UK election special

[213374U]

Yet you still de-railed the thread more egregiously than I did, presumably because I pressed your ideological funny bone.

 

No, I don't think the mainstream centre left is about to build a Gulag in East Anglia. I do think, however, they are utterly capable of using the law to shut down debate about their pet concerns. I do think they care more about 'social justice' than freedom of speech. I do think they will import client voters from overseas. In fact, I know these things. I'm an evidence-based chap and I've lived through several centre left governments (in fact, as a small child, I remember the lights going out and bodies left unburied. The British left was still packed with fellow travellers with interesting off-duty links to Russian 'diplomats.').

 

This is what they call 'a direction of travel.' One only has to see the mob mentality of the Scottish National Party (nationalism and socialism smashed together, as if by some grotesquely political version of the large hadron collider) to see where it can all end up.

 

Gulags? No, unlikely. Soft authoritarianism, a sort of leftish McCarthyism? Absolutely.

 

I like reminding the Left of where they came from. Their political DNA is mired in blood in a way Western liberal conservatism manifestly is not.

 

 

Funny that you mention an ideological funny bone when it was you who first linked, as is custom, the crimes of Soviet Russia with modern Western left politics. Because "political DNA". I have news for you mate, you share 35-60% of your genes with the common fly — how often do you find yourself sucking or wanting to suck crap? But then I'm "derailing" the thread by pointing out simple facts. My bad, I thought this thread was "UK election special", not "The Red Scare Special vol. MDLXXIII". I must have misread.

 

The whole thing is silly because modern Western pinkos are about as close to Marxism-Leninism as modern liberals are to John Stuart Mill. That is, not close at all. Facile appeals to emotion (fear), broad sweeping statements and mental shortcuts have exactly the same stifling effect on debate as using the law to suppress it. Arguably worse, because a top-down crackdown is much easier to recognize than the pitfalls of groupthink.

 

And what is this "importing client voters from overseas", exactly? You mean aliens? Can aliens vote in the UK? And this is wrong... why?

Edited May 4, 2015 by 213374U

[Nonek]

Well i'm decided!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RMvSC1sXMQ

[Monte Carlo]

 

And what is this "importing client voters from overseas", exactly? You mean aliens? Can aliens vote in the UK? And this is wrong... why?

 

 

I see where you're going with this and I'm not playing the game.

 

In 2004, when the UK could have put transitional controls on the new Eastern European entrants to the EU, the Labour Government chose not to. Edit - and by this I mean immigration into the UK and access to benefits - the most generous in the EU.

 

A man called Andrew Neather, who at that time was a political advisor to the government, let slip that this decision was partly down to "rub Conservatives' noses in diversity." This confirmed what many of us suspected, in that immigration results in votes for parties with lax immigration laws and generous welfare policies. The rotten boroughs of East London have been found to rely on the type of corruption typical in the Asian subcontinent.

 

Hey, have some evidence.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-32428648

 

I'm no racist. I think immigration, properly managed, is a Good Thing. In fact, as an economic liberal, I think freedom of movement of goods, labour and services is a no-brainer.

 

But Labour, our centre left party, have plenty of form when it comes to this. As does Mister Obama when it comes to Mexican immigration. It's always convenient when your big-hearted and generous policies also result in more votes, ain't it?

Edited May 4, 2015 by Monte Carlo

[Zoraptor]

Monte, dear fellow, I think I'd take your prognostications a bit more seriously if you hadn't been going on about Cromwell being a man of parliament who fought for it and its existing powers for pages- when he actually left England as a hereditary dictatorship. He was also a mass murdering genocidal religious lunatic and a festering pustulent carbuncular boil on the flabby bottom of the human race but that's beside the point, ultimately he fought for and protected parliament about as much as Adolf Hitler fought for and protected the Reichstag, ie not really and certainly not in practice. And that's leaving out the taking the S & A in NSDAP seriously (really, why does no literalist ever expound the impeccable Democratic virtues of the DPRK or DDR?) when the first thing, near literally, that Hitler did in power was liquidate the socialist arm of his own party as well as any left leaning opposition. Cromwell apologists have a weird idea that he somehow 'accidentally' ended up as Fuhrer Generallissimo Il Duce 'Lord Protector' and that he was really just preserving existing power structures, much like he 'accidentally' killed a fair proportion of Ireland's population and 'accidentally' left his power to his son in his will. It's special pleading, and a particularly Special brand of it when coupled to the 'nothing really changed and it was not an actual revolution' spiel. It was and it did, it just didn't stick. Fortunately, because if there's one English leader who sits comfortably with the Stalins, Hitlers, Francos and Mussolinis of the world it's Oliver Cromwell.

 

(And to be factual about things, Churchill the great hero impeccably capitalist right wing, was responsible for a Bengal famine that killed 3 times as many people as Stalin's Gulag. And, of course, the EIC killed more Indians than Stalin's total, including a time they killed more than Stalin's total over a shorter period, all while- impeccably capitalistically- peddling drugs to China, as their workforce starved. So, can't vote for those rightards drug dealers who'll starve you do death in an opium farm, can't vote for those leftards who'll collectivise your arse- omg it's the Lib Dems Russell Brand is right!)

[Nonek]

All I know is Cromwell knocked down my families ancestral castle, the bloody blaggard. Honestly it's embarasiing, all that's left is a long moss covered wall in a field. Then again I was never the biggest fan of Christmas.

[Walsingham]

I'd give an example of the kind of loose and dangerous thinking that Monte is talking about - I assume.

 

A colleague who is perfectly smart remarked that he thought the Left had some good ideas. I asked for an example, and he said "Well, some people earn far too much money."

 

I agreed that some people do earn a lot more money than they know what to do with. I know quite a few, and grew up with more, thanks to my education.

 

However, my questions to my colleague were:

 

- How much is too much money? Precisely how much.

- How would one calculate how much money was too much money? And what powers would regulating it entail?

- Would the approach be magisterial, or legal? If legal, then how would you handle persons able to spend money to hire experts to explain why the laws didn't apply in their special case?

- Who would you pick to adjudicate and enforce the system? _Is it because you like them personally, and what would happen to people who don't know them personally?_

 

 

I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.

[butterfly]

I'd give an example of the kind of loose and dangerous thinking that Monte is talking about - I assume.

 

A colleague who is perfectly smart remarked that he thought the Left had some good ideas. I asked for an example, and he said "Well, some people earn far too much money."

 

I agreed that some people do earn a lot more money than they know what to do with. I know quite a few, and grew up with more, thanks to my education.

 

However, my questions to my colleague were:

 

- How much is too much money? Precisely how much.

- How would one calculate how much money was too much money? And what powers would regulating it entail?

- Would the approach be magisterial, or legal? If legal, then how would you handle persons able to spend money to hire experts to explain why the laws didn't apply in their special case?

- Who would you pick to adjudicate and enforce the system? _Is it because you like them personally, and what would happen to people who don't know them personally?_

 

 

I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.

 

It's just a 'populist' framing of the problem that is indeed somewhat unproductive. The actual problem should be framed in terms of wealth inequality. i.e That the current wealth inequality is to great and growing and that a smaller gap would be better for society. Note that this doesn't advocate a state of no wealth inequality.

Edited May 6, 2015 by butterfly

[Gorth]

I always thought Cromwell was Englands answer to Ayatollah Khomeini, wanting to turn England into a theocracy.

[Gfted1]

All I know is Cromwell knocked down my families ancestral castle, the bloody blaggard. Honestly it's embarasiing, all that's left is a long moss covered wall in a field. Then again I was never the biggest fan of Christmas.

 

Does your family still own the land? I say rebuild! If theres a position open in your staff, I would like to be the official make-sure-the-booze-isn't-poisoned guy. Oh, and Im going to need full benefits for myself and family. Tyvm.

[obyknven]

What elections?

[Walsingham]

What elections?

 

They are the Queen's elections, naturally. Constitutional monarchy, old boy.

 

Best bit of kit I've seen so far: election predictor. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11568581/forecast-prediction-nate-silver.html

 

Quite eerie to see Scotland all yellow like that. When the f*** did the Scots become commies?

[213374U]

I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.

 

Sure, go right ahead. You posted only questions, but not your perfectly smart but dangerously left-leaning colleague's responses. Maybe we can compare them to actual proposals/demands made by the montagnards bolsheviks British left and discuss their merits and flaws.

[Monte Carlo]

 

I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.

 

Sure, go right ahead. You posted only questions, but not your perfectly smart but dangerously left-leaning colleague's responses. Maybe we can compare them to actual proposals/demands made by the montagnards bolsheviks British left and discuss their merits and flaws.

 

 

It doesn't really matter, an of course there's a healthy dash of rhetoric...

 

because the only answer is a People's Committee will have to decide. And once they've decided they'll have to enforce it.

 

This will, at best, lead to a massive flight of capital elsewhere. And, at worst, political coercion.

 

Numbers, old boy, Socialists are only good at one measure of equality, and that's making everyone equally miserable.

[Walsingham]

 

I'll continue the point if anyone's interested.

 

Sure, go right ahead. You posted only questions, but not your perfectly smart but dangerously left-leaning colleague's responses. Maybe we can compare them to actual proposals/demands made by the montagnards bolsheviks British left and discuss their merits and flaws.

 

 

It was something along the lines Monte's already said. How is a people's committee going to reduce wage unfairness?

 

Make all wages the same? Wow. Stop investors from getting money for risking their wages backing good ideas? Or starting businesses that grow? Super-wow.

 

So presumably you'd support something more complex than a non-flat rate. Maybe worthy causes and jobs get more money. Awesome. Except you're either making it up as you go along dictatorially, or you have a code. If you have a code then persons who have the potential to accrue money will pay experts to explain just the right jobs and combinations of tasks to do to earn more money. This is what 'progressive' taxation is supposed to do. [EDIT: and it fails, in case you hadn't noticed]

 

Or, you know, you get a thriving black market economy. Or everyone with an ounce of ambition goes and lives somewhere else.

 

Or I guess you could build some sort of wall or minefield with barbed wire around your utopia to stop people leaving.

Edited May 6, 2015 by Walsingham

[213374U]

It was something along the lines Monte's already said. How is a people's committee going to reduce wage unfairness?

 

Make all wages the same? Wow. Stop investors from getting money for risking their wages backing good ideas? Or starting businesses that grow? Super-wow.

 

So presumably you'd support something more complex than a non-flat rate. Maybe worthy causes and jobs get more money. Awesome. Except you're either making it up as you go along dictatorially, or you have a code. If you have a code then persons who have the potential to accrue money will pay experts to explain just the right jobs and combinations of tasks to do to earn more money. This is what 'progressive' taxation is supposed to do. [EDIT: and it fails, in case you hadn't noticed]

 

Or, you know, you get a thriving black market economy. Or everyone with an ounce of ambition goes and lives somewhere else.

 

Or I guess you could build some sort of wall or minefield with barbed wire around your utopia to stop people leaving.

 

Right, right. I'm sure you guys are aware that that all sorts of arbitrary **** is already handled by committees, right? They aren't "people's" committees, true. They are "parliamentary"^[1][2] committees, but they are committees all the same, so other than the obvious reference to revolutionary terrors, I'm not sure what your point is. Fun fact: in Europe, conservative and centre-right parties are usually named... the People's Party. Maybe the "1%er Party" and the "Lizard Overlords Party" were taken. I don't know.

 

Regardless, I still haven't seen either of you (or anyone else here for that matter) mention actual proposals and discuss them. I guess you guys just don't know. I'm sure you'll agree that dismissing stuff based on ignorance and prejudice isn't sensible, however.

 

See, other than the obvious slippery slope (regulation means dictatorship and that means genocide and camps!), the most glaring flaw in your stance is that you are forgetting that deregulation is what caused the 2008 cluster****. But it gets better, because economists are already warning that the 2008 fail was nothing compared to what will happen when (not if) the global financial derivatives market, which is currently at least 10 times the size of the world's GDP, collapses. Repeat, not if, but when. And that is just a portion of the make-believe global financial economy.

 

So, what do you want to do about it? Let me guess, nothing. Because it will sort itself out eventually, right? Only history suggests it won't, and it'll result in either massive bailouts whose cost will be assumed by the taxpayer* while execs continue to pocket nice bonuses, or a total crash that will make everyone equally miserable. Sounds familiar?

 

I don't care what other people earn. I care what that means for me.

 

It's funny, because I'm not even arguing for regulation. I hate regulation. Regulation means somebody's making them rules, and that somebody is 9 times out of 10 either exploiting the rules for himself or selling out to someone who does. But please, please don't make it look like that only happens in so-called "socialist" countries.

 

So, what do you want to do? Is anyone out there saying what you want to hear? Don't forget that,

 

 

If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal — Emma Goldman

 

 

 

 

*remember, as per your own admission, the super-rich don't pay taxes because fiscal engineering is a thing and they can afford to hire experts, or even outright buy MPs to write them some nice custom-made bills. So by taxpayer, we actually mean the poor and middle class.

Edited May 6, 2015 by 213374U

[Zoraptor]

Really, you won't find a more arbitrary committee than the boards that make up most companies' ultimate form of governance and which set wages for their CEOs and the like.

 

Rich people, ex CEOs or aspiring CEOs themselves awarding each other 7-10 figure sums, bonuses and the like irrespective of whether they run their company- and the whole British economy- into the ground is pretty much the definition of arbitrary cronyism. We've got exactly the same problem here as in the UK and as was in Spain, our 'growth' is almost entirely based on a ludicrous housing bubble, encouraged by committees of rich people who stand to make profits from it. And what happens when the inevitable crash happens? Yep, privatise the profit, nationalise the losses, too big to fail etc etc.

 

It's funny really, having a committee of left wingers deciding anything is terrible stuff, a fundamental evil that is to be abhorred; right wingers setting salaries for themselves == awesome, the natural order and other committees of right wingers deciding that their buddies have to be saved by taxpayers from their mistakes and that there is, oh so unfortunately, no recourse available to allow the people who generated those debts to be punished or not get their bonuses- but that the guy working in a chippie  for 6.50 an hour is responsible for them instead- is also the natural order of things.

 

And it has to be that way because otherwise where will poor Mr Abramovich live? Surely you don't want him to be forced out of Belgravia by a crowd of plebs? Driven off, depressed and downcast in his last and least gold plated Phantom as he runs for the those last liberal bastions of... the UAE/ Qatar/ Saudi/ Singapore/ Kazakhstan to spend his days in the horrors of mere unparalleled luxury rather than unlimited luxury? Have you no shame, commie?

Edited May 6, 2015 by Zoraptor

[BruceVC]

So all you boys that live in the UK can you tell us who you have decided to vote for?

[213374U]

You guys are going to love this one because The Reds Really Are Coming. Or as close as it gets in the 21st century, anyway. And I don't mean Liverpool.

 

Iceland proposes bill to abolish fractional reserve banking

 

My, what are private banks going to do without the power to create eleventy gajillion dollars out of thin air to receive interest payments from? However could they survive only by earning money from abusive commissions and fees? We must prevent this catastrophe. Quick, to the Cayman Islands Batcave!

 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether it'll pass and stick. But if it does there's a chance that other countries might try to copy the initiative. Including the UK which haven't yet relinquished control of their monetary policy instruments to the EU.

[Nonek]

It would be interesting to see a party embrace a new take on the current system of unsustainable financial affairs, however due to the city being our largest source of income (and more importantly to them) funding and advisory positions for retiring MP's, I can't see any politician having the integrity to do so. Just as it took a Mrs Thatcher to thrust the city into the dominant position it now enjoys, i fear that it will take a similar iron willed individual to break that power and reorganise affairs for a more equitable and sustainable society.

 

I see no such candidate however, nor any bottom in the whole procession of clowns we see currently parading.

[BruceVC]

You guys are going to love this one because The Reds Really Are Coming. Or as close as it gets in the 21st century, anyway. And I don't mean Liverpool.

 

Iceland proposes bill to abolish fractional reserve banking

 

My, what are private banks going to do without the power to create eleventy gajillion dollars out of thin air to receive interest payments from? However could they survive only by earning money from abusive commissions and fees? We must prevent this catastrophe. Quick, to the Cayman Islands Batcave!

 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether it'll pass and stick. But if it does there's a chance that other countries might try to copy the initiative. Including the UK which haven't yet relinquished control of their monetary policy instruments to the EU.

 

2133 what type of government and or ideology do you support or believe in, I know you aren't crazy about the EU  but I am interested in your views?

[Monte Carlo]

So all you boys that live in the UK can you tell us who you have decided to vote for?

 

No. Mind your own business.

[Walsingham]

 

 

Right, right. I'm sure you guys are aware that that all sorts of arbitrary **** is already handled by committees, right? They aren't "people's" committees, true. They are "parliamentary"^[1][2] committees, but they are committees all the same, so other than the obvious reference to revolutionary terrors, I'm not sure what your point is. Fun fact: in Europe, conservative and centre-right parties are usually named... the People's Party. Maybe the "1%er Party" and the "Lizard Overlords Party" were taken. I don't know.

 

 

1) Committees -

 

You are correct that much government work is done by committees. A good example would be civilian oversight of the security services. Which of course I support.

 

If, like me, you actually observe the functioning of these committees then you'd have healthy skepticism of their capabilities. You wouldn't want one commanding how much money you are allowed to have. Because that means their oversight extends to everything. EVERYTHING.

 

2) The Crash (which you mention later) -

Was delivered by bankers, but engineered by politicians. Bad housing loans were not initially made as some sort of jolly wheeze. They were supposed to help honest poor folks get on the housing ladder. Once made they were traded as if completely sound because the government had instructed them to be treated as such. Yes some shockingly twisted and bizarre f***s were implicated in what happened later, which only made the situation worse. But at root this is like blaming the repo man for your mortgage foreclosure.

 

EDIT: Just to disprove the notion that nothing on the internet ever matters, I'm pleased to report that I have shifted my vote thanks to  this discussion.

Edited May 7, 2015 by Walsingham

[BruceVC]

 

So all you boys that live in the UK can you tell us who you have decided to vote for?

 

No. Mind your own business.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Right, right. I'm sure you guys are aware that that all sorts of arbitrary **** is already handled by committees, right? They aren't "people's" committees, true. They are "parliamentary"^[1][2] committees, but they are committees all the same, so other than the obvious reference to revolutionary terrors, I'm not sure what your point is. Fun fact: in Europe, conservative and centre-right parties are usually named... the People's Party. Maybe the "1%er Party" and the "Lizard Overlords Party" were taken. I don't know.

 

 

1) Committees -

 

You are correct that much government work is done by committees. A good example would be civilian oversight of the security services. Which of course I support.

 

If, like me, you actually observe the functioning of these committees then you'd have healthy skepticism of their capabilities. You wouldn't want one commanding how much money you are allowed to have. Because that means their oversight extends to everything. EVERYTHING.

 

2) The Crash (which you mention later) -

Was delivered by bankers, but engineered by politicians. Bad housing loans were not initially made as some sort of jolly wheeze. They were supposed to help honest poor folks get on the housing ladder. Once made they were traded as if completely sound because the government had instructed them to be treated as such. Yes some shockingly twisted and bizarre f***s were implicated in what happened later, which only made the situation worse. But at root this is like blaming the repo man for your mortgage foreclosure.

 

EDIT: Just to disprove the notion that nothing on the internet ever matters, I'm pleased to report that I have shifted my vote thanks to  this discussion.

 

I have to be honest I find it strange that you guys won't share what political party you are voting for ? Its not like we don't discuss everything else...you should be confidant enough in your decision to discuss and debate the party you chose ? Neither of you  strikes me as lacking in conviction and confidence around your political views so why the secrecy ? 

[Monte Carlo]

It's called a secret ballot for a reason. It's a pretty big deal in this country not to have to disclose who you voted for if you don't want to. And it's bad form to ask.

 

I hold centre-right, libertarian views. None of the parties represents me and I'm not minded to compromise. I voted this morning. Who it was for was based on a personal and perhaps not entirely rational set of factors I don't feel like sharing on the internet.

 

But the two main parties are like either cheek of the same arse.

[Rostere]