General Election - December 12th, 2019

[Chippy_boy]

We look at it from totally different ends of the spectrum. So it is no surprise you think I am wrong.

The truth is probably somewhere nearer the middle.

I get we have a completely different political perspective, but my post was not about rights and wrongs. Let's put aside the question of whether all the things I listed are morally correct, or good or bad. Let's just concentrate on objectively considering in the scenario that the UK finds itself outside of the EU, trading on WTO terms, whether the things I listed would be good for inward investment, jobs and the economy or bad.

Increasing corporation tax. Will this attract more investors, or less?
Increasing minimum wage and labour costs. More investors, or less?
Pushing up labour costs and the cost of UK produced goods? Good for exports, or bad?
Increasing workers' rights? Foreign investors more likely to move here, or less likely?
Capping exec pay?
Making it easier to strike?
Making strikes more effective?

Objectively, all of these things are bad, very bad, if we were to leave the EU. This is not a matter of whether you approve of them or not. It's a question of whether they are policies which will help the UK economy, or damage it. Objectively, they are damaging policies.

 

[Rascal]

No but Brexit aside, I still see the future of Europe as federated.

I think it comes down to the very nature of Government itself. A Government in order to function has to be more powerful than the most powerful citizen that it governs; in modern terms that would be corporations. As global mutlinationals keep expanding in both scope and influence then the only real way to keep achieving this is by federating into large member blocs.

On a purely theoretical/philosophical level, do we really even need a UK Government? Why? Economically and socially the UK isn't a distinct entity from Germany or France, or at least any more distinct than Scotland and England are, or Liverpool and Manchester. Governments exist to serve the interests of its people and I believe that myself and a Frenchman have similar cultural upbringings and similar economic interests. Us voting together makes sense. We were raised in extremely similar societies and hold vaguely the same beliefs.

Why do myself and a working class man in Paris have separation of our interests but me and Jacob Rees Mogg have a unification of our interests? Is the thing that we call "Frenchness" or "Britishness" that distinct from each other in order to make JRM a more suitable person to declare as "the same as me" than the French guy? I don't think so, at least in 2019.

Federalised blocs across widespread groups of people is the only logical outcome to the politics of the day. A European bloc, an Arabian bloc, an Indian bloc, a Sino-Japanese-Korean bloc, a North African bloc, a Sub-Saharan Africa bloc, a South American bloc and a North American bloc. Now there's 8 "countries" in the world and I'd argue that serving as sub-blocs of a world government with increasingly smaller general assemblies based on population suits perfectly. But we've SO MANY challenges to overcome for this to be achieved - hell, even using technology to track the amount of people in each area would cause uproar.

However, if I see an opportunity to vote for something that I think will greater cooperation leading to the creation of one of these blocs then I'll usually go for it. My politics are split between the philosophical and the rational. I have politics for how I want the world to be, and politics for how I think the world is and I tend to think that that's probably the best way to go about politics.

I would not and could not disagree with any of that, its basically similar to how I would like to see the not so distant future. Of course with the caveat that its a Socialist based world government ;)

The problem is the Ethno-Nationalists see globalism, Kalergi plan, Soros, immigrants, blah blah blah. And they believe its their patriotic duty to exalt in the sanctity of the nation state. It astonishes me that there are still people in the world who believe in racial purity. Western exceptionalism and white superiority.

 

[PannickAtTheDisco]

Healthcare is the one that has always irritated me, especially the American view of it.

People need to work in order to make society better but if somebody gets sick then collective/socialised payment for their treatment in order to make them productive citizens again is somehow morally reprehensible. And let's not even talk about attitudes to disability and employment.

A little while back I had a pop at someone on here and suggested that one of my big bug bears in the world is that I don't think most people have a consistent and considered political framework that they've thought about but instead seem to pick a few different issues, pick a side then always go with the Party that picked their side the most. The hypocritical contradictions of the Western liberal capitalist mindset is one of those ones that make it very obvious. My disdain for them doesn't equal my disdain for the "SJW identitarian" movements which I believe to be a particularly abhorrent form of distilled "capitalist struggle politics" but it's certainly up there at times.

Well "most people" have to make that judgement because they don't get the luxury of submitting their votes on individual elements of manifestos. I'd happily vote for Corbyn if I could block individual elements I don't like from his manifesto (most of it). Reality is you have to vote for who you least dislike or feel will least threaten your way of life and future.

 

[yerwot?]

All labour need to do is daub a fleet of buses with "Retiring age to be 75 under a tory government, THIS one is not a lie"

 

[lust overlord]

I get we have a completely different political perspective, but my post was not about rights and wrongs. Let's put aside the question of whether all the things I listed are morally correct, or good or bad. Let's just concentrate on objectively considering in the scenario that the UK finds itself outside of the EU, trading on WTO terms, whether the things I listed would be good for inward investment, jobs and the economy or bad.

Increasing corporation tax. Will this attract more investors, or less?
Increasing minimum wage and labour costs. More investors, or less?
Pushing up labour costs and the cost of UK produced goods? Good for exports, or bad?
Increasing workers' rights? Foreign investors more likely to move here, or less likely?
Capping exec pay?
Making it easier to strike?
Making strikes more effective?

Objectively, all of these things are bad, very bad, if we were to leave the EU. This is not a matter of whether you approve of them or not. It's a question of whether they are policies which will help the UK economy, or damage it. Objectively, they are damaging policies.

I agree with some of the points you make here.
Some people(centrists)will vote for the Tories to "protect" the economy in the event of a no deal Brexit,despite them not liking the social impacts this may spawn.

When push comes to shove most people look after their own immediate interests first,usually financial ones.
There are loads of voters with short memories imo,we will find out very soon.

I'm a cynical bastard who wouldn't be too surprised to see them elected again despite everything.

 

[Damocles]

Objectively, they are damaging policies.

That's a bit of a leap. Subjectively yes but objectively is too far.

Your posts only looks at one side of the economic issue in terms of what is happening right now rather than in the future. The present good rather than the big picture good in economic terms.

Example; Abu Dhabi deciding to diversify its economy in a dramatic fashion at the cost of prosperity is right now objectively a bad economic decision in your terms. But in big picture terms then it's more complicated.

I'll play devils advocate on some of these points:

Increasing corporation tax. Will this attract more investors, or less?

You're asking a different question here. "Is this good for the economy" and "will this attract more investors" aren't really the same thing. I'll argue on the former as that's what I think you're driving at.

Raising corporation tax can vastly help the economy. The most obvious way is that the current 19% corporation tax rate on small businesses is actually lower than the basic income tax rate so we're sort of encouraging tax avoidance with that one. An equalisation of these could stimulate the economy through greater tax receipts.

Increasing minimum wage and labour costs.

This depends on the industry but pretty much every piece of research ever done into productivity of workers states that the security of their finances is by far the greater motivator into increased productivity. Stable workers who aren't going through economic difficulties are happier, they take far fewer sick days, they have greater resilience to change which is so important in today's marketplace and they raise better and more educated children who have a better chance to go on and make their own economic contributions.
This is why I used to be able to charge 5 times the rates of Indian programmers - the expectation of quality and productivity was higher on me due to the price point. Not a huge deal if you're working in a warehouse but if you're designing an aeroplane then that sort of thing is a real consideration.

Pushing up labour costs and the cost of UK produced goods? Good for exports, or bad?

Depends on competing prices and the good. That's such a hard question to answer because every industry is different. It sort of touches on the former point too so I won't repeat myself but taking into account the productivity rises from minimum wage rises should be part of this equation

Increasing workers' rights? Foreign investors more likely to move here, or less likely?

As per previous. A much more important point that isn't made here is do we even WANT foreign investors to move here and invest if the rights of the British people to a happy and prosperous life is actually a drawback to them coming?

Making it easier to strike?
Making strikes more effective?

Companies are symbiotic lifeforms; without the workers inside it, it's literally just a name in the Companies House register. Workers are valuable commodities to anybody worth their salt and they should have a way of ensuring that they have a powerful voice within the company structure. Capitalism is based on this idea that competing interests will find an equilibrium and fairness will ultimately stem from this. Removing workers rights to strike or protest is removing one of the pillars built into the capitalist system to ensure everybody wins. It's attempting to monopolise the labour/power market for lack of a better term.

But on a more direct and less philosophical point, you've forgotten the other side of the equation. How many workers from other countries with great skills and knowledge will be more attracted to the UK because of increased labour protections? How many more would take that jump to immigrate if they knew that they had power in the corporate model to ensure their labour was fairly compensated?

"Children of the 70's" seem to believe that striking is a terrible thing, mainly because back then it probably was to some degree. But we're not talking about workers striking down at Mrs Muffin's Bakery because we now live in a world of a global economy with billion dollar multinationals and the balance of power has shifted too far to the corporate side.

Lastly, there's something to be said about mindset here. I'm confident in my labour. I think I'm good at what I do and that if I lose a client here or there on a price point then there's nothing to worry about because I'll always make money when I need to. The economic value of my labour is greater than the economic value of the labour of less skilled workers in this dysfunctional society that we have. The working classes have become anxious about the value of their labour and the importance of it. They seem to think they're easily replaceable and have to bow to unfair demands in order to live. Some people are genuinely happy that they even have a job which is mental when you think about it.
"I'm happy that somebody will pay me money in order to sell the product of my labour at a greater price". I'm not saying that that is a bad situation because obviously arguments onm risk and security and everything but to be grateful about it is madness.

 

[The perfect fumble]

It astonishes me that there are still people in the world who believe in racial purity. Western exceptionalism and white superiority.

When the rich and powerful in the West, have stripped their working class of any meaningful voice, deliberately reducing them to a perpetual state of anxious uncertainty, it's easy to play divide and rule, tell the "disenfranchised" whites it's all the problem of the blacks, or the Asians, or the Poles or the Mexicans, or the Turks, then sprinkle in a bit of rose coloured nostalgia and a dash of tin pot nationalism, and leave it to stew.

 

[Rascal]

I get we have a completely different political perspective, but my post was not about rights and wrongs. Let's put aside the question of whether all the things I listed are morally correct, or good or bad. Let's just concentrate on objectively considering in the scenario that the UK finds itself outside of the EU, trading on WTO terms, whether the things I listed would be good for inward investment, jobs and the economy or bad.

Increasing corporation tax. Will this attract more investors, or less?
Increasing minimum wage and labour costs. More investors, or less?
Pushing up labour costs and the cost of UK produced goods? Good for exports, or bad?
Increasing workers' rights? Foreign investors more likely to move here, or less likely?
Capping exec pay?
Making it easier to strike?
Making strikes more effective?

Objectively, all of these things are bad, very bad, if we were to leave the EU. This is not a matter of whether you approve of them or not. It's a question of whether they are policies which will help the UK economy, or damage it. Objectively, they are damaging policies.

The Corporate tax levels are already low, it has not proved to make a huge difference in inward investment.

This is more about productivity, the fact the UKs productivity is so poor affects costs. Raising the minimum wage may lead to increased productivity as workers feel more valued. A productive well trained work workforce that is well paid is better than a poorly trained unproductive low waged workforce. Many companies will look for places that are already skilled rather than pay for the workforce to be skilled up. This is dependent on the company doing the investing and what the company does. A Chines company is not going to invest in paddy fields in Moston, but will invest in digital media in Salford because the skills are there.

Depends on market, depends on company, depends on produce, no catch all answer.

All workers should have rights, all humans should have rights, if a company wants to over ride those rights then rightly or wrongly I am of the opinion they can always go and trade in North Korea. If that affects foreign investment then so be it, I do not want a slave economy and I would hope nobody does.

I am in favour of limits as a percentage, because then if execs want more money they have to pay the workers more money. That seems fair to me. If the execs cant afford a pay rise for themselves then it justifies not giving a pay rise to the workers. Swings and roundabouts.

If all a worker has to sell is his Labour I am of the belief that he has every right to strike in defence of his labour. That this right has been curtailed is a national disgrace and an affront to the working class.

If those strikes lead to collective action then I am perfectly fine with that. The bosses can always stop a strike occurring by being more co-operative.

I appreciate that this cannot be looked at in the singular and a wider range of measures can make a difference. This was my thoughts on the ones you raised.

 

[Damocles]

The problem is the Ethno-Nationalists see globalism, Kalergi plan, Soros, immigrants, blah blah blah. And they believe its their patriotic duty to exalt in the sanctity of the nation state. It astonishes me that there are still people in the world who believe in racial purity. Western exceptionalism and white superiority.

I believe in Western superiority. Sort of.

My logic is this:

• Does an objective idea of goodness exist or is all morality subjective? There has to be an objective agreement across humanity of "an evil act".
• Is it possible for some frameworks to be more moral than others? Yes.

This then follows that if you can be more X than somebody then a ranking of X can be formulated.

• Next, IF we accept the above then we accept that some moral frameworks are superior whilst others are inferior.
• The expression of moral frameworks on our planet comes through our cultural, social and religious conditions so are geographic to some degree. Painting with a large brush but hopefully you'll follow, think of it as probability.
• This follows that some regions of the world have cultures and societies that are "more moral" than other cultures and societies.

So we do a sanity check of the logic and see if it works in the real world. I have a specific belief system raised through the Greco-Roman Western European humanist tradition. With that comes an idea of vaguely what I believe in terms of a society and the shared experiences you can assign to me or the traumas that we have endured collectively.

Now ask yourself two questions:

Is your belief system "more moral" than the extreme conservative Islamic interpretation of Sunni Islam which advocates for everything from jihad to child rape? I believe it is. I think that, if we were to have a ranking system, then for that ranking system to be meaningful then Western European Liberal thought has to be above Extreme Conservative Islamic thought.

Second, and here's the one that really made me think, if morality is subjective and there's no ranking systems of better or lesser morals than why do we fight for things?

I'd suggest that given the markers of freedom, prosperity, liberty and all of the others then the Western European tradition is the most moral societies that we have yet invented. It allows freedom of worship, freedom of tyranny, freedom of labour, freedom of expression and a bunch of other things. We don't restrict people from being themselves either through legislation and increasingly less through societal pressure but with this freedom we also have structures that have ensured economic prosperity. When done correctly, we seem to be the best mixture so far between collectivism and individualism that has allowed us to thrive.

You may take this as historical reading after the fact - our system is superior because it won the race so to speak, and I acknowledge that as I also acknowledge the residency bias innate in the statement. But I do believe that our focus on freedom and liberty is a much more moral system than those who do not.

 

[Rascal]

I believe in Western superiority. Sort of.

My logic is this:

• Does an objective idea of goodness exist or is all morality subjective? There has to be an objective agreement across humanity of "an evil act".
• Is it possible for some frameworks to be more moral than others? Yes.

This then follows that if you can be more X than somebody then a ranking of X can be formulated.

• Next, IF we accept the above then we accept that some moral frameworks are superior whilst others are inferior.
• The expression of moral frameworks on our planet comes through our cultural, social and religious conditions so are geographic to some degree. Painting with a large brush but hopefully you'll follow, think of it as probability.
• This follows that some regions of the world have cultures and societies that are "more moral" than other cultures and societies.

So we do a sanity check of the logic and see if it works in the real world. I have a specific belief system raised through the Greco-Roman Western European humanist tradition. With that comes an idea of vaguely what I believe in terms of a society and the shared experiences you can assign to me or the traumas that we have endured collectively.

Now ask yourself two questions:

Is your belief system "more moral" than the extreme conservative Islamic interpretation of Sunni Islam which advocates for everything from jihad to child rape? I believe it is. I think that, if we were to have a ranking system, then for that ranking system to be meaningful then Western European Liberal thought has to be above Extreme Conservative Islamic thought.

Second, and here's the one that really made me think, if morality is subjective and there's no ranking systems of better or lesser morals than why do we fight for things?

I'd suggest that given the markers of freedom, prosperity, liberty and all of the others then the Western European tradition is the most moral societies that we have yet invented. It allows freedom of worship, freedom of tyranny, freedom of labour, freedom of expression and a bunch of other things. We don't restrict people from being themselves either through legislation and increasingly less through societal pressure but with this freedom we also have structures that have ensured economic prosperity. When done correctly, we seem to be the best mixture so far between collectivism and individualism that has allowed us to thrive.

You may take this as historical reading after the fact - our system is superior because it won the race so to speak, and I acknowledge that as I also acknowledge the residency bias innate in the statement. But I do believe that our focus on freedom and liberty is a much more moral system than those who do not.

I think that does come from the inherent bias we have through living in the culture that we do, is it morally superior? I am not so certain

Is it our right to push/force our particular moral and ethical belief system on to others, I don't believe we have that right nor should we judge based upon our preconceptions. Would a tribe as yet undiscovered living in the remote jungles of Borneo be happy to live like we do, when they have lived quite happily for thousands of years as they do. They may worship tree frogs, have a simple life compared to us,make Art in caves, music from drums, it may be based on a form of what we would consider Dictatorship but that dictator is benign and cares for the tribe and everyone eats, shares the fruits of their labour and looks after each other as they have for eons in extended families where maternalism is the accepted norm. It may be female dominated and the males are emasculated and used as what we would consider as slaves yet they are fed, happy and love their lives as servants to their female mates. They may have no need to trade, no need for shared knowledge and their level of technology may not have advanced as far as the wheel but they are content and live long and fruitful lives maybe ignorant in their bliss.

They are free to worship there tree frogs, they are free of tyranny, their Labour is valued, they have freedom of artistic expression as the benign dictator/head of the tribe loves his people and his actions are based on the actions of his forefathers in a system that has worked since time immemorial. The only issue is they are slaves to their mates desires and wishes, sounds a bit western that :)

There society would be as free as ours without a lot of the restrictions we face in a western society, they wont pay tax, but share the proceeds of their labour on a needs basis, they don't need an army as they have nobody to fight, they dont need democracy because the head of tribe makes sure the tribe is cared for at all times and everyone is well fed and labour is divided fairly and so on and so on, plus they would have the huge bonus of not having nuisance phone calls every five minutes and no internet where some **** accuses them of being a Marxist because they will never have heard of Marx anyway and they have no electricity.