UK politics, Truss me, I really am that mental.

[Gorn]

5 hours ago, Derfel Cadarn said:

Where did the raw materials used in the factories come from, such as cotton?

America?

Two key raw materials for the industrial revolution were iron and coal, and Britain (as well as other Western European countries) didn't need colonies for that, since they had plenty on their own soil. It wasn't until 20th century that demand for rubber and oil caused colonies to become a crucial part of the industrial ecosystem.

[SeanF]

12 minutes ago, Gorn said:

America?

Two key raw materials for the industrial revolution were iron and coal, and Britain (as well as other Western European countries) didn't need colonies for that, since they had plenty on their own soil. It wasn't until 20th century that demand for rubber and oil caused colonies to become a crucial part of the industrial ecosystem.

The Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism floated (almost) all boats.  In 1820, 89% of the world’s people lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% now (and 55% when I was born, in 1967).  Even Marx realised that capitalism created abundance.

[Rippounet]

22 minutes ago, Gorn said:

Two key raw materials for the industrial revolution were iron and coal, and Britain (as well as other Western European countries) didn't need colonies for that, since they had plenty on their own soil. It wasn't until 20th century that demand for rubber and oil caused colonies to become a crucial part of the industrial ecosystem.

Analyses have shown that by the 19th century, Britain was consuming 2 or 3 times the raw materials that it could produce.

Annoyingly enough, I don't have the references handy right now. But those are the studies that are described as "woke" by the right here. The right wants such facts burried, because they show that there was something deeply predatory about the Western model from the start.

5 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism floated (almost) all boats.  In 1820, 89% of the world’s people lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% now (and 55% when I was born, in 1967).  Even Marx realised that capitalism created abundance.

This is the "standard" conservative narrative, and funnily enough it's deeply misleading.

The industrial revolution and capitalism put people in factories to produce stuff. That was possible because fewer people were required to man the fields, which itself had been made possible through several factors (technical progress, a stable climate, better trade... ). And at first it was absolute hell on Earth, until sanitation, urbanisation, and unions made the thing livable.
To credit technological progress or capitalism for the benefits of history is... biased.
 

[SeanF]

Just now, Rippounet said:

Analyses have shown that by the 19th century, Britain was consuming 2 or 3 times the raw materials that it could produce.

Annoyingly enough, I don't have the references handy right now. But those are the studies that are described as "woke" by the right here. The right wants such facts burried, because they show that there was something deeply predatory about the Western model from the start.

This is the "standard" conservative narrative, and funnily enough it's deeply misleading.

The industrial revolution and capitalism put people in factories to produce stuff. That was possible because fewer people were required to man the fields, which itself had been made possible through several factors (technical progress, a stable climate, better trade... ). And at first it was absolute hell on Earth, until sanitation, urbanisation, and unions made the thing livable.
To credit technological progress or capitalism for the benefits of history is... biased.
 

Of course it’s biased.  My bias is that private enterprise, free trade, and industrialisation were and are all good things.  If GDP per head was still at the level of 1800, the world would be a far more brutal place than it is today.

[Week]

3 minutes ago, SeanF said:

Of course it’s biased.  My bias is that private enterprise, free trade, and industrialisation were and are all good things.  If GDP per head was still at the level of 1800, the world would be a far more brutal place than it is today.

The two statements you make lack causation or any credible analysis of why/where/whom these things happened.

'Good things' are not necessarily 'pareto improvement' and lauding progress of GDP is pretty no-duh. Papers over plenty of toxicity (which is what your response seemed to be intended to do).

[Zorral]

1 hour ago, Gorn said:

America?

Very much from Egypt once the British occupation moved in as 'advisors' to the Khedive (1882 -- the last Brit forces left in 1956) and started building dams. Along with vastly increasing the cotton growing plantations (with slave labor, btw, in many cases), do much standing water in the irrigation canals also brought ophthalmia, trachoma, malaria and other diseases that turned a vast percentage of the labor force into very sickly people, which the Egyptian fellahin had not been prior.

Of course earlier, for many decades, there was the vast wealth generated by the (slave, or as good as) opium plantations and factories in India to addict China, so the UK could have something to market there that the Chinese would want. O there were so many places the UK's raw (and finished!) good came from since the sun never set on the empire.

Edited April 18 by Zorral

[HexMachina]

13 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

This sounds more like a big sex party that went wrong, and it was an off the cuff plan when they realised he was vulnerable to blackmail. 

I'm glad I'm not the only one for whom this was their first thought 

[Conflicting Thought]

2 hours ago, SeanF said:

The Industrial Revolution and modern capitalism floated (almost) all boats.  In 1820, 89% of the world’s people lived in absolute poverty, compared to 8% now (and 55% when I was born, in 1967).  Even Marx realised that capitalism created abundance.

How much money do you have to make to be considered above absolute poverty? Like 2 dollars a day? 

[The Anti-Targ]

Perhaps there is some misunderstanding of what bias means? Bias is never an objectively good thing, at best it's neutral in situations where the issue is of a benign nature, like what's your favourite colour. When it comes to economic systems, social and environmental policy bias is an undeniably bad thing.

Good things happened with capitalism, but that does not mean they would have only ever happened under capitalism. Bad things happened and are happening because of capitalism.

To me capitalism is like thalidomide. Seemed to be amazing for a while, and then the deformed babies started to turn up and suddenly people realised it was not so great after all.

And now it's time for my fortnightly MMT plug: Capitalism was on the brink of failing hard in the 1970s, but then Richard Nixon did the world a huge favour and killed the gold standard dead forever, transforming almost all the world's currencies into fiat currencies with the flick of a wrist. This, along with floating exchange rates, finally released governments from the shackles of having to balance budgets and allowed the near perpetual running of national deficits to be used for the general public good (but often were not, sadly). Remember folks deficits don't matter (within reason and depending how they are used) and taxes don't pay for [national] govt spending. Govt budgets are moral documents, not financial documents.

 

[Wall Flower]

6 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Analyses have shown that by the 19th century, Britain was consuming 2 or 3 times the raw materials that it could produce.

Annoyingly enough, I don't have the references handy right now. But those are the studies that are described as "woke" by the right here. The right wants such facts burried, because they show that there was something deeply predatory about the Western model from the start.

This is the "standard" conservative narrative, and funnily enough it's deeply misleading.

The industrial revolution and capitalism put people in factories to produce stuff. That was possible because fewer people were required to man the fields, which itself had been made possible through several factors (technical progress, a stable climate, better trade... ). And at first it was absolute hell on Earth, until sanitation, urbanisation, and unions made the thing livable.
To credit technological progress or capitalism for the benefits of history is... biased.
 

 Many poorer farmers and tenants in Britain were effectively forced off the land by successive Enclosure Acts, which enclosed previously common land in the hands of wealthy landowners. Marx saw it as systematic theft of communal property. It had benefits in more efficient agriculture (and more profitable for landowners) and, of course, led to a steady supply of industrial workers who could be ruthlessly exploited until they were able to collectivise.

[Week]

12 minutes ago, Wall Flower said:

 Many poorer farmers and tenants in Britain were effectively forced off the land by successive Enclosure Acts, which enclosed previously common land in the hands of wealthy landowners. Marx saw it as systematic theft of communal property. It had benefits in more efficient agriculture (and more profitable for landowners) and, of course, led to a steady supply of industrial workers who could be ruthlessly exploited until they were able to collectivise.

Yes, a *check notes* good thing here. Picture the GDP growth enjoyed by ruthlessly exploited workers!

[Wall Flower]

15 minutes ago, Week said:

Yes, a *check notes* good thing here. Picture the GDP growth enjoyed by ruthlessly exploited workers!

I should have clarified that the main benefits were to the landowners and factory owners but I guess the capacity for greater food production had some wider benefits.

 It must be nearly 50 years since I studied this stuff but a quick google to refresh my memory revealed that the top 100 wealthiest landowners in the 19th century were all members of House of Lords, so farm workers never stood a chance.

 

[Week]

6 hours ago, Wall Flower said:

I should have clarified that the main benefits were to the landowners and factory owners but I guess the capacity for greater food production had some wider benefits.

 It must be nearly 50 years since I studied this stuff but a quick google to refresh my memory revealed that the top 100 wealthiest landowners in the 19th century were all members of House of Lords, so farm workers never stood a chance.

 

Yes, certainly - apologies, I was making a joke at SeanF's expense after his earlier comment above.

[Heartofice]

Man I wish that Industrialisation and Capitalism shit hadn't happened, I hate having medicine and not starving. It sucks.

[Spockydog]

What a cunt.

Sunak accused of launching ‘full-on assault on disabled people’

Quote

 

Rishi Sunak is considering withdrawing a major cash disability benefit from some people with mental health conditions, prompting claims he has launched a “full-on assault on disabled people”.

The prime minister announced fresh curbs on disability benefits on Friday, saying he wanted to explore whether some cash payments to claimants with mental health conditions could be replaced by treatment or access to services.

 

 

[BigFatCoward]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

What a cunt.

Sunak accused of launching ‘full-on assault on disabled people’

 

It also shows a staggering lack of awareness.  He says he wants an end to 'sick note' mentality, when he says this shit does he not realise people are going to be 'hang on a second mate, everyone is sick because your party have underfunded the NHS for so long'. 

Edited April 19 by BigFatCoward

[Derfel Cadarn]

he’s also wanting to strip GPs of the ability to issue sicknites and instead have “specialist work and health professionals” do it. Ie people untrained in health basically told to not issue any. Contract probably given to some Tory’s mate.

And ignoring the reason there sre so many prople off longterm is because thry’ve broken thr NHS so big waiting lists, massive waits for services, and long covid.

[Spockydog]

There are reportedly 1.3m people currently on the waiting list for some form of NHS mental health treatment.

As I said, what a cunt.

 

[maarsen]

2 hours ago, Heartofice said:

Man I wish that Industrialisation and Capitalism shit hadn't happened, I hate having medicine and not starving. It sucks.

When Britain entered the Great War in 1914, a huge number of men were called up and tried to enter the armed services. The problem was that at least half of them were so sickly and/ or malnourished that they were not even useful as cannon fodder. The Germans even noticed how small and stunted the British soldiers were compared to themselves.

[Heartofice]

4 minutes ago, maarsen said:

When Britain entered the Great War in 1914, a huge number of men were called up and tried to enter the armed services. The problem was that at least half of them were so sickly and/ or malnourished that they were not even useful as cannon fodder. The Germans even noticed how small and stunted the British soldiers were compared to themselves.

So Germany didn’t industrialise??