[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
politics

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 82312)
Message
File  []
close
IMG_20170507_141910.jpg
823128231282312
>> No. 82312 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 2:20 pm
82312 Fucking Tory pigs must die
If you voted Tory, or intend to in future then please please please take your own life immediately. You are an enemy of humanity and you are too stupid to continue living.
Expand all images.
>> No. 82314 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 3:12 pm
82314 spacer
Teenlad gonna teen.
>> No. 82315 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 3:34 pm
82315 spacer
Anyone else suddenly feel like voting Tory?
>> No. 82316 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 4:03 pm
82316 spacer
My Facebook feed isn't too dissimilar from this. Telling people they're scum if they consider voting Tory didn't work in 2015 and it won't work next month.
>> No. 82317 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 6:30 pm
82317 spacer
Whilst I sympathise with your sentiment there's not much point blaming the misinformed electorate. They're merely brainwashed by the newspapers. Go out and do something constructive like campaigning instead.
>> No. 82319 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 7:25 pm
82319 spacer
>>82317
What's the informed decision to make? Labour?
>> No. 82322 Anonymous
7th May 2017
Sunday 10:51 pm
82322 spacer
This is counter-bait.
>> No. 82323 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 12:05 am
82323 spacer
>>82316
The reason it won't work isn't because of reverse psychology but it's because over-60s don't use Facebook. At least not politically.
>> No. 82330 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 9:30 pm
82330 spacer
>>82319
>What's the informed decision to make? Labour?
I don't think there's an objective answer to this. Reductively you could say, if you're happy with the way the country is/going vote Tory, if not vote for something else.

Theresa May is a media puppet and has tried to make the election into a single issue - Brexit. When in fact it's merely an opportunistic power grab. You think Juncker, Barnier Tusk give two shits whether she's got a bigger majority? In fact, they even said so, it won't affect negotiations.

It's a shame Corbyn is at the helm, I used to like him but he's a poor leader of the opposition. I will of course hold my nose and vote Labour. FPTP effectively makes it a two party system, so what other choice have I got. It's quite hard to win an election when most of the print media is against you. What'd help is someone like Jimmy Kimmel in the UK coming out against the NHS cuts and a real grassroots campaign. That's how Trump and Macron won. They used big data for targeted door-to-door campaigning.
>> No. 82331 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 10:08 pm
82331 spacer
>>82330
>Reductively you could say, if you're happy with the way the country is/going vote Tory, if not vote for something else.
That's a circular answer, because it takes you back to whether someone's perception of how the country is tallies up with how the country actually is. It just brings us back to whether people are informed or not, and the empirical evidence is that, by and large, they are not. They think that immigrants are flooding in and taking their jobs; that people on the dole are scroungers; that those on disability benefits are just on the fiddle; and that teenage pregnancy is out of control. Researchers keep asking us the questions and we keep getting the answers horribly wrong.
>> No. 82332 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 10:31 pm
82332 spacer
>>82331
>That's a circular answer, because it takes you back to whether someone's perception of how the country is tallies up with how the country actually is.

If a person thinks they are happy they are happy.
>> No. 82335 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 10:36 pm
82335 spacer
>>82332
Demonstrably false, as anyone who's ever witnessed a bait-and-switch would know.
>> No. 82337 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 11:07 pm
82337 spacer
>>82335

Only it isn't demonstrably false. But don't let that stand in the way of you just asserting you are right.
>> No. 82338 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 11:39 pm
82338 spacer
>>82330

The EU lot would actually be happy to see a larger Tory majority. It prevents a handful of hardcore Eurosceptics stymying centrist legislation when dealing with Europe.
>> No. 82339 Anonymous
8th May 2017
Monday 11:44 pm
82339 spacer
>>82337
It isn't demonstrably false, even though I've given you instructions to demonstrate it. Whatever, lad.
>> No. 82340 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 12:14 am
82340 spacer
>>82339

That doesn't demonstrate it at all. but that's okay carry on asserting.
>> No. 82342 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 1:37 am
82342 spacer

_86796435_kate_wilson.jpg
823428234282342
>>82340
>That doesn't demonstrate it at all.
If you say so, lad. I guess this must be a look of joy on this woman's face for winning her suit against the Met when the bloke she shagged was not who he said he was but was actually an undercover copper.
>> No. 82344 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 8:14 am
82344 spacer
>>82342

She was perfectly happy dating that man all the time as far as she was concerned that he wasn't an undercover cop. As soon as she found out she decided that she wasn't happy that didn't stop her having been happy. If anything that demonstrates my point. That thinking you are happy is being happy. And when you think you are unhappy you are unhappy.
>> No. 82345 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 8:51 am
82345 spacer
>>82344
Unless the reason she thought she was happy was that she was happy, not realising she was being lied to. I'm not sure if this is something falsifiable either way or what the point of debating it is.
>> No. 82346 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 9:29 am
82346 spacer
>>82344
>As soon as she found out she decided that she wasn't happy that didn't stop her having been happy.
Erm, yes it did. That's why she sued, you daft knobend.
>> No. 82347 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 10:55 am
82347 spacer
>>82346
this is your logic;

person has a dog
dog makes them happy.
dog dies
person is unhappy.
Person is now unhappy when they think about their dog. Therefore person was never happy.
>> No. 82348 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 11:31 am
82348 spacer

tmp_2543-images(2)324191228.jpg
823488234882348
>>82347
No. Nice try, though.
>> No. 82349 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 11:51 am
82349 spacer
>>82347

person has a dog
dog makes them happy.
dog is revealed to be Kim Jong-Un in a dog costume
person is unhappy.
Person is now unhappy when they think about their dog. Therefore person was never happy.
>> No. 82351 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 1:58 pm
82351 spacer
>>82349

Either is fine, the point is they were happy. The new information doesn't invalidate the past feelings.
>> No. 82352 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 2:27 pm
82352 spacer
>>82351
>The new information doesn't invalidate the past feelings.
The victims would beg to differ. Not that it matters, since it's in no way relevant to the thread. You're assuming a time dimension here where there isn't one.
>> No. 82353 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 3:05 pm
82353 spacer
Without parroting slogans or talking shit about other parties, what do people think is actually good about the Tories? Honestly. Tell me.

Do you actually believe that Theresa's icy gray brand of austere authoritarianism is going to help our society to grow and improve?

Do you really trust her not to use the inevitable financial consequences of brexit as justification for slashing public services even further?

Do you feel safe knowing how hard our police budget has been slashed?

Do you really think her blunt and bullish attitude to EU negotiations will actually result in a good outcome for us?

Are you comfortable with her allowing the continuation of the housing crisis, failing to tackle homelessness and letting big corporations and wealthy individuals continue to evade fair taxation?

Don't you think her party's election expenses should be thoroughly investigated and any resulting criminal cases brought before any of the suspected individuals can stand or take part in electioneering again?

Doesn't it bother you how she tried as hard as possible to keep our elected representatives from having any say on brexit?

Are you comfortable with her cosy relationship with, and tacet approval of, Donald Trump and the Saudi government?

Don't you think she owes it to this nation to be able to look us in the eye and openly debate head to head with the other party leaders who oppose her?

I don't trust her one jot. I personally think it's patently obvious that her "strong and stable" mantra is a mask for her brittle and ruthless power-obsessed nature. Just imagine that someone you know suddenly started declaring themselves to be a strong and stable leader. I'm not sure about you, but my first thought would be "sure, who are you trying to convince?"
>> No. 82354 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 4:00 pm
82354 spacer
>>82353
The impression I get from new Tory voters is that the either drifting in from UKIP or think that she's the lesser of two evils. I've yet to hear any justification based on policy that didn't involve either misconception or falsehood. I do agree with some of their policies, but they're mainly ones they've nicked from elsewhere in Cato-esque fashion, which makes me trust them even less.
>> No. 82357 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:07 pm
82357 spacer

Liz Kendall provides validation to Britains saddes.jpg
823578235782357
>>82353
>what do people think is actually good about the Tories? Honestly. Tell me.

Cuts to inheritance tax is nice and in general my parents have been treated very well by Tory policy. Also fuck those 'refugees' in Calais.

Anyway, the Tories are a party that cuddles the retired especially if they live in the more civilized areas of the country. I wish there was a party that looked after me like that, maybe you could have Liz Kendall popping over to give me a hug and tell me I’m doing a bang-up job being a person so I shouldn't have to pay for petrol. Yes, that would lock down my vote.

>Do you feel safe knowing how hard our police budget has been slashed?

Yeah? Crime has continued to decline since 2004.
https://fullfact.org/crime/crime-under-conservatives/

There are areas that need money, the courts for instance, but I’m glad the Tories haven't come out with some asinine policy like 50 billion more police being hired. I don't get it, are you like a secret Tory poster who is trying some new election tactic?
>> No. 82360 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:54 pm
82360 spacer
>>82353
grey you fucking greb
>> No. 82361 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:58 pm
82361 spacer
>>82353
They're bringing back fox hunting. The foxes have had it too good for too long.
>> No. 82362 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 5:59 pm
82362 spacer
>>82357
>Crime has continued to decline since 2004.
What's this got to do with the number of police? I mean, of course there is a relationship with the effectiveness of police and the amount of crime that occurs, but there a stronger and equally important relationship with how good they are at solving crime.

The little cunt who cuts through your bike chain and makes off with your Pashley, or the pissed-up brick shithouse who smacks your face in for looking at him funny after kicking-out time, probably don't have police resources in the back of their minds when they decide to do it. But it has everything to do with whether they are brought before a magistrate where they belong and you as a victim can seek redress.

So you can shit off with your misleading statistics.
>> No. 82364 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 6:13 pm
82364 spacer
>>82362

"Just because we don't need something, doesn't mean we shouldn't get more of it."
>> No. 82365 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 6:24 pm
82365 spacer
>>82362
Why has crime fallen? If it's because of good policing, then cuts to funding risk that. The counterargument that with less crime you need fewer police doesn't really hold. Of course, good policing won't be the only factor, and possibly isn't even the biggest contributor. As pointed out, reported numbers have gone up but with some exceptions this is due "stage migration" as a result of changing procedures.
>> No. 82367 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:04 pm
82367 spacer
>>82357
https://www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39817100
>> No. 82368 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:09 pm
82368 spacer
>>82365
You asked me if I felt safe. I do and it's linked to the fact that crime has been trending downwards across the western world since the 1990s.

After 7 years of Tory cuts crime has continued to fall and indeed there doesn't seem to be a link between police numbers and the reduction in crime over the past 20 years across the West. More cops on the beat makes a good election pledge for frightened old ladies but anyone looking at the data will know it's a crock of shit and has been for some time.
>> No. 82371 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:40 pm
82371 spacer
>>82365
>Why has crime fallen?
Because since our borders have been shut, we don't get all those immigrants any more.
>> No. 82372 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 7:53 pm
82372 spacer
On the subject of (de)criminalised things, how come nobody's talking about weed this time round?
>> No. 82374 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 8:47 pm
82374 spacer
>>82365

Probably the removal of lead from petrol and the legalisation of abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lead_and_crime_hypothesis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legalized_abortion_and_crime_effect
>> No. 82375 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 9:00 pm
82375 spacer
>>82372
They grew up.
>> No. 82376 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 9:08 pm
82376 spacer
>>82372
Give Corbyn time. We've already had his pledges for more bank holidays and scrapping hospital car park charges, so imagine we'll see him announcing he'd legalise weed in between his declarations that TV shows will be banned from spending the first two minutes after every ad break recapping what's already happened and that Freddos will permanently be on sale for 10p.
>> No. 82377 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 10:55 pm
82377 spacer
>>82372
Everyone is already aware of the Green and Lib Dem position regarding deregulation. The problem is it doesn't win many people over outside of the grassroots campaigners and both Labour and Tories have an authoritarian streak.

I mean the Lib Dems came out with such a policy last year but nobody batted an eyelid:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/cannabis-marijuana-legalisation-liberal-democrats-drug-policy-a6927936.html
>> No. 82378 Anonymous
9th May 2017
Tuesday 11:10 pm
82378 spacer
>>82376
>Freddos will permanently be on sale for 10p.
I'd break the habit of a lifetime and vote Labour if he promised this. I mean, 30p ffs. Thirty. Fucking. Pence.
>> No. 82379 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 1:06 am
82379 spacer
>>82374
I knew about the link between lead petrol and violent crime (which is a genuinely fascinating phenomenon) but not the abortion thing, which is probably because, as the Wikipedia article implies, it's bollocks.

>>82368
You say you feel safe, but you appear to be a Tory voter, which probably means you don't encounter criminals or the police very often in your "more civilised area of the country" and your only experience of crime is looking up statistics to argue on the Internet.

Tory cuts to the police didn't affect whether I got mugged five minutes down the road from my house. It happened regardless. What it did affect was how long I had to wait for the cops to turn up on that dark street corner, whether they caught the bloke who did it (nope), what support was available to me as a victim (none), whether I still felt safe in my community afterwards, etc.
>> No. 82380 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 1:35 am
82380 spacer
>>82379

>not the abortion thing, which is probably because, as the Wikipedia article implies, it's bollocks.

A lot of people really, really don't want it to be true. There are the obvious objections from the religious right, but a lot of pro-choice people on the left are fearful of accusations of eugenics. The hypothesis isn't bulletproof, but it's a lot stronger than "bollocks".

The strongest critics of the hypothesis have really obvious biases. Leo Kahane lectures at a private Catholic university and is technically an employee of the Vatican. John Lott has been engaged in a protracted feud with Stephen Levitt.

The methodological correction by Foote and Goetz diminishes the effect size, but what remains is still substantial.
>> No. 82381 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 11:30 am
82381 spacer
>>82379

>I knew about the link between lead petrol and violent crime (which is a genuinely fascinating phenomenon) but not the abortion thing, which is probably because, as the Wikipedia article implies, it's bollocks.


If anything the abortion one on an intuitive level feels more true, but it is a very long term effect and therefore difficult to study.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ-r0bilzhU
>> No. 82382 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 11:53 am
82382 spacer

tumblr_mkghsatdWa1rw41szo1_500[1].png
823828238282382
It's not even directly a link between crime and abortion, but rather crime and how society treats its unwanted children.
>> No. 82383 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 2:01 pm
82383 spacer
>>82379
>You say you feel safe, but you appear to be a Tory voter

You remind me of the kind of person I used to encounter when I was a member of Labour. Any sense of disagreement with (what you imagine to be) the party line and the immediate retort is "yeah well you sound like a Tory" which you assume works because people always stops talking to you after you say it. I mean for god-sakes at least try to hide the fact that you're a zealot.

Anyway no, I'm a vile Liberal Democrat and while I could defend my street credentials it's nothing but an ad hominem attack because you don't have an argument. Cut the sob story too because I don't care.

>>82382
If I remember Freakonomics right Levitt and Dubner spend a good deal of time cushioning the argument of abortion because of issues like this. On the subject they point out that the one person who knows best if they will be a good parent is the mother herself not the state. As we don't live in a perfect world where everyone can grow up right it's a valid consideration and they stress that there is not one clear connection but what appears to be many working in unison.

To draw back to the topic the point of these theories is that there is no clear link between the fall in crime and police numbers. Indeed criminologists have been telling us for years that more police walking around doesn't actually solve crime, it's just a knee-jerk reaction from people who pay too much notice to what they read in the papers. An exercise of politics interfering with law and order when the money could better be spent on better equipment and social policy.
>> No. 82384 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 3:14 pm
82384 spacer
>>82383
>they point out that the one person who knows best if they will be a good parent is the mother herself not the state
Oh I'm sure the state could engage or outsource some wonderful analytics to predict parenting outcomes.
>> No. 82386 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 8:26 pm
82386 spacer
>>82384
Why bother when you could just put ever greater numbers of police on the street until eventually the problem is resolved. We'll just give the little ragamuffins jobs in the police, that'll keep 'em busy.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAug1JjAq6o
>> No. 82387 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 8:34 pm
82387 spacer
>>82386


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNdWMbsd1Mo
>> No. 82388 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 9:25 pm
82388 spacer
>>82383
>is that there is no clear link between the fall in crime and police numbers. Indeed criminologists have been telling us for years that more police walking around doesn't actually solve crime, it's just a knee-jerk reaction from people who pay too much notice to what they read in the papers.

Police serve more purposes than stopping crime.
>> No. 82389 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 9:39 pm
82389 spacer
>>82388

It is their primary function though.
>> No. 82390 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 9:51 pm
82390 spacer
In a connected society where a super computer knows everything about us at all times, we won't need police. I look forward to such a time. Maybe I can find eternal happiness in everyone's misery.
>> No. 82391 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 10:03 pm
82391 spacer

Paranoia_25th_Anniversary_Troubleshooters_Edition.png
823918239182391
>>82390
>> No. 82392 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 10:26 pm
82392 spacer

IMG_20170419_124110.jpg
823928239282392
>>82353 so all we have established so far is that some people might be OK with police cuts and inheritance tax cuts would be nice. That's enough to win votes is it? Fucking pathetic. I was right first time, Tory voters should just kill themselves
>> No. 82393 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 10:37 pm
82393 spacer
>>82392

Bless you teenlad for your utter lack of understanding of your fellow man.
>> No. 82394 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 10:46 pm
82394 spacer
>>82389
It's their appointed function. A police officer in a crimeless community is still their to stop crime but his function is quite different.


If we went full Mega City One on half of our urban areas we wouldn't have any problems.
>> No. 82395 Anonymous
10th May 2017
Wednesday 11:34 pm
82395 spacer

ff5e2e2294527ee7a55e1189ac815279.jpg
823958239582395
>>82394

>If we went full Mega City One on half of our urban areas we wouldn't have any problems.

As we all know, Brazil is a crime-free paradise.
>> No. 82396 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 12:04 am
82396 spacer
>>82395
In Brazil they are the criminals.
>> No. 82397 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 9:36 am
82397 spacer
>>82383
>You asked me if I felt safe. I do
>Cut the sob story too because I don't care.

Yep. Tory. I'm bang on the money.
>> No. 82399 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 10:04 am
82399 spacer

facebook list.jpg
823998239982399
Why does every single left wing bias comparison list I see posted on social media, say that the Tories are going to end the NHS? It is an absurd lie.
>> No. 82400 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 10:58 am
82400 spacer
>>82399
That record's been broken for decades now.
>> No. 82401 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:10 am
82401 spacer
>>82399

It really isn't.
>> No. 82402 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:25 am
82402 spacer

tmp_27355-UX08RNBQa36Z1qouopBs1688486135.jpg
824028240282402
>>82399
>It is an absurd lie.
This is an absurd lie. Hunt has publicly called for "starving the beast" and has done so while in charge. The worst part is that the government can provide insufficient funding increases while still claiming to have increased funding. I'm not sure your electricity supplier would be happy if you responded to a big bill from a massive increase/underreport in usage with "But I've already increased by payments by an inflation-busting £4 a month!"
>> No. 82403 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:42 am
82403 spacer
>>82402

Underfunding is not the same as abolishing. Arguably it makes things more efficient.

Saying the Tories are going to get rid of the NHS is like saying Corbyn is going to scrap the army. Absurdly hyperbolic.
>> No. 82404 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:45 am
82404 spacer
>>82403
>Underfunding is not the same as abolishing. Arguably it makes things more efficient.
Don't you have a health service to starve, Jeremy?
>> No. 82405 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:49 am
82405 spacer
>>82401

Actually scrap it? Like not just outsource parts under the argument of efficiency. But make it cease to exist. I think you've become so used to "abolishing the NHS" really meaning "our opponents won't increase funding as much as we will" you can't tell the difference between the 2 statements anymore.
>> No. 82406 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 12:14 pm
82406 spacer
>>82405
>Actually scrap it? Like not just outsource parts under the argument of efficiency. But make it cease to exist.
It's the end in figurative terms. If you don't understand this, then you've fundamentally misunderstood what the NHS is.
>> No. 82407 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 12:20 pm
82407 spacer
>>82406
Care to explain?
>> No. 82408 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 12:36 pm
82408 spacer
>>82406
>Figurative terms

So not actually at all.

Until you apply apologist mental gymnastics.
>> No. 82409 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 12:37 pm
82409 spacer
>>82403
I can't speak for Corbyn but I imagine he would prefer the army to not need to exist, by having a foreign policy that doesn't incur the ire of other nations and peoples. In the same way, the Tories would prefer the NHS didn't need to exist, because private healthcare providers would have the market sewn up. And that is what they are doing: starving the publicly-run services, and gradually inserting private providers into the system, so that when they've taken over the NHS entirely, the public free-at-the-point-of-use parts can be swept away.
>> No. 82410 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 2:07 pm
82410 spacer
>>82409

So if someone said "I won't vote for corbyn he will dismantle the army" would you consider that a valid concern?
>> No. 82411 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 2:36 pm
82411 spacer
>>82410
No, because the analogy doesn't hold up.
>> No. 82412 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 2:44 pm
82412 spacer
>>82411

It requires no more of a flight of fancy.
>> No. 82413 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 2:51 pm
82413 spacer

tmp_12430-Woman-abusing-man-795x4701854852895.jpg
824138241382413
>>82412
If you say so, luv.
>> No. 82414 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 3:00 pm
82414 spacer
>>82397
I know you are but what am I?
>> No. 82415 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 4:05 pm
82415 spacer
>>82319
Suicide is the only informed conclusion one can make as to life on this earth after learning any amount of modern (~post 1960) history or political information. Once you get beyond the petty day-to-day issues and look at the structure, you realize just how fucked we are. The Towering Inferno has nothing on this.

My only regret was wasting more than a decade believing reform was possible and believing that if I just learned enough Post-Keynesian economic ideas and articulated them, then slowly the intellectual climate could be changed and we'd be nudged into a new era. I ran the causation backwards: The economy is broken because we have the wrong economic ideas and if we just set that right, people will follow an intellectual lead. Nope: We have the wrong economic ideas because they have political utility to those who can actually fund them, and because intuitive-but-wrong will always appeal over counter-intuitive where politics is concerned. Furthermore, all gains made against this hostile backdrop will be vulnerable forever.
>> No. 82417 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 4:33 pm
82417 spacer
>>82410
You would have to ask a follow-up question of why they would consider that a bad thing. Of which they would reply "So we can defend ourselves if someone attacks us, of course!" And then you can ask why you think someone would want to attack us... and then you can have the conversation about imperialism, dolphin rape, and a different approach to security.
>> No. 82418 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 4:53 pm
82418 spacer
>>82415
It's Chomsky-meets-Camus.
>> No. 82419 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:05 pm
82419 spacer
>>82415

Lead by example then, teenlad. Otherwise we'll be forced to rush out and elect you as PM while you're still young enough to know how everything works.
>> No. 82420 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:18 pm
82420 spacer
>>82419
I'd like to meet the teenlad who spent a decade studying economics.
Actually, I'd like to meet the teenlad who could find Milton Keynes on a map.
>> No. 82421 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:20 pm
82421 spacer
>>82415

Have you even tried violent revolution? Let's burn down a shed, kill a foxhound, paint cheese and onion Walkers the colour you think they were when you were a child.

>>82419

I think he did try leading by example, but he felt it didn't take anything anywhere.
>> No. 82422 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:39 pm
82422 spacer
>>82417
Good point, well made. You'd need to point out that terrorism doesn't count, though. We put soldiers on the streets in response to terrorism in the 1970s and look how turned out.
>> No. 82423 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:43 pm
82423 spacer
>>82422
What do you mean terrorism doesn't count? Quite the opposite, we're not at risk of invasion so terror is our primary security concern. And again, if we stopped pissing people off around the world, we'd be at a much reduced risk.
>> No. 82424 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 5:54 pm
82424 spacer
>>82423
>terror is our primary security concern
I know some people who might say that overreaching and draconian government is our primary security concern.
>> No. 82425 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 6:04 pm
82425 spacer
>>82424


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbrtOnw4nN4
>> No. 82426 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 6:54 pm
82426 spacer
>>82423
>What do you mean terrorism doesn't count?
I don't know. Did you try maybe reading the rest of that post?
>> No. 82427 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 7:26 pm
82427 spacer
>>82409
>by having a foreign policy that doesn't incur the ire of other nations and peoples.

Funny how that works.

We hand over British citizens to the rule of dastardly Argies because the islands they live on are closer to them.
We fuck off our Eastern European allies because the Russians are cool and anti-American which is like, double-cool.
We sit by while states collapse and dictators butcher their own people because... well because someone might get hurt.

And then after we do all of this some terrorist attacks us because we didn't do anything or some warlord kidnaps our citizens to force an intervention. Madness, almost as if countries don't exist in a vacuum.

>>82420
>I'd like to meet the teenlad who spent a decade studying economics.

M8 you must be proper thick if you still haven't passed it after 10 years! My nephew said something along those lines to me the other week, I fear he might be right.
>> No. 82428 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 7:43 pm
82428 spacer
>>82427
>We hand over British citizens to the rule of dastardly Argies because the islands they live on are closer to them.
>We fuck off our Eastern European allies because the Russians are cool and anti-American which is like, double-cool.
>We sit by while states collapse and dictators butcher their own people because... well because someone might get hurt.

Indeed.

Pacifists rarely consider what would in fact happen should their right-on conviction become government policy. Gandhi was at least clear eyed about what his principles meant in practice.

>Hitler killed five million Jews. It is the greatest crime of our time. But the Jews should have offered themselves to the butcher’s knife. They should have thrown themselves into the sea from cliffs. As it is, they succumbed anyway in their millions.

(From correspondence with his biographer Louis Fischer.)
>> No. 82429 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 9:13 pm
82429 spacer

tory_cu[n]ts.jpg
824298242982429
>>82427
>We hand over British citizens to the rule of dastardly Argies because the islands they live on are closer to them.
Dunno when I'm going to get another chance to punt this out there, so I'm doing it now:

Reminder that before the Falklands war the Thatcher government was cutting defence spending to the bone, including plans to sell off our aircraft carriers and amphibious assault ships. Boy, would we've looked stupid if the Spania-- Argentinians had invaded a year later than they did!
>> No. 82430 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 9:27 pm
82430 spacer
>>82420
That's fucking difficult.
>> No. 82431 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 9:48 pm
82431 spacer
>>82430
I've been there a few times and I have no idea.
>> No. 82432 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 10:44 pm
82432 spacer
>>82429
>Dunno when I'm going to get another chance to punt this out there, so I'm doing it now:

I think we're all aware of this little factoid. The Tories and Labour have both proven incompetent when it comes to defence and even today lives are put at risk because of their harebrained schemes.

With that all said it's not relevant to a discussion over how much of a bad idea outright doing away with the armed forces would be in exchange for a foreign policy where we do nothing and try not to upset anyone. Maybe you should post this on reddit and get yourself some upvotes.
>> No. 82433 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 10:56 pm
82433 spacer
May has said that defence spending will rise 0.5% above inflation each year to 2023.

Is this actually a reduction in spending as a % of GDP if GDP growth exceeds 0.5%?
>> No. 82434 Anonymous
11th May 2017
Thursday 11:49 pm
82434 spacer
>>82433

Obviously.
>> No. 82435 Anonymous
12th May 2017
Friday 12:11 am
82435 spacer
>>82434
Well, really my question was a backhanded way of asking if anyone knows how the GDP deflator works because I don't.
>> No. 82438 Anonymous
12th May 2017
Friday 1:04 pm
82438 spacer
>>82432
It's relevant in a very handwavey and ad-hom way to say that when Theresa May is returned to office the armed forces are still going to get dicked.

Even if they get more money it'll probably be thrown straight into something absolutely useless, probably involving PFI.
>> No. 82451 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 1:16 pm
82451 spacer
>>82427
I'm arguing knee-jerk unilateral military responses to international crises are the mark of weak diplomacy and a callous attitude to the human cost of conflict. I'm not sure why you've pulled all that stuff out of your arse because I've no idea what it has to do with my point.

"But what about dictators!!" We don't seem to be in any hurry to topple brutal tyrants like Mugabe or Lukashenko or Salman under our current foreign policy do we? Wonder why that is?

>>82428
>>82432
>Pacifists
>a foreign policy where we do nothing
Er no-one is arguing for pacifism m8. I'm arguing we should work towards a world where we don't need an army. Not immediately abolish the army.

Funny how this thread went from the suggestion that Corbyn would scrap the army as "absurdly hyperbolic" and then when I decided to discuss this issue a couple of fools took that hyperbole and ran with it.
>> No. 82452 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 1:26 pm
82452 spacer
>>82451
I'm not any of the posters you're responding to.
>> No. 82453 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 1:27 pm
82453 spacer
>>82452
OK.
>> No. 82457 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 7:39 pm
82457 spacer
>>82451
>Er no-one is arguing for pacifism m8.

Corbyn certainly is looking at his voting record. This being the man who recently claimed at Chatham House that Britain has not fought just war since 1945 and that should a NATO member come under attack he would seek economic and political options.
>> No. 82458 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 8:00 pm
82458 spacer
>>82457
Eh... besides Falklands - have we really fought any just wars? Especially in this century? Probably not.
>> No. 82459 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 8:16 pm
82459 spacer
>>82458

Not that lad.

I hear Kosovo was worthwhile, but I'm being totally honest when I say I don't know a damn thing about that war.

When Corbyn talks about using economic sanctions as a way to fight back against a country attacking a NATO ally though, that is embarrassing. Not only is it so unlikely to happen he won't get called on it regardless, but it feeds into narrative that he's a big, scaredy, fanny.
>> No. 82460 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:24 pm
82460 spacer
>>82459

Tony was the most popular boy's name among the Bosnian Muslims for many years, in recognition of Blair. Similarly, Iraqi Kurds have been known to plaster their windscreens with images of George Bush.

Nuggets like this keep me on my toes (but just earn me quizzical looks from the comrades).
>> No. 82462 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:27 pm
82462 spacer
>>82460
Even if Bosnian Muslims liked Blair, the Yugoslav conflict confuses the hell out of me. Probably because I want a simpler good/bad fable while the real scenario is too nuanced to achieve that and the answer as to whether we should've intervened is "Well, it depends."

Still it's confusing that the conflict is completely ignored so I don't even have an easy narrative to pick when it comes up. I mean, you can still get people to argue the toss about the Falklands.
>> No. 82463 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:27 pm
82463 spacer
>>82458
Er...Well I imagine that we're going to get into a whole debate over just war theory but applying a Corbyn viewpoint who has said Britain's involvement in WWII was just and seems to have given a mealy-mouthed reply in support of UN operations (a bit nebulous):

>have we really fought any just wars?

The Korean War seems like a just affair under this criteria. Accepting that Corbyn seems against German aggression and pro-UN -then again maybe he thinks that unshackling the South Korean people from capitalist exploitation justifies North Korean aggression.

I'd be interested to hear his opinion on the Rwandan Genocide if I'm honest. Not that we were involved but if he would admit that were he Prime Minister he would sit there twiddling his thumbs because the UN didn't give a fuck. Maybe let's hear his opinion of the Spanish Civil War too.

>Especially in this century? Probably not.

The Libyan Revolution was in the words of Obama a complete "shitshow" but then that would be down to what happened afterwards. I don't think NATO kicking the shit out of a dictator who promises to mercilessly butcher his own people was morally unjust even if Corbyn seems to be of that opinion.

Interesting thing about that complete shitshow comment by the way considering it was directed at Cameron. Had Ed Miliband spent less time messing about with his ed-stone maybe he could've scored some points.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/barack-obama-says-david-cameron-allowed-libya-to-become-a-s-show-a6923976.html
>> No. 82464 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:40 pm
82464 spacer
>>82462
>Probably because I want a simpler good/bad fable while the real scenario is too nuanced to achieve that

What better good/bad fable do you want? NATO intervened because Serbia was at the time actively wiping out the ethnic Albanians in Kosovo and more generally conducting war crimes.

Even the Russian narrative doesn't deny what went on. The criticism the conflict has is that NATO knew Russia would veto any UNSC authorization of force (even after it had voted for resolution that described what was going on) so it went in on a dubious legal mandate.
>> No. 82465 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:44 pm
82465 spacer
>>82463
Asking about the Rwandan Genocide ex-post-facto seems a bit of a cunt move really. Either he's honest and admits that even if he was a bloody-minded warmonger, he'd thumb-twiddle because he wasn't a seer and would've had other things to deal with, or he lies and pretends that he, uniquely, would have taken the initiative. (Or he says "well, the real question is about the issues that i've been speaking to people up and down the country about, so that we can build an economy that works for the many not the few." but that'd probably play worse than saying he'd send the British army to intervene by genociding even more Rwandans.)
>> No. 82466 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:44 pm
82466 spacer

013.jpg
824668246682466
I AM UNHEPPY BECAUSE OF WAR IN HOME COUNTRY.
>> No. 82467 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:53 pm
82467 spacer
>>82463
Libyan revolution was definitely a shit-show. It has given terrorists a space to operate, and a great route for boat-people to get into Europe. It has been an absolute shit-show.

In any case, these kinds of things also set precedences. Right after Gaddafi became friendly with the west and stopped trying to make nukes, we killed him. Right after that, North Korea started up its Nuke program. It is apparent that the only way to stay safe from American freedom missions is to become a nation with WMD capabilities and be willing to bring about WW3.

I'm of the opinion that, if it has no bearing on our interests, then we should not interfere in other's domestic affairs. Only if societies are allowed to organically mature can they become developed. I'm pretty sure the US would not exist as it is now if a united coalition invaded to stop the Americans massacring the natives. I also certainly doubt that Britain would exist as it is now if the Americans invaded in order to protect the Irish back during the troubles.

I don't think Britain has fought any just wars in the last few decades. In fact, I think we made things far worse for millions of people - especially in this century.
>> No. 82468 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 9:57 pm
82468 spacer
>>82467
Gulf I?
>> No. 82469 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 10:03 pm
82469 spacer
>>82463
The Spanish Civil War is a good test case in these discussions. You can learn an awful lot about someone.

>>82462
I used to be very much of the view that NATO's intervention was cynical at best, sinister at worst. In all honesty, all I had read about the conflict came from the pen of Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn. Then, some time ago, I read a particularly gruesome account of the Sarajevo siege. Blown up schools peppered with tiny limbs, elderly people being treated as target practice for Serbs, the fabric of a multicultural society being torn apart by jingos and thugs, etc. The journalist was being asked at the time - and was asking himself - how, in modern Europe, this outrage was being allowed.
I remember the shitty feeling I had when the affair went from being "anti-NATO talking point", to being something very real. Something horrible, complex - something that evidently transcended cheap political shots.

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but, yeah, it's complicated and most Brits should probably stay quiet on the subject.
>> No. 82470 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 10:05 pm
82470 spacer
>>82464
Now I have to dig back in a bit to remind myself. The truth is that I don't know what fable I want, it just sits uneasily on my bookshelf of things that lurk in history because I don't want to uncritically "give Blair that one"*, but I also don't want to apologise for a pretty dodgy Serbian state, but most importantly I don't want to leave it lurking there unresolved once I remember it happened because I like to take stances on historical issues.

To give an example of what my unease is, usually it's pretty easy to pick out "good guys" and "bad guys" in a war, at least with casual analysis - for example in the Iran-Iraq war, I find it remarkably easy with the evidence to hand to sympathise with Iran fighting the globally-backed Iraq, who started a war of aggression, even if Iran engaged in some pretty shitty behaviour of their own. With the Gulf War, I've got more of a shrugging attitude but broadly intervention seemed justifiable, even if individual aspects were questionable.

Once you get into the Kosovo war, you wind up in a total mess and I've never bothered to pull the thread to the end. Serbia were being dicks to the Kosovans, but then the KLA basically do appear to have been engaged in terrorism (warranting Serb security action), and if you track back a bit (i.e. to watching "The Death of Yugoslavia", which predates the war, and which I actually do remember) the Serb-Kosovan thing goes back even further. But then there's the ethnic cleansing (which also happened in other Yugoslav wars) and other shit things. So it's impossible to actually say "Well X had a point", both the idea of letting Serbia "get on with it" and the idea of "rewarding the KLA for terrorist actions" are undesirable things. And that's just skimming over it, that doesn't even get into specific questions of interventionism, the legal right to do it, upholding the importance of the UN, parenti's book, alternative military actions that could've been taken, or conspiracy theories half-credible or otherwise.

Now that I think of it, it's like wading into Northern Ireland.

*It's not even that I wouldn't do it if I was sure, It's just that I'm not sure. The sort of ad-hoc semi-moralizing view I gloss over conflicts with isn't intuitively opposed to interventionism. I mean, there's a certain Karmic element to the Gulf War after the Iran-Iraq war, for example, even if you also think "Western foreign policy must be nuts to be bombing the guys we were helping less than a decade ago."
>> No. 82471 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 10:13 pm
82471 spacer

20-21.png
824718247182471
>>82468
How about you just pick which ones you agree with from this list?
>> No. 82472 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 11:04 pm
82472 spacer
>>82465
>he'd thumb-twiddle because he wasn't a seer

The reason I'd ask about Rwanda is because it was obvious what was going on but nobody on the UNSC wanted to acknowledge what was happening because it would entail as declassified documents from the US show a responsibility to actually "do something".
http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB53/rw050194.pdf

>he'd send the British army to intervene by genociding even more Rwandans.

I think you must be confused on what even a limited intervention would've achieved. At any rate the thing about hindsight is whilst being a bitch it serves a point in showing that we might have actually learnt something for next time something that declarations like R2P are supposed to prove.

>>82467
>we should not interfere in other's domestic affairs

No fuck that. It's based on a naive assumption that nations exist in a vacuum when recent history shows us nothing of the sort, to go back to the Rwandan Genocide it had a direct impact in triggering the Second Congo War which is why African states have themselves largely done away with non-intervention. If your neighbours house is on fire then I think it is obvious that actually it is something that should concern you.

It is interesting that you mention the refugee crisis too considering the refugee flows from Libya are predominantly originating from the Sudan region where international efforts have been ham-handed at best and of course the transit route is there is because we've allowed Libya to fall to shit. You might talk about a precedent being set but then, so what? What of the precedent set that ISIS can enslave a whole ethnic group while they cross over into Iraq.

>>82470
I think the big question it really comes down to with humanitarian intervention is what kind and how it is to be justified. I don't think a multinational humanitarian intervention should ever try to pick sides so much as hold a very clear position that it is there to protect civilians which is a policy that at least UNSC Resolutions at the time tried to take. In a sense coming more into the view of peace-enforcement even if it is a peace international actors end up making.

Of course that means that a complete plan should be draw up on what is to be done and the risks should be weighed up on what intervention is to achieve. Something that the UN has spent considerable time over the past 20 years going over:
http://responsibilitytoprotect.org/implementing%20the%20rtop.pdf
>> No. 82473 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 11:09 pm
82473 spacer
>>82472
ISIS would not exist if we never fucked Iraq so hard.
>> No. 82474 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 11:17 pm
82474 spacer
>>82472
>I think you must be confused on what even a limited intervention would've achieved.
Nah It was a joke. i.e. the public would rather he said he'd send the British army out with the explicit aim of killing innocent people than listen to him run off party slogans.

(It really works better with the Conservatives, because their message discipline is stronger. I'd rather be genocided myself than hear strong and stable again.)

To run onto
>if your neighbours house is on fire then I think it is obvious that actually it is something that should concern you.
Even though it replies to someone else, there would seem to be a strong (partially cynical) case for non-intervention in most cases. I mean, how many British people even know the Second Congo War was a thing? It would seem reasonable to assume that in broad strokes non-intervention didn't come back to bite us.

I assume there were bumps in commodity markets, etc, that are usually things to watch out for. (Yes, in masked terms that's basically explicitly advocating intervention-for-oil.) Still, your neighbours house on fire is a concern but an entire town burning down is just television if they're far away enough.
>> No. 82475 Anonymous
14th May 2017
Sunday 11:54 pm
82475 spacer
Oh please decepticonlads, Congo is a mess because it is as diverse as probably the EU. Now imagine a corrupt centralised EU government running the EU with no nation states anywhere within? I'm pretty sure we would make the Bosnian war look like a finger painting session at the old people's home.
>> No. 82476 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 12:03 am
82476 spacer
>>82475
>Now imagine a corrupt centralised EU government running the EU with no nation states anywhere within
No way, I'm never watching Brexit, The movie again. Awful neoliberal propaganda shite.
>> No. 82477 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 10:22 am
82477 spacer

IMG_npslgd.jpg
824778247782477
So I asked what was good about the Tories and the thread has derailed into talking about war. Nobody has really answered me so I can only assume you are all intending to vote Labor. Excellent.
>> No. 82478 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 10:46 am
82478 spacer
>>82477
Or maybe people don't want to seriously debate you because you're obnoxious.
>> No. 82479 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 11:04 am
82479 spacer
>>82477
>Labor
>>>/zoo/
>> No. 82482 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 1:11 pm
82482 spacer
>>82477
The Tories are great because they want to keep the current state of affairs (working class people sent off to die in wars over money) which is obviously not a problem because it's what has always happened and therefore it must be right. Corbyn's attempt to change this situation is a problem because trying to change something that has persisted for a long time and causes death and misery makes you weak, or something.
>> No. 82483 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 1:25 pm
82483 spacer
>>82482
You're anti-employment, you absolute mad man. You ought to be locked up, or something.
>> No. 82484 Anonymous
15th May 2017
Monday 4:15 pm
82484 spacer
>>82478
Not him, but science has proved that vinegar is better than honey at attracting flies.
>> No. 82499 Anonymous
16th May 2017
Tuesday 11:39 pm
82499 spacer
>>82478
Tory policy has pushed disabled people to suicide and you're calling ME obnoxious?

Still no convincing arguments why Toryism is good.

Man, these shy Tories are getting shyer and shyer.
>> No. 82500 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 12:41 am
82500 spacer
>>82499

The modern-day Tory party is a very broad church, so it's difficult to defend it in totality. There are conservatives, reactionaries and libertarians on the Tory benches. There are brexiteers and remainers, internationalists and isolationists. Pretty much every Tory policy is disputed by some wing of the party, they're just more inclined to hammer out a working consensus or an acceptable compromise than the Labour party.

Why are so many people voting Conservative? Fundamentally, it's because they're worried about the future. They worry that Brexit will lead to chaos if it's handled poorly, they worry that we're losing influence in the world, they worry that we're living beyond our means, they worry that the welfare state is creating a generation of people who are disconnected from the culture of work.

Theresa May isn't promising the earth, which is why these worried people trust her. They believe her when she says that we can't afford to grow the public sector and need to make difficult choices to manage the deficit. They believe her when she says that big tax increases will scare off foreign investment. They believe her when she says that an overly-generous welfare state has created a culture of dependency and worklessness in some communities. When you're anxious about the future, pessimism is inherently more believable.

Polling clearly shows that the British public prefer the Labour manifesto. If this election was decided purely on policies, Labour would win it by a landslide. The problem for Labour is that they aren't trusted to keep the country on an even keel. People are naturally sceptical of a manifesto that promises huge improvements with no downside. They know that there's a catch, even if they're not sure what it is.

They like the idea of free tuition fees, but they worry about the cost. They like the idea of stronger rights for workers, but they fear that the chaos of the Southern Rail strikes will spread into a full-blown Winter of Discontent. They like the idea of a more generous welfare state, but they aren't sure that we can afford it and they worry about the social effects of families and communities without work. They have seen unemployment fall to an all-time low and believe that benefit cuts have encouraged people back into work.

Small-c conservatism is the All-Bran of politics. Nobody enjoys it, nobody gets excited about it, but you believe that it'll do you good in the long run. You'd rather have a bowl of Sugar Puffs, but All-Bran seems like the responsible choice.
>> No. 82501 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 1:07 am
82501 spacer

1dff0633-30c7-45e1-a310-456a52b503f2.jpg
825018250182501
>>82499

We want the west to recover from this downward spiral to marxist dystopia? Do you know a brain drain is going on and we are being replaced with low iq uneducated migrants?
>> No. 82502 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 1:21 am
82502 spacer

38ca0ed76668eafe4ab8c9a903196303.jpg
825028250282502
>>82500
>They have seen unemployment fall to an all-time low
Since 1975.

The rebranding of unemployment is actually something that fascinates me.
circa 1972-1974: Labour runs this gem in the election. Unemployment has recently seen a postwar high (By 1974 it had dipped briefly, but would spike again.)
1975: Unemployment hits 1.5 million
1977: Unemployment passes 5%
2017: Unemployment of 1.5 million (4.7%) is celebrated as the lowest since June to August 1975. Unemployment is up 50% on the poster-figure of 1 million despite population only increasing 14% in the same timeframe, and basically the entire 1970s being a period of turmoil compared to the (supposedly) calm waters of the Blair years.

Somewhere along the lines, it just became acceptable. We averted our gaze. Now we've decided that actually, people want to be unemployed. If you go through the ONS's own statistics, you'll find more unemployed (which is only those ready to start now, and I'm certain they've been sneaky as all hell with that figure.) than vacancies. Nearly double in fact. (And I've heard lots of those vacancies are essentially fake, or already filled and not taken down) But that simply doesn't matter. There are plenty of jobs even if there are also plenty of people seeking them. You should be able to get one now

When it comes to small-c conservatism - and I include the surprising amount embodied in the Labour manifesto for that (the fetish for "figures adding up", for example, perpetuating the idea that the government budget works like that of a household...)
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
Is in full effect.

Now if you'll excuse me I'm going to put my head under the covers and cry for a bit.
>> No. 82503 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 1:50 am
82503 spacer
>>82501
Interesting recommendations there, Chris.
>> No. 82504 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 2:09 am
82504 spacer
>>82502

You haven't factored in the increase in female labour market participation. We have added several million workers to the labour market since the 1970s, even before considering population growth. We also have far higher labour mobility and a much less homogeneous labour market, which increases short-term unemployment due to frictional unemployment.

>the fetish for "figures adding up", for example, perpetuating the idea that the government budget works like that of a household

Please, stop that straw man. It is not naive or delusional to believe that there is a finite level of sustainable spending. Consider the implicit opposing view - that a government can spend however much money it likes without consequence. It is not unreasonable to believe that government expenditure needs to be balanced against tax revenues and economic growth.

If nothing else, that argument alienates the sort of people that the left most needs to persuade. If you straw-man anyone who mentions fiscal stability, then you implicitly caricature yourself as a reckless Chavista. When the other side is worried that you're reckless about public expenditure, dismissing their concerns out of hand is literally the worst possible response. If you're going to make a case for running a deficit, then make that case. Give people an alternative belief, rather than just handwaving away the thing that they believe now. Explain why deficit spending is actually OK.
>> No. 82505 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 2:48 am
82505 spacer
>>82504
Just because there are limits to government spending, it does not immediately follow that tax revenue is the source of that limit. (There's more to it, but I really don't want to be dragged into a discussion about government debt at 3am. I knew I should've left that out. It's only relevance to the point was that Labour believe it, not the general public. It's Labour who ought to be making the case instead of fighting on someone else's territory. It's not like they've got anything to lose under Corbyn. But he doesn't know - I bet none of them know - that it's an option.)

People far smarter and more charming than me (Hello Professor Keen!) have tried to convince the public of things and don't seem to be making any meaningful impact on the debate. I'd rather just try and spread major depressive disorder by finding as many different reasons as possible to believe that life is shit, the country is doomed and political inertia means we'll never escape.

That's the real thing that bothers me about this country, actually. It's not that things are only going to get worse, it's that this isn't recognised by the general public. In the 1970s we had a proper sense of decline to underscore how shit things were. Somehow, despite everything, that hasn't returned. (Actually if https://www.ft.com/content/d56b46f6-b237-11e6-9c37-5787335499a0 holds true, this decade will actually have been worse than the 1970s - which did see moderate earnings growth between the beginning and the end - but you wouldn't know it from the acceptable bands of opinion out there.)

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to cry at my desk.
>> No. 82506 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 4:05 am
82506 spacer
In the 70s minimal employment t was viewed as inherently good. Since the 80s the focus is on inflation.
>> No. 82507 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 11:04 am
82507 spacer
>>82503

Go see an autism specialist, Eugene.
>> No. 82508 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 11:24 am
82508 spacer

pol.jpg
825088250882508
>>82312

Found a pic from last /pol/ meetup.
>> No. 82509 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 7:17 pm
82509 spacer
>>82501
>Do you know a brain drain is going on and we are being replaced with low iq uneducated migrants?

That's fucking right. All my liberal metropolitan mates and I are are set to desert this godawful sinking ship, leaving you to your banana monarchy and questionable Marxist allusions. Why are people who clearly no f-all about political theory so eager to employ the M word? All it does is fast track them to my mental "moron pen".

So, yeah, you're welcome to the brain-drained wreck.

>those video recommendations

Urghhh...
>> No. 82510 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 7:45 pm
82510 spacer
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all ten comes to £100...

If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes, it would go something like this...

The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing.
The fifth would pay £1.
The sixth would pay £3.
The seventh would pay £7..
The eighth would pay £12.
The ninth would pay £18.
The tenth man (the richest) would pay £59.

So, that's what they decided to do..

The ten men drank in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement, until one day, the owner threw them a curve ball.

"Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce the cost of your daily beer by £20". Drinks for the ten men would now cost just £80.

The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes.

So the first four men were unaffected.
They would still drink for free. But what about the other six men?

The paying customers?

How could they divide the £20 windfall so that everyone would get his fair share?
They realised that £20 divided by six is £3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's bill by a higher percentage the poorer he was, to follow the principle of the tax system they had been using, and he proceeded to work out the amounts he suggested that each should now pay.

And so the fifth man, like the first four, now paid nothing (100% saving).
The sixth now paid £2 instead of £3 (33% saving).
The seventh now paid £5 instead of £7 (28% saving).
The eighth now paid £9 instead of £12 (25% saving).
The ninth now paid £14 instead of £18 (22% saving).
The tenth now paid £49 instead of £59 (16% saving).

Each of the six was better off than before. And the first four continued to drink for free. But, once outside the bar, the men began to compare their savings.

"I only got a pound out of the £20 saving," declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man,"but he got £10!"
"Yeah, that's right," exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a pound too. It's unfair that he got ten times more benefit than me!"
"That's true!" shouted the seventh man. "Why should he get £10 back, when I got only £2? The wealthy get all the breaks!"
"Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison, "we didn't get anything at all. This new tax system exploits the poor!"
The nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.

The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine sat down and had their beers without him. But when it came time to pay the bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough money between all of them for even half of the bill!

And that, boys and girls, journalists and government ministers, is how our tax system works.

The people who already pay the highest taxes will naturally get the most benefit from a tax reduction.

Tax them too much, attack them for being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore.

In fact, they might start drinking overseas, where the atmosphere is somewhat friendlier.


- David R. Kamerschen, Ph.D.
Professor of Economics.

Labour, in a nutshell.
>> No. 82511 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 7:52 pm
82511 spacer
>>82510
Neither relevant or by David R Kamerschen.
>> No. 82512 Anonymous
17th May 2017
Wednesday 8:22 pm
82512 spacer
>>82510
1. what is it with neoclassical cocksuckers and stupid analogies
2. all this does is create an argument for multilateral capital controls (i.e. keynes clearing union or something) as a contingency necessary for basically all major countries. (suppose the necessity to jack taxes up arises - let's say hitler comes back and WW4 starts: if the rich can all just hop off to the cayman islands, that's a problem for everyone except Helen Kilpatrick...)
>> No. 82545 Anonymous
25th May 2017
Thursday 8:31 am
82545 spacer
>>82509

Me and 4 other mates off to the isle of man with our It company, shit weather but less shit iykwim.
>> No. 82546 Anonymous
25th May 2017
Thursday 10:17 am
82546 spacer
>>82510
Ermergerd stupidest thing I've ever read. Public services aren't beer and there is more than one type of tax. And as above multilateral capital controls.

Return ] Entire Thread ] First 100 posts ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password