The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Dr_Pangloss]

5 minutes ago, Awol said:

Historically, the problem with socialism (not social democracy) is always ‘the methods used to carry it out.’

 

Which generally amount to theft. 

Where there's a franchise model (i.e. train operators) you can allow those franchises to elapse and then take control, fair enough. What's been proposed for telco is basically an outright hostile takeover.

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

As for the second point, it is all about the $$$$, 100%. Having managed a bar however, (and a successfull one that did 30k a week in turnover) we would have to shut down should we offer our zero hour staff those benefits. It is just not feasible. In part, I blame high cost of produce we used (again, coming back to inflation) and taxation.

And that indicates an economy that isn't working properly.

If the cost of actually properly employing staff (i.e. giving them the benefits of being staff members rather than casual employees) makes the business unprofitable then there''s either a problem with that particular business or, if it applies across the industry, a problem with that industry or, if applies across the economy, a problem with that economy.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Which generally amount to theft. 

Where there's a franchise model (i.e. train operators) you can allow those franchises to elapse and then take control, fair enough. What's been proposed for telco is basically an outright hostile takeover.

It’s a starter for 10. Folks genuinely seem to have no idea just how radical these guys are, which is ironic given their previous.  

[snowychap]

2 minutes ago, Awol said:

You’ve obviously woken in a great mood, have a lovely day. 

Ha ha ha.

[Dr_Pangloss]

Just now, Awol said:

It’s a starter for 10. Folks genuinely seem to have no idea just how radical these guys are, which is ironic given their previous.  

Labour's strategy is divide and conquer. Give large sections of society a 'free lunch' at the expense of others. I can see the appeal. But people are going to be shocked when a lot of the burden falls on the middle classes, which it almost certainly will (and have to in order to pay for such largesse). 

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, snowychap said:

And that indicates an economy that isn't working properly.

If the cost of actually properly employing staff (i.e. giving them the benefits of being staff members rather than casual employees) makes the business unprofitable then there''s either a problem with that particular business or, if it applies across the industry, a problem with that industry or, if applies across the economy, a problem with that economy.

Snowy, it's not very often I agree with you but 100% this. It's a problem with the economy.

Where we disagree is how we should fix this. 

[Xann]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

Equating 5G (which Huawei should be nowhere near) with ending property rights & destroying the economy in short order aren’t really on the same scale of effwittery.

 Handing next gen install to a company in the thrall of a foreign power is about as effwitted as it gets. Oh no, hang on, perhaps a nuclear power station could be worse?

As for breaking the economy, that'll be the economy that's driving the globe towards disaster. Bring it on.

iirc you were considering voting Green? They're trying to move away from the money god too btw.

 

[villa4europe]

Just now, Dr_Pangloss said:

Labour's strategy is divide and conquer. Give large sections of society a 'free lunch' at the expense of others. I can see the appeal. But people are going to be shocked when a lot of the burden falls on the middle classes, which it almost certainly will (and have to in order to pay for such largesse). 

its at the expense of big profitable businesses and really rich people

what they don't tell you is that the big profitable businesses will always find a way of looping it back round to you so that you get your free lunch by paying double for breakfast, globally countries are struggling to get them to pay their taxes but labour think they can get them to share their profit....dream world

[StefanAVFC]

7 minutes ago, snowychap said:

And that indicates an economy that isn't working properly.

If the cost of actually properly employing staff (i.e. giving them the benefits of being staff members rather than casual employees) makes the business unprofitable then there''s either a problem with that particular business or, if it applies across the industry, a problem with that industry or, if applies across the economy, a problem with that economy.

Exactly.

I'm paid for 40 hours a week hour, even though for 10 hours a week I'm not working based on the workflow I have.

Why is it that my company can afford to write off 25% of my time and others, in different sectors, can't?

I would argue that they can, but they don't want to.

[snowychap]

11 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

Labour's strategy is divide and conquer. Give large sections of society a 'free lunch' at the expense of others. I can see the appeal. But people are going to be shocked when a lot of the burden falls on the middle classes, which it almost certainly will (and have to in order to pay for such largesse). 

Given your interest in some form of universal basic income, I'm suprised that you automatically see the idea of universal free internet access (which is what free broadband is, no?) as largesse rather than perhaps having a place in a universal basic services (along with some sort of UBI) idea.

As per a previous post, I'm not condoning the details of Labour's scheme (I don't know them - I'm not sure anyone even the Labour party itself does) but I very much like a moving of the Overton window in such an area from the idea of tinkering around the edges that has been the way of the past decade (and appears to continue to be the way of things for Johnson) to looking at a blanket provision of access.

If the opportunities in the future economy are going to be centred around high tech innovative entrepreneurship then making that available to everyone and reducing barriers is surely a way forward worth looking at.

Then there's also the whole government digital first line to be considered, too.

Edited November 15, 2019 by snowychap

[Awol]

2 minutes ago, Xann said:

 Handing next gen install to a company in the thrall of a foreign power is about as fuckwitted as it gets. Oh no, hang on, perhaps a nuclear power station could be worse?

As for breaking the economy, that'll be the economy that's driving the globe towards disaster. Bring it on.

iirc you were considering voting Green? They're trying to move away from the money god too btw.

 

Green? Lol. No. The way I see it it’s a choice between a party paid by Russia (blues) or a party that wants to be Russia (reds). 

It’s a straight fight between SNP & Lib Dems where I’m registered to vote. As a leave supporting Unionist my vote is irrelevant. 

On the economy I definitely agree the global model of growth based on consumption/resource exploitation is unsustainable. Plunging ourselves into penury by wrecking the economy and destroying pensions doesn’t strike me as a sensible solution. 

[Mic09]

4 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

Why is it that my company can afford to write off 25% of my time and others, in different sectors, can't?

I would argue that they can, but they don't want to.

Or your company isn't well run and might struggle when serious competition comes in. Writing off 25% is not a good thing at all. Could they not utilise your skills in a different way?

[StefanAVFC]

1 minute ago, Mic09 said:

Or your company isn't well run and might struggle when serious competition comes in. Writing off 25% is not a good thing at all. Could they not utilise your skills in a different way?

They do. But mostly because I volunteer for extra stuff (I run management classes for example)

But the point absolutely remains.

Office workers can get 40 hour contracts whilst working far less than that.

Bar workers have zero hours, yet it's socially acceptable.

The system is **** man

[Dr_Pangloss]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

Given your interest in some form of universal basic income, I'm suprised that you automatically see the idea of universal free internet access (which is what free broadband is, no?) as largesse rather than perhaps having a place in a universal basic services (along with some sort of UBI) idea.

As per a previous post, I'm not condoning the details of Labour's scheme (I don't know them - I'm not sure anyone even the Labour party itself does) but I very much like a moving of the Overton window in such an area from the idea of tinkering around the edges that has been the way of the past decade (and appears to continue to be the way of things for Johnson) to looking at a blanket provision of access.

If the opportunities in the future economy are going to be centred around high tech innovative entrepreneurship then making that available to everyone and reducing barriers is surely a way forward worth looking at.

Then there's also the whole government digital first line to be considered, too.

They are completely different. One is putting money in the hands of citizens to make decisions (the condition for UBI would require an opt out of the current benefits system, those who don't accept would remain in the current system), provides a living wage and is necessary in a time where job prospects are only getting more precarious. Citizens would put this money back into the economy which will have the effect of increasing spending and jobs.

The other is the government muscling in on Telcos, part nationalising it and providing a 'free service'. It does not have anywhere near the level of benefits of UBI and is not at all in the same ballpark as a policy.

[Xann]

4 minutes ago, Awol said:

Green? Lol. No.

Apologies - You said that a larger Green movement would be a good thing, not that you'd actually vote for them.

7 minutes ago, Awol said:

Plunging ourselves into penury by wrecking the economy and destroying pensions doesn’t strike me as a sensible solution. 

The pension system has been designed to sustain the failed Capitalist project.

I walked out our enhanced pension meeting at work, choosing which industry to put your stake in was like choosing which way you'd like your balls cut off.

All the industries named need to alter their grasping ways, and the pension companies are just giving them leverage to resist any positive change.

[StefanAVFC]

Listening to James OB. Guy makes a decent point.

The Government have made the internet an absolute necessity these days. You have to apply for certain things, only online so not having access to the internet affects the poorest once again.

[Awol]

9 minutes ago, Xann said:

Apologies - You said that a larger Green movement would be a good thing, not that you'd actually vote for them.

The pension system has been designed to sustain the failed Capitalist project.

I walked out our enhanced pension meeting at work, choosing which industry to put your stake in was like choosing which way you'd like your balls cut off.

All the industries named need to alter their grasping ways, and the pension companies are just giving them leverage to resist any positive change.

I don’t disagree, but as Snowy (a bit sniffily) said, the issue is methods. 

Ripping up the economy by the roots sounds exciting to some, but utterly terrifying to more. Transforming it is necessary & needs serious, measured and thoughtful debate.
 

Labour in their current form are proposing a spot of DIY using tactical nuclear weapons. 

[Mic09]

3 minutes ago, Awol said:

I don’t disagree, but as Snowy (a bit sniffily) said, the issue is methods. 

Ripping up the economy by the roots sounds exciting to some, but utterly terrifying to more. Transforming it is necessary & needs serious, measured and thoughtful debate.
 

Labour in their current form are proposing a spot of DIY using tactical nuclear weapons. 

In a way I'm surprised that many people are terrified by the thought of Brexit (rightly or wrongly, that's not my point) but are quite happy to look over the thought of nationalising everything that moves and breathes in this country. 

 

[Xann]

Just now, Awol said:

Labour in their current form are proposing a spot of DIY using tactical nuclear weapons. 

Again, fine, cos we're heading for disaster and the Tories aren't interested in measured and thoughtful debate, they're interested in handing the nation's assets to their chums.

If we don't do something now, we're just handiing an even worse situation to the next generation.

They're going to hate us enough anyway.

[Awol]

1 minute ago, Xann said:

Again, fine, cos we're heading for disaster and the Tories aren't interested in measured and thoughtful debate, they're interested in handing the nation's assets to their chums.

If we don't do something now, we're just handiing an even worse situation to the next generation.

They're going to hate us enough anyway.

Fair enough. When it leads to economic disaster (as it always, always does) we’ll likely end up with sort of right wing regime that would make Cromwell blush.

Not sure how worried they’ll be about CO2 & workers rights.