idea as the punishment for most crimes, then there's really not much to discuss. But if people are open to talking about other ways of dealing with criminals to achieve better outcomes, less crowded prisons and breaking the prison-industrial complex then there is a basis for reasonable discussion.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

If people think "lock 'em up" is the best of idea as the punishment for most crimes, then there's really not much to discuss. But if people are open to talking about other ways of dealing with criminals to achieve better outcomes, less crowded prisons and breaking the prison-industrial complex then there is a basis for reasonable discussion.

I don't think it's the best of ideas for most crimes.

I think it or something similarly punitive is absolutely the right choice to deal with the rich exploiting the system heavily and committing fraud. 

[Many-Faced Votary]

Ideally, justice and prisons would be restorative and distributive, or at least procedural, as opposed to the punitively retributive justice we see in most systems today. We wouldn't have to debate on whether or not people should be brought to justice, were it actually just.

Granted, distinguishing white-collar crime and referring to it with abstract terminology is very much an intentional protection of the capitalist class: a successful attempt to sanitize what is far more reprehensible, as well as detrimental to many more people and to society, than petty crimes that are punished to perpetuate the prison-industrial complex and muster indentured servitude. (More so for the grotesquely unique carceral state of the U.S., but the U.K. is certainly doing its best to follow suit.)

[The Anti-Targ]

I certainly hope no one has interpreted what I've written as providing aid and comfort to the ongoing semantic differentiation of crimes committed by the rich vs those similar in nature committed by the less rich. In Bernie's case I would not complain if he had all assets stripped, was banned from holding any positions of responsibility in society and was materially reduced to living in a 1 bedroom bedsit on the dole for the rest of his life. Though that might be worse punishment than spending a few years in minimum security prison on HMG's sixpence.

[Kalbear]

2 minutes ago, The Anti-Targ said:

I certainly hope no one has interpreted what I've written as providing aid and comfort to the ongoing semantic differentiation of crimes committed by the rich vs those similar in nature committed by the less rich. In Bernie's case I would not complain if he had all assets stripped, was banned from holding any positions of responsibility in society and was materially reduced to living in a 1 bedroom bedsit on the dole for the rest of his life. Though that might be worse punishment than spending a few years in minimum security prison on HMG's sixpence.

Again that's still not enough. That isn't particular punishment. That's just...living the same as a lot of other people. Let's parse that out - basically, you're saying that the punishment for someone who defrauded people of hundreds of millions of dollars is to live like 20% of the population. 

How is that justice? How does that show the values and care about the community? How is that penance for breaking the law? In that scenario he is losing nothing he legally acquired. 

Again, I get that you're caring deeply about the legal system being used as a way primarily to ensure people can come back from it and get rehabilitated. I support that. What I think you miss is that justice requires having some kind of retributive value due to humans being human. If you don't have that, it will be provided via extrajudicial means. 

[Zorral]

No matter how old they were the nazi criminals exposed in their lairs were not let off.  Nor should they have been.

[Many-Faced Votary]

UK Labour Party says it will focus on economic growth, not higher taxes | PBS

I find it astonishing how Keir Starmer's Labour continues to move to the right, and signal their abandonment of the working class and their embrace of corporatism, at every conceivable opportunity. They've surely learned much and more from their spiritual cousins across the pond.

[The Anti-Targ]

1 hour ago, Kalnak the Magnificent said:

Again that's still not enough. That isn't particular punishment. That's just...living the same as a lot of other people. Let's parse that out - basically, you're saying that the punishment for someone who defrauded people of hundreds of millions of dollars is to live like 20% of the population. 

How is that justice? How does that show the values and care about the community? How is that penance for breaking the law? In that scenario he is losing nothing he legally acquired. 

Again, I get that you're caring deeply about the legal system being used as a way primarily to ensure people can come back from it and get rehabilitated. I support that. What I think you miss is that justice requires having some kind of retributive value due to humans being human. If you don't have that, it will be provided via extrajudicial means. 

If the state permanently reduced your personal wealth  and capacity to earn to 0.1% of what it currently is and your social position and standing was permanently and significantly brought low would you not feel punished? I certainly would.

What you appear to be advocating, though, is also for people to be seen to be punished by the generality of society. I'm not sure that path leads to real justice. That seems to be the sort of path that leads to [mostly poor] people being in prison who shouldn't be and populist politicians running "tough on crime" and "three strikes" election campaigns.

[BigFatCoward]

The amount of resources we are dedicating to reassurance, compared to the amount of actual offences that are occurring is absolutely incredible.  I've never seen anything like it.  

[Derfel Cadarn]

4 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

The amount of resources we are dedicating to reassurance, compared to the amount of actual offences that are occurring is absolutely incredible.  I've never seen anything like it.  

I remember talk a while ago in Scottish policing, that crime is down but fear if crime is uo. Guessing with internet, social media and 24/7 professional media, people are hearing about it more. When our news was limited to newspapers, and 30 mins of TV news three or four times a day, we were probably more insulated imho

[Which Tyler]

 

Edited October 13, 2023 by Which Tyler

[mormont]

On 10/13/2023 at 4:40 AM, Many-Faced Votary said:

UK Labour Party says it will focus on economic growth, not higher taxes | PBS

I find it astonishing how Keir Starmer's Labour continues to move to the right, and signal their abandonment of the working class and their embrace of corporatism, at every conceivable opportunity. They've surely learned much and more from their spiritual cousins across the pond.

That particular 'move to the right' happened thirty years ago, and has been the message of almost every Labour leader since then.

[Craving Peaches]

On 10/13/2023 at 10:05 AM, Which Tyler said:

 

Who on earth thinks the Conservatives are reliable? Even if you agree with their views, there are multiple promises they have just failed to live up to. HS2, '£350 Million for the NHS', etc...

[Pebble thats Stubby]

6 hours ago, Craving Peaches said:

Who on earth thinks the Conservatives are reliable? Even if you agree with their views, there are multiple promises they have just failed to live up to. HS2, '£350 Million for the NHS', etc...

there is a guy I work with who belives we are spending that £350 million extra on the NHS right now, and a lot of it went into payrises of doctors and Nurses so really they are just being greedy when they go on strike.  We really should be thanking Borris.

 

Yes he is 100% serrious.

[Many-Faced Votary]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

That particular 'move to the right' happened thirty years ago, and has been the message of almost every Labour leader since then.

Of course. Nevertheless, I think it's reductive to say that after we had Jeremy Corbyn, whom Labour undermined at every turn and capitulated to the Conservatives in order to remove (insanity); when Starmer models himself after Tony Blair, which is horrifying even before one realizes that it means embracing the Tory austerity that led to the severe impact of the pandemic; and when one acknowledges that he is in fact the present-day Neil Kinnock, complete with his top priority being taking out the left wing of Labour. (Kinnock lost horribly and himself grew to criticize New Labour, by the way, a fact that Starmer would love to ignore.)

[mormont]

And yet even Corbyn, who as I have said was the architect of his own demise, focused his economic messaging on reassuring voters that most would pay no more tax and preferred to talk about economic growth.

It would be extraordinary if Starmer had not said that he would focus on growth over higher tax. And suicidal.

(If Starmer is Kinnock, by the way, then surely Corbyn is Michael Foot - but without Foot's personal qualities and accomplishments, IMO.)

[Many-Faced Votary]

9 hours ago, mormont said:

And yet even Corbyn, who as I have said was the architect of his own demise, focused his economic messaging on reassuring voters that most would pay no more tax and preferred to talk about economic growth.

Oh? There are numerous criticisms I have of Jeremy Corbyn, but refusing to distinguish Labour in economic policy and taxation is not one of them.

I do want to push back on Corbyn being the architect of his own demise. The worst he did was appear to be a poor leader of his own party, and that was in no small part because the conservative Labour establishment was openly opposing him. To claim that he is to be held responsible is to completely ignore the sustained attacks from the right flank of Labour, never mind the stunningly corrupt betrayals they engaged in; the endless negative media coverage, which has increasingly been setting the bounds for how far Labour is allowed to go in the past few decades; and his bad luck with respect to Brexit. Not only in how it dominated the polity in 2019, which would have doomed Labour regardless of who was at the helm, but also because the party was necessarily embracing change, which was conceptually tainted by the referendum for many types of voters.

 

9 hours ago, mormont said:

It would be extraordinary if Starmer had not said that he would focus on growth over higher tax. And suicidal.

I would pin this on a reactionary media apparatus owned by right-wing billionaires, and refrain from implying that the right way is the right way for Labour. Because of the UK's winner-take-all electoral system, Labour must differentiate itself from the Tories, since they are the only other party that might possibly form the bulk of coalitions. If they do not, then what purpose would voters have in even considering them?

Failing to stand up to conservative Labour MPs is no less suicidal. Ceding to them all the power has helped impel resounding defeats, but more than that, has consistently stopped left-wing reformation and energy within the party before it gets a real chance. (It is also counterproductive, since we saw Corbyn be elected as Labour leader in part due to his resistant response to David Cameron's evil welfare reform bill and tax credits, as opposed to tepid abstention.) 

 

9 hours ago, mormont said:

(If Starmer is Kinnock, by the way, then surely Corbyn is Michael Foot - but without Foot's personal qualities and accomplishments, IMO.)

I agree completely! You recognize Michael Foot's personal qualities and accomplishments, but I also want to illustrate the context for his defeat. He was very much a victim of circumstance. Jeremy Corbyn was as well, in turn

Jim Callaghan lost his no-confidence vote after the Winter of Discontent by one single vote in May of 1979, which all but destined Labour to defeat. Had the party held on until October elections, history would likely have turned out very differently.

I could repeat the normal media coverage that left-wing politicians receive ad nauseam, but it was especially prominent with Foot, whose very appearance and personality were savagely attacked in the press.

Perhaps the most prominent contributor to Labour's 1983 defeat was the betrayal that formed the SDP, which wasted no time in attacking Labour at every time and giving the Conservatives the best possible gift. So, too, did the Falklands War and eventual destruction of the military dictatorship in Argentina, even though it was Foot who held the moral high ground and who issued the best speeches about the Argentine invasion.

[mormont]

Just now, Many-Faced Votary said:

Oh?

Yes. The linked article does not disagree with my point, I'm afraid. Corbyn was going to raise taxes, sure - on high earners and utility firms. The article discusses the latter almost exclusively. The messaging around this was very careful to emphasise that there would be no tax rises for most voters, and that the overall effect of these measures would be to boost economic growth.

Quote

I do want to push back on Corbyn being the architect of his own demise. The worst he did was appear to be a poor leader of his own party

Let's be clear: Corbyn really was an abysmal leader of his own party. He had no leadership ability at all.

Yes, he faced opposition from within his own party - every single party leader does! He faced nothing remotely like what Kinnock faced - and didn't handle it a fraction as well as Kinnock did. Starmer has faced 'sustained attacks' from the left, for that matter. The difference is that Corbyn responded exceptionally poorly to these.

Corruption? Corbyn didn't take any money, but interfering in party disciplinary processes because the subjects were his friends is corruption, I'm afraid.

Betrayal? Yes, again normal, and many members felt betrayed by Corbyn, so it was not one way.

Negative media coverage? No other Labour leader ever faced that!

'Bad luck' on Brexit? He created that himself by vacillating, refusing to publicly admit to his personal views, and declining to take a position on the biggest policy issue of the day.

Corbyn supporters seem to like this idea that he faced unique challenges. In fact he faced what every political leader faces. He just reacted uniquely badly. He was a competent backbencher whose personal flaws were magnified by being raised to leader, who lost two very winnable elections, and who in response flailed and sulked and just generally did his job very badly. Worse than either Foot or Kinnock, without a doubt (and since I lived through Foot's defeat, I am not in need of an explanation, though I do appreciate it, and that's not meant sarcastically. You presumably don't know how old I am!)

Corbyn was not a victim because of his ideology. He failed it because he wasn't up to the job. As someone who believes in many of the ideas he did, I am sorry he failed, but the constant excuses from his supporters reinforce the idea that Jeremy couldn't fail, he could only be failed.