• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Rorschach said:
I think its funny people think getting a deal over the line is the end of brexit. That's the start of 10 fudging years of this exact same brick or worse. Austerity for a generation. Haggling over every inch gained. The end of the UK and what's left effectively ripped in two through division. Madness.
Click to expand...
Only if the government is in a parliamentary minority.

After an election, the sound money is on a reasonable Conservative majority. That means that any deadlines in future will have to be met.
 
Last edited:
scaramanga said:
Whoever plans to steal the least of my money.
Click to expand...

That could actually be the Lib Dems?

With Boris now borrowing and spending billions more per year, then reneging on the promised income tax reduction, is it so clear who would save/cost you more money? Are Conservatives in their current guise the party of lower tax? Boris (or Domenic Cummings) spending has to be paid for somehow. As a higher rate taxpayer that will be disproportionately on you!
 
Last edited:
P.D. said:
Who is everyone planning to vote for out of interest?
Click to expand...

Are traditional party lines blurred now? Personally I could make a case for voting for any of 4 parties.

  • Green - why not? We are heating up our planet and we're rich enough to do more about it. Greens would.
  • Lib Dems - you may have noticed I don't think brexit offers the UK anything positive. But I have a prejudice against them for be liberals.
  • Labour - I like the idea of shaking up our society. Of bringing back state utilities into public ownership. However, I would want these utilities run like private companies and simply pay back profits into the public purse. The issue with 'communism' is the government starts to put their oar in, and turn efficient companies into compromised state-run jokes. Costly and inefficient is sadly the way a lot of publicly owned companies were. I also like the premise of focusing on the social, and communities, not just profit.
  • Tory - we all have predisposed prejudices. Most carry the political stance of our parents and youth. In an emotive way, I don't think I could vote Conservative. But lower taxes, and a party which supports business would be in my interests (but do they anymore!?). I also quite like Cummings and Boris' superficial premise. They are prepared to shake tings up. The massive problem is they don’t have detailed plans and ability to deliver. It's all guff and no meat. Brexit is such a retrograde step. While Boris doesn't care either way - whether we have brexit or not - he is only in power because of it. So Brexit is his master. He is controlled by it, and by keeping the Brexit party suppressed. Not a good place to be.
How about you?
 
Last edited:
Wages as a share of GDP have been plummeting throughout western capitalist economies for decades, hence my comment. All GDP measures is how much business is raking in, when the important measure should be, where is this 'growth' going?
 
Last edited:
Ha, ha the Tories really are masters at getting ordinary Britons to vote against their own economic interests. There is no lie to big, no exaggeration too great, no smear too low, and no scare too outrageous! But still the plebs fall into line. How Rees Mogg and The Albino Clown must chuckle over their G and T's
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Wages as a share of GDP have been plummeting throughout western capitalist economies for decades, hence my comment. All GDP measures iis how much business is raking in, when the important measure should be, where is this 'growth' going?
Click to expand...
You still haven't explained why that should matter.
 
GDP is a very poor measurement of what's actually important to people. As part of its totting up, GDP agregates the sum of all human suffering in a country. More pollution, crime, obesity, mental illness, all directly or indirectly contribute to the GDP figure. The country with the highest per capita GDP also leads in inequality and social problems. Past time we came up with something new.
 
I guess people read too much into GDP. It is what it is - not a measure of happiness or health - a measure of economic activity, that is all. It's hugely simplistic, but it does measure economic activity and give indications of how wealthy a nation is. So you can compare Morocco's GDP with any other nation etc.

Can it be used to measure how people live? Equality? Satisfaction? Of course not. @Rorschach any suggestions that could allow us to measure more subtle human metrics?
 
SpurMeUp said:
I guess people read too much into GDP. It is what it is - not a measure of happiness or health - a measure of economic activity, that is all. It's hugely simplistic, but it does measure economic activity and give indications of how wealthy a nation is. So you can compare Morocco's GDP with any other nation etc.

Can it be used to measure how people live? Equality? Satisfaction? Of course not. @Rorschach any suggestions that could allow us to measure more subtle human metrics?
Click to expand...
Well there are a few out there already but I can't comment a whole lot on how well they are viewed. The Genuine Progress Indicator (GPI) and Index of Sustainable Economic Welfare (ISEW) are two. Whatever takes hold in place of GDP, which is only about 80 years old itself, will not find easy adoption. We've all been brainwashed into assuming growth and measuring a country's production equates to quality of life.

We will need to step away from the production and consumption model (@Gutter Boy will be glad to hear I espouse this view too) into something more sustainable before we're all dead. Kate Raworth's book is on my list and on the face of it it sounds like a good model to adopt.
 
Gilzeantoscore said:
Because it is a better indicator of how ordinary people are faring, that's why! GDP doesn't take into account of which groups are actually benefiting from growth.
Click to expand...
It's really not.

If a person is earning £9 per hour today and the wage proportion of GDP is 50%, are they better or worse off if tomorrow they earn £15 per hour and the wage proportion of GDP is 30%?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back