British Politics Lounge

[Cippenham]

It’s not my imaginary world. I was agreeing with Hayek and his definition of socialism.

[St. Gloede]

Nope, you're lying.

[Cippenham]

I feel grateful to my company I work for for dress down Friday. It has felt strange wearing a full suit and tie working at home all week...

[brokenface]

Keir Starmer wins labour leadership. I think he comes across well and is much more believable as a future PM than Corbyn.

Who knows where politics will be post-Covid, but it'll be nice to have some sort of functioning opposition and scrutiny.

[matthewscott8]

Keir Starmer wins labour leadership. I think he comes across well and is much more believable as a future PM than Corbyn.

Who knows where politics will be post-Covid, but it'll be nice to have some sort of functioning opposition and scrutiny.

The Tory party have turned the UK into a socialist state as a response to corona. Starmer's job is to make sure it's not all jettisoned when COVID ends.

[St. Gloede]

My main worry with Starmer is that he will alienate the Brexit voters, let's hope he truly is more electable than Corbyn (and that Brexit will either not live on in the public consciousness or that views on it have changed due to X consequences, otherwise it will be a really steep battle).

[matthewscott8]

My main worry with Starmer is that he will alienate the Brexit voters, let's hope he truly is more electable than Corbyn (and that Brexit will either not live on in the public consciousness or that views on it have changed due to X consequences, otherwise it will be a really steep battle).

The Brexit thing got so vituperative that none of them will risk losing face by saying it was a bad idea. They'd pursue it to ruin and beggary. The long term arrangements may be done by the next election, in which case it won't be an issue.

[RogerTheMovieManiac88]

I think Lisa Nandy would have been a wonderful choice. She's authentic and astute and from a working-class constituency in Wigan. I feel that she might well have been able to project a clearer contrast between a Labour Party under her stewardship and a Tory Party under Johnson. Keir Starmer is a perfectly respectable and likeable man but I feel that this is a moment of choice and that the more centre-of-the-road option has been chosen.

[St. Gloede]

Keir Starmer wins labour leadership. I think he comes across well and is much more believable as a future PM than Corbyn.

Who knows where politics will be post-Covid, but it'll be nice to have some sort of functioning opposition and scrutiny.

The Tory party have turned the UK into a socialist state as a response to corona. Starmer's job is to make sure it's not all jettisoned when COVID ends.

He also needs to unite the different wings of Labour behind a vision of progressive, positive change - which I believe he can actually do.

If he can, and tells a similar story of how increased collective ownership, power and investments lead to increased opportunities and living standards - they may just have a shot in 2024.

Granted, the Tories swinging away from full-on austerity, in part to grab a hold of Labour voters, and then due to Covid-19 is some solace for the next 4 years.

[St. Gloede]

I think Lisa Nandy would have been a wonderful choice. She's authentic and astute and from a working-class constituency in Wigan. I feel that she might well have been able to project a clearer contrast between a Labour Party under her stewardship and a Tory Party under Johnson. Keir Starmer is a perfectly respectable and likeable man but I feel that this is a moment of choice and that the more centre-of-the-road option has been chosen.

I'm obviously an outsider, but I agree, Nandy really had the potential to gain back all the Tory losses, was tainted by neither Brexit nor Corbyn and is in my opinion a far better and more relatable speaker/advocate than Starmer.

[brokenface]

Nandy will likely get a high profile role now. She might have been good but is more of an unknown.

[Cippenham]

Starmer may as well be Tinkywinky for all the difference he makes.

[Cippenham]

And we know socialism does not work so that is one reason the government needs to get rid of socialism or eventually we need a breakaway nationalist populist movement led by Farage maybe to replace it as the best way to create wealth is to encourage free enterprise and we also need to have high wages so to have limited immigration. To respect our own people and culture. Let freedom reign get rid of state socialism.

[Cippenham]

What will the state socialist government do once other peoples money runs out

[St. Gloede]

Using your deceitful version of Socialism Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, France and most of Europe is Socialist, and is demonstrated to work.

It is also demonstrated to bring more freedom.

How can you claim you are for freedom but oppose essentially everything that brings people more freedom?

And how can you claim that Socialism is demonstrated to fail when by your definition most of the world's successful countries are Socialist?

I know of course that you are a liar, a troll and will not answer any of this honestly, if at all - but figured I should throw it in there. Your dishonesty is very amusing, thank you for entertaining us.

[Cippenham]

My deceitful version is actual socialism . It leads to economic ruin like in Venezuela. Norway has oil money so is immune to an extent

[Cippenham]

Socialism means the government tells you what to do and reduces choice and quality

[Pretentious Hipster]

Venezuela had oil money though?

Care to explain places like cuba then? If you consider the area they live in they are doing a great job even though they have all these handicaps from America. "Well it's poor compared to Europe and America" of course it fucking is but they're doing better than other places there like Puerto Rico and Haiti.

[Cippenham]

Socialism means you have no choice but the government shoddy choice

[Cippenham]

Cuba is terrible shops are empty and its awful

[Pretentious Hipster]

Lol I literally showed you a photo that proves the empty stores myth wrong, and your response was that you posted an article made by the person who took those photos.

[Pretentious Hipster]

Also partially off topic but I'm sure you'll call the nazis socialist soon. Wikipedia says this: But after the Nazis took power, industries were privatized en masse. Several banks, shipyards, railway lines, shipping lines, welfare organizations, and more were privatized. The Nazi government took the stance that enterprises should be in private hands wherever possible

For so called "socialists" they sure were going about it a strange way

[St. Gloede]

My deceitful version is actual socialism . It leads to economic ruin like in Venezuela. Norway has oil money so is immune to an extent

So Norway's collective ownership of oil, and the sovereign wealth fund it created, lead us to be immune from economic ruin?

So, what you are saying is that Socialism makes you immune to ruin.

Why do you not want Socialism again?

Why shouldn't the UK have more stability and strength? Why do you not want a country that is immune from economic ruin?

(Venezuela also had oil and was doing comparatively well for South America for a long time)

ALSO: Sweden, Denmark, etc. does not have Norway's oil money, so stop lying!

[St. Gloede]

Socialism means the government tells you what to do and reduces choice and quality

Pathetic. Stop lying.

[Pretentious Hipster]

When Cipp talks about capitalism, he means stuff like perfect competition. That I am fine with tbh. Small businesses that have to think creatively to stand out from the competition. The real world of capitalism doesn't work like that. Monopolies DO HAPPEN. In America, 100 million people only have one ISP to choose from. They are free to do whatever the fuck they want, and the customers can't do anything about it. Verizon once apparently slowed down the speeds of Netflix's servers until they gave in and paid the money that Verizon wanted.

The worst part about these monopolies is that they are ONLY motivated by money. I mean hell, Lenin argued that imperialism happens because it's a way for monopolies to expand because the resources and costs to mess with other countries is quite cheap.

There must either be 2 things. Create a competition act that stops monopolies from happening, or significantly raise taxes on the biggest corporations. Of course, both will be brushed off as communist bullshit, as apparently raising taxes for corporations means small businesses will suffer, which is so idiotic because it obviously just means the highest brackets get affected.

The other option is public ownership. If a monopoly is unavoidable, shouldn't it have the interests of the people rather than the profits? That is what makes me think about anarcho-syndicalism too. The companies will be run by the workers instead as an added bonus.

This is why I like what Cuba does for elections. It's the perfect competition model. They are given the same amount of money so none of them have any unfair advantages.

[St. Gloede]

If it is just about "Competition" why wouldn't he want collectively owned companies competing as well?

He also opposes co-determination, share-dilution, etc. measures/laws that give workers more agency and ownership - not the government.

His claim is that any country that invests in the economy (to a larger extent) and/or regulates the economy is SOCIALIST (and proven to fail), but of course, he supports universal healthcare, the government funding museums and other institutions, etc. so I have no clue where he draws the line. With May, Boris, etc. all being Socialists it is really, really hard to say.

(In terms of actual economic socialism, it would refer to an economic system where companies are predominantly owned by the workers, i.e. coops, associations, etc. or by the people, such as a publicly owned company - though we can of course have mixed models like Norway, Denmark or even, to an extent, the UK)

(Re: Small capitalist businesses - This is a pretty big split between more moderate Democratic Socialists, Liberal Socialists, etc. and further left Socialists who oppose employment, believing it to be a form of indentured servitude which should be abolished - at which point you would be left with coops, associations, collectively owned companies and individual enterprises).

[Cippenham]

I only tell the truth but SG does not like it

[Cippenham]

There are a myriad of different interpretations that much is true.

[Cippenham]

Yes for me it is about the degree of government intervention and ownership

[St. Gloede]

So deceitful. Sad.

[Cippenham]

So no point just denying the truth so no point arguing any more.

[Cippenham]

To stop monopolies you need a strong monopolies commission, this is legitimate intervention, the likes of these monopolies could and should be broken up.

[Cippenham]

As I said before Peter Hitchens thinks the shutdown of Britain is a Pointless folly as he here explains. I do not necessarily agree but it’s an interesting point of view.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... night.html

[St. Gloede]

So no point just denying the truth so no point arguing any more.

I'm glad you acknowledge this, but why do you keep doing it?

Why do you always lie?

Is it just for your own amusement?

[Pretentious Hipster]

To stop monopolies you need a strong monopolies commission, this is legitimate intervention, the likes of these monopolies could and should be broken up.

So you actually want the government to meddle in the affairs of businesses?

[Cippenham]

Yes of course. By the way the new Labour leader other white middle aged middle class private educated man, out of touch so completely with working people who voted conservatives in the last election. It is a pity we do not have a conservative government that would abolish comprehensive schools, bring back grammar schools, reform the NHS to match the German system, reintroduce the death penalty, have strict drug control policies, make abortion les easy . To reverse the whole Blair liberal Marxism and to reverse the Wilson government liberal agenda. Of course I know none of this is going to happen. There is a complete sell out by the so called conservatives to the ideology of the left.

[Cippenham]

I always tell the truth but the truth hurts like comprehensive education has dummed down our schools and so only private educated people are suitable to be leaders such as in the Labour Party for example. Working people who are bright have much less opportunities than before as a result.

[Cippenham]

By the way once this virus is over those of you highly educated with scientific and maths degrees and higher level degrees From outside the EU will find it easier to Come to Britain with our new immigration points system, I have no problems with that.

[Cippenham]

Presumably Starmer will call for a rerun of the Labour election, with the Nandy option ruled out.

[Pretentious Hipster]

Positive effects of decriminalizing drugs in Portugal as opposed to having a strict drug control policy.





People tried drugs once when decriminalized, because obviously, but the overall rate vastly decreases after. You can tell by the last chart too that it was most likely weed the drug that they were trying as opposed to the hard drugs.

What about what the right loves? The cost for taxpayers?

https://torontosun.com/2014/03/18/feder ... 4f95e69fc4

How much does it cost to send them to rehab if they wanna go? Take the WORST case scenario here. The cost that Rob Ford said:

https://business.financialpost.com/pers ... y-damaging

If you look at the other costs here. They say in a mansion it costs $88,500 a month. With most of them ranking from $20,000-$32,000. Even if they repeat rehab they still save a lot of taxpayer money.