General politics discussion thread

[d-d-d-dAz]

To give some balance to the Chris Huhne thing, he has said that he believes that as Green Taxes go up, personal taxes should go down by a similar proportion...

[Carbomb]

If you want to survive as a nation but believe in socialism or a communistic version that sees things homogenised into one indentity less nation.

 

Eh? How does socialism or communism lead to homogenisation? That's utter balls. No nation in the entire history of mankind has ever, even with the most stringent attempts by any ruling bodies to articulate the most rigid, hegemonic discourse, been able to completely homogenise any society; it's just not possible, and there's even less chance of that happening now, with the expansion of the Internet and the rapid advancements being made in technology for connectivity and content.

 

And even then, I refute your original premise that the principles of socialism and/or communism advocate homogenisation at all. Economic centralisation and elimination of class is one thing, but there is nothing in socialist or communist principle which denies such things as cultural diversity, it simply advocates the removal of traditional structures along which culture is based, in favour of new ones.

[David]

I see that Vince Cable's final speech at the Lib Dem's conference has ruffled a few feathers;

 

Vince Cable has insisted he has a pro-business agenda but refused to apologise for attacking excessive bank bonuses paid to "spivs and gamblers".

 

In his speech to the Lib Dem conference, the business secretary called for action to stop capitalism "killing competition".

 

But he attributed the idea to the free-market economist Adam Smith.

 

Mr Cable also revealed Royal Mail staff would be given 10% of shares in any future flotation of the company.

 

The business secretary, who confirmed last month that he intended to sell off Royal Mail, said this would represent the largest employee share scheme for 25 years.

 

In the lead-up to the speech, the last major address on the final day of the conference in Liverpool, it emerged that Mr Cable would be making an outspoken attack on unbridled capitalism and short-term decision-making in the City as damaging to the economy.

 

Business groups questioned the "emotional" tone of the speech and said there was no alternative to a private-sector led recovery.

 

Mr Cable acknowledged his calls for restraint in bonuses had "infuriated" bank bosses but said he would not tone down his warnings about their behaviour.

 

"I make no apology for attacking spivs and gamblers who did more harm to the British economy than [transport union leader] Bob Crow could achieve in his wildest Trotskyite fantasies, while paying themselves outrageous bonuses underwritten by the taxpayer.

 

"There is much public anger about banks and it is well deserved."

 

Although he was not seeking "retribution", he said he was prepared to intervene further if bonuses were paid while businesses were unable to get loans at reasonable rates.

 

He also reiterated calls for reform of the banking system to separate High Street and investment activities, so as to prevent a repeat of the financial crisis.

 

Mr Cable has come under pressure for seeming to criticise big business but Downing Street said it was "relaxed" about his comments.

 

The business secretary said the UK needed successful companies but the government would not stand aside where directors and shareholders ignored wider social concerns and threatened to damage the economy.

 

"Markets are often irrational or rigged," he said, announcing a review of executive pay and the responsibilities of directors during takeover battles.

 

"So I am shining a harsh light into the murky world of corporate behaviour. Capitalism takes no prisoners and kills competition where it can, as Adam Smith explained over 200 years ago."

 

He added: "I want to protect consumers and keep prices down and provide a level playing field for small business, so we must be vigilant right across the economy

[patiirc]

If you want to survive as a nation but believe in socialism or a communistic version that sees things homogenised into one indentity less nation.

 

Eh? How does socialism or communism lead to homogenisation? That's utter balls. No nation in the entire history of mankind has ever, even with the most stringent attempts by any ruling bodies to articulate the most rigid, hegemonic discourse, been able to completely homogenise any society; it's just not possible, and there's even less chance of that happening now, with the expansion of the Internet and the rapid advancements being made in technology for connectivity and content.

 

And even then, I refute your original premise that the principles of socialism and/or communism advocate homogenisation at all. Economic centralisation and elimination of class is one thing, but there is nothing in socialist or communist principle which denies such things as cultural diversity, it simply advocates the removal of traditional structures along which culture is based, in favour of new ones.

 

Makes mental note to proof read better.

 

Basically, I was trying to say that bringing everything 'in house' else loses something and makes it tied into one nations vision. Whatever industry is pulled in has to follow the ruling party line and is unaffected by market changes to a large degree. Thus its identity will change. If it was the only industry renationalised then great there will be diversity, if not then, run along similar lines means that their outlook, branding or what ever is homogenised and you get some samey stuff. National water, national rail, national grid all get taken out of the loop and create a false economy or sorts as there is no competition if free market is also denied and the potential of lots of bloat ( see problems with Royal Mail and Civil Service and NHS among others (and Iam not saying that I agree with the idea that there is bloat to the degree that others seem to think) ) and it isnt necessarily cost effective. It is also very insular looking and further messing about on taxes on other products making them more or less desirable also makes things all close knit or homogenised in this sense as they are all brought into the fold at the expense of difference and a big fuck you to market and other forces. (There is also the cost of creating new infrastructures, relationships, rebranding, buying out share holders and what ever other associated costs. In terms of what Duane has said, re nationalising is going to be very, very expensive. even if things are done on the 'cheap' its a lot of expense to do something that will a drain and not be productive to the economy when we need it and create needless upheaval and expense when the country hasnt got a pot to piss in)

 

Initially I was going to take shops as an example, (this was why I followed on with the whole idea in non socialist society) choice is being eroded anyway as, the same stores are in same way at the same town. It might be all about the 'free market' but going to the same shop in a different town that has the same products doesnt really seem to offer choice nor does it suggest difference or variety hence the relation of the idea to Main Street ( not High Street, UK, damn my disneyfication is slipping) is equally valid which ever system is used, precisely because there is that lack of choice. One system is up front and honest about it, the other gives the illusion of giving it when the reality is that it isnt any different to the other system, because there is no choice A state run food shop selling essentials to the public at prices of their choosing is bucking/determining market forces, A Multinational Supermarket selling essentials as a loss leader or determining what price is set is doing exactly the same for example.

 

So that was what I was aiming at. I wasnt really talking about 'the people' if Iam honest. As I said I should have maybe explained it better.

[Carbomb]

I see what you're getting at, but you're oversimplifying and making some erroneous assumptions. Not all socialists advocate that ALL industries should be nationalised. As far as I'm concerned, the government should run industries which provide basic necessities of modern life, such as water, electricity, housing, education, health and public safety/order, because I believe it's the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens enjoy a set minimum standard of living, from which they can progress and work to get to a better one. I'd also include transport in that, because it's clear privatisation has done no good - rail transport is a monopoly, like it or not. Telecommunications should be private, though - BT were forced to provide better service once put up against competition.

 

Also, even under Soviet Russia, commodities weren't homogenised: there were plenty of different brands of different things, they just weren't decided by difference in companies, but rather the collectives which ran the factories, plants or farms.

[David]

Not all socialists advocate that ALL industries should be nationalised.

Yeah, i'd go along with that, Carbomb.

 

In fact, the majority of socialists that I know think that way.

[JNLister]

Initially I was going to take shops as an example, (this was why I followed on with the whole idea in non socialist society) choice is being eroded anyway as, the same stores are in same way at the same town. It might be all about the 'free market' but going to the same shop in a different town that has the same products doesnt really seem to offer choice nor does it suggest difference or variety hence the relation of the idea to Main Street ( not High Street, UK, damn my disneyfication is slipping) is equally valid which ever system is used, precisely because there is that lack of choice. One system is up front and honest about it, the other gives the illusion of giving it when the reality is that it isnt any different to the other system, because there is no choice A state run food shop selling essentials to the public at prices of their choosing is bucking/determining market forces, A Multinational Supermarket selling essentials as a loss leader or determining what price is set is doing exactly the same for example.

 

Capitalism promotes mediocrity and homogenisation. When it comes to succeeding on a large scale, the biggest firms/brands/products are usually those that are just about tolerable to the most people (McDonalds) rather than those that some people consider fantastic.

[patiirc]

I see what you're getting at, but you're oversimplifying and making some erroneous assumptions. Not all socialists advocate that ALL industries should be nationalised. As far as I'm concerned, the government should run industries which provide basic necessities of modern life, such as water, electricity, housing, education, health and public safety/order, because I believe it's the government's responsibility to ensure its citizens enjoy a set minimum standard of living, from which they can progress and work to get to a better one. I'd also include transport in that, because it's clear privatisation has done no good - rail transport is a monopoly, like it or not. Telecommunications should be private, though - BT were forced to provide better service once put up against competition.

 

Also, even under Soviet Russia, commodities weren't homogenised: there were plenty of different brands of different things, they just weren't decided by difference in companies, but rather the collectives which ran the factories, plants or farms.

 

Heh, yeah I do oversimplifying at times. Okay so there is a lot of generalisation, but i wasnt writing an essay, just merely whacking a few points on an internet forum to see where Ole Duane was coming from.

 

Regarding your Soviet Russia point, The Whisperers by Orlando Figes would say different particularly under Stalin, favoured party members would get access to 'different shops' of repossessed goods but other wise the same types of food, clothes and whatever types were farmed out to shops so that rations were filled no matter how meagre. The collectives that run things usually were left with sub subsistence stuff and the rest centralised before being distributed thanks to the NEP and the various 5 year plans well at least according to those who were then. Millions were stuck with the 'parcel' system so got what little the state gave them either they were in Gulags/homes or what ever. The non homogenised delivery of that seemed to be the 2ndhand(or way way more hand)or black market. to get goods that werent 'off the shelf'

 

Its a fantastic read, a bit miserable though, but lots of eye witness accounts of life at the time from pro and anti communists and at all levels of society

 

 

Capitalism promotes mediocrity and homogenisation. When it comes to succeeding on a large scale, the biggest firms/brands/products are usually those that are just about tolerable to the most people (McDonalds) rather than those that some people consider fantastic.

 

Thats what I was trying to say. Did it not come through. basically extrapolated to the nth degree they are both as bad as each other. One gives the illusion of choice despite none, and the other is more upfront about it

Edited September 23, 2010 by patdfb

[JNLister]

No, I was backing up/echoing your point.

[David]

Ed Miliband is the new Labour leader, it has been announced at a special conference in Manchester.

 

He beat brother David by the wafer thin margin of 50.65% to 49.35% after second, third and fourth preference votes came into play.

 

Ed Balls was third, Andy Burnham fourth and Diane Abbott last in the ballot of Labour members and trade unionists.

 

Mr Miliband, 40, replaces acting leader Harriet Harman in the contest triggered by the resignation of Gordon Brown.

 

He paid tribute to each of his fellow candidates in turn and told the conference: "Today we draw a line under this contest and move forward united as a team."

 

The shadow energy secretary appears to have benefited from a last-minute surge of support before voting in the postal ballot closed on Wednesday.

 

Older brother David won a majority of support from Labour's MPs at Westminster, but appears to have been defeated due to Ed's dominance among trade unions and grassroots activists in Labour's electoral college voting system.

[Van Dammer]

This is like if John Sargeant had actually won Strictly Come Dancing.

[Carbomb]

Don't agree on that. Ed's a bit better than David. Doesn't change much for me, though - the Labour Party's history of betrayal isn't going to end either of them.

[Rave on Jimmy]

Don't agree on that. Ed's a bit better than David. Doesn't change much for me, though - the Labour Party's history of betrayal isn't going to end either of them.

 

David is nicer to look at.

[BionicRedneck]

David is more likely to win an election.

[David]

David would have reminded a lot of people of Tony Blair, which isn't a good thing.