The Political Thread

[TordelBack]

I think that when a "government" of any stripe is driven by unrealistic expectations of paying back an ever-increasing and unpayable (and illusory) debt in order to keep the spectre of catastrophic "economic collapse" at bay, they can't help but take the route of avarice and general beastliness.

Strawmanning like a bad 'un here, but those governments that rejected existing debts and obligatiins seem to mainly include characters like Pol Pot, Robspierre and that fella that sets the QI klaxon blaring.

[The Legendary Shark]

I know most people don't believe me. But consider this:
.
In an earlier post I talked about governments abandoning the Gold Standard so that fractional reserve lending could continue. Right now, only about 3% of money is in actual cash - nowhere near enough to justify the 97% of "loan money" backed up by it. Their solution will not be to abandon frl but to abolish that which backs it and introduce something like zero reserve lending. The last vestiges of the farce of backed money will be swept away and all money will be issued digitally, by private banks, with absolutely nothing behind it but faith and complicated processes.
.
And if and when the banks decide to impose negative interest rates, charging you 5% per month to look after your savings, how are you going to withdraw that and keep it in your mattress? You will have the choice of either investing your money in something (stocks, shares, land, property, comics) or watching it slowly drain away to nothing.
.
This is an extreme example, of course, but I think it is the inevitable end of the current path of wealth redistribution we are on and that no "government" who doesn't attempt to break its, and our, dependence on and addiction to the current system can only assist the process.

[Definitely Not Mister Pops]

I know most people don't believe me. But I'll just keep hammering away at the same tedious points I've making in pretty much every post in this thread for well over a year now.

FTFY

[The Legendary Shark]

Well over five years, actually, Pops:
.

« Reply #61 on: 12 April 2010, 19:21:21 »
Fix the economies of the world by taking back
the right of governments to print their own
money and the cost of immigration and the
reasons behind it (and most other problems
such as housing, health care, public spending
etc) tend to evaporate. Keeping everyone
arguing about the problem (in this case,
immigration) and not the cause (hollow
banking) is just one example of what all
political parties are about. This is the politics of
distraction.
The Prime Minister can be seen as the captain
of the ship of state. Once the passengers (the
electorate) elect a captain and crew (PM and
MPs), the ship is redecorated, the way the ship
is run is altered, the shift patterns and
responsibilities of the crew are tweaked, new
rules and regulations are put into place, the
decks are swabbed etc, etc, etc - but the course
of the ship is not altered. Some years later, a
new captain and crew are elected who change
everything back again, but the course of the
ship is still not altered. This is the politics of
distraction.

[Professor Bear]

That's brilliant, Sharky - now you can just copy and paste from earlier in the thread - that's got to be a tremendous timesaver.


Corbyn just sent me an email asking me to join the Labour party as a full member.  Nothing - not even slavery - makes me angrier than spam so I have gone off him now.
Although I notice they've dropped the requirement that you sign a "I am not a dirty entryist Trot" declaration during the signup process, even though it was mandatory only last week.
I wonder what's changed since then?

Jimbo - there's plenty of debate on the thread about the failings of the left, it's just that the debate in British politics has drifted to the right over the years, so naturally if you have people grumbling about politics, chances are they'll be doing so about the dominant orthodoxies in current practice rather than conceptual notions of an end of the political scale that hasn't been in ascendance for three decades.  I don't think anyone would begrudge you being on the right of the political spectrum given there are a few armed forces types knocking about and we're all sci-fi fans and thus by nature are conservative and deeply distrustful of change and anything new.
Please don't confuse our occasionally blatant wind-ups with any kind of unspoken restriction on contributing to the other side of a discussion.

[Mikey]

...essentially means believing that a rising tide lifts all boats; that a society that encourages and rewards personal effort...

And the reason I'm not on the right of the spectrum is because I don't think there's a real example of any of that being the case without some people really losing out. If it were so, by now everyone would be doing fine.

I'm fuckin sick of making personal effort if I'm honest - it's got me nowhere overall.

M

[IndigoPrime]

I hope Corbyn can reframe the terms of the debate in UK politics, but as far as winning 2020 is concerned Labour die hards have  performed the equivalent of buying a Top Gear CD from a service station and ordering corduroy slacks with an adjustable waist band. It feels comfortable to be true to yourself, but it also means you've abandoned all attempts to appeal to anyone else*.

But in what sense? How is Corbyn not appealing to anyone else? Who is that "anyone else"? The narrative, possibly accurate, is that Corbyn's selection means abandoning trying to make a play for moderate Tories who might switch sides, but then that's been the problem with British politics since Blair. Everything hinges on literally a few thousand voters, in swing seats, when there should be so much more to play for.

Would it be better for Labour to not be true to its core values? Continue to embrace austerity? Continue to nod along to privatisation? At what point do you just throw in the towel and merge the two main parties? (And while that might sound absurd, the last Labour manifesto read like a moderate Conservative one. It was one of the most depressing political documents I've ever read. No wonder the party lost a significant portion of voters to the Greens and UKIP.)

[JayzusB.Christ]

I've just read TB's post and have to say he's pretty much hit the nail on the head, as far as I'm concerned, apart from the last sentence!  So no need to reply to Jayzus.

Fair enough.
Though my own view would very much include that last sentence (living as I do in a country whose government never strays from centre-right and as such focusses its efforts far more on the priveleged, and wishing I had Tordelback's eloquence and intelligence to express the opinions I pretty much always share with him ).

[Dark Jimbo]

Jimbo - there's plenty of debate on the thread about the failings of the left, it's just that the debate in British politics has drifted to the right over the years... I don't think anyone would begrudge you being on the right of the political spectrum...
Please don't confuse our occasionally blatant wind-ups with any kind of unspoken restriction on contributing to the other side of a discussion.

Oh, no worries Bear. I've not got any problems with people sticking it to the right (God knows it does ask for it, more often than not) - and I wouldn't for a minute think anyone here would hold it against me out of hand.

[TordelBack]

I'm fuckin sick of making personal effort if I'm honest - it's got me nowhere overall.

Testify.

Should perhaps clarify that I do not hold the beliefs expressed in my previous post- but I can see how they are noble, attractive and even rational. I just don't ever see them working in practice, due to people and their weaknesses, and a default position that seems to be 'I'm alright Jack'. The selfsame human failings undermine left-wing ideals, but at least societies based on those have a safety net built in.

[Dark Jimbo]

Should perhaps clarify that I do not hold the beliefs expressed in my previous post- but I can see how they are noble, attractive and even rational. I just don't ever see them working in practice, due to people and their weaknesses...

See, that's almost eerily similar to how I feel about many Left ideals.

[Frank]

How is Corbyn not appealing to anyone else? Who is that "anyone else"? The narrative, possibly accurate, is that Corbyn's selection means abandoning trying to make a play for moderate Tories who might switch sides, but then that's been the problem with British politics since Blair. Everything hinges on literally a few thousand voters, in swing seats, when there should be so much more to play for.

I basically agree with the sentiments you express, but I'd question the idea that the aim of Labour blanding was to attract moderate Tories. The aim in those key marginals you mention is to attract the votes of the relatively small number of people who don't vote according to some kind of tribal loyalty and Corbyn (regardless of policies) is probably too polarising a figure to do that.

What that leaves him with is the option of trying to turn out inactive Labour voters and folk who don't normally vote at all. The BBC's More Or Less did a fantastic show about that very subject and it turns out non-voters aren't any more likely to be Labour voters than folk who do vote and that Labour inclined non-voters tend to live in areas Labour already wins.

Turning out non-voters would likely only result in even bigger Labour majorities in seats they would have won anyway. Worth a listen: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06950lm

[Professor Bear]

But in what sense? How is Corbyn not appealing to anyone else? Who is that "anyone else"? The narrative, possibly accurate, is that Corbyn's selection means abandoning trying to make a play for moderate Tories who might switch sides, but then that's been the problem with British politics since Blair. Everything hinges on literally a few thousand voters, in swing seats, when there should be so much more to play for.

Bear in mind that the Tories plan on redrawing the boundaries around safe Conservative seats before the next election, so swinging a few on-the-fence voters becomes at best a more unsound strategy, at worst it becomes suicidal acknowledgement of never regaining power in this generation.  This, of course, probably suits the Blairites because pretending to be underdogs feeds the martyr complex they displayed during the leadership contest - but for Corbyn, it's about actual change, and by necessity I think he'll look outside to get people who don't normally vote.  For that, I think it helps that he's so reviled, because the more they bully and smear, the more the Blairites, the Tories, and the media make him look more and more like an alternative to what they've been offering.
Polorising as he might be in isolation, they seem incapable of realising that their actions only make a martyr of him to otherwise apathetic onlookers - a good example is the PMQ question by the DUP's Nigel Dodds about Corbyn & Co's IRA sympathies in the past framed around murdered MPs: before, this would have been electorate Kryptonite, but it's barely been noticed.

[JayzusB.Christ]

I'm fuckin sick of making personal effort if I'm honest - it's got me nowhere overall.

Testify.

As a very busy 'entrepreneur', I suppose I'm the type of person that is supposed to be the Conservative ideal made real. Trouble is, I'm broke half the time, bring fuck all to the economy and am currently homeless*, while my Civil Service friends seem to spend half their lives on holiday, have no trouble getting mortgages, and get plenty of other bonuses (boni?) along with it. I'm just a stubborn bastard who really hates my work hours being dictated by other people.

*But not quite on the streets, thanks to the many dear friends who have given me spare rooms and sofas.

[Leigh S]

Without putting words in anyone's mouth, I'd assume that (following a personal analysis of the options) favouring the right-wing end of the political spectrum essentially means believing that a rising tide lifts all boats; that a society that encourages and rewards personal effort and success is itself enriched as a whole; that applying a meritocratic business-led approach to the supply of and receipt of public services results in efficencies and incentives; that valuing personal freedom and individual responsibility over collective dependence on the state is empowering for all; and that a society/economy that operates on these principles is better for all its members.

What I find confusing us how anyone can square these undoubted  positives with the hateful rhetoric and selfish avaricious behaviour that seems to be the actual results of right-wing government.

And it presumes that the last 30 years of a glbal steer to the right just needs anbother 30 or so before the trickle/tide gets anywhere.

The economy crashed and burned on Labours watch - was this because they were enacting left wing policies?  Given it was a global crash that affected countries to a greater or lesser degree irrespective of their current Gvts leaning, that probably doesn't stand up as the only factor, and could well not be the case at all.  Britain was always going to be hit hard by a banking crisis as we are one of the major players in that Arena - we put our eggs in this basket, and the Right wing would have put even more.

And if we go back 30 years or less, wealth was much more equally spread - surely that proves that trickle down is a fallacy?  As someone brighter than me pointed out, we should have zero unemployment given the free reign markets have had, yet here we are still, seemingly unable to afford basic safety net services that were perfectly viable in the supposedly unproductive and comparatively leftist 50s, 60s and 70s