The British Politics Thread - The Bear and Badger

poprock

These fucking Tories, eh?

I’m at the point where I’m not angry with the Conservative party, or their leaders. They’re just being true to their natures and beliefs. It’s almost the most honest bunch of Tories we’ve seen. I’m angry with the fucking idiots who voted for them over and over again.

JonB

monkey wrote:

They can change their minds. This isn't about intelligence, or stubborness. It's about the values that they hold. People can change their minds but what's the mechanism? You have ten seconds to provide an answer.

Nope. You've got 5 years. And then another, and another...

MattyJ

Might not pay my council tax. Just change my name to Dominic Cummings and it'll be fine right?

Roujin

"Judge me fairly" a depressed man pleads with assessors before his benefits were stopped and he starved to death.

"You don't need to pay us that £30-50k of back council tax" says some fucking cunt in a council because No. 10 are threatening to put their area into Tier 3 lockdown if they don't, causing way more than 30-50k of lost revenue and damage to the borough.

Is it batille day yet, or wot?

b0r1s

MattyJ wrote:

Might not pay my council tax. Just change my name to Dominic Cummings and it'll be fine right?

Wut?! Seriously. It’s fucking taking the piss now come on

b0r1s

Roujin wrote:

"Judge me fairly" a depressed man pleads with assessors before his benefits were stopped and he starved to death.

"You don't need to pay us that £30-50k of back council tax" says some fucking cunt in a council because No. 10 are threatening to put their area into Tier 3 lockdown if they don't, causing way more than 30-50k of lost revenue and damage to the borough.

Is it batille day yet, or wot?

This article made me want to cry. The sheer lack of humanity.

davyK

There seems to be an assumption in the so-called "upper classes" (a phrase harkening back to a time when a percentage of rich people had class and were philanthropists or went into government to affect real change) that the average Joe is a workshy scrounger and the Universal Credit system and the policies it implements reflects that.

It displays that belief and mistrust of those further down the the pecking order; and a complete absence of empathy demonstrated in its implementation. We have become quite a bleak place to live in for those who are unfortunate enough to fall onto hard times.

I have a friend who used to offer financial services to very wealthy (and in some cases famous) people when he worked at Coutts. There was a significant number of people who really believed their status was the result of their intelligence. He even observed that in lottery winners.

It doesn't take a large intellectual leap to derive what they think of people like that poor soul in the linked article.

Roujin

Yes this is why the right has to go and never come back tbh. Their instance that social hierachy is beneficial is fucking lolworthy because it results in this completely disconnected from reality fuckthought from people at the "top" of society, who also happen to be the people running the show.

LivDiv

Just retrain you lazy fuck.
There will be courses available in April.
Have a nice Christmas, bye.

poprock

Takes 10,000 hours to git gud at something new. What is it they’re offering? A week?

LivDiv

Seeing how Trump is losing ground in Florida's Geriatric Park and it makes me wonder how the Red Wall are currently feeling about their voting decision.

mistercrayon

It’s probably a widely reasoned hypothesis but presumably a person who is incredibly wealthy has to think they have earnt it or deserve it on some level to absolve some of the potential guilt.

You also see this kind of guilt in “philanthropists”. I’m always a little bit suspicious of philanthropists. Partly because I don’t think the exploitation is ever remedied by the guilt salving distribution. And secondly it’s an undemocratic way to fix society.

mistercrayon

Roujin wrote:

Yes this is why the right has to go and never come back tbh. Their instance that social hierachy is beneficial is fucking lolworthy because it results in this completely disconnected from reality fuckthought from people at the "top" of society, who also happen to be the people running the show.

Do you think the left is immune from insisting on a social hierarchy?

LivDiv

poprock wrote:

Takes 10,000 hours to git gud at something new. What is it they’re offering? A week?

Yeah, 10,000 hours because you're off skiving on fag breaks.
Just work harder.

Roujin

mistercrayon wrote:

Yes this is why the right has to go and never come back tbh. Their instance that social hierachy is beneficial is fucking lolworthy because it results in this completely disconnected from reality fuckthought from people at the "top" of society, who also happen to be the people running the show.

Do you think the left is immune from insisting on a social hierarchy?

Here, let me help you:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics

Edit: Okay that was mean. No the left is not immune from that, but I have to wonder what sort of social hierarchies someone on the left would propose we should keep or impliment?

mistercrayon

I guess by those I’m right wing but I just can’t see how even in a most fair society you won’t end up with an accidental hierarchy.

davyK

mistercrayon wrote:

It’s probably a widely reasoned hypothesis but presumably a person who is incredibly wealthy has to think they have earnt it or deserve it on some level to absolve some of the potential guilt. You also see this kind of guilt in “philanthropists”. I’m always a little bit suspicious of philanthropists. Partly because I don’t think the exploitation is ever remedied by the guilt salving distribution. And secondly it’s an undemocratic way to fix society.

You do have a point but doing something because you feel guilty isn't exactly evil. Bill Gates is a pretty good example of the modern day and his approach to other billionaires about giving away half their wealth is at least a challenge to hoarders.

I mean who should they give the money to? Certainly not governments going by what we have at the minute.

hunk

Hierarchy is fine but there should always be upward mobility.
If the upper castes keep kicking you down and blocking the path up, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

Philantropy is nice but it isn't the answer to a broken system as the rich get elaborate tax breaks for it with net benefits.

Roujin

I mean, I don't care about people having more money than other people. You get problems where that money is allowed to purchase influence that is not available to people who don't.

From the 'rona thread that could be stuff like access to private education or private healthcare, it could be political lobbying to influence future law makers in your favour.

In an equal society, access to the levers of power is not open to people by throwing money at something. Some people will always want to put themselves ahead of others at any cost, and it's the role of the state in those societies to have the legal frameworks in place to prevent private individuals using their wealth to influence the state.

Brooks

mistercrayon wrote:

I guess by those I’m right wing but I just can’t see how even in a most fair society you won’t end up with an accidental hierarchy.

It's pretty unavoidable but it ought to be subject to massive scrutiny and legislation to minimise its impact, like any serious crime.

Natural != good.

Roujin

hunk wrote:

Hierarchy is fine but there should always be upward mobility.

We cool with hereditary peerages in the house of lords?

How can there always be upwards mobility, that sounds a lot like people talking about infinite growth when it comes to capitalism, at some point you run out of resource to exploit to create that growth, then what?

If the upper castes keep kicking you down and blocking the path up, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

Well that's a problem, but oops, because everyone seems to think hierarchies are okay, the top hierarchy wields the power and they aren't going to change the system for the people below.

Philantropy is nice but it isn't the answer to a broken system as the rich get elaborate tax breaks for it with net benefits.

The system isn't broken, the system is working as planned for the people at the top. The system is fucked for the likes of you and me, but we aren't in charge, we don't have equal power in this system because we cannot leverage sufficient capital against the systems to bend them in our favour.

We can try and vote for progressive changes to the system over time, but as you can see, those in power will fight tooth and nail to protect what they have and lately they're winning that fight.

b0r1s

mistercrayon wrote:

And secondly it’s an undemocratic way to fix society.

I’m not sure democracy is working right now.

I’m leaning more towards Thanos’ approach. At least it should take out half the cunts, leaving more population to wrestle back control.

RedDave2

I am a little confused by a hierarchy less system in society. I'm not saying I am against it but I have trouble imagining it. In a world where everyone has strengths, talents, weakness of a huge variety wont there always be cases where some stand that bit taller than others? Or in cases where some will naturally fit into leadership roles while others prefer to follow. I'm not just taking about work scenarios but every day stuff. How would this society look?

Roujin

What do individuals strengths and weaknesses have to do with wanting to get rid of shit like hereditary peerages, and an upper class that uses it's wealth to render unfair advantages over the rest of society?

Am I talking a different language or something?

It's not about making everyone literally equal, so I can be the worlds slowest runner but still be allowed to try out for the GB 100m sprint team. It is about making sure everyone is given the same chances and the same access to education and services and about preventing people from exercising unfair advantages based on their position in society.

Roujin

For clarity, the society would like it does now, but you won't read about how some fucking billionaire is paying zero tax because he's using some fucking offshore bullshit shell company to launder his companies finances. It would be a society like now, but you don't need to go to a private dentist if your kid needs braces because the NHS will offer that. It would be a society like now, but everyone in the house of lords would have to be elected to the house, rather than being placed or being there through fucking birthright. It would be a society like now, except we don't need to go to the queen to open parliament. It would be a society like now, except if you needed somewhere to live, the local authority will find you somewhere to live. It would be a society like now, except the smartest kid from the poorest part of whatever inner city estate you care to imagine has the same chance of going to an oxbridge uni as Tabitha who's dad is an investment banker in the city. It will be a society like now, except quality social care for your gran isn't dependant on having the capital available from selling their house.

monkey

Can Tabitha’s dad hire extra tuition for her? Can he take her around the world during the summer holidays? Or send her to France every Summer so she can ace her French A level? Can he incentivise her with financial rewards for good results? Can he buy her expensive books and equipment? Can he arrange with someone he knows for her to get work experience?

poprock

Soft benefits of wealth often outweigh the hard benefits, yeah.

I’ve persuaded *unnamed posh university* to offer a lot of help in that direction. Access to networks, subsidies on housing, UBIs to avoid them having to take part time work, etc etc. But nothing can do enough. They can only do it for a small number of students. And there’s no panacea. You can’t eradicate entrenched class divides between the students themselves, let alone imagine that free trips abroad are in any way equal to young Tabitha’s globetrotting and ski breaks, or that arranged internships are comparable to entry-level jobs gifted by Daddy’s firm.

hunk

Roujin wrote:

Hierarchy is fine but there should always be upward mobility.

We cool with hereditary peerages in the house of lords? How can there always be upwards mobility, that sounds a lot like people talking about infinite growth when it comes to capitalism, at some point you run out of resource to exploit to create that growth, then what?

If the upper castes keep kicking you down and blocking the path up, there's something seriously wrong with the system.

Well that's a problem, but oops, because everyone seems to think hierarchies are okay, the top hierarchy wields the power and they aren't going to change the system for the people below.

Philantropy is nice but it isn't the answer to a broken system as the rich get elaborate tax breaks for it with net benefits.

The system isn't broken, the system is working as planned for the people at the top. The system is fucked for the likes of you and me, but we aren't in charge, we don't have equal power in this system because we cannot leverage sufficient capital against the systems to bend them in our favour. We can try and vote for progressive changes to the system over time, but as you can see, those in power will fight tooth and nail to protect what they have and lately they're winning that fight.

I don't think our views are all that different.
With upward mobility I meant every citizen having the opportunity to be able to grow into their role and excel while at it, not only the rich. In current society, the rich hold all the cards and have all the privileges. They see the role of government (Tyrannie!) as adversarial, there's no need for the public good as everything is determined by birthright (superior genetics!). They feel Government should work for them (the right) and not the other way around. They hate the idea of being leashed by a government, of being submissive to another authority. That's why they hate having their business' regulated.

We live in a world where the rich and Big Business can get away with hardly paying any taxes but the average middle class joe pays 50% of his wage. Yet, when Big business and banks fall over government has to, you guessed it, bail them out. With taxpayers money. And what do we get in return? Them dodging taxes. Again. Oh wait, it's tax avoidance and not illegal but smart and we should be thankful to be employed by them for scrappy wages.

And yes, the financial capitalist system is fucked up. It's skewed to financially favor the rich. Trying to climb the exponential SES curve is almost futile when starting at the bottom while for the rich it's exponentially easier to make billions with the right starting capital and network in place, even (especially?) in times of crisis. Easy stock market money indeed.

Something needs to be done about this but don't expect conservatives to come up with answers, they like the current system just fine as it is.

GooberTheHat

People will always bend things to their own advantage. It's human nature. The way to fix that is to implement structural barriers that minimise the amount people can use their wealth to advantage themselves at the detriment of others.

If private education was banned almost all children would attend state school. Upper middle class parents who are not happy with state schools will kick and scream and demand they are improved, and the government will listen to them, thus improving education for everyone.

GooberTheHat

Because, either we're all in this together, or we ain't.

Howdy, Stranger!

Categories