UK General Election thread

[Dauphin]

britain is extremely wealthy, it's just that most of that wealth is concentrated in few hands. by changing this, through changing social priorities, one could ensure that the vast majority had more, even with zero growth.

Our economy is a hundred times better, than the average African economy. Outside South Africa, what country is [as good as] Zimbabwe? … What is lacking now are goods on the shelves—that is all.

--- Robert Mugabe.

[Hauldren Collider]

britain is extremely wealthy, it's just that most of that wealth is concentrated in few hands. by changing this, through changing social priorities, one could ensure that the vast majority had more, even with zero growth.

No, you can't. It's been tried. Repeatedly. How many times does this have to crash and burn before people recognize that it's a miserable idea?

[C0ckney]

Our economy is a hundred times better, than the average African economy. Outside South Africa, what country is [as good as] Zimbabwe? … What is lacking now are goods on the shelves—that is all.

--- Robert Mugabe.

qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

---- marie antoinette (though it's quite unlikely that she actually said it)

(do you have a point? if so, be good enough to share it)

[Hauldren Collider]

I think his point is rather obvious, which is that there's no reason to believe it should work in Britain when it hasn't worked in Southeast Asia, China, Eastern Europe, Cuba, Venezuela, or Zimbabwe.

[C0ckney]

and what is it in the green party's programme makes you think of those countries, rather than say, other european green parties, or socialist/social-democrat governments?

(this should be good, combining your ignorance of the countries you've listed with your igorance of european politics)

[kentonio]

Green Party defence policy is to be really annoying

[ATTACH=CONFIG]177169[/ATTACH]

THE Green Party has revealed plans to replace soldiers with earnest bearded men who bang on about solar panels.

The ecologically-conscious party would save billions by disbanding the armed forces in favour of an annoying ‘Earnest Force’ consisting of overly sincerely middle-aged men with unruly facial hair, and condescending ladies with huge scarves.

A Green Party spokesman said: “We’ve found that people go to great lengths to avoid talking to us, so why not deploy that against threats to national security?

“Let’s say the Russians land at Portsmouth. We would immediately despatch our most devoted sexless windbags in a fleet of battery 2CVs and Renault 5s with ‘Ban Battery Farming’ stickers.

“They would engage the invaders in seemingly endless conversation about recycling and sandals unless they either see the error of their destructive ways or simply get bored and leave.

“A few hundred men who look like Michael Rosen banging on about composting and electric cars would be sufficient to have any hostile military mumbling excuses about a having a dental appointment.”

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politi...-2015012694760

[rah]

Yes, the US should hop on to that type of thinking. We have a secret weapon. The folks from watchtower.

[Dauphin]

qu'ils mangent de la brioche.

---- marie antoinette (though it's quite unlikely that she actually said it)

(do you have a point? if so, be good enough to share it)

There are two points.

One, that I believe equalising society should be done by bringing people up, not pulling people down. I would rather an economic and social policy aimed at improving the lot of the relatively poor by having them be the main beneficiaries of productivity and other gains - not an economic and social policy aimed at taking wealth from the better off to give to the relatively poor just because of the meme "the rich got too much money" (see Oxfam's latest commentary on the 1% soon to be owning over 50% of global wealth - the focus is the wrong way around). The Greens mode of thinking concerns me on this front, even if individual policies may have the effect I would like to see.

As a tangent, this is a different point to fair taxation - I fully support the principle of the relatively undertaxed and better off in the current system paying a larger share (see Amazon, Starbucks, Jimmy Carr et al). I see the reason for the better off paying lower taxes as a matter of tax collection methods and ability - it is easier to raise income tax on the lower and middle classes as they can collect the tax through PAYE and ensure high compliance; taxing any transnational conglomerate or high net worth international and making sure they pay is harder. Even the American embassy refuses to pay the congestion charge in London, whilst Boris has to cough up for CGT in the U.S. (on a UK property!) despite being only a notional citizen of that land.

Two, being a relatively rich country now and redistributing it is only sustainable and a net plus for the majority if you don't **** up the reason for that wealth generation in the first place. The Greens mode of thinking that growth is unnecessary to maintain a standard of living - we can just tax the wealth and redisrtibute - seems bonkers. In a world of 2% real growth, a rate of zero per cent growth will halve your country's wealth generation potential in about 35 years (i.e., your wealth generation is half of what it could have been). I find it hard to believe that halving your country's potential GDP inside a generation will lead to the average person being better off - unless there is an economic principle that allows median incomes to more than double whilst keeping GDP flat for decades. I know I wouldn't want to be entering retirement into such a society.

[kentonio]

You're thinking too small by their standards. They don't want a world where growth and consumption continues in the way it currently does, they want everyone to dial back their consuming and adopt lifestyles that use considerably less resources. When you look at it that way, growth from the current level is nothing but harmful.

As for the part about equalizing society, how exactly is it possible to 'lift people up' when such a vast percentage of wealth is already held by a tiny minority? What kind of system can you have where that wealth doesn't just allow those people to fortify their position at the top?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Leon Brittan was today accused of “multiple child rape” as detailed accusations of sex abuse were levelled against the late former Home Secretary for the first time.

Labour MP Tom Watson said he had spoken to two people who claimed they were abused by the Conservative peer, including a witness known as Nick who alleged he had been attacked more than a dozen times as a boy and seen the politician assault others.

Lord Brittan died last week from cancer, aged 75. He had always categorically denied any allegation of sexual wrongdoing or cover-up. Friends and former Cabinet colleagues paying tribute to him said his final months had been unjustly clouded by a “smear campaign” and “innuendo”.

The peer had hitherto been named in relation only to his handling of a dossier containing the names of alleged Establishment paedophiles which he insisted had been passed to police but which could not be found on Home Office files. This is the first time detailed allegations of child sex abuse against the senior Tory have been made public.

Mr Watson, a former defence minister, said he believed the alleged victims he had spoken to were “sincere”.

The MP said he – along with others, including media organisations – had known of the accusations but had decided not to speak out for fear of prejudicing any jury trial that Lord Brittan might have one day faced. Mr Watson told the Sunday Mirror: “It’s not for me to judge whether the claims made against Brittan are true. It’s for the police to investigate these claims as they continue to do so. But I believe the people I’ve spoken to are sincere.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/leon-brittan-sex-abuse-allegations-two-come-forward-to-claim-they-were-abused-by-former-home-secretary-10001676.html

This is all looking reminiscent of the early days of the Jimmy Savile scandal. Now there's no fear of libel lawyers, the accusations can be made in earnest.

[Dauphin]

You're thinking too small by their standards. They don't want a world where growth and consumption continues in the way it currently does, they want everyone to dial back their consuming and adopt lifestyles that use considerably less resources. When you look at it that way, growth from the current level is nothing but harmful.

They can believe what they like, and I believe what I like. Simple metric is they just wouldn't get my vote with their philosophy. Also, their general leftism is probably far more important than their green credentials.

As for the part about equalizing society, how exactly is it possible to 'lift people up' when such a vast percentage of wealth is already held by a tiny minority? What kind of system can you have where that wealth doesn't just allow those people to fortify their position at the top?

Depends on where you sit on education and other social mobility policies, and your views on inheritance tax, trust funds and tax loopholes. TO name a few.

[kentonio]

Depends on where you sit on education and other social mobility policies, and your views on inheritance tax, trust funds and tax loopholes. TO name a few.

Nothing there is going to have any real effect on the gulf between super rich and poor.

[Sava]

Yes, because mass redistribution has such an excellent track record.

Yes. It's called modern society.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[Sava]

I never understood the whole "redistribution" boogeyman. Any time money changes hands, it is redistributed. If you are against redistribution, you are against trade. It's such a monumentally retarded thing to say WITHOUT even getting into how stupid the consolidation of wealth is.