The Politics Thread 4

[Vermilion]

That’s unfair, it’s not just Corbyn. There’s also McDonnell and Abbott.

...and that rabble of extremists calling themselves Momentum.

[KK]

If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.

Maybe there’s also been an increase in support from women because of the suffragettes being back in the news, and May gave some good speeches on that.

The anti-semitism hovering over Labour hasn’t helped either.

[Moggy]

If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.

I mostly agree with your points there but the Rees-Mogg thing really does show how anti-Corbyn the press are.

The first punch was one of Mogg’s people hitting a woman. The same guy who seems to enjoy dressing up as an SS officer.

Corbyn/Momentum might be twats, but let’s not pretend Rees-Mogg and his people are poor innocents.

[Regginator3]

I think the thing people forget when talking about taxation is that the only reason they can earn money is because we have a government. The work the government does massively improves all our lives and with out it we'd be back to a barter system. Money only exists because of the government.

I feel like I'm missing something here. I'm not an advocate for getting rid of government - we need one, I think only the most ardent anarchist would claim we literally do not need one - but why if we did would we be back to a barter system? Just because the government introduced it doesn't mean a country would stop being able to use existing money afterwards. There would be a lot of other problems caused, but that would not be one of them. Money doesn't "only exist because of the government". Would companies in the UK suddenly stop deciding to accept the pound as legal tender, and ruin their market reach? No. Would they stop paying their workers in money and letting them die of poverty? No. Would individuals stop deciding to use money and... I dunno, have to choose between growing their own crops or dying of poverty? No. There's no evidence that money in a government-less system wouldn't work. How well it would work, we have no idea, because it's never been tried before. I personally wouldn't like to be part of that experiment, but I doubt the money would be the issue.

Assuming the Bank of England wouldn't exist, we'd actually have a deflationary currency, which has its own problems (such as contracts being incredibly difficult to sort out/resolve since the value would always be going up) but would arguably be better in the system we're in where inflation rates dwarf interest rates meaning people who "save" money in "savings accounts" are literally losing money over time because although the amount of £ they have go up, it's by less than the value decreases.

Are we just ignoring personal allowance?

If some bodies struggling shouldn't the government help them. Also I don't think the the difference between 10 and 20 would be that great when the wages get large enough. Your life style wouldnt change much by having 90k or 80k a year to play with.

Yes, personal allowance is a good thing. I'm glad governments have risen it significantly. The point was more to demonstrate how tax rates can hit someone. Even if someone is earning, let's say, £20k (which is less than I do), even including the personal allowance the amount of tax taken would be, after April this year, 20% of (£20000 - £11500). Which works out at £1700 in tax. For someone on this low wage, if it were 10% (hypothetically) it would be £850. An £850 loss to someone earning that much, when bills, rent, living costs, and other financial costs is actually pretty damn life-style changing because disposable income goes down significantly. You're right that on a high wage, having 90k/80k to play with wouldn't be a big difference, but we get higher tax rates as the wages increase. Any earnings over £45,000 up to £150,000 have a 40% tax rate, and any earnings over that have 45%. So if you're on "£200k a year" salary, you actually end up paying (as of right now):

45% of (200000 - 150000) = £22500
40% of (150000 - 45000) = £42000 +
20% of (45000 - 11500) = £6700

= £71200 in tax, making your "actual" salary around £128800 Still definitely a very good salary, and I would personally be extremely happy with that amount, but the amount taken is significant when you know your work is worth £200k to a company. I don't expect many people to be shedding tears for these people since they're hardly struggling, and I'm certainly not, but I still consider it pretty high.

Or, if we're talking corporation tax, why is anyone who could be considered struggling still running a company?

What do you mean here? As in, if a company is struggling to shouldn't continue, or if a person in charge is struggling, they should be forbidden from running it? If so, why to either if profit is still being made?

If I had to pinpoint one thing in particular I think it was probably those who highjacked Jacob Rees-Mogg’s speech. That type of behaviour never goes down well with the public.

I mostly agree with your points there but the Rees-Mogg thing really does show how anti-Corbyn the press are.

The first punch was one of Mogg’s people hitting a woman. The same guy who seems to enjoy dressing up as an SS officer.

Corbyn/Momentum might be twats, but let’s not pretend Rees-Mogg and his people are poor innocents.

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

[satriales]

Corbyn is a bit useless?

I really think the media has a lot to answer for. Labour have done quite a good job recently at winning votes and forcing u-turns but sometimes those aren't even reported in the papers and I've rarely seen them mentioned on TV.

Corbyn is not like most politicians in that he doesn't dish out personal attacks. For some that is a good thing, for others it looks like he's useless. They focus on policy and it just isn't 'exciting' enough to make the news.

[Regginator3]

That’s unfair, it’s not just Corbyn. There’s also McDonnell and Abbott.

...and that rabble of extremists calling themselves Momentum.

And it's not just "useless", though, it's "toxic".

[Moggy]

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

[Regginator3]

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.

[Moggy]

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.

They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

[Regginator3]

They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

In masked balaclavas. Mogg then went over to them to try and politely engage in debate with them. Rather than actually try and talk to him when he made the effort of actually going up to them and trying to engage in respectful discussion, they yelled stuff like "GET OFF OUR CAMPUS" and "YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE" and "FASCIST SCUM" while getting closer and closer to him. If that's not intimidation trying to stop his speech, I have no idea what is. I'd consider that violence, absolutely.

The guy came up later.

[Moggy]

They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

In masked balaclavas. Mogg then went over to them to try and politely engage in debate with them. Rather than actually try and talk to him when he made the effort of actually going up to them and trying to engage in respectful discussion, they yelled stuff like "GET OFF OUR CAMPUS" and "YOU'RE NOT WELCOME HERE" and "FASCIST SCUM" while getting closer and closer to him. If that's not intimidation trying to stop his speech, I have no idea what is. I'd consider that violence, absolutely.

The guy came up later.

Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

[KK]

Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.

2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'

[Regginator3]

Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

"Speaking out of turn" and intimidation are two wholly separate things.

[Dual]

#humblebrag

[Moggy]

Sounds like Mogg needs a safe space to stop the plebs speaking out of turn.

"Speaking out of turn" and intimidation are two wholly separate things.

And yet Rees-Mogg himself wasn’t too bothered. He thought masks were a little sinister but said the protest itself was perfectly legitimate.

Edit: And the woman that was hit during the first physical violence wasn’t wearing a mask.

[Regginator3]

Two articles on The Guardian website today that stand out to me.

1, just the general hypocrisy of this article, "Vogue criticised for unpaid internships", which the paper decided to lead on for the pysical paper: https://www.theguardian.com/fashion/201 ... nternships

Vogue has been criticised for using unpaid interns in month-long placements despite the new editor Edward Enninful’s commitment to increasing diversity at the fashion journal.

The work is unpaid, but those taking up the post are reimbursed for travel expenses of up to £80 a week.

Tanya de Grunwald of Graduate Fog, a campaigner for fair internships, said she had reported Vogue to HM Revenue and Customs, which monitors payment of the national minimum wage. She said the workplace shadowing roles may amount to the duties of a “worker”, an official employment classification. Under employment legislation, anyone who is acting as a worker must be paid at least the national minimum wage.

Meanwhile The Guardian are doing the exact same thing with unpaid internship, and in 2017 was offering unpaid ethnic minority and editorial work internships. Maybe they should lead on their own crappy practices first.

Completely agreed, The Guardian is a rag.

2, an example of just how epically out of touch some of their readers are: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... r-mariella

Will my girlfriend stop loving me if I earn less than her?

At 34, I’ve paid off my mortgage and have a couple of years’ salary in savings. I’ve recently been promoted, but am working very long hours, don’t have much time in the evenings and spend my weekends worrying about the work. I’m not sleeping well and partly due to Crohn’s disease have lost weight. I earn £46,000, which is far more than I ever expected (or feel I deserve) to earn. My girlfriend of almost a year is 33 and the love of my life, and I hope we will have a baby in around three years’ time. I’ve been offered a public sector job with a wonderful work-life balance but reduced salary (£36,000) and had decided to take this and spend the next three or so years doing all the things I/we want to before having children, as well as improving my health. During a conversation about this potential change, my girlfriend told me that she earns £45,000. I am not in the slightest bit chauvinistic about earning more than her, but need to feel that the choice I’m making is not selfish. I worry about not contributing enough and riding on her coattails. Changing to a lower-paying job might suggest I am lacking ambition and also have a negative impact on our relationship.

'I own my own house, I have no mortgage, I'll be on £36,000 a year, I've got almost £100,000 in the bank, and we're on £81,000 a year. For God Sakes Help Me!'

I feel like this is a little unfair, though. Whilst they may be fine financially, the question as to whether it would impact their relationship is a legitimate one.

[Hypes]

The first punch being Mogg's cronies doesn't really mean much, though. He may have instigated the first punch but it was clear from the offset that peace was not on Momentum's agenda. Waiting for someone to be provoked enough to get away with it as a "retaliation" is arguably worse. And even if it wasn't, no-platforming is a hideous thing to try and do.

We have no idea if Momentum planned violence, the violence was from Rees-Mogg’s people.

No platforming wasn’t an issue here, Rees-Mogg was given a platform, but that doesn’t mean he can’t be heckled. Or should he have a “safe space”?

I’m no fan of Corbyn or Momentum, but the faults are rarely on one side.

If Momentum didn't plan violence, why did they engage in it before even the "first punch" was thrown? The guy who started it claims it was because they were getting to the point they looked like they were about to harm Mogg. The others claim it isn't true. All we know is two sides were being violent. I think who was the first to hit someone else may be a point of interest but it doesn't change the fact that Momentum were there to non-peacefully no-platform someone. Violence doesn't just mean hitting people, it also means intimidating people and ganging up on someone and invading their personal space. Threatening is violence. The video makes it clear that was exactly what they were doing to Mogg.

They were at the back of the room shouting and heckling. Mogg’s man went over to them. Things got heated. Mogg’s man punched a woman.

Neither side are great.

Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative

[Regginator3]

Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative

What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"

[Lex-Man]

I think the thing people forget when talking about taxation is that the only reason they can earn money is because we have a government. The work the government does massively improves all our lives and with out it we'd be back to a barter system. Money only exists because of the government.

I feel like I'm missing something here. I'm not an advocate for getting rid of government - we need one, I think only the most ardent anarchist would claim we literally do not need one - but why if we did would we be back to a barter system? Just because the government introduced it doesn't mean a country would stop being able to use existing money afterwards. There would be a lot of other problems caused, but that would not be one of them. Money doesn't "only exist because of the government". Would companies in the UK suddenly stop deciding to accept the pound as legal tender, and ruin their market reach? No. Would they stop paying their workers in money and letting them die of poverty? No. Would individuals stop deciding to use money and... I dunno, have to choose between growing their own crops or dying of poverty? No. There's no evidence that money in a government-less system wouldn't work. How well it would work, we have no idea, because it's never been tried before. I personally wouldn't like to be part of that experiment, but I doubt the money would be the issue.

Assuming the Bank of England wouldn't exist, we'd actually have a deflationary currency, which has its own problems (such as contracts being incredibly difficult to sort out/resolve since the value would always be going up) but would arguably be better in the system we're in where inflation rates dwarf interest rates meaning people who "save" money in "savings accounts" are literally losing money over time because although the amount of £ they have go up, it's by less than the value decreases.

We could have some form of money without a government but it wouldn't be as useful. You could replace it by something like bitcoin or a company backed currency (this use to happen back in the industrial revolution). But these have they're own problems. Also without the existence of some kind of centralised organised system you would never a situation where stuff like bitcoin could be created. If you removed government now people might keep use money for a bit but the system that maintains it would be gone and there would be no way ensure its value, or stop counterfeiting. Some organisations such as a multinational might take over the mechanisms for ensuring money stays valuable and usable but at that point that company is the government and will tax you in someway.

[Hypes]

Those people that interrupted Kahn the other day. Forgotten about, probably because Kahn didn't confront them, nor did one of his people punch them. Also it didn't fit the media's narrative

What are you on about? It's hardly forgotten about. It was in the media for quite a while, hit BBC News, Telegraph, Independent, Guardian, Evening Standard - even hit overseas news outlets like the Washington Post. Pretty sure it was top trending on Facebook on the day as well. People don't talk about it right now because it was a month ago and news interest generally has an expiry date. The incident in Bristol Uni was less than a fortnight ago and has received increased attention because the exact same thing happened the other day at Cambridge Union as well.

Nothing to do with "the media's narrative"

What are you on about? It was in the media for a day.
Top trending on Facebook