[DISCUSSION] The Politics Thread

Cameron's speech was almost totally devoid any real substance. Fine if you like that sort of thing but it doesn't rock my boat. Enough rhetoric, more policy please.

The only Cameron policy of which I know is his “tax cuts for married couples without children”. I don’t know much more than that, but I take it that excludes unmarried couples, as well as parents who need it most.

Apart from that, Cameron is just a male Thatcher.

I hate the man. Hate his policies, hate his party. But he's a really good public speaker. His speech earlier was quite entertaining, even if the balcony line made me . His Blair-isms are really obvious though. He even does the half circle neck thing.

Personally, I've never been totally comfortable with Cameron's brand of conservatism. He always strikes me very much as a One Nation Conservative, rather than someone who actually believes in maintaining and progressing with the reforms of Thatcherism. His social and traditional conservative beliefs are also less clear, while he rightly advocates tax breaks for married couples he never speaks of fox hunting and would rather avoid any serious debate on europe.

I'd honestly like to see a Conservative party that was committed to rolling back a great deal of Labour's legislation over the past decade, especially the minimum wage, and then press on with a Thatcherite agenda rather than continuing with the New Labour approach.

Midtown wrote:I'd honestly like to see a Conservative party that was committed to rolling back a great deal of Labour's legislation over the past decade, especially the minimum wage, and then press on with a Thatcherite agenda rather than continuing with the New Labour approach.

I agree with this. As you're aware I can't see him presenting any proposals regarding the minimum wage to an electorate that doesn't understand basic economic theory before an election is called.

It can get frustrating when people fail to understand or acknowledge non-populist political philiosophy; notably very important issues regarding the links between social and economic freedom.

Labour's created a bloated state with a mountain of unnecessary tax and red-tape, and as you say I'd like to see a lot of it rolled back. A lot of its welfare policies are absurd. I don't think Labour understands the contradiction it creates when it talks about "fairness" and "welfare" and how this contradicts with basic principles of social freedom. It's time we had a serious debate about this, rather than deriding anyone who talks about cutting public spending or welfare as "a typically cruel right-winger."

Right now however we've got two converging parties with many similar views and another useless fly buzzing around and making a fuss every now and then. Shame really.

I think we should actually have people who know how the ecomony works running the economy you know those with PHDs and things not some guys guess work.

SC wrote:It can get frustrating when people fail to understand or acknowledge non-populist political philiosophy; notably very important issues regarding the links between social and economic freedom.

Like it or not, populism is an intrinsic part of human society, open or not. To deny something like that is to delude yourself. And yes, there may be links between sociological and economical freedoms, but for all intents and purposes they should be considered equally, as well as considering the concepts of both positive and negative liberty. For instance, supplying tax cuts to businesses might be able to lower prices in trade before somehow trickling down to the consumers, but society isn’t wholly dependent on business, as a matter of fact business is merely a small subset of society. So economic freedom won’t have as big an effect on social freedom as you might think.

The frustrating part is that there are two distinct groups of people – we’ll call them “liberals” and “conservatives” or “left-wing” and “right-wing”, but it’s more complicated than that – who both believe they are right. There’s very little chance for consolidation, so debate is difficult. Most likely, you’ll end up with emotive responses from both sides, because this sort of stuff runs deep with people.

Midtown wrote:I'd honestly like to see a Conservative party that was committed to rolling back a great deal of Labour's legislation over the past decade, especially the minimum wage, and then press on with a Thatcherite agenda rather than continuing with the New Labour approach.

What exactly is wrong with the minimum wage? Aside from being too low, that is.

The value of labour is best determined by the market, not by the state.

It also makes for a major unemployment problem, especially during a recession as we will soon find out. The minimum wage basically says that all of those whose labour is not worth the valuation of the state are unemployable. It's most certainly preferable to be employed on slightly lower wages than not to be employed at all.

A higher minimum wage as you propose would cause all manner of inflationary problems as well as rising unemployment. While a low minimum wage can also keep wages artificially low, creating a state approved system of wage fixing, eliminating wage competition between employers.

But having no minimum wage allows employers to be complete gooseberry fools and pay people who need the minimum wage a pittance.

Do you also hate unions?

M. Thatcher financial programmes give me a boner.

Midtown wrote:The value of labour is best determined by the market, not by the state.

It also makes for a major unemployment problem, especially during a recession as we will soon find out. The minimum wage basically says that all of those whose labour is not worth the valuation of the state are unemployable. It's most certainly preferable to be employed on slightly lower wages than not to be employed at all.

A higher minimum wage as you propose would cause all manner of inflationary problems as well as rising unemployment. While a low minimum wage can also keep wages artificially low, creating a state approved system of wage fixing, eliminating wage competition between employers.

So basically want the poor to be more poor? And labour values are best determined by the market? Dear god.

Alvin Flummux wrote:But having no minimum wage allows employers to be complete gooseberry fools and pay people who need the minimum wage a pittance.

Do you also hate unions?

Amusingly I both approve of the minimum wage and utterly despise the unions. Moustachioed backward fools.

I'm all for unions. They are more often than not the only institutions that stick up for the worker.

It is amazing, however, just how weak most modern unions are.

captain red dog wrote:I'm all for unions. They are more often than not the only institutions that stick up for the worker.

It is amazing, however, just how weak most modern unions are.

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I'm all for the idea of unions. However, for me, they suffer the same crippling flaw as Communism - namely that the idea's brilliant but human nature inevitably strawberry floats it up. Unions don't only stand up for the poor and for fairness. They also campaign for stupidly unrealistic wage deals, rabble-rouse and sow seeds of discontent without reason, and whenever there's a gathering of them together, the moustachioed "Ey up" nature of them reminds me of the worst Working Men's Clubs. Unions need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Lest we forget, it's the Unions that completely strawberry floated everything up for the economy in the late 70s.

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm all for unions. They are more often than not the only institutions that stick up for the worker.

It is amazing, however, just how weak most modern unions are.

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I'm all for the idea of unions. However, for me, they suffer the same crippling flaw as Communism - namely that the idea's brilliant but human nature inevitably strawberry floats it up. Unions don't only stand up for the poor and for fairness. They also campaign for stupidly unrealistic wage deals, rabble-rouse and sow seeds of discontent without reason, and whenever there's a gathering of them together, the moustachioed "Ey up" nature of them reminds me of the worst Working Men's Clubs. Unions need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Lest we forget, it's the Unions that completely strawberry floated everything up for the economy in the late 70s.

Christ, I can't believe I'm actually nodding my head in agreement with a Tory. It's true though, Unions can completely and utterly strawberry float things up.

I know alot of people who used to work at Rover and reminisce about the 'good old days', when they'd down tools if the biscuits in the canteen weren't up to scratch.

Commander Jameson wrote:

Midtown wrote:The value of labour is best determined by the market, not by the state.

It also makes for a major unemployment problem, especially during a recession as we will soon find out. The minimum wage basically says that all of those whose labour is not worth the valuation of the state are unemployable. It's most certainly preferable to be employed on slightly lower wages than not to be employed at all.

A higher minimum wage as you propose would cause all manner of inflationary problems as well as rising unemployment. While a low minimum wage can also keep wages artificially low, creating a state approved system of wage fixing, eliminating wage competition between employers.

So basically want the poor to be more poor? And labour values are best determined by the market? Dear god.

Read my argument.

The poor and those with few skills don't benefit from the minimum wage, it only serves to increase unemployment, reduce wage competition and can even lead to inflation.

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm all for unions. They are more often than not the only institutions that stick up for the worker.

It is amazing, however, just how weak most modern unions are.

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I'm all for the idea of unions. However, for me, they suffer the same crippling flaw as Communism - namely that the idea's brilliant but human nature inevitably strawberry floats it up. Unions don't only stand up for the poor and for fairness. Some also campaign for stupidly unrealistic wage deals, rabble-rouse and sow seeds of discontent without reason, and whenever there's a gathering of them together, the moustachioed "Ey up" nature of them reminds me of the worst Working Men's Clubs. Unions need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Lest we forget, it's some Unions that completely strawberry floated everything up for the economy in the late 70s.

The only union I think needs a bit of a kicking today is the RMT. Bob Crow is a prat, sure rail staff are not well paid, but the actions of his union have turned public sympathy away from them.

The italicised section is something I take some exception to - a very outdated view indeed. Maybe its the fact that I've only really seen Unison and the teaching unions making big statements recently - but I certainly wouldn't characterise them as middle-aged northern men with ludicrous requests. In fact, it is probably this kind of view which makes people less willing to join other unions and slows down modernisation.

Most unions have modernised to some extent but I know what you mean. The very hardcore seem to go for the unrealistic pay deals, and they tend to be in traditionally lower class, male working environments.

Certainly my union has extremely limited powers when it comes to pay deals and changes to working conditions and there is no way we could get away with some of the stuff you hear about.

new*allusion wrote:

Eighthours wrote:

captain red dog wrote:I'm all for unions. They are more often than not the only institutions that stick up for the worker.

It is amazing, however, just how weak most modern unions are.

Just to clarify my earlier comments, I'm all for the idea of unions. However, for me, they suffer the same crippling flaw as Communism - namely that the idea's brilliant but human nature inevitably strawberry floats it up. Unions don't only stand up for the poor and for fairness. Some also campaign for stupidly unrealistic wage deals, rabble-rouse and sow seeds of discontent without reason, and whenever there's a gathering of them together, the moustachioed "Ey up" nature of them reminds me of the worst Working Men's Clubs. Unions need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, into the 21st century. Lest we forget, it's some Unions that completely strawberry floated everything up for the economy in the late 70s.

The only union I think needs a bit of a kicking today is the RMT. Bob Crow is a prat, sure rail staff are not well paid, but the actions of his union have turned public sympathy away from them.

The italicised section is something I take some exception to - a very outdated view indeed. Maybe its the fact that I've only really seen Unison and the teaching unions making big statements recently - but I certainly wouldn't characterise them as middle-aged northern men with ludicrous requests. In fact, it is probably this kind of view which makes people less willing to join other unions and slows down modernisation.

That was me exaggerating for effect, to be fair.

It's not wholly without merit, though - modern day presentation is partly about who you get to show up for the media interviews, and too often the unions pansy up some rosy-cheeked fat man with ravioli down his shirt who has an impenetrably thick Scottish accent. Who then rants about something completely ridiculous.

The teaching unions are pretty good. Probably because they're made up of teachers!

at Drunken Master's biscuits story.