The Dictatorship of the Etonariat

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • John Locke

    Originally posted by teamsaint View Post
    And of course, they - the liberal Democrats - were very keen on having a first referendum not so long ago.
    I was not sure about the facts here. In 2008 they called for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and in 2010 manifesto the referendum was only for "the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU" (such as the Lisbon Treaty). In other words an in-out referendum should be called whenever an important constitutional change was proposed which alteredthepresentrelationship, which seems fair enough. Other countries do the same.

    However, checking on this information I see there is at least one Labour MP who would prefer coalition with the Brexit Party to coalition with the Liberal Democrats, simply on the grounds that they want to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum. She herself voted against a second referendum. Democracy is what I mean it to be.

    Comment

    • Richard Barrett
      Guest
      • Jan 2016
      • 6259

      Originally posted by John Locke View Post
      Democracy is what I mean it to be.
      Indeed this is something that should always be borne in mind when politicians are claiming to uphold it or criticising their opponents for betraying it. Behind it is often an assumption that it's good and right that people should vote according to what they imagine will best serve their own interests. This is surely questionable, since the most vulnerable people in society - the very young and very old, disabled people, asylum seekers and so on - are likely not to form a majority of voters. It seems to me that there was in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere too) a turning point in the 1980s towards a political ideology that held that voting completely selfishly was actually ok, and that this is one of the factors which enabled the ruling class to roll back many of the social-democratic reforms which had been instituted since 1945. (This is what puts Thatcher and Keith Joseph and their gang on a whole different level of ideological thinking and achievement from pale imitations like Blair and incompetents like Cameron/May/Johnson.) Which goes to show that democracy on its own shouldn't be held up as a gold standard for political systems. How is it to be coupled with a politics of empathy so that people might start voting for what's best for everyone? That's surely a more important issue for "democracy" than most of the discourse one comes across. Clearly it goes against the interests of the ruling class, hence the constant attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.

      Comment

      • Conchis
        Banned
        • Jun 2014
        • 2396

        Originally posted by John Locke View Post
        I was not sure about the facts here. In 2008 they called for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and in 2010 manifesto the referendum was only for "the next time a British government signs up for fundamental change in the relationship between the UK and the EU" (such as the Lisbon Treaty). In other words an in-out referendum should be called whenever an important constitutional change was proposed which alteredthepresentrelationship, which seems fair enough. Other countries do the same.

        However, checking on this information I see there is at least one Labour MP who would prefer coalition with the Brexit Party to coalition with the Liberal Democrats, simply on the grounds that they want to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum. She herself voted against a second referendum. Democracy is what I mean it to be.
        That Labour MP will not be standing for re-election. With the exception of the egregious Skinner, Labour has been purged of hard line quitters.

        Comment

        • eighthobstruction
          Full Member
          • Nov 2010
          • 6444

          ....while the serious entertainment of many actions by many politicans and Establishment figures +media have pulled the Enlish language and clear meaning like a piece of chewing gum [which i have enjoyed] Our unwritten (sic) constitution must now be written....but even from there it would be a long stretch to believe that 101 lawyers will not be eyeing as to interpretation and misinterpretation....but first on the list for whoevers Queens Speech should be Fixed term Parl Act and Prorogation of Parliament (without the need to dip back into the C18th to feed it)....
          bong ching

          Comment

          • Dave2002
            Full Member
            • Dec 2010
            • 18025

            Originally posted by John Locke View Post
            Democracy is what I mean it to be.
            A bit like “Brexit is Brexit”

            Comment

            • Dave2002
              Full Member
              • Dec 2010
              • 18025

              Originally posted by eighthobstruction View Post
              ....Our unwritten (sic) constitution must now be written....
              Why? It’s not possible to encapsulate some/all complex systems in a complex system of rules without problems, ambiguity, contradictions. Gödel knew that!

              Comment

              • MrGongGong
                Full Member
                • Nov 2010
                • 18357

                Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                Indeed this is something that should always be borne in mind when politicians are claiming to uphold it or criticising their opponents for betraying it. Behind it is often an assumption that it's good and right that people should vote according to what they imagine will best serve their own interests. This is surely questionable, since the most vulnerable people in society - the very young and very old, disabled people, asylum seekers and so on - are likely not to form a majority of voters. It seems to me that there was in the UK (and no doubt elsewhere too) a turning point in the 1980s towards a political ideology that held that voting completely selfishly was actually ok, and that this is one of the factors which enabled the ruling class to roll back many of the social-democratic reforms which had been instituted since 1945. (This is what puts Thatcher and Keith Joseph and their gang on a whole different level of ideological thinking and achievement from pale imitations like Blair and incompetents like Cameron/May/Johnson.) Which goes to show that democracy on its own shouldn't be held up as a gold standard for political systems. How is it to be coupled with a politics of empathy so that people might start voting for what's best for everyone? That's surely a more important issue for "democracy" than most of the discourse one comes across. Clearly it goes against the interests of the ruling class, hence the constant attacks on Jeremy Corbyn.
                True
                But the Labour party are as much part of the "vote for me and I will make things better for you" mindset as the Tories.
                Very few in politics have the balls to say, "vote for me and I will put your taxes up to pay for better living conditions and provision for the most vulnerable" ....which is sad IMV

                as i've banged on endlessly before... Fetishising "democracy" is very dangerous

                Comment

                • MrGongGong
                  Full Member
                  • Nov 2010
                  • 18357

                  Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
                  Why? It’s not possible to encapsulate some/all complex systems in a complex system of rules without problems, ambiguity, contradictions. Gödel knew that!
                  Is it complex or complicated ?

                  (asking for a friend)

                  Comment

                  • Dave2002
                    Full Member
                    • Dec 2010
                    • 18025

                    Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post
                    Is it complex or complicated ?

                    (asking for a friend)
                    Probably both. Look up Gödel's theorem. You might also find an anecdote about Gödel applying for US citizenship, and discussing this with Einstein. Einstein allegedly advised him to keep quiet about his views on the American constitution, possibly following a comment from an official about dictators that "that can't happen here"!

                    Comment

                    • Richard Barrett
                      Guest
                      • Jan 2016
                      • 6259

                      Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post
                      the Labour party are as much part of the "vote for me and I will make things better for you" mindset as the Tories.
                      Very few in politics have the balls to say, "vote for me and I will put your taxes up to pay for better living conditions and provision for the most vulnerable"
                      Posted last week in the exciting website Tax Journal - Expert insight for tax professionals:

                      If the Labour party comes to power, the rates of income tax will increase to 45% for income over £80,000 and 50% over £123,000. Companies would pay a levy for any staff earning over £330,000. CGT will increase at least to 18% basic rate and 28% higher rate. Inheritance tax will be replaced by a lifetime gift tax at income tax rates on any gifts over £125,000. Landowners will be taxed more heavily while tenants will be better off. Corporation tax will be 26%. Large companies would need to transfer up to 10% of their shares to a fund for their employees and the nation.

                      That seems to fit your bill rather well.

                      Comment

                      • Richard Barrett
                        Guest
                        • Jan 2016
                        • 6259

                        Originally posted by Dave2002 View Post
                        Gödel knew that!
                        Indeed so. And look at the US constitution and how to name one obvious example the 2nd Amendment is interpreted to mean whatever the NRA thinks it should mean, while the 25th isn't invoked even when it's transparently obvious that it ought to be!

                        Comment

                        • MrGongGong
                          Full Member
                          • Nov 2010
                          • 18357

                          Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                          Posted last week in the exciting website Tax Journal - Expert insight for tax professionals:

                          If the Labour party comes to power, the rates of income tax will increase to 45% for income over £80,000 and 50% over £123,000. Companies would pay a levy for any staff earning over £330,000. CGT will increase at least to 18% basic rate and 28% higher rate. Inheritance tax will be replaced by a lifetime gift tax at income tax rates on any gifts over £125,000. Landowners will be taxed more heavily while tenants will be better off. Corporation tax will be 26%. Large companies would need to transfer up to 10% of their shares to a fund for their employees and the nation.

                          That seems to fit your bill rather well.

                          I think you might have perfectly illustrated why a Labour government is unlikely

                          Comment

                          • ahinton
                            Full Member
                            • Nov 2010
                            • 16123

                            Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                            Indeed this is something that should always be borne in mind when politicians are claiming to uphold it or criticising their opponents for betraying it. Behind it is often an assumption that it's good and right that people should vote according to what they imagine will best serve their own interests. This is surely questionable, since the most vulnerable people in society - the very young and very old, disabled people, asylum seekers and so on - are likely not to form a majority of voters.
                            The way that UK's going right now, they might, taken together come to form such a majority (well, maybe not quite, but...)

                            Comment

                            • ahinton
                              Full Member
                              • Nov 2010
                              • 16123

                              Originally posted by Richard Barrett View Post
                              Posted last week in the exciting website Tax Journal - Expert insight for tax professionals:

                              If the Labour party comes to power, the rates of income tax will increase to 45% for income over £80,000 and 50% over £123,000. Companies would pay a levy for any staff earning over £330,000. CGT will increase at least to 18% basic rate and 28% higher rate. Inheritance tax will be replaced by a lifetime gift tax at income tax rates on any gifts over £125,000. Landowners will be taxed more heavily while tenants will be better off. Corporation tax will be 26%. Large companies would need to transfer up to 10% of their shares to a fund for their employees and the nation.
                              Much more than that and Labour might risk tacitly promising to bankrupt UK altogether; I doubt that such a set of taxation policies is likely to attract voters who mightn't otherwise vote Labour...

                              Comment

                              • Serial_Apologist
                                Full Member
                                • Dec 2010
                                • 37707

                                Originally posted by MrGongGong View Post
                                I think you might have perfectly illustrated why a Labour government is unlikely
                                So, you don't want it both ways, then?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X