UK Politics

tomorton

Legendary member
Many people will have to make a choice between heating or eating next winter, while energy companies are making more money than they know what to with. If you think that we're not heading towards more environmental disasters, then you haven't been paying attention.
When companies make more profits they pay more taxes. They invest more, which means they expand and take on more employees. who are therefore not going to starve and who will also pay taxes. Companies making profits also attract more capital for investment, which means money flows into the UK and into the stock market, which helps the county's economy, and which helps the pension investments that employees who are prudent but not wealthy have been making towards their retirement costs.

Its hard to see a way from what you're saying about capitalism towards a prosperous national economy.

Again, the question has to be, who do you think pays for the NHS?
 

alan5616

Established member
When companies make more profits they pay more taxes. They invest more, which means they expand and take on more employees. who are therefore not going to starve and who will also pay taxes. Companies making profits also attract more capital for investment, which means money flows into the UK and into the stock market, which helps the county's economy, and which helps the pension investments that employees who are prudent but not wealthy have been making towards their retirement costs.

Its hard to see a way from what you're saying about capitalism towards a prosperous national economy.

Again, the question has to be, who do you think pays for the NHS?
Who pays for the NHS? Those who work and get deducted P.A.Y.E tax from their earnings. The people who keep this country going and need a pay rise. The nurses, rail workers, teachers, postmen and other essential workers. There are murmurings of a general strike and I wouldn't blame them one iota.
 

Atilla

Legendary member
Lockdowns were advised by the government's health experts. They would have been classed as either eccentric, daring, arrogant or money-wasters if they had ignored the advice of the expensive experts they have appointed for just this eventuality. In politics its probably safer to be wrong along with everyone else who is also wrong, rather than risk being wrong on your own.

As far as political corruption is concerned, this is a common behaviour across the political spectrum. Its easy to criticise politicians for being politicians but its a lot harder to develop a better system. Do you have a better system in mind?

I think you are overplaying the health experts' hand here Tom. Would you not agree that the advice to stop young people from starting to smoke is made by the Health Minister based on sound medical universally accepted research?

I do not see the difference between health advice given about smoking increases the risk of cancer compared to skewed forecasts about Covid infections.

As far as corruption is concerned, in the UK public sector tenders go through G-Cloud Framework. The system is there to stop backhanders from taking place whilst demonstrating transparency in awarding contracts with equal participation for all suppliers who meet the set criteria.

UK has standards and processes. Why would politicians override these checks and controls? Especially so when the sums of money involved are in millions and billions?

Boris is corrupt and so was Cummings to come up with these ideas and support them. Same goes for lies about Brexit.

I think you know full well but you carry on justifying how marvellous the Tory party sh!t show has been and keep supporting all this tosh as if we are beyond approach.

Our system is good enough. Simply that it should be enforced to bring the crooks to account.
 

J Livermore

Active member
As a current illustration of the principle in my last point (highlighted), see recent proposed legislation in New Zealand.


In that country, run by socialists of course, its proposed that anyone now aged 14 will not ever be able to purchase cigarettes in New Zealand. Its not just that they won't be able to purchase them until they are an adult, they will never be able to purchase them. This will be a life ban.

So, the New Zealanders are in exactly the situation I described - its the state which defines what choices people have, because its the state which pays for the impact of those choices.

No doubt leftists in the UK are watching with interest.
Hi tom,

If there is enough demand for tobacco among future New Zealanders then the black market will take care of the government problem. It may cost a little more than black markets in other countries because New Zealand is an island(s) but in the end violent smugglers will get their product through.

It seems that naive people the world over learned nothing from alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century United States.

I guess lessons have to be learned over and over again until the consequences explode out of control.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
Who pays for the NHS? Those who work and get deducted P.A.Y.E tax from their earnings. The people who keep this country going and need a pay rise. The nurses, rail workers, teachers, postmen and other essential workers. There are murmurings of a general strike and I wouldn't blame them one iota.
This is fundamentally wrong. The "essential workers" in the public sector are not the ones paying for the NHS. They are paid salaries by the government which it self has no money and no means of generating money from profit-making activities.

The NHS is paid for by the private sector's taxes. It is the private sector which makes money for the government to then spend on essential public services, but this total includes the salaries of the staff who are delivering those very same services. Fundamentally, nurses do not pay for our NHS, teachers do not pay for our schools. Public sector pay comes form the private sector's taxes, paid as either corporation tax or income tax on their employees.

As for a general strike, this is a politically motivated action aimed at destabilising a democratically elected government. If the population disagree with a government's policies there are long-established and agreed ways of dealing with that. But it is not a right of trade union bosses to subvert democratic processes. They do have the right to stand at a general election, but they don't have the right to run the country unelected.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
Hi tom,

If there is enough demand for tobacco among future New Zealanders then the black market will take care of the government problem. It may cost a little more than black markets in other countries because New Zealand is an island(s) but in the end violent smugglers will get their product through.

It seems that naive people the world over learned nothing from alcohol prohibition in the early 20th century United States.

I guess lessons have to be learned over and over again until the consequences explode out of control.
The thing that is often overlooked about Prohibition in the US was that it worked. However, it was still in principle wrong-headed.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
I think you are overplaying the health experts' hand here Tom. Would you not agree that the advice to stop young people from starting to smoke is made by the Health Minister based on sound medical universally accepted research?

I do not see the difference between health advice given about smoking increases the risk of cancer compared to skewed forecasts about Covid infections.

As far as corruption is concerned, in the UK public sector tenders go through G-Cloud Framework. The system is there to stop backhanders from taking place whilst demonstrating transparency in awarding contracts with equal participation for all suppliers who meet the set criteria.

UK has standards and processes. Why would politicians override these checks and controls? Especially so when the sums of money involved are in millions and billions?

Boris is corrupt and so was Cummings to come up with these ideas and support them. Same goes for lies about Brexit.

I think you know full well but you carry on justifying how marvellous the Tory party sh!t show has been and keep supporting all this tosh as if we are beyond approach.

Our system is good enough. Simply that it should be enforced to bring the crooks to account.
I don't support everything the Conservative administration has done. Do I have to keep re-posting my criticisms of Boris Johnson, one our worst ever Prime Ministers?

I'm not saying the covid lock-down was a good idea, just that its understandable that most politicians did the same thing and they would do it all over again in another pandemic.

I don't say corruption doesn't happen or is an acceptable on-cost, but its so universal as to be unavoidable in all government systems.

As far as lies about Brexit are concerned, in a campaign for votes all politicians of all colours promise what they will never deliver and criticise what their opponents will never do. This skews results. But the British public is not duped for ever and these things are resolved in the long run under our system.

It should be obvious that I am more in favour of current representative parliamentary democracy and common law constitutional freedoms than any specific political party.
 

timsk

Legendary member
. . . all politicians of all colours promise what they will never deliver and criticise what their opponents will never do.
This summarises very neatly and succinctly the state of U.K. politics today and, doubtless, applies equally well to most other elected - supposedly democratic - governments around the world.
. . . But the British public is not duped for ever and these things are resolved in the long run under our system.
Err, not so sure about that, Tom!
It appears to me that there's an endless cycle of lying, duplicitous and corrupt politicians. Sure, the electorate can replace them every four or five years in the eternal hope that the new lot will be better than the last lot. They rarely - if ever - are. With very few exceptions, politicians of all hues and generations at ministerial level are equally deceitful, duplicitous and corrupt as one another. The entire system is in dire need of a major overhaul, IMO.
Tim.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
This summarises very neatly and succinctly the state of U.K. politics today and, doubtless, applies equally well to most other elected - supposedly democratic - governments around the world.

Err, not so sure about that, Tom!
It appears to me that there's an endless cycle of lying, duplicitous and corrupt politicians. Sure, the electorate can replace them every four or five years in the eternal hope that the new lot will be better than the last lot. They rarely - if ever - are. With very few exceptions, politicians of all hues and generations at ministerial level are equally deceitful, duplicitous and corrupt as one another. The entire system is in dire need of a major overhaul, IMO.
Tim.
I think the long view resolves almost everything as long as we don't change the system.

Look at how the system has successfully dealt with Prime Ministers who lost popular support but yet seemed just previously to be in unassailable positions due to parliamentary majority and party support -
Churchill
Thatcher
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May

And now Johnson. And later it will be Truss. Sounds like the system works tolerably well.

But then, changing the system should not be started without an objective in sight. What is the better system we should move towards? Who is currently running it with great success?
 

timsk

Legendary member
I think the long view resolves almost everything as long as we don't change the system.

Look at how the system has successfully dealt with Prime Ministers who lost popular support but yet seemed just previously to be in unassailable positions due to parliamentary majority and party support -
Churchill
Thatcher
Blair
Brown
Cameron
May

And now Johnson. And later it will be Truss. Sounds like the system works tolerably well.
Hi Tom,
I suspect I've not expressed myself as well as I might. Your point is a fair one and 'right' in so far as the system works as you say if (note emphasis) one accepts it's limitations. Those being the ones I outlined in my previous post. I don't accept them on the grounds that by any reasonable measure they are totally unacceptable.
But then, changing the system should not be started without an objective in sight.
I agree 100%. Getting rid of something that doesn't work without a clear plan as to what should take its place is sheer folly and won't end well.
What is the better system we should move towards?
Something decentralised. It needs to be the exact opposite of the globalist collective we currently have with (relatively) few people at the apex wielding all the power. That's one of the reasons why, when I'm asked by remainers if I regret my decision to vote leave in the referendum, I say absolutely not and would do so again. The EU is the very definition of centralised globalist authority. That's reason enough not to want to be a part of it. It's also one of the reasons why the current system fails and it makes no difference as to which party is in power or who the next PM is, as they're all signed up to the same one world globalist agenda. On the big issues of the day - there's little or no difference between them: they're all singing from the same lousy, useless, rotten hymn sheet!
Who is currently running it with great success?
Good question and I don't know is the answer. That said, even if there isn't anyone doing it (at a national level), that doesn't mean we shouldn't try and make change for the better and, needless to say, someone has to be the first to try something new. Otherwise, we're all doomed to be trapped in a hamster wheel of the same ol' political bullpoo for evermore.
Tim.
 

alan5616

Established member
I didn't think that this government could, possibly, sink any lower. Now, the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, has BANNED government lawyers from telling her if proposed government actions are illegal. This is a further affront to our democracy, which is disintegrating at a rapid pace.
 

tomorton

Legendary member
I didn't think that this government could, possibly, sink any lower. Now, the Attorney General, Suella Braverman, has BANNED government lawyers from telling her if proposed government actions are illegal. This is a further affront to our democracy, which is disintegrating at a rapid pace.
It doesn't seem like that's what she said, at least according to The Guardian.
 

J Livermore

Active member
The thing that is often overlooked about Prohibition in the US was that it worked. However, it was still in principle wrong-headed.
I don’t understand how you mean prohibition worked. Anybody who wanted to buy alcohol on the black market could easily obtain it.

It made the bootleggers fabulously rich and ultra violent. It turned the Italian mafia from a group of local organizations into national syndicates. Al Capone was the most famous of the smugglers in Chicago.

For every barrel of booze confiscated by the police many more made it through the law enforcement gauntlet.

Even my own grandfather who moved from Europe after the first World War fermented his own wine for personal use.

What am I missing?
 

tomorton

Legendary member
Prohibition significantly reduced the consumption of alcohol. This led to reduced crime rates, reduced related ill health, reduced alcohol dependency, reduced related psychiatric admissions and reduced worker absenteeism. And I guess these were the objectives.

Long-term impacts still persist today. Most of the US outlaws drinking below the age of 21. The rest of the world says 18: lower in fact if a teenager is accompanied by an adult / the drink is taken with a meal etc. Even today the US has one the lowest alcohol consumption rates per capita of any developed nation.

Negative impacts include a huge stimulus to organised crime, and a massive loss of tax revenue from alcohol sales. Some of the loss of tax revenue seems to have hit states harder than the Federal government or the national economy as a whole. Then again, its normal that tax revenue fluctuates over long-term periods - governments just ramp up tax in other areas to make up the shortfall.
 

Inquisitor

Active member
I'd happily swap the government of NZ for ours. Over there, they put the welfare and security of their citizens before corporate greed.
Most of your comments about the UK are so negative that it sounds like you hate every aspect of living there. This is very similar to Corbyn who was against everything that makes the UK the country that it is.

If you have such a reverence for NZ then why don't you move there or to one of the other countries that are so much better than the UK is?
 

Atilla

Legendary member
Most of your comments about the UK are so negative that it sounds like you hate every aspect of living there. This is very similar to Corbyn who was against everything that makes the UK the country that it is.

If you have such a reverence for NZ then why don't you move there or to one of the other countries that are so much better than the UK is?

Have you considered moving to the US or another banana republic where you can have more of what you like?

We are all trying to improve our lot imo. People just take different paths.

That's called democracy. Freedom of expression.

Don't blame you though as I often think like you.
I have to stop myself, as it only means one is shutting down debate and free thinking and that leads us to other dark places. (y)
 

tomorton

Legendary member
I agree on the need for radical re-thinking on the NHS. In fact radical re-thinking on all universal benefits. I have no idea why my taxes should go towards helping my bank manager get cheaper medicines from Boots.

The abolition of universal benefits is a core belief for conservatives: that's because they believe these things should mostly be paid for by themselves if they themselves could afford it. The provision of universal benefits is a core belief socialists: that's because they believe they all should be paid for by somebody else, even if they themselves could afford it.

The inevitable conclusion of the leftist view is that the state should have the right to decide on our personal lives and habits.

Just to take forward this final thought (highlighted) towards conclusion, how far will a leftist state go to control the lives and habits of its citizens?

It will certainly eliminate opposition parties who wish to re-introduce capitalism. Hence they must become one-party states, as the freedom of the electorate to vote out socialism cannot be risked.

They will direct labour towards where the state needs it. Everyone in a socialist society is an employee of the state, since the state pays for, owns and manages everything. Nobody can be permitted to get a free ride by not working, by living off other people's labours.

And they overwhelmingly end the freedom to travel abroad. Citizens of the socialist utopia cannot be permitted to travel abroad - they might not come back. And then all that state education, healthcare, professional training, housing allocations, food rationing, all that production and employment management would have all been wasted money. Citizens of socialist states have constantly tried to get out of them - and into capitalist states.

Its not impossible to see New Zealand restricting exit travel by NZ citizens. Maybe they'll pretty soon need a 3-month visa to get out, where every other country you need a 3-month visa to get in.
 
 
Top
AdBlock Detected

We get it, advertisements are annoying!

But it's thanks to our sponsors that access to Trade2Win remains free for all. By viewing our ads you help us pay our bills, so please support the site and disable your AdBlocker.

I've Disabled AdBlock    No Thanks