The Politics Thread

[Prufrock]

More weapons to protect a democracy? Ask yourself, why, if we have such a utopia, do we feel the need to spread it with such terrible means?

Whilst that's a very reasonable point, i just cant get over the question, "whats the fecking point?"

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Back to the Damian Green stuff.... may I commend the first 20 minutes of last week's episode of one of my favourite programmes, 'This Week'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 4_12_2008/

Fellow Fitzwilliam College man David Starkey puts things into their historical context and laments the state of our 'broken' constitution.

[Prufrock]

Back to the Damian Green stuff.... may I commend the first 20 minutes of last week's episode of one of my favourite programmes, 'This Week'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... 4_12_2008/

Fellow Fitzwilliam College man David Starkey puts things into their historical context and laments the state of our 'broken' constitution.

I would watch it except i can't coz its on bloody bloody iplayer and the tecchies have failed me.

Any chance of a synopsis?

[Lord Kangana]

Whilst agreeing with the sentiment, I'd like to add that we are subjects, not citizens.

And love the fact you've picked an episode with Mark steel (who ironically f*ckin hates Starkey)

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

And love the fact you've picked an episode with Mark steel (who ironically f*ckin hates Starkey)

Oh well, I doubt DS minds awfully - Mark Steel proves himself to be a scrote with absolutely no insight whatsoever...

[Lord Kangana]

In your opinion I'd suggest, or do you want me to start on Starkey and The Bell Curve?

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

In your opinion I'd suggest,

I don't see how my words could ever be interpreted as anything else.

or do you want me to start on Starkey and The Bell Curve?

Go for it. I suspect Mark Steel has never even heard of the Bell Curve.

[Lord Kangana]

Because he didn't go to Cambridge? How wonderfully enlightened of you.

But as it happens David Starkey quoted The Bell Curve, the same book that most of the right has disassociated with for it being too right-wing(a little like 1930's eugenics basically), to show inequality wasn't necessarily a bad thing. All the education and big words in the world can't hide biggotry.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Because he didn't go to Cambridge? How wonderfully enlightened of you.

Make it up as you go along, why don't you?

But as it happens David Starkey quoted The Bell Curve, the same book that most of the right has disassociated with for it being too right-wing(a little like 1930's eugenics basically), to show inequality wasn't necessarily a bad thing. All the education and big words in the world can't hide biggotry.

What was the quote?

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[Worthy4England]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

Perhaps. No, ok, definitely.

But if there were some take-it-or-leave-it action that would increase the wealth and living standards of the bottom 50% society by a factor of 10, and the top 50% by a factor of 20, surely everyone should vote for it, regardless of any increase in inequality?

[Prufrock]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

Perhaps. No, ok, definitely.

But if there were some take-it-or-leave-it action that would increase the wealth and living standards of the bottom 50% society by a factor of 10, and the top 50% by a factor of 20, surely everyone should vote for it, regardless of any increase in inequality?

Like what? That's a daft question, if you asked me whether or not i would kiss Elisha Cuthbert, but it meant everyone else got a blowjob, I'd probably fall over at that point coz I'd be too drunk.

Secondly wealth is relative, if the top 50% got 20% richer prices would go up leaving the bottom 50% poorer in real terms.

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I see the point you are making, but such a situation doesnt exist, and if it did it would be the governments job to use this extra windfall to help close that gap.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

Perhaps. No, ok, definitely.

But if there were some take-it-or-leave-it action that would increase the wealth and living standards of the bottom 50% society by a factor of 10, and the top 50% by a factor of 20, surely everyone should vote for it, regardless of any increase in inequality?

Like what? That's a daft question, if you asked me whether or not i would kiss Elisha Cuthbert, but it meant everyone else got a blowjob, I'd probably fall over at that point coz I'd be too drunk.

Secondly wealth is relative, if the top 50% got 20% richer prices would go up leaving the bottom 50% poorer in real terms.

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I see the point you are making, but such a situation doesnt exist, and if it did it would be the governments job to use this extra windfall to help close that gap.

I deliberately said 'living standards' to get round your point about prices.

Anyway, taxing the rich is not on the table for debate in this hypothetical question as to whether inequality is necessarily a bad thing. Everyone stays the same, or gets better off in the way I have described. Take it or leave it.

[Worthy4England]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

Perhaps. No, ok, definitely.

But if there were some take-it-or-leave-it action that would increase the wealth and living standards of the bottom 50% society by a factor of 10, and the top 50% by a factor of 20, surely everyone should vote for it, regardless of any increase in inequality?

I suspect not, as increasing the top 50% by a factor of 20 is likely to drive up the medium to long term cost of living at a rate greater than the 10 that the bottom 50% have managed to get an increase on.

Inequality isn't always just about money anyhow and it's a difficult thing to get rid of, so I suspect it's always going to be with us, but enabling more equality of opportunity should be a goal. I suspect many people in the "bottom 50%" would rather the means to improve their wealth and living standards by a factor of 10 off their own bat, should a means be found that could accomplish this.

[Worthy4England]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

[Lord Kangana]

Because he didn't go to Cambridge? How wonderfully enlightened of you.

Make it up as you go along, why don't you?

Just making the kind of huge presumptions you are.

[Prufrock]

Anyway, inequality isn't necessarily a bad thing.

One's view on this, is often tempered by which side of the inequality one sits...

Perhaps. No, ok, definitely.

But if there were some take-it-or-leave-it action that would increase the wealth and living standards of the bottom 50% society by a factor of 10, and the top 50% by a factor of 20, surely everyone should vote for it, regardless of any increase in inequality?

Like what? That's a daft question, if you asked me whether or not i would kiss Elisha Cuthbert, but it meant everyone else got a blowjob, I'd probably fall over at that point coz I'd be too drunk.

Secondly wealth is relative, if the top 50% got 20% richer prices would go up leaving the bottom 50% poorer in real terms.

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I see the point you are making, but such a situation doesnt exist, and if it did it would be the governments job to use this extra windfall to help close that gap.

I deliberately said 'living standards' to get round your point about prices.

Anyway, taxing the rich is not on the table for debate in this hypothetical question as to whether inequality is necessarily a bad thing. Everyone stays the same, or gets better off in the way I have described. Take it or leave it.

To be fair you also said wealth.

In that case then obviously take it but that doesnt prove inequality isn't bad, only that stuff getting better is good. It's also a fantastical scenario.

I have a question, would you rather have me in charge, under a banner of Turkish socialist anarchism, where there is no money, but everyone lives in their own shoe, but is happy, or a world with markets, where everyone is sad, and life has a Phil Collins soundtrack, but tears are made of tea?

Take it or leave it

[Lord Kangana]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

Interestingly a Harvard (maybe Yale, can't remember now) study of American taxation policy found that, contrary to everything we're told, when taxation was higher the richer you were, the only significant difference was that more tax revenue was raised. People didn't flee the country, not do business etc etc etc. Government policy over non-doms and the like has actually driven this. It also points to an in increase in the balance of trade deficit since large tax cuts became the norm.

I'll try to find it again if anyone's that interested.

[Prufrock]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

Crack down on tax havens as tey keep claiming they are going to and sorted! Piece of piss. I win, when do i take over?

[superjohnmcginlay]

If it actually came to that decision then i would use everything in my governments power to make sure that the poor got richer and nearer to equality, and to do that i would tax the rich, as i think thats what a governments job should be.

I think you might find that the "tax the rich" approach doesn't work very well either - been tried before with "super tax" in the 1970's under Labour. Strangely enough all the brainy sods earning plenty had the means to travel abroad to wherever the tax system was more equitable to them - and did.

Interestingly a Harvard (maybe Yale, can't remember now) study of American taxation policy found that, contrary to everything we're told, when taxation was higher the richer you were, the only significant difference was that more tax revenue was raised. People didn't flee the country, not do business etc etc etc. Government policy over non-doms and the like has actually driven this. It also points to an in increase in the balance of trade deficit since large tax cuts became the norm.

I'll try to find it again if anyone's that interested.

Im interested. How does that work?