Mikes Friday night Politics Thread

[D Skelton]

Yes it's only a name, but it's an unpopular name - a name with connotations. Likewise being against socialism, 'anti-socialist' sounds 'antisocial', as in 'antisocial behaviour' - drinking in public, defacing property, playing loud music etc.

A name with negative connotations because your every day Joe Bloggs cannot separate the actions of a man, and a political ideology that he took and twisted to his own end.

People are stupid Adam.

Stalin was a Socialist. So why doesn't Socialism carry the same negative connotations?? "Oh yeah, because we were allies in the war against Hitler, who was the enemy, who was also a ----, so National Socialism is wrong and Socialism is good!"

This is literally how people think mate, they are thick as poo fella.

Never mind that both men were responsible for the same amount of murder and were just as evil as each other. Also, never mind that Socialism and National Socialism are extremely similar, one of the only differences being the move to self-sustainability with the latter plus the need to look out for number one first.

 

[shanky887614]

A name with negative connotations because your every day Joe Bloggs cannot separate the actions of a man, and a political ideology that he took and twisted to his own end.

People are stupid Adam.

Stalin was a Socialist. So why doesn't Socialism carry the same negative connotations?? "Oh yeah, because we were allies in the war against Hitler, who was the enemy, who was also a ----, so National Socialism is wrong and Socialism is good!"

This is literally how people think mate, they are thick as poo fella.

Never mind that both men were responsible for the same amount of murder and were just as evil as each other. Also, never mind that Socialism and National Socialism are extremely similar, one of the only differences being the move to self-sustainability with the latter plus the need to look out for number one first.

I know stalin was ruthless with his order not one step back.

----'s were evil with the gas chambers though.

I kind of wish I had studied about russia as well as causes and effects of ww1 and 2

 

[D Skelton]

I guess something that really annoys me is this notion that we must always press forward and never go back. It's as if what has happened in the past automatically becomes faliure just because it is in the past?!

It's classic capitalist rhetoric though really. The fact is, pressing forward only ever means a few people wil get richer whilst more get poorer. What worries me is that the public are unwilling to do anything about it, they just hang their heads and moan when the government takes more away from them.

 

[Adam W]

Stalin was a Socialist. So why doesn't Socialism carry the same negative connotations?? "Oh yeah, because we were allies in the war against Hitler, who was the enemy, who was also a ----, so National Socialism is wrong and Socialism is good!"

I don't think socialism is good.
I think it's a nice idea, and it may work in remote parts of Scandinavia where people have to look out for each other to survive, but elsewhere it's almost always abused. Take the NHS - it's a great idea which most of the world look up to, to the extent that they all come over here to use it. It gets milked as a cash cow by pen-pushers who capitalise on it, it gets used as a form of entertainment by layabouts, and even by revellers to come and pick up the pieces after their excesses. If it were only used by those who were both entitled to it and who really needed it, it would work wonderfully, but as it stands it's very wasteful.

I think it's clear that Stalin's socialism didn't work for the vast majority, but it may have worked for him, just like Blair made a personal fortune out of his 'new Labour' while everyone else got screwed over.
Same with North Korea - people dismiss reports of poverty and starvation for the majority there as 'capitalist propaganda' but you can't deny there's something untoward about the place.

 

[D Skelton]

I don't think socialism is good.
I think it's a nice idea, and it may work in remote parts of Scandinavia where people have to look out for each other to survive, but elsewhere it's almost always abused. Take the NHS - it's a great idea which most of the world look up to, to the extent that they all come over here to use it. It gets milked as a cash cow by pen-pushers who capitalise on it, it gets used as a form of entertainment by layabouts, and even by revellers to come and pick up the pieces after their excesses. If it were only used by those who were both entitled to it and who really needed it, it would work wonderfully, but as it stands it's very wasteful.

I think it's clear that Stalin's socialism didn't work for the vast majority, but it may have worked for him, just like Blair made a personal fortune out of his 'new Labour' while everyone else got screwed over.
Same with North Korea - people dismiss reports of poverty and starvation for the majority there as 'capitalist propaganda' but you can't deny there's something untoward about the place.

Is Socialism to blame for peoples greed?! Of course not.

People will always be greedy, it's in their nature. We need a strong core of people who are prepared to do the best they can for the people they serve, instead of just themselves and their mates. If you can find such a bunch of people, then socialism would work. The very fact that such people are few and far between is the reason capitalism prevails!

 

[Adam W]

Is Socialism to blame for peoples greed?! Of course not.

People will always be greedy, it's in their nature. We need a strong core of people who are prepared to do the best they can for the people they serve, instead of just themselves and their mates. If you can find such a bunch of people, then socialism would work. The very fact that such people are few and far between is the reason capitalism prevails!

It's not just the leaders but the voters as well - it was Labour's policy to ship in a load of immigrants because new immigrants typically vote for left wing parties, ie Labour. It didn't help the country, it didn't really help the immigrants, it certainly didn't help the existing residents, but it helped Labour get re-elected.
Likewise they paid 16 and 17 year olds to go to school, and now strangely enough they want 16 and 17 year olds to be able to vote.
Same with the vehicle scrappage scheme - it didn't particularly help the economy, it didn't help the environment and it didn't help 'the poor' because it reduced the supply of the kind of age and value cars that they would buy, pushing the price up, and it certainly didn't help the taxpayer, but to a select group of people the nice Labour party helped them to buy a new car, plus it will have given a boost to few scrap dealers and affiliated interested parties.

People say all politicians are the same - greedy and self-serving. I suppose they are, but the difference is the left wing ones pretend they're not.

 

[trev]

Why does everything have to be about immigration? There are far bigger problems facing the country than that and you all swallow the diversion.
Maybe immigrants are more likely to vote in a particular way but there is no way to really quantify that other than by asking them but that doesn't change the absolute fact that immigrants are a minority in this country and so are unlikely to have any real effect on the outcome of an election.
As a slight aside I can assure you from personal experience that the open door policy does not and has never existed. My brother is married to a Nigerian woman and it is proving increasingly difficult to get her a visa so she can come here to visit. It appears that the requirements are being slightly relaxed (under a right wing administration I hasten to point out) but under the last mob it was very nearly impossible.
I'd welcome any further comments about the supposed open door policy.

 

[Adam W]

Why does everything have to be about immigration? There are far bigger problems facing the country than that and you all swallow the diversion.
Maybe immigrants are more likely to vote in a particular way but there is no way to really quantify that other than by asking them but that doesn't change the absolute fact that immigrants are a minority in this country and so are unlikely to have any real effect on the outcome of an election.
As a slight aside I can assure you from personal experience that the open door policy does not and has never existed. My brother is married to a Nigerian woman and it is proving increasingly difficult to get her a visa so she can come here to visit. It appears that the requirements are being slightly relaxed (under a right wing administration I hasten to point out) but under the last mob it was very nearly impossible.
I'd welcome any further comments about the supposed open door policy.

It isn't all about immigration, that was just one of three examples I gave, it just seems to have been the one which you jumped on.
The point is it's about buying votes with the sole purpose of getting elected instead of earning them by making the country a better place for everyone.

I could instead have mentioned the Lib Dems' referendum on electoral reform - I don't believe it was to make things fairer, I think it was because the Lib Dems were traditionally a middle ground protest party, and likely to win second vote with a majority of voters - people aren't going to vote for Labour first and Conservative as a second choice, or the other way around.
So it seems to me the first thing the Lib Dems did when they got a sniff of power was to try to get their feet under the table so they were unlikely to be voted out. Sneaky.

 

[trev]

Well you could say that the tories did exactly the same when they gave a £40k tax cut to millionaires.
I think electoral reform is vastly over due, under the system at present there are no MPs who got over 46% of the votes cast in their constituency. Some got as low as 20%.

 

[Adam W]

A 'Robin Hood' style taxation system sounds nice but if you introduce punitive higher rate taxes you get a 'brain drain' where the rich will just up and leave, then instead of getting a higher rate of their earnings you get nothing.
It happened in the 70s, and in fact it's happening now with wealthy Frenchmen moving to London to escape high socialist taxes in France.

Provided the winning party get higher percentage of the vote than any other party I don't see how that's unfair.

 

[trev]

A 'Robin Hood' style taxation system sounds nice but if you introduce punitive higher rate taxes you get a 'brain drain' where the rich will just up and leave, then instead of getting a higher rate of their earnings you get nothing.
It happened in the 70s, and in fact it's happening now with wealthy Frenchmen moving to London to escape high socialist taxes in France.

Provided the winning party get higher percentage of the vote than any other party I don't see how that's unfair.

Yes it did but the rate of taxation then was eye watering, I'm not advocating a return to that but I don't think that the likes of Alan Sugar really need an extra 40 grand a year when people at the other end of the scale are faced with a choice of heat or eat.
The winning party rarely gets the majority of the vote though, the present system ensures that if 34% of the voters vote for you, 33% for me and 33% for Damian then you will get the seat depite 66% of the electorate effectively voting against you.
Proportional representation is a far fairer system even though it would possibly give some very unsavoury people a seat in parliament. That's democracy though.

 

[D Skelton]

A 'Robin Hood' style taxation system sounds nice but if you introduce punitive higher rate taxes you get a 'brain drain' where the rich will just up and leave, then instead of getting a higher rate of their earnings you get nothing.
It happened in the 70s, and in fact it's happening now with wealthy Frenchmen moving to London to escape high socialist taxes in France.

Classic Tory propaganda fella.

If you tax the rich more they won't leave, believe me. People don't just create a business and then up sticks and leave because they're being taxed a few percent more. Personally, I'd like to see the base tax free allowance raised to at least £15k, then push the 40p tax rate to about £70k instead of it's current place at £34k and stick a new 30p tax rate somewhere in the middle. The 50p rate needs to be reinstalled and to stay at £150k and then a 60p rate in at about £300k. 70p at £600k, 80p at £1M and 90p at £1.5M.

Whoever is earning more than £1.5M and complaining at paying 90p tax needs shooting IMHO!

The key however is closing the loopholes that allow businesses to base themselves abroad and yet still conduct themselves on these shores. The tax rate needs to be based on money made in this country, not where you live or where your business is based. Therefore, if you don't want to pay our taxes, you can bugger off and earn nothing here. Do you really think that Starbucks would close down all it's stores in this country if we started asking for the millions that they owe us?? No is the answer, not if they were told that if they didn't pay they can't operate!! Better to earn something than nothing!

 

[Adam W]

Yes it did but the rate of taxation then was eye watering, I'm not advocating a return to that but I don't think that the likes of Alan Sugar really need an extra 40 grand a year when people at the other end of the scale are faced with a choice of heat or eat.
The winning party rarely gets the majority of the vote though, the present system ensures that if 34% of the voters vote for you, 33% for me and 33% for Damian then you will get the seat depite 66% of the electorate effectively voting against you.
Proportional representation is a far fairer system even though it would possibly give some very unsavoury people a seat in parliament. That's democracy though.

Technically in the specific example you gave, 66% may have voted against me, but 67% voted against you and Damian.
I suppose there's a fine balance between maximising the amount of tax you can get out of people and attracting enough wealthy taxpayers.

Speaking of Alan Sugar and choosing between heating and eating, are he and others earning similar amounts still automatically getting paid winter fuel allowances?

 

[Adam W]

If you tax the rich more they won't leave, believe me. People don't just create a business and then up sticks and leave because they're being taxed a few percent more.

They do though - however you try to tax the richest, they'll always find a way around it, whether it's keeping their money in Swiss bank accounts, basing the business abroad or outsourcing all the work there, which is why so many people left IT and retrained as electricians.

The key however is closing the loopholes that allow businesses to base themselves abroad and yet still conduct themselves on these shores. The tax rate needs to be based on money made in this country, not where you live or where your business is based. Therefore, if you don't want to pay our taxes, you can bugger off and earn nothing here. Do you really think that Starbucks would close down all it's stores in this country if we started asking for the millions that they owe us?? No is the answer, not if they were told that if they didn't pay they can't operate!! Better to earn something than nothing!

True, but until a way is found to make this happen, businesses will continue to be outsourced to save money. Of course if they could operate a business from the UK with similar expenditure they'd have their manufacturing here instead of China, and their call centre here instead of India.

 

[trev]

Adam you're splitting hairs, the whole point of the example I made was to show how one person can get elected despite not having a majority of votes and to show that a government can be "elected" on exactly the same principle. One thing that people often choose to ignore is that the conservative governments of 1979-97 never had anything approaching 50% of the cast votes. The same may well be true of subsequent elections and governments but I've not looked into that
Alan Sugar gives his winter fuel allowance (and a hell of a lot more) to charity, I don't know how many others do the same but a lot of people in his position are entitled to it (and presumably a lot will also claim it)