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

[ml1dch]

3 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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. 

And vice versa. There are plenty who suggest that ripping up forty years of economic and political structure is at best, incidental and at worst a necessary corrective measure. 

While in the same breath swooning at the idea of a publicly owned rail system being the final step before we're all forced to work in the tractor mines.

 

[Mic09]

4 minutes 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.

Tories are not interested. 100% correct. 

But why does the fix have to be Labour with clearly outrageous ideas?

I find that many anti Labour arguments are countered with 'Yeah but Tories...'. 

Isn't there an alternative? I know media don't let us think this,  but there are 100s of political parties out there. Let's not get fixed between one or the other. 

Both are shit.

[snowychap]

31 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

They are completely different.

Well, yes and no.

One is about a distribution of cash universally and services obviously isn't.

They do however occupy similar areas, i.e. providing a universal level start.

33 minutes ago, Dr_Pangloss said:

It does not have anywhere near the level of benefits of UBI

I'm not suggesting that providing free broadband is the equivalent of providing a UBI. If you read that in what I wrote then I haven't put it across very well.

My point was that the possible need for something like a UBI is similar to the possible need to give universal access across the board to services (and I include internet access in that for the reasons in my previous post - reducing barriers to opportunity and the access to government services in a digital age).

Talk of universal basic services as an idea does occupy simillar discussion spaces as talk of UBI and I think there's more than just a possibility of looking at both of them together. A combination may well also turn out to be better, more effective and more readily accepted by the wider public than a pure form of either.

[snowychap]

12 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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.

Perhaps some people are making an automatic assumption about people's consideration of a particular policy?

Maybe, just maybe there is room for:

20 minutes ago, Awol said:

serious, measured and thoughtful debate

 

[snowychap]

22 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

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.

It is really a very important point to be made.

I think the main issue with the broadband idea is how relevant will fibre broadband be by 2030?

 

[Mic09]

Just now, snowychap said:

It is really a very important point to be made.

I think the main issue with the broadband idea is how relevant will fibre broadband be by 2030?

 

Or, will Labour still be in power by 2030 should they win this December?

[snowychap]

6 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Or, will Labour still be in power by 2030 should they win this December?

But I don't particularly think this is relevant (not least because of how distinctly unlikely it is that Labour would be 'in power' in December and beyond- even if they were in government).

At least, in terms of discussion about how the country ought to move forward, if we are so stuck in it being purely one way or purely another then we continually lose impetus and there can be no long term plan (I know that's in danger of being some sort of 'third way' line but still). That's why I come back to the point I made earlier about moving the Overton window - if we can get to a point where there's some form of consensus that equality of basic access (and that doesn't prevent it from being good quality, it just means that there are further, better options out there for people on top of the minimum) is a public good or even a public necessity then perhaps we can look at devising a way that most, if not all, would be happy with rather than relying on markets that, for some, are unlikely to ever work.

Edited November 15, 2019 by snowychap

[chrisp65]

3 minutes ago, snowychap said:

I think the main issue with the broadband idea is how relevant will fibre broadband be by 2030?

...about as relevant as spending £100 Billion to get 20 minutes off the train time from Birmingham to London?

I'd really really like to think that by 2030 we didn't need to travel to London to have a meeting. 

Of the two projects, I'd put broadband ahead of getting everyone to London every day.

[Risso]

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Did you catch McDonnell’s interview on Radio 4 earlier? It’s not just Open Reach he’s after but businesses like Virgin, Talk Talk and all of the others that invested private money in laying the existing fibre network. No guarantees that they receive market value for their investment, but if they can’t agree a price then they’re vulnerable to nationalization, too. 
 

Labour is going after property rights, the foundation of liberal democracy. Not to worry though... 

It's at least the 3rd or 4th policy Labour have discussed that seeks to take private assets from people and companies.  "Cuddly John" is doing his best to show a veneer of respectability, but you don't have to scratch too far below the surface to see his true intentions.

[Xann]

52 minutes ago, Awol said:

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

Like the Tories in power right now? I'll risk the potential armageddon, ta.

59 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

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.

Privatisation of our previously nationalised institutions certainly worked for directors and shareholders.

Not so much for the folk that use the services.

NHS being run into the ground. Transport laughable. Water's execs paying themselves from the infrastructure pot then charging their customers for losses due to leaks.

Let's not get started on Group 4 or Capita.

50 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

Both are shit.

They were both shit last time and the shift away from them was beyond disappointing.

Too much at stake this time to vote romantically.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Xann

[snowychap]

1 minute ago, chrisp65 said:

...about as relevant as spending £100 Billion to get 20 minutes off the train time from Birmingham to London?

I'd really really like to think that by 2030 we didn't need to travel to London to have a meeting. 

Of the two projects, I'd put broadband ahead of getting everyone to London every day.

I think I already covered that comparison earlier, didn't I?

My point was to consider whether, if the intent was to provide universal access to the internet by 2030, such a proposed investment (in fiber broadband) is going to be the best way to have delivered that. I'm not going to even consider myself to have the technical knowledge to venture any kind of answer, by the way. I was merely posing a question about how best to achieve that goal.

[Sam-AVFC]

13 minutes ago, Risso said:

It's at least the 3rd or 4th policy Labour have discussed that seeks to take private assets from people and companies.  "Cuddly John" is doing his best to show a veneer of respectability, but you don't have to scratch too far below the surface to see his true intentions.

The current government uses CPO powers on a daily basis, causing huge amounts of people to be uprooted and being forced to move house for the high speed rail plans (and various other things). Many of these are underpaid for their houses as they don't understand the benefit in getting a surveyor involved and that the bill is the responsibility of the body using the powers so they think they can't afford to get advice and end up capitulating. They are also often used to the benefit of private companies to buy land to develop on.

I've never once seen anyone complain about the nationalisation plans and also have an issue with this.

It's also for an utterly pointless reason. I travel between London and Birmingham quite a lot for work and the difference the shortening in journey makes adds up to the square root of **** all...particularly when most business travellers work on the train nowadays anyway.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[snowychap]

A thread:

 

Also:

 

Edited November 15, 2019 by snowychap

[Awol]

6 minutes ago, Xann said:

Like the Tories in power right now?

No, nothing like the Tories in power now. That's my point, this idea that they are 'hard' right, far-right etc. is nonsense. Neither far-right or far-left are compatible with a democratic system because it restrains them, instead they function as dictatorships. Attacking property rights/rule of law is a signature move of extremists precisely because it's necessary to implement their grand social experiment. There is no historical evidence of either - remarkably similar - system a) existing within a democratic framework, or b) benefiting the wider population. 

The Conservative Party today is a corrupt, venal, self-licking lollipop, interested only in preserving and extending the wealth of a tiny minority while preventing popular revolution against such injustice. Hence Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and Johnson's willingness to sell anything/everything to the CCP, while laundering Putin's money through the City for crumbs from his table. This is a major problem and needs to be resolved, but it's not an existential threat for the vast majority of the country (yes, tell that to the disabled, homeless, etc. I get it).  

Labour under Corbyn IS an existential threat. Not because he'd destroy the western alliance system that is the only hope of balancing China and Russia (though he would), not because McDonnell in No.10 would be like a remake of Brewster's Millions, but without the prize (though he would), but because when you trash property rights and rule of law you destroy the environment for wealth to be safely and productively invested. You destroy the entire system upon which society, social peace and prosperity rests.

The end result of that process is either anarchy or dictatorship - and they're not anarchists.     

     

[Mic09]

25 minutes ago, Xann said:

They were both shit last time and the shift away from them was beyond disappointing.

Too much at stake this time to vote romantically.

I appreciate where you are coming from with this. But at what point did we 'shift away from them'?

For me, tactical voting is against personal beliefs and I would not do so on principle alone. If someone told me to vote for Stalin so that Hitler doesn't get in, I'd say no. 

I am not voting for something that is a bit less bad for the country because in doing so, I am still putting my signature on something that is bad for the country.

[Sam-AVFC]

23 minutes ago, Awol said:

The Conservative Party today is a corrupt, venal, self-licking lollipop, interested only in preserving and extending the wealth of a tiny minority while preventing popular revolution against such injustice. Hence Cameron, Osborne, Hammond and Johnson's willingness to sell anything/everything to the CCP, while laundering Putin's money through the City for crumbs from his table. This is a major problem and needs to be resolved, but it's not an existential threat for the vast majority of the country (yes, tell that to the disabled, homeless, etc. I get it). 

I'm glad you clarified your thoughts here (and presumably those who liked agree) as it helps me understand thought processes completely different to mine. I personally couldn't think what you have written about anyone and be willing to support them. As for your brackets, I definitely wouldn't be able to see these problems and view punching down on the weakest of society as a lesser of evils in any realistic scenario.

I agree with your points on rule of law and property rights, but disagree with your interpretation.

I'd suggest the current leadership have done plenty in their short tenure to show they will be willing to completely ignore rule of law.

In terms of property rights, you've sort of proved my earlier point about no one having an issue with the government forcing individuals to sell their houses on a day to day basis as it's only the suggestion it happens to companies where it becomes a problem.

The issue will of course always be where you go with this - I am massively supportive of industries essential to day to day life (public transport, gas, water, electricity, broadband etc) being nationalised and not run for profit. I would be hugely opposed to forcing companies to hand a percentage of ownership to workers; although it's a fantastic ideal, I think doing this would open up a lot more potential abuses of power.

Another place we differ is that I believe if Boris wins a majority the Conservatives will line up behind him to vote through whatever policies he wants. There is no possible scenario I see Corbyn being able to force through a very left wing agenda as so many in his party (and it seems all outside bar some Greens) disagree with these goals.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[peterms]

23 minutes ago, snowychap said:

 

Beyond his point about it not being unusual to have this stuff owned by all of us, why would anyone want our national infrastructure to be in the hands of large companies, or foreign governments?  Apart from the people who think they can get their hands on rent-seeking profits at the expense of the rest of us, of course.

[Sam-AVFC]

23 minutes ago, Mic09 said:

I am not voting for something that is a bit less bad for the country because in doing so, I am still putting my signature on something that is bad for the country.

You might feel comfortable abdicating any personal resonsibility, but a lot of people are really agonising over making a decision they aren't that happy with in order to create the best possible outcome. I'm not sure being able to say "well I didn't vote for either of them" would make me feel any better if it all goes tits up.

Edit - reads as a dig, but it's not meant to be. I actually like the principled stance of not voting tactically generally. I just think this particular election the stakes are HUGE and it is likely to have a huge steer on what this country is like for the rest of my life.

Edited November 15, 2019 by Sam-AVFC

[Mic09]

1 minute ago, Sam-AVFC said:

You might feel comfortable abdicating any personal resonsibility, but a lot of people are really agonising over making a decision they aren't that happy with in order to create the best possible outcome. I'm not sure being able to say "well I didn't vote for either of them" would make me feel any better if it all goes tits up.

Different ways to look at it I guess.

If I vote for someone else, and it goes tits up because a majority of the country voted for red or blue (and I think both options go tits up) , I will be able to look in the mirror and say I did not take a part in this. 

[Dr_Pangloss]

Where exactly does this nationalisation drive stop. I can agree that there's a case for intervention in certain natural monopolies but not all, Labour are really flirting with the idea of nationalising the lot. To absorb the lot would be an enormous cost, requiring intensive borrowing and taxation, and taxing the Amazon's of the world alongside the billionaires will not be enough, the burden will fall on most of us directly or indirectly. All this for services which will hardly be better than how they are currently run.  

Edited November 15, 2019 by Dr_Pangloss