UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Souseiseki]

>government spends millions and decades building something up
>you get it for pennies
>you make all the money from it from now on, with no need to cover the massive initial investment is took to build it up
>government will make sure you never fail because the country literally needs your services to function and subsidize your losses
>"oh yeah. i'm a self-made man, i made a success of myself, not sure the lefties hate that"

[Lamadia]

That's odd, you deliberately misunderstood my post & manipulated it. The Left always seems to do that- they hate the idea of somebody making a success of themselves, so they manipulate the facts, make it suit a small statistic, a small fact, rather than the greater picture, which is the world economy. What do you suppose happens to this country when we nationalise everything, as you want? Do you think the Americans, the Japanese, the Arabs, many of whom own some of these industries, are going to be happy that they are seized so ruthlessly? Do you think foreign investment is going to continue to come in? Do you really think that we can last more than ten years as an isolated state with no investment other than that of a tax-revenue- depraved, overly burdened Treasury?
And if you read the post, then you would realise that I said that rail was the exception which failed. Gosh, so it is true that the Left are manipulative- to the market as well as a post!

We don't hate success; we hate corruption and the naive assumption that free markets exist. NEWSFLASH: THEY DON'T. They are always strangled. The choice is whether you want the government to do it or multinationals.

Also, let me tell you a little story:
My grandfather grew up in a slum. An actual slum. West end of Newcastle in the second world war. He could have spent his whole life working at Vickers on the factory floor. However, he decided he wanted to do more. He went to night school and learned to be an engineer. When he was called up for national service, he ran away to sea with the merchant navy and travelled the world. When he got back, he got a job with the Department of the Environment, who eventually sent him to Malta, then Cyprus. In Cyprus the army gave him an officer's house because of his importance. He is the reason my mother got to go to university. He worked his way up from nothing, and has worked harder than you, your parents, or I, have worked or will ever work. He voted Labour his entire life because he didn't want anyone to experience the same poverty he did. So, don't you say the Left hate success, you sheltered little Tory.

I am sure your grandfather was a nice, honest, hard-working man.
But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, to assume that they do not work as hard as your grandfather or lack the skill to do so, is very presumptuous, and rather rude, and I will ask that you retract that statement, in particular the personal insult directed towards me at the end.
The Left do not want people to make money. It is that simple. The traditional idea of the Left is to introduce such high taxes, such high regulations, that it makes it impossible for the normal man to make it to the top- if we are in a leftist society, then the industries should be nationalised for one reason; the left would maintain a big corporate group, without anybody from the bottom challenging it.The more plausible, and more despicable, method which would be used today, would be not nationalising the industries, however installing ruthless Left-wing methods to stop people from making new companies, to stop them from rising to the top.

[Souseiseki]

some fields have such ridiculous barriers of entry and economy of scale problems that the idea of someone on the bottom making a new company and rising to the top using it runs from patently absurd to literally impossible

coincidentally, these are the things we want to nationalize, huh

[Philjia]

We don't hate success; we hate corruption and the naive assumption that free markets exist. NEWSFLASH: THEY DON'T. They are always strangled. The choice is whether you want the government to do it or multinationals.

Also, let me tell you a little story:
My grandfather grew up in a slum. An actual slum. West end of Newcastle in the second world war. He could have spent his whole life working at Vickers on the factory floor. However, he decided he wanted to do more. He went to night school and learned to be an engineer. When he was called up for national service, he ran away to sea with the merchant navy and travelled the world. When he got back, he got a job with the Department of the Environment, who eventually sent him to Malta, then Cyprus. In Cyprus the army gave him an officer's house because of his importance. He is the reason my mother got to go to university. He worked his way up from nothing, and has worked harder than you, your parents, or I, have worked or will ever work. He voted Labour his entire life because he didn't want anyone to experience the same poverty he did. So, don't you say the Left hate success, you sheltered little Tory.

I am sure your grandfather was a nice, honest, hard-working man.
But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, to assume that they do not work as hard as your grandfather or lack the skill to do so, is very presumptuous, and rather rude, and I will ask that you retract that statement, in particular the personal insult directed towards me at the end.
The Left do not want people to make money. It is that simple. The traditional idea of the Left is to introduce such high taxes, such high regulations, that it makes it impossible for the normal man to make it to the top- if we are in a leftist society, then the industries should be nationalised for one reason; the left would maintain a big corporate group, without anybody from the bottom challenging it.The more plausible, and more despicable, method which would be used today, would be not nationalising the industries, however installing ruthless Left-wing methods to stop people from making new companies, to stop them from rising to the top.

I don't believe in nationalising everything (Because it leads to a stagnant economy). I also don't want rampant unregulated capitalism (Because it leads to a crashed economy and dire poverty). I don't want to target small companies, only the big ones, which incidentally are why your dream of a free market is a lie. As for your family, no I won't apologise, because you quite clearly are completely divorced from economic and social reality.

[Lamadia]

I am sure your grandfather was a nice, honest, hard-working man.
But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, to assume that they do not work as hard as your grandfather or lack the skill to do so, is very presumptuous, and rather rude, and I will ask that you retract that statement, in particular the personal insult directed towards me at the end.
The Left do not want people to make money. It is that simple. The traditional idea of the Left is to introduce such high taxes, such high regulations, that it makes it impossible for the normal man to make it to the top- if we are in a leftist society, then the industries should be nationalised for one reason; the left would maintain a big corporate group, without anybody from the bottom challenging it.The more plausible, and more despicable, method which would be used today, would be not nationalising the industries, however installing ruthless Left-wing methods to stop people from making new companies, to stop them from rising to the top.

I don't believe in nationalising everything (Because it leads to a stagnant economy). I also don't want rampant unregulated capitalism (Because it leads to a crashed economy and dire poverty). As for your family, no I won't apologise, because you quite clearly are completely divorced from economic and social reality.

I can tell a story too? My grandmother grew up through the Second World War & in the era prior to that. Her father was a financier, worked in London, from New York- a wealthy, capable family. She worked very hard at school, and, despite it being all-girls, where the idea of staying at home was reinforced, she went on to Oxford University, where she attained degrees in politics, in law, and in social sciences. After studying even more, attaining what today would be seen as a PhD, my grandmother went on, with the support of my grandfather, to attain a position in NATO, at a senior level- one of the first women to do so, in the 1970s. Reaching the very top of the NATO command, working with Prime Ministers & Presidents, she stood as an advisor on warfare, in particular in Bosnia & Africa, for the United Nations, before writing several books on politics & international relations, and sitting as an advisor for the UN until the late 1990s.
A very hardworking, very intelligent woman, I am proud to say. To suggest that my family has not worked hard is an insult. I am sure your grandfather would be ashamed, knowing his good name was being implicated in a post at the same time as an insult, and I think that you really ought to apologise, and withdraw the statement.

[Souseiseki]

a person from the slums is someone from the bottom. a person from a wealthy family is not someone from the bottom. please be more careful in using the term "from the bottom".

[Lamadia]

a person from the slums is someone from the bottom. a person from a wealthy family is not someone from the bottom. please be more careful in using the term "from the bottom".

I didn't?

[Philjia]

I don't believe in nationalising everything (Because it leads to a stagnant economy). I also don't want rampant unregulated capitalism (Because it leads to a crashed economy and dire poverty). As for your family, no I won't apologise, because you quite clearly are completely divorced from economic and social reality.

I can tell a story too? My grandmother grew up through the Second World War & in the era prior to that. Her father was a financier, worked in London, from New York- a wealthy, capable family. She worked very hard at school, and, despite it being all-girls, where the idea of staying at home was reinforced, she went on to Oxford University, where she attained degrees in politics, in law, and in social sciences. After studying even more, attaining what today would be seen as a PhD, my grandmother went on, with the support of my grandfather, to attain a position in NATO, at a senior level- one of the first women to do so, in the 1970s. Reaching the very top of the NATO command, working with Prime Ministers & Presidents, she stood as an advisor on warfare, in particular in Bosnia & Africa, for the United Nations, before writing several books on politics & international relations, and sitting as an advisor for the UN until the late 1990s.
A very hardworking, very intelligent woman, I am proud to say. To suggest that my family has not worked hard is an insult. I am sure your grandfather would be ashamed, knowing his good name was being implicated in a post at the same time as an insult, and I think that you really ought to apologise, and withdraw the statement.

I'm sure she did work hard. I am also quite sure that if she had not been born into wealth it would not have happened to her. You need to get it into your head that it's not as easy as making something of yourself; only the brightest can do so, and with the rising cost of living it's getting harder. For the people at the top of the pile, there's always nepotism and scrounging. At the bottom, there's nothing, except a life of working your arse off for a pittance while miles away some executive gambles your job on a risky investment. People deserve better. The so called "free" market won't give it to them, so the government will. That's the legacy of Attlee and Blair, which the Tories are cheerfully tearing down.

[Imperializt Russia]

Privatisation of rail, around the world, is always going to be difficult & very problematic, namely due to the fact that rail is very hard to privatise. Five (am I correct?) groups run UK rail, which isn't a 'free market' per say. However, the idea that these services would function better in the state sector than in the private sector is quite a naive one. Nationalising the trains would take a lot of power out of the rail services, as well as deflating the stock groups who take a massive profit from industry, and who put it back into the economy.

It's not naive.

They did function better in the hands of the state. By certain means. What do we consider those means to be?
Evidently, you consider it to be who can profit off them and how much. A rather mercenary, attitude, but not illegitimate.

I consider the means to be a service providing a service to its consumers. Radical thinking, I know.
When it was a state industry? It did that pretty well. As did power, steel and telecoms.

Since being privatised? All of those industries (less steel, I guess) have, frankly, failed their consumers by bleeding them for everything they have for no visible benefit from doing so.

[Lamadia]

I can tell a story too? My grandmother grew up through the Second World War & in the era prior to that. Her father was a financier, worked in London, from New York- a wealthy, capable family. She worked very hard at school, and, despite it being all-girls, where the idea of staying at home was reinforced, she went on to Oxford University, where she attained degrees in politics, in law, and in social sciences. After studying even more, attaining what today would be seen as a PhD, my grandmother went on, with the support of my grandfather, to attain a position in NATO, at a senior level- one of the first women to do so, in the 1970s. Reaching the very top of the NATO command, working with Prime Ministers & Presidents, she stood as an advisor on warfare, in particular in Bosnia & Africa, for the United Nations, before writing several books on politics & international relations, and sitting as an advisor for the UN until the late 1990s.
A very hardworking, very intelligent woman, I am proud to say. To suggest that my family has not worked hard is an insult. I am sure your grandfather would be ashamed, knowing his good name was being implicated in a post at the same time as an insult, and I think that you really ought to apologise, and withdraw the statement.

I'm sure she did work hard. I am also quite sure that if she had not been born into wealth it would not have happened to her. You need to get it into your head that it's not as easy as making something of yourself; only the brightest can do so, and with the rising cost of living it's getting harder. For the people at the top of the pile, there's always nepotism and scrounging. At the bottom, there's nothing, except a life of working your arse off for a pittance while miles away some executive gambles your job on a risky investment. People deserve better. The so called "free" market won't give it to them, so the government will. That's the legacy of Attlee and Blair, which the Tories are cheerfully tearing down.

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

[Souseiseki]

a person from the slums is someone from the bottom. a person from a wealthy family is not someone from the bottom. please be more careful in using the term "from the bottom".

I didn't?

"But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, "

maybe you just really messed up this sentence?

[Imperializt Russia]

I'm sure she did work hard. I am also quite sure that if she had not been born into wealth it would not have happened to her. You need to get it into your head that it's not as easy as making something of yourself; only the brightest can do so, and with the rising cost of living it's getting harder. For the people at the top of the pile, there's always nepotism and scrounging. At the bottom, there's nothing, except a life of working your arse off for a pittance while miles away some executive gambles your job on a risky investment. People deserve better. The so called "free" market won't give it to them, so the government will. That's the legacy of Attlee and Blair, which the Tories are cheerfully tearing down.

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

No.

This is the toxic logic of the American Dream and it has no place on our shores.

[Souseiseki]

I'm sure she did work hard. I am also quite sure that if she had not been born into wealth it would not have happened to her. You need to get it into your head that it's not as easy as making something of yourself; only the brightest can do so, and with the rising cost of living it's getting harder. For the people at the top of the pile, there's always nepotism and scrounging. At the bottom, there's nothing, except a life of working your arse off for a pittance while miles away some executive gambles your job on a risky investment. People deserve better. The so called "free" market won't give it to them, so the government will. That's the legacy of Attlee and Blair, which the Tories are cheerfully tearing down.

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

not everyone can become anything they want, no. and that's not only because there are by definition a very limited number of such positions in the first place.

one of the scariest things you will learn in your life is that sometimes your best isn't good enough and you life will be controlled by circumstances completely outside your control

[Lamadia]

I didn't?

"But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, "

maybe you just really messed up this sentence?

Read it again. I said that to assume that my parents didn't work their way from the bottom is a very ambitious guess. Rather, he wasn't to know that they hadn't worked their way up from the slums. They might have, for all he knew.

[Imperializt Russia]

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

not everyone can become anything they want, no. and that's not only because there are by definition a very limited number of such positions in the first place.

one of the scariest things you will learn in your life is that sometimes your best isn't good enough and you life will be controlled by circumstances completely outside your control

Welcome to my last fourteen months.

Though I can't really talk since "my best not being good enough" is still well ahead of most and I can probably do well for myself off it.
But it's broken me.

[Imperializt Russia]

"But to make such assumptions about my life, to assume that my parents did not work their way from the bottom just because they didn't, "

maybe you just really messed up this sentence?

Read it again. I said that to assume that my parents didn't work their way from the bottom is a very ambitious guess. Rather, he wasn't to know that they hadn't worked their way up from the slums. They might have, for all he knew.

The balance of probabilities reasonably suggests they really haven't.

[Valaran]

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

I believe that one of the points of Philjia's story is how rare it is that this happens. His entire post was about how this sort of result an exception, not the rule, which is a different point than you were making with your family's story. One person achieving this not proof - an African American became president, but does this mean that all African Americans can become president if they really want to? Clearly not. Factors are stacked against people from the start, many of which they cannot overcome through desire or force of will, and the whole ethos behind 'equality of opportunity' is to reduce these factors.

What is worse than not having a meritocracy is the illusion of having one. It makes the rich believe they got there through their skill and hard work, and consequently that they deserve to be there. Moreover, it implies that the poor thus didn't work hard enough, and so deserve to be at the bottom. It thus distorts perceptions about the true state of things, and in turn leads to ignoring the barriers to climbing the ladder as 'people didn't work hard enough', or 'people didn't want it hard enough'. Your posts saying that anyone can rise up, equates to a variant (I'm assuming a milder version of this) of this belief. And if I had to pinpoint a reason why Philjia, or Souseiseki, or IR consider your posts on this specific matter to be out of touch, I'd say it comes from this illusion. You've never had to work your way up with everything stacked against you, and nor have I, so how can we assume its that possible? How do you know it be so? Is it national indicators? Anecdotal evidence? Friend x?

[Lamadia]

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

I believe that one of the points of Philjia's story is how rare it is that this happens. His entire post was about how this sort of result an exception, not the rule, which is a different point than you were making with your family's story. One person achieving this not proof - an African American became president, but does this mean that all African Americans can become president if they really want to? Clearly not. Factors are stacked against people from the start, many of which they cannot overcome through desire or force of will, and the whole ethos behind 'equality of opportunity' is to reduce these factors.

What is worse than not having a meritocracy is the illusion of having one. It makes the rich believe they got there through their skill and hard work, and consequently that they deserve to be there. Moreover, it implies that the poor thus didn't work hard enough, and so deserve to be at the bottom. It thus distorts perceptions about the true state of things, and in turn leads to ignoring the barriers to climbing the ladder as 'people didn't work hard enough', or 'people didn't want it hard enough'. Your posts saying that anyone can rise up, equates to a variant (I'm assuming a milder version of this) of this belief. And if I had to pinpoint a reason why Philjia, or Souseiseki, or IR consider your posts on this specific matter to be out of touch, I'd say it comes from this illusion. You've never had to work your way up with everything stacked against you, and nor have I, so how can we assume its that possible? How do you know it be so? Is it national indicators? Anecdotal evidence? Friend x?

There have been US Presidents, Prime Ministers, countless business people, if you just type it into Google, who have made it up from the bottom to the top, even decades ago. It is possible- that is the point of capitalism.

[Imperializt Russia]

Anybody can become one of those executives if they really want to. Surely your grandfather proved that?

I believe that one of the points of Philjia's story is how rare it is that this happens. His entire post was about how this sort of result an exception, not the rule, which is a different point than you were making with your family's story. One person achieving this not proof - an African American became president, but does this mean that all African Americans can become president if they really want to? Clearly not. Factors are stacked against people from the start, many of which they cannot overcome through desire or force of will, and the whole ethos behind 'equality of opportunity' is to reduce these factors.

What is worse than not having a meritocracy is the illusion of having one. It makes the rich believe they got there through their skill and hard work, and consequently that they deserve to be there. Moreover, it implies that the poor thus didn't work hard enough, and so deserve to be at the bottom. It thus distorts perceptions about the true state of things, and in turn leads to ignoring the barriers to climbing the ladder as 'people didn't work hard enough', or 'people didn't want it hard enough'. Your posts saying that anyone can rise up, equates to a variant (I'm assuming a milder version of this) of this belief. And if I had to pinpoint a reason why Philjia, or Souseiseki, or IR consider your posts on this specific matter to be out of touch, I'd say it comes from this illusion. You've never had to work your way up with everything stacked against you, and nor have I, so how can we assume its that possible? How do you know it be so? Is it national indicators? Anecdotal evidence? Friend x?

Well done, you've accidentally summed up neoliberalism.

[Imperializt Russia]

I believe that one of the points of Philjia's story is how rare it is that this happens. His entire post was about how this sort of result an exception, not the rule, which is a different point than you were making with your family's story. One person achieving this not proof - an African American became president, but does this mean that all African Americans can become president if they really want to? Clearly not. Factors are stacked against people from the start, many of which they cannot overcome through desire or force of will, and the whole ethos behind 'equality of opportunity' is to reduce these factors.

What is worse than not having a meritocracy is the illusion of having one. It makes the rich believe they got there through their skill and hard work, and consequently that they deserve to be there. Moreover, it implies that the poor thus didn't work hard enough, and so deserve to be at the bottom. It thus distorts perceptions about the true state of things, and in turn leads to ignoring the barriers to climbing the ladder as 'people didn't work hard enough', or 'people didn't want it hard enough'. Your posts saying that anyone can rise up, equates to a variant (I'm assuming a milder version of this) of this belief. And if I had to pinpoint a reason why Philjia, or Souseiseki, or IR consider your posts on this specific matter to be out of touch, I'd say it comes from this illusion. You've never had to work your way up with everything stacked against you, and nor have I, so how can we assume its that possible? How do you know it be so? Is it national indicators? Anecdotal evidence? Friend x?

There have been US Presidents, Prime Ministers, countless business people, if you just type it into Google, who have made it up from the bottom to the top, even decades ago. It is possible- that is the point of capitalism.

A few thousand individuals out of hundreds of millions.
Wow.

You say you're at school, how's your statistics?

[Souseiseki]

it is possible that a few people will beat the odds, this cannot be used to justify the system

[Geilinor]

Well done, you've accidentally summed up neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism or not, there are only a limited number of spots for executives.

[Souseiseki]

i mean, stalin and gorbachev worked their way up from the bottom, but we're not pretending that anyone could become supreme soviet if they just put in some elbow grease

[Eastfield Lodge]

Privatised UK industries mean;
> Little to no burden on the taxpayer provided bailouts are rare and only done when 100% necessary
> To make Britain a player in a global market where nationalised industries do not work unless heavily subsidised & corrupted as seen in China
> Offer new goods & services through increasing competition with other businesses- otherwise, the economy will result like that of the USSR in the late 1980s
> Make a demand for high skilled labour with higher & more generous wages
> Tax revenue from corporations, no matter how small, which can go back into the economy/government spending
> Making the economy seem more attractive to investment, especially from abroad, as it lacks the regulations & control which would make profiteering almost impossible, and would mean that huge taxes would have to be paid to subsidise these industries
> Allow the freedom of enterprise, the press, and guarantee freedoms- if oil is controlled by the state, then why shouldn't the newspapers?
> Allow a range of services/products, at different prices (this is where rail has failed,) rather than just one for all
> Make this country matter, rather than just being a shrinking, nationalised economy with little to no investment, huge taxes & an inability to compete, by making us an important asset on the world stage- if their money is going through us, then we cannot fight

An example is cars. Cars would not have been able to be affordable manufactured as time progressed, as seen with Rover; the privatisation of car industries means advertising industries can advertise these cars, means that factory services can be used to make them, means that franchises can be set up to sell them, cleaning services to clean them, technology companies to add little bits to them... Car companies need investors, need stockholders. If taxes stop these investors from being able to invest, if too many regulations stop them from being able to manufacture without adhering to thousands of expensive laws, then the entire system breaks down, eradicating the cycle which employs millions.


I, and other libertarians, care about the country as well as profit, contrary to what the left think. We believe that the best way to secure economic growth, as seen in the United States, in particular throughout the 20th Century, is to sustain as little taxes as possible to increase investment, increase free enterprise, and allow people the space to make money, so they can reduce unemployment, offer a range of competitive products & generate huge incomes a small part of which goes back into the system. It has worked. The US, Japan, Britain... some of the richest countries in the world, through traditional hard-working capitalism. Quite simply, country comes before profit, but it is wonderful when they can be mixed.

Do you really think that companies and businesses will care about worker's rights and quality of life instead of their bottom line in a full blown libertarian economy? Because there are no worker's rights, no minimum wages, nothing that will directly help the common worker. The company owner has little incentive to reduce the company's profits in favour of the workers.

And for something like natural monopolies, what incentive does the company have to reduce its prices for consumers - there's no competition, they can do whatever the hell they want to maximize their profit. The government cannot intervene.

How would you feel having to run massive debts paying for expensive cancer treatment for yourself or a loved one? Because there is no government spending on healthcare in a purist libertarian economy.

[Valaran]

There have been US Presidents, Prime Ministers, countless business people, if you just type it into Google, who have made it up from the bottom to the top, even decades ago. It is possible- that is the point of capitalism.

This is a scattering of historic examples; its not representative of today across a broader format whatsoever. And to take this narrow examples, we have tussles between Old Etonians to succeed an old Etonian PM in the UK, with a political dynasty in the US battling a person who was given a 'minor loan'.

The ideal of capitalism is hardly the same as its reality.

Moreover, is this what makes you believe its possible - that >40 US presidents and >20 UK PM's have done so, both across a 200+ year span. Does such a tiny sampling across such a large time period that provide the incontrovertible evidence of meritocracy to you?