Brexit thread 2 Electric Boogaloo

[redebreck]

Most of what the UK achieved was built on socialism, well, a form of socialism, it worked for years, the UK's become increasingly broken and divided since the Tories changed from a system that worked incredibly successfully to Reeganomics, the only thing thats going to arrest the Uk's slide is returning to the model that worked and binning off Reeganomics. Every single one of the major issues in the UK has been caused by Reeganomics, if you follow a model like that, you're going to end up with a society like that and thats what's caused the UK to go to shit.

Any model for society is workable but can be easily broken by excessive greed. Capitalism could work fine without the excessive greed, in the old system we had socialism and capitalism running side by side in relative harmony, there wasn't this US ideal of smashing profit margins every year, banking and investment was conducted far more responsibly and that benefited the majority, because they could save and have bank accounts that would give them reasonable returns on their savings, they could borrow money without excessive interest and it was pretty well balanced. People got paid a fair wage for fair work because there wasn't the excessive greed or number of interested parties (investors) in businesses that wanted people working for as little as possible again to try and maximise and increase their profits year on year. People doing normal jobs, that would be zero hour contract jobs in today's Tory society could buy a house or get a council house in their early twenties, have 2 or 3 kids and feed and clothe them. Obsolesence and the witholding of the newest technology only to release it in phases a year to 18 months after each next higher tech model wasn't anywhere like as rife.

It's as you saym down to what really are a few very very greedy bastards who want more money than they can ever spend and are quite happy to see billions of other people suffer to achieve that

Agree with all you've mentioned here.
For anyone who's unaware, "Reeganomics" in the UK occurred thanks to a certain Margaret Thatcher's Tory government.
Bankers, I seem to recall, were de-regulated under the Tories at the time, which led to "loadsamoney" Harry Enfield types.
I believe the de-regulation of the banking industry eventually resulted in the financial meltdown that happened in the early 2000s.

[CCTV]

I wasn't talking about money or redistribution of wealth. I was talking about everyone having a roof over their head and food to eat and clothes to wear, "contributing according to their ability and receiving according to their need". Nobody needs money if their needs are met (unless they don't trust the future).... This is how families work, and family can extend beyond the walls of a home.

Perhaps the terms "left wing/right wing" doesn't adequately describe it so we're not talking about the same thing, but that's my sense of what left wing / right wing are. Even if deep down we know that both wings belong to the same bird. And it's a cuckoo.

When the Bushmen of the Kalahari return from a hunt they give some meat to the poor widow who contributed nothing except her prayers...why? Some mandate from the boss? tradition? honouring the ancestors? or just because it's the decent thing to do? (or because the meat is going to quickly go off in the hot sun?) whatever, their society works.

The right thing to do is to do the right thing.

I think left wing and right wing ideals are best placed on the macroeconomic level. How a nation runs. Given that just about every economist understands the abhorently failed nature of socialism in economics, the moder left really has conceded this issue. They tend to be more about how money is spent, higher taxes and bigger government and the right less taxes and limited government. The right really has won out on the basic economic argument.

Thereafter the left v right applies next to social policies. The right more traditional and less risky in how it alters society. Whereas the left love to rebel, revolutionise the system and bring far more risk to social stability.

The home doesnt really fit the ideals well imo. When it comes to the household the idea makes more sense in say generalizations.
Right wing house: dads more likely to serve and die in the army, mommy an accountant,more likely to indulge in history and traditionalists, more likely to have a pure or pedigree breed dog, and a dog that will defend the family members and always attack those outside the family.

Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

In your family/community how much do you share with the widows and pensioners from your weekly hunt/pay packet ?

[CCTV]

There will always be a few "greedy barstewards" who will want more and more even if that's at the expense of the less fortunate, namely because it's human nature to want more and because there will always be those who have faulty 'moral compasses. That is why true socialism will not work. You need a system which allows for personal freedom, individual goals etc but also makes sure that those most in need are taken care of and given ample opportunity themselves to be given the means and freedom to pursue their own individual goals.

The trouble is that there is too big a disparity between "the haves and the have nots" and also that hard truths/the greater good are being ignored in favour of societies where it's more important to not upset anyone, rather than discuss/act upon 'hard/painful truths', especially when it's those occupying the 'bottom rungs' of society are those being most adversely affected.

There is a time for a variety of political stances/ideologies. Rigidly sticking to anyone one ideology is in my opinion a bad thing no matter which system is in place. I've never liked any kind of "one size fits all" approach.

Theres a lot in this post noods.
There is a real limit to what can be done. Human desire is insatiable, think that's something that is lost on many, sometimes you've (plural) just got to be happy with what you've got in life. If you're typing on the internet even with ailments you're likely having it better than most have throughout history and not trying to underscore the impacts of poor health.
I wouldnt necessarily think that affluent people are much greedier than others. Just more productive and prudent. They get a rather bad name in ways, 50 grand a year iirc puts you in the top 10% of global wealth and likely the top1% of all time easily. You try tell someone who earns 50 grand a year they earn too much and you're increasing taxes and they simply won't agree. Greed isn't specific to the upper classes either imo, nor even to money.

There is extreme wealth and taxation of super wealth is an issue, or the non taxation of super wealth more aptly.
During ww2 in the states iirc corporation tax was 85% - this meant that corporation's were heavily incentivised to reinvest money into their business or develop further business interest so as to avoid losing their wealth to the tax man. Instead they'd put the money into further assets or their own business and develop their wealth through increasing capital/share prices.
Today thanks in no small part due to Ireland and others corporate tax rates have been or will be reduced in the UK and USA to 15%, we still offer lower at 12.5% and these are just official rates even in France big multinationals pay less than 12% where they provide jobs. Apple et al said to pay a fractional interest rate here and Google iirc is sitting on at least 300 billion in cash reserves. There is no incentive for them to risk the capital so they dont invest it. Its idle money.

Redebreck hit upon it earlier imo, that people while they'd have been materially poorer in the past would've had stronger communities made up of larger families within shorter distances of each other. Today there are old people dying of loneliness.

[Balinkay]

Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

I think I threw up a little.

[stevie harkness]

I think left wing and right wing ideals are best placed on the macroeconomic level. How a nation runs. Given that just about every economist understands the abhorently failed nature of socialism in economics, the moder left really has conceded this issue. They tend to be more about how money is spent, higher taxes and bigger government and the right less taxes and limited government. The right really has won out on the basic economic argument.

Thereafter the left v right applies next to social policies. The right more traditional and less risky in how it alters society. Whereas the left love to rebel, revolutionise the system and bring far more risk to social stability.

The home doesnt really fit the ideals well imo. When it comes to the household the idea makes more sense in say generalizations.
Right wing house: dads more likely to serve and die in the army, mommy an accountant,more likely to indulge in history and traditionalists, more likely to have a pure or pedigree breed dog, and a dog that will defend the family members and always attack those outside the family.

Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

In your family/community how much do you share with the widows and pensioners from your weekly hunt/pay packet ?

I stick to my original premise that a nation is made up of millions of homes. If the macro doesn’t fit the micro or vice versa then that suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong. “How you do one thing you do all things”. At what point does it not fit? Home...street...village...over 200 people? So what is to be done? (Nothing, there’s too much money to be made!)

Economists aren’t necessarily right about what really matters in life, they are only of any use if your original premise and assumption is to make everything about money. That is flawed in my opinion. So whoever ‘wins out’ on an economic argument is a hollow victory.

I find it unnecessarily personal to ask how much of my money I share but okay, I give 10% of my takings. I practice tithing - for personal reasons, not religious - mostly via the local food bank, it doesn’t always sit right with me that they often ask for what I consider unhealthy food but their needs fluctuate so fresh fruit and veg is not always practical for them. Sometimes I switch to helping the local homeless hostel. The fact that we need food banks and homeless hostels in so called great Britain is sufficient proof to me that nobody is winning any bullshit economic arguments.

[CCTV]

I think I threw up a little.

I know teachers right fair few of them in the clan.

[Balinkay]

I know teachers right fair few of them in the clan.

Ditto! Mom, dad (ex teacher), both grandparents on my mom's side, aunt… Hell, even I've been doing a tiny bit myself at uni.

[redebreck]

Right wing house: dads more likely to serve and die in the army, mommy an accountant,more likely to indulge in history and traditionalists, more likely to have a pure or pedigree breed dog, and a dog that will defend the family members and always attack those outside the family.

Left wing: daddy more likely to be in a band, mommy a teacher, like to rebel against traditions and artsy, mixed breed or mongrel dog, and one that wouldnt hurt a fly even if the family are being attacked.

In your family/community how much do you share with the widows and pensioners from your weekly hunt/pay packet ?

Your generalisations for right wing and left wing seem very Home Counties!
I'm now a pensioner receiving a state pension. When I worked I paid income tax and National Insurance. We in the UK also pay 20% VAT which is way too high.
I contribute to food banks, and also YMCA which is for the homeless, and the Salvation Army. But not on a regular basis.
As a matter of interest, what does "iirc" mean - I've been trying to figure it out for months!?

[Balinkay]

"If I recall correctly"

[RedNoodle]

@redebrek

I always thought you were no older than middle aged.

[redebreck]

"If I recall correctly"

Thank you

@redebrek

I always thought you were no older than middle aged.

I wish!

[Nineteenx]

I'm sick of 'gravy train' MPs, they royally piss me off, and at least 2 thirds of all current UK Mps fall into that category.

They learn at private school politics is 'as good gig', decent salary, expenses to be milked, donations to secure their voting intentions, consultancy or media jobs during or after. THAT is the reason they're so desperate to stop Corbyn, because he wants to make them honest and cut out the gravy train politics and whopping donations that are obviously backhanders to secure voting intention or policy and clamp down on exuberant absolute piss take expenses AND clamp down massively on tax avoidance. That not only upsets two thirds of MPs, it upsets a hell of a lot of very wealthy very powerful people, many of those with massive media influence because they own most of it in the UK, They will stoop to anything to try and stop him becoming PM and ending their gravy train.

A lot of shit going around about Corbyn 'sitting on the fence' on Brexit, weird how he's the leader of the opposition but apparently everything is Labour's fault, not the Tories who have been running the government for the last 40 years including Blair.

Corbyn hasn't been sitting on the fence on Brexit, he pulled off the smartest move of the whole thing, except for the majority of other Mps were too thick to get it or too anti Corbyn to back it because he'd then be hugely empowered as having saved the day and likely get elected as PM at the next GE which is the very last thing all the 'gravy train' Mps and tax dodgers want

THREE times he put a bill to the house of commons to take 'No deal' off the table, it was genius and flew under the press' and general public's radar, in context, had those MPs now moaning and trying to blame Corbyn for the current 'no deal' scenario voted to pass the bill it would have meant there were only 2 possible outcomes of Brexit

Agree a deal that was acceptable in line with what was offered by Leave in the referendum campaign
Or
Revoke Article 50

Pure genius, perfect, except for the gravy train MPs

That cunt who's now the leader of the Fibdems (Tories) has come out with a lot to say trying to form a new party, trying to blame Corbyn, well, at the third vote on the bill, it lost by 2 votes, and Fibdems Cable and Farron and one other didn't turn up to vote!

Also, that central party idea is a complete load of bollocks, firstly those touting it have had 3 opportunities to fix the issue with the bill Corbyn put to the House of commons, secondly, as I understand it, the only way to oust the Tories is to form a coalition and only the leader of the opposition can do that, so if they want to do that, they need to get together, approach Corbyn and UK Labour and see if they can and he'll rightly be the leader.

In the event of a GE in the near future I'm certain Labour will win, not outright, but with a coalition with the SNP they appear to be agreeing a pact on and they'll give Scotland a second Indy ref vote in return, in which they will vote to leave, but likely won't leave until Labour are in a second term with an outright majority, their policies having worked, THAT is how confident they are on their policies and how much they believe the Blairite elements remaining in the party will either have left as the gravy train has ended, or be in jail along with a lot of the Fibdems and Tories for tax evasion, so there'll be far more honest MPs in the house for the first time in a long time, the Blair legacy will be well and truly rooted out and the Tories will be finished for a long time, and Labour won't have to rely on the SNP or Scottish vote thereafter as it won't be there and it has been a complete lost cause since Blair betrayed so many heartlands so very badly

[redebreck]

Some people won't vote Labour because they're perceived to be too left-wing and supportive of terrorism and, for example, in favour of allowing ex-ISIS people back into the country.
Conservatives/the rich control most of the press, so something may have to be done to persuade people that Labour are worth voting for.

[CCTV]

I stick to my original premise that a nation is made up of millions of homes. If the macro doesn’t fit the micro or vice versa then that suggests to me that there is something fundamentally wrong. “How you do one thing you do all things”. At what point does it not fit? Home...street...village...over 200 people? So what is to be done? (Nothing, there’s too much money to be made!)

Economists aren’t necessarily right about what really matters in life, they are only of any use if your original premise and assumption is to make everything about money. That is flawed in my opinion. So whoever ‘wins out’ on an economic argument is a hollow victory.

I find it unnecessarily personal to ask how much of my money I share but okay, I give 10% of my takings. I practice tithing - for personal reasons, not religious - mostly via the local food bank, it doesn’t always sit right with me that they often ask for what I consider unhealthy food but their needs fluctuate so fresh fruit and veg is not always practical for them. Sometimes I switch to helping the local homeless hostel. The fact that we need food banks and homeless hostels in so called great Britain is sufficient proof to me that nobody is winning any bullshit economic arguments.

Your premiss isn't robust to scrutiny so holding a position off of it is somewhat silly imo.

Socialism in all its forms warms the heart, but it's not the better system. I dont particularly enjoy accepting such a state of play but it really is the case capitalism is a better system.

I asked how the family formally redistributed wealth and suggested the family doesnt operate in such a manner. People help out their own where they deem it to be prudent and worthy.
You dont give money to family members on principle, its given voluntarily and where appropriate. Say your brother is an alcoholic you dont top up his lack of earnings every week so as he can piss it away.

Again we are looking at charities and charitable deeds and their realistic intentions and outcomes. Who are you helping etc..
Do you think food banks or private aid are somewhat more disdainful than state aid ? What is the difference? Do you think the welfare state is a similar stain on Britain.
Food banks are good, without them numerous kids would get nothing to eat. You could give some families an extra £300 a week and the kids still wouldn't get fed or clothed. Itd be spent on booze fags drugs and bookies/gambling. That's just a sad reality and the greed of addiction.

Seen svp giving similarly food and items. Then those people selling the items, exploiting elderly people and ripping them off playing the poor hand for their kids welfare and subsequently pissing away the money.

If you look at homeless people, some are merely unfortunate others have more responsibility for their predicament.
Giving a home/house to people isn't a practical solution. Its sad to say but addiction and mental health issues are common in homeless populations and you dont give people responsibilities they can't handle. In reality ma y would be better off in managed accommodation like halfway houses, others in rehabilitation and others simply given a tutorial in managing money.
I dont say this with any great position to hold, I'm not a good saver but I know myself that when having worked and earned less than the dole my spending cut drastically and rarely would I be without.
Whereas when better off my own spending would drastically increase.

I like technical solutions to problems and I dont mean technology. I mean looking at issues and solving them with a reality based approach.

I defend right wing principles as I think many left wing people have no value for them whatsoever and miss out on teaching those principles. Whereas many right wing people have an appreciation for left wing ideal but not all the way.
Some controversy over the findings but right wingers give more of their money to charities, leftwingers dispute the claim and suggest if you remove donations to religiously affiliated groups/charities, then it doesnt hold.

I've known a fair few homeless people and many wont be put up by families on account of their own behaviour and violence. Knew one man who begged silently with his cap out, carried 160k in his backpack and owned a home in a posh part of Dublin city yet preferred sleeping on the bench in the park nearby. He made a newspaper article but as the world is it had little impact on his daily collections. Another arrested begging outside a church with 12k in his more sports gear bag.
Whilst I've known a man who ate half a tin of tuna per day with some potatoes and walked a 16 km journey every day of the year to visit his wife in a care facility for 8 years. Man wouldnt take charity as he deemed his basic needs met and others more worthy.
Others will fake an anxiety disorder to get a free nose job or some shit like taking charity money so as to get a second holiday abroad. Letting the charity pay the accrued esb bills.

I've offered to buy homeless people a meal or pay the small amount for a hostel place for the night when asked. Many tell me to fuck off and just want the money. Others will take the offer and then seek more money to buy heroin, fags or booze.
They'll take my offer and in doing so I'll save them that cost with a meal, or afford them a luxury the hostel which they would likely otherwise forego. This gives them less expenses and frees up begged money for their habits.

I dont think we are that far apart at all really. I agree with 19 on reganomics and posted a fair bit on it earlier in the thread and tbh am more aghast at the present updated version. Including the EU and its crony currency.

I take a very cynical view of charities even when the profiteering and corruption is removed as I dont think many of them achieve much or decrease the problem they are tackling.

[CCTV]

Not saying all the poor are drug addicts and scammers. But there are many with heavy substance dependencies.
While often helping people where well meaning does very little to help them out.