@Punshhh

Ah, more reading for me.

Here, Johnson seems to be saying that he supports social programs, but that the UK is constrained by the need to compete with countries that have lower taxes:

'I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."

He was the Mayor of London at the time. Is this just rhetoric meant to hide a desire to abandon social programs? Or is the need to compete real?

Having looked deep into Johnson's heart, I'm of the impression he hasn't got one.

One can also factor globalisation into this. — Punshhh

Here, Johnson seems to be saying that he supports social programs, but that the UK is constrained by the need to compete with countries that have lower taxes: — frank

Is a response to Punshhh, but also relevant for @frank, I think. It's a bit of a rant because I can't be bothered sourcing everything I'm saying this time, and the "financialisation of global capital" is something you will find discussed only by the farthest left of journalists in mainstream media and far left alt media.

The financialisation of global capital's my go to bugbear for all this @Punshhh.

When the interests of an economy follow the interests of corporate shareholders, the concrete assets that keep the work being done are less important than shareholder returns. Those people who stand to gain materially from short term increases in corporate shares are overwhelmingly the very richest in society (like, making over £100k per year).

Bojo's wing and their associated media fought really hard during the recent election (2019 December) to discredit the necessity of investment in UK industry and construction, their renationalisation, and repealing the massive spending cuts to social care, social housing and the NHS that have been going on since Blair. Read: investing in creating "low skill" jobs on British soil with fair pay while providing "low skill" workers with highly employable skills in a situation of high unemployment for that demographic, for context in this discussion. They did not support measures that (1) the British public believes will address those issues when polled and (2) have compelling evidence that they would address those issues.

Your quote from Bojo is essentially the same narrative that was used in the 1970's with Thatcher, of whom he (and David Cameron's wing) are big fans; we need to be competitive in international markets, and we can't do that by propping up (allegedly) inefficient nationally owned business and services in the UK.

Bojo's party has implemented massive spending cuts in social programs and healthcare. Our government has overseen massive closures of UK clinics and social care homes (like, for abused kids). They've cut back a lot on the construction of affordable housing. They've made it more difficult for the unemployed to receive state benefits. If you trust their justification, this is because they do not believe that social programs are productive investments in reducing the national deficit.

The role the national deficit plays in UK politics from the conservative party (and the Blairite wing of the Labour party) is to cut public expenditures, Cameron made a famous argument comparing the UK economy to a credit card and the deficit being a negative balance. "We have to cut the things that make us go more negative and increase the things that make us go more positive" - leading to those cuts, and framing investment in the commons insofar as they are nationally owned (healthcare, social care, welfare programs, affordable housing) as bad for this end. It was an argument on the level of framing.

(They've also overseen a gigantic growth of the national deficit over those years...)

They also do things like quietly cut 20,000 nurse positions over the country in a bill, then reinstate 5000, and it gets reported as "5000 new positions for nurses in the NHS!" by Sky News, the Daily Express, the Sun, the Record and the Mirror (giving Bojo's wing supporting news coverage).

Simultaneously. the government has overseen the privatisation of these sectors. The Guardian is one of the few newspapers here that covers this trend. The rest of the newspapers report largely decontextualised information wondering why the NHS' performance metrics like accident and emergency waiting time are getting worse, and fit it in with the immigrant narrative @Chester 's adopted. They do not make the journalistic connection between "hospitals are being closed and nurses layed off" to "the waiting times are going to increase".

This gets put back into the narrative of "inefficient spending" to promote more cuts. It's a very well oiled machine, a symbiosis between major news media, the finance capitalist donors, and our government officials who receive money from those backers (in return for shaping policy!) and get employed in their corporations before/after being in power.

The gain was mentioned a while back...less over paid politicians and less unaccountable commissars getting to decide what the over paid politicians get to vote on. Leaving guarantees nothing except UK politicians get to take the blame or credit for what happens...if they fuck up it's easier to get rid of them because they are elected. — Chester

I asked for answers to the question in terms of long term, in terms of 50 to 100 years. People seems to only think a few years ahead, not civilization as a whole over longer spans. Like the span of peace from when the EU was first formed until modern times. I'm not interested in short term ideas.

The idea that countries getting together to form post-democratic empires is somehow good for the long term is farcical. The idea that the EU has saved Europe from war is farcical..NATO did that...Japan ain't in the EU ...have they been at war since WW2 ?

The point is that no one can forecast the future but we can decide how we get there, like choosing not to go down the post-democratic empire building route for instance. You only have to go back through some posts here to realise that the people who want the EU are overwhelmingly leftists...leftists love authority, big government and all the corruption that comes with it.

Here's something for leftists to consider...there's fuck all difference between big government and big business, that's why they get along so well in China.

And separating from the EU makes it easier for them to continue this trend?

And separating from the EU makes it easier for them to continue this trend? — frank

I don't really know if it will make it easier for them or not. It's a mixed bag I think. The Tories are in the unenviable position of having donors and policy shapers that are firmly globalist, but a good chunk of their voter base are suffering from the effects of globalisation and believe so. The Tories aren't really "anti-globalist", they're doing nothing to stop migrant labour from non-EU countries, and favour outsourcing labour internationally whenever it benefits the bottom line, and they're very happy with the UK's role in international finance.

I think maybe it's a concession of some sort, a misdirection; it's preferable for their policy shapers to blame immigration and the "centralisation of politics" than the alternative; recognizing the catastrophic role the financialisation of global capital has played, and the UK's role in it as launderers for these flows (which Brexit will likely not change). They agree with the EU's overall economic policies and the globalisation of labour markets; they're Thatcherites/Reaganites with anti-immigration rhetoric. I have no idea how this makes sense as a consistent ideology; it probably is not.

think maybe it's a concession of some sort, a misdirection; it's preferable for their policy shapers to blame immigration and the "centalisation of politics" than the alternative; recognizing the catastrophic role the financialisation of global capital has played, and the UK's role in it as launderers for these flows — fdrake

Scapegoating. That's what I was suspecting. Do you know of any resources for info on financialization of global capital?

Financialization (or Financialisation in British English) is a term sometimes used to describe the development of financial capitalism during the period from 1980 to present, in which debt-to-equity ratios increased and financial services accounted for an increasing share of national income relative to other sectors.

Financialization describes an economic process by which exchange is facilitated through the intermediation of financial instruments. Financialization may permit real goods, services, and risks to be readily exchangeable for currency, and thus make it easier for people to rationalize their assets and income flows.

And quoted in the same article,

"only debts grew exponentially, year after year, and they do so inexorably, even when—indeed, especially when—the economy slows down and its companies and people fall below break-even levels. As their debts grow, they siphon off the economic surplus for debt service (...) The problem is that the financial sector's receipts are not turned into fixed capital formation to increase output. They build up increasingly on the opposite side of the balance sheet, as new loans, that is, debts and new claims on society’s output and income.

[Companies] are not able to invest in new physical capital equipment or buildings because they are obliged to use their operating revenue to pay their bankers and bondholders, as well as junk-bond holders. This is what I mean when I say that the economy is becoming financialized. Its aim is not to provide tangible capital formation or rising living standards, but to generate interest, financial fees for underwriting mergers and acquisitions, and capital gains that accrue mainly to insiders, headed by upper management and large financial institutions. The upshot is that the traditional business cycle has been overshadowed by a secular increase in debt. Instead of labor earning more, hourly earnings have declined in real terms. There has been a drop in net disposable income after paying taxes and withholding "forced saving" for social Security and medical insurance, pension-fund contributions and–most serious of all–debt service on credit cards, bank loans, mortgage loans, student loans, auto loans, home insurance premiums, life insurance, private medical insurance and other FIRE-sector charges. ... This diverts spending away from goods and services.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financialization

It is a house of cards and when the house falls ordinary workers and tax payers have to pick up the tab, as in 2008.

I have a slightly different take to fdrake on what the Conservative party is up to. It is only a minority of the party who are true Brexiters. But from 2015 when they won the election with a majority they have taken advantage of the Anti EU sentiment whipped up by the populists, as a mechanism to save the party from electoral oblivion, by piggybacking on the back of the anti EU sentiment in the EU referendum in 2016. Once the referendum delivered a majority for leave the Brexiters in the party went into overdrive and there was no stopping them, because the the more disruption, the bigger the row, the louder they shouted, the more oxygen of publicity they got. This also included the way they described the EU and treated the EU representatives. The more they insulted the EU there more the EU wanted to get rid of them (this is evidenced by how difficult it was for Theresa May to stand up to them in her own party because they were literally rabid. In the end she tried to work with the opposition to reach a majority for the withdrawal bill because that was easier).

This is also the time when the vicious attacks against Corbyn started, the more they could discredit him the better because if he could not beat them in an election they're rabid hard Brexit was assured and the Tory party would be triumphant, having neutralised the Brexit party which was tearing their party apart, which would have let Labour in.( no one in the party or the Brexit party could countenance Labour getting into power, so they would unite)

My reason for why the party was set for electoral oblivion was that following the financial crash of 2008, the Conservative party has gradually begun to nose dive, as the dream of financial and capitalist success which they stand for had failed and they were having to impose stringent austerity on the population. Eventually the population would turn away from this and go with Labour who would turn on the money taps again. This trend can be seen in the demographic, the young who now distrust their capitalist dream and who are saddled with debt and can't buy a house, are overwhelmingly supporting Labour. Whereas the older wealthier voter who owns property has a good pension etc overwhelmingly supports Conservative. Unfortunately the latter don't have time on their hands and the former can see the shambles in front of their eyes.

This rabid hard Brexit kamicaze trajectory we are now on is their last gasp, their last throw of the dice to restore their party relying on a restoration of free market capitalism modelled on the US and propped up directly by the US. Literally a Singapore on Thames.

It's doomed to failure though, especially thanks to Corona.

@StreetlightX linked me this today:



It was fascinating. It puts the globalisation/immigration right narrative alongside the globalisation/finance capital narrative in a much richer context, very similar to the one @Punshhhand I have been talking about. (Also intimately tied up with issues in your recent chats with @Baden and @StreetlightX about neoliberalism).

. It is only a minority of the party who are true Brexiters. — Punshhh

I think you're probably right, I did overstate that.

But from 2015 when they won the election with a majority they have taken advantage of the Anti EU sentiment whipped up by the populists, as a mechanism to save the party from electoral oblivion, by piggybacking on the back of the anti EU sentiment in the EU referendum in 2016. — Punshhh

:up: Agree with that.

My reason for why the party was set for electoral oblivion was that following the financial crash of 2008, the Conservative party has gradually begun to nose dive, as the dream of financial and capitalist success which they stand for had failed and they were having to impose stringent austerity on the population. — Punshhh

I don't think this was a strictly Tory thing, my impression at the time was that faith in politicians and politics itself was being eroded. Labour was losing its heartlands too; Gordon Brown backing the banker bailouts hit really hard, and the recession effects in Scotland were countered in the political imagination by the hope of a better, independent Scotland. So the populist centre-left in Scotland (the SNP), branded themselves as an anti-establishment party and played the same class card as the right populists did in Brexit. While the source and target of the class narrative were different, the symbolic structure was not much different. It was portrayed as scottish working class vs London elites for the Scottish independence referendum, British working class vs Middle class and London elites in Brexit.

This trend can be seen in the demographic, the young who now distrust their capitalist dream and who are saddled with debt and can't buy a house, are overwhelmingly supporting Labour. — Punshhh

I guess I agree with you then, the political context was decided by a reaction to a crisis of capitalism, all the political parties offered more of the same, so populists on left and right filled the vacuum in public confidence (not that this has restored faith in politics in the UK). The thing is, the center really is failing, and it's not all hot air; there's even kernels of truth in what @Chester is saying for crying out loud. It's "socialism or barbarism" on the level of political narrative (though I'm sure if you asked Chester he'd say it's "nationalism or barbarism" and equate "barbarism" with "socialism" in his pie shaped head)..

For ROI per unit time/cognitive effort invested best explanation of "why-we-got-into-bed-with-neoliberalism-and-why-we-need-to-get-the-fuck out-now" I've seen/read/heard. And I'm only half an hour in. :starstruck: :100:

I can't remember if it was in this video or another, but he talks about how the UK basically had almost of the good bits of the EU (open borders, trade standards, etc) without the bad (the monetary union).

I can't remember if it was in this video or another, but he talks about how the UK basically had almost of the good bits of the EU (open borders, trade standards, etc) without the bad (the monetary union).

Yes we had the best of both worlds. But there were still problems, they were internal to the UK though, not due to our membership of the EU. Our failing politicians had repeatedly blamed their failure to act on the EU. The public was happy to lap up this blame game too, following rows with the EU over the cod wars and repeated impatience with dictates like we all have to weigh produce in Kilogrammes now and ditch pounds and ounces for example.

But the real problem behind all of this was not Europe, it was the combination of the effects of globalisation, wealth being taken offshore and massive tax avoidance practices like the double Irish and the effects of financialisation etc.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/double-irish-with-a-dutch-sandwich.asp.

But the real problem behind all of this was not Europe, it was the combination of the effects of globalisation, wealth being taken offshore and massive tax avoidance practices like the double Irish and the effects of financialisation etc. — Punshhh

AKA neoliberal capitalism, but yes :) There's a rather incredible video by - of all people - Maggie Thatcher, where she outlines, almost point by point, the problems a monetary union would cause: transfers of wealth from richer to poorer EU countries, extremist political parties, mass migration, institutional distrust and so on. It's uncannily prescient:



She does end up spouting Hayek's rubbish at the end there, but that's to be expected. I suppose that even having the exceptional status they did, the UK still could not brook the effects that spilled over from the continent, and put to use by the populists to screw the nation further.

I don't think this was a strictly Tory thing, my impression at the time was that faith in politicians and politics itself was being eroded. Labour was losing its heartlands too;

Yes, there is a big issue with Labour losing its heartlands, but not due to the financial crisis specifically. What I was focusing in on was is the way in which the Conservative party has had one of its legs knocked out from under it. By the chaos and capitalist failure of the financial crisis and the measures they then had to implement to balance the books. This was not supposed to happen. The problems of debt amongst the young had already started before the crash, but were compounded by it. This has resulted in many young people in Tory heartlands relying on handouts from their parents to buy their houses, bail them out from their student debt, while they are not getting those well paid jobs they were expecting, well enough that is to maintain a nice house and family with a couple of labradors in the Tory heartlands. Not nearly enough, and this is the touchstone of a healthy Tory ideal.

The Conservative party is limping along and having to present a brave face to hold on to its credibility.

This thread cheers me up , it confirms what I have always suspected, that the EU is a leftist project (judging by the fact that you are all, without exception , leftists). The good news is that it also confirms my belief that leftist pseudo intellectuals are so busy navel gazing that they do not see that their empire is collapsing from the inside...a growing number of citizens over whom it has power no longer want it...if they ever did.

Ok, I can go with the idea that the EU is in a sense a socialist project. Which justifies why you would want to leave the EU. So what is the alternative, something to the right of the moderate Conservatives?

'I'm a one-nation Tory. There is a duty on the part of the rich to the poor and to the needy, but you are not going to help people express that duty and satisfy it if you punish them fiscally so viciously that they leave this city and this country. I want London to be a competitive, dynamic place to come to work."

He was the Mayor of London at the time. Is this just rhetoric meant to hide a desire to abandon social programs? Or is the need to compete real?

Yes as fdrake says they have to minimise the spending on social welfare etc, so they can capitalise everything and compete on the global free market stage. But it's a myth, they can't compete with the Philippines, South Koreans, or Chinese etc etc, because they are basically built on bonded labour with no workers rights, or safety and will always undercut us. The model is broken, hence all this nationalism and protectionism.

Johnson says whatever the audience wants to hear, or what his strategists say fits in with their agenda. You can't take a single word that comes out of his mouth seriously, like Trump.

He has shown a little genuine sentiment after staring Covid19 in the face, but it won't last.

I'm anti big government and big business ...although I accept that some projects require the scale that they offer (a small business couldn't build a Jumbo jet, small government might not be able to push through huge projects like HS2). But if it were down to me I'd give massive incentives to small businesses, lower the tax burden on them and make it easier for them to fire people . On the other hand I'd gradually raise the minimum wage and encourage those that choose not to work to get off their asses by making them do something for their welfare.

I also think that we need to be more self sufficient as a country, grow more of our own food, make more of our own products even if that increases costs. It may mean that we have a bit less, but that would probably do us good.

We also need more housing for those that can't afford to buy, but council housing should also come with rules...ie, regular inspections (as in the past) to make sure you're looking after the place...so many council tenants trash their housing.

Basically I believe in a combination or rights with responsibilities and have a preference for smaller businesses over multi-nationals, a preference for the rights of individuals over groups.

That just gives you an idea of my domestic politics...I'm not getting into writing a treatise.

I agree with your economic outlook but I fail to see how leaving the EU contributed to it or indeed how the Tories will. Tories might be small government but definitely pro big business.

Also, what parts of government should be diminished/abolished? NHS? Public transport? The army? State departments?

a small business couldn't build a Jumbo jet, — Chester

Actually, they definitely could. Just not the number of jets Boeing or Airbus build and not at a similar price point.

I see the EU as part of a process of tying up big politics with big business, it's becoming a form of soft fascism .The EU works against small business by burying them in paperwork and expensive legislation. For instance, imo, much of the health and safety regulation around the construction industry is more about raising costs for small business than the safety of workers. It squeezes the small businesses into a position where they can't price for big jobs they can only bind themselves into low profit ,high risk, sub-contract work. That's why the big construction companies basically run a cartel.

I wouldn't necessarily do away with any part of UK government as it stands, though I'd make sure there are strict rules in place to ensure government does not expand beyond what is necessary...that could include doing away with public funded quangos , doing away with foreign aid unless it is direct humanitarian need.

The thing about the NHS puzzles me. I'm 53 now so I have had the misfortune of watching some of my older relatives die in the care of the NHS...it was not nice. The rest of Europe seems to do fine without it, at least no worse than us.I'm not the sort of person who bangs pots and pans for NHS workers put it that way. As for the armed forces ,it's one area I'd expand. 1) It makes the country safer, 2) it's a great place for young people to train and learn self-discipline... you'd probably find that countries with compulsory services have better over all youth behaviour...Britain can be a bit of a zoo on Saturday night.

I see the EU as part of a process of tying up big politics with big business, it's becoming a form of soft fascism — Chester

I agree with that, except calling it fascism. I guess I don't understand what "big politics" means to you though. Something I really don't understand is why you people on the right think the EU is a leftist project; like, you guys see the EU as socialist; economically they act in the interest of finance capital all over Europe. Letting banks and shareholder interest set your politics is not a left thing.

The idea that countries getting together to form post-democratic empires is somehow good for the long term is farcical. The idea that the EU has saved Europe from war is farcical..NATO did that...Japan ain't in the EU ...have they been at war since WW2 ? — Chester

How do you know that the post-democratic form was an intentional form and not a symptom of bureaucracy? How do you know that only military security through Nato was the single reason and not also that national ideals of being part of a larger group formed less nationalist movements which lowered the ideologies of nationalist empires?

Aren't you assuming your premises correct before a conclusion? I see a lot of ignored possible reasons and moving parts here.

The point is that no one can forecast the future but we can decide how we get there, like choosing not to go down the post-democratic empire building route for instance. — Chester

So you are saying that no one can forecast the future, but you forecast that EU is bad? What about trying to improve the problems with bureaucracy and moving away from post-democracy within EU? You assume that EU equals post-democracy, but I see no link there other than it has the symptoms. The idea of EU is not post-democratic by definition. So why wouldn't improving the coalition that is EU be better than dismantling it or abandoning it? You must first prove that EU is undeniably unable to change to the better before knowing your decision to leave EU to be the right choice.

Otherwise, you are doing just the kind of forecasting of the future that you say is impossible. In light of other options, abandoning the EU project is so far only ideologically based, not based on reasoning and rational thought. I'm not saying leaving isn't a conclusion of rational thought, I'm saying that the induction argument for leaving is so far very ill-supported in evidence outside ideological opinion.

You only have to go back through some posts here to realise that the people who want the EU are overwhelmingly leftists...leftists love authority, big government and all the corruption that comes with it.
Here's something for leftists to consider...there's fuck all difference between big government and big business, that's why they get along so well in China. — Chester

Which you prove about your reasoning by these statements of labeling the other side of the argument.

I'm interested in hearing you put your ideas through philosophical scrutiny, not ideological opinions. We are writing on a philosophical forum after all.

I agree with your comments on small business support. The Tory's have often said that themselves, and they have tried but failed to deliver. Your prejudice comes out here,

On the other hand I'd gradually raise the minimum wage and encourage those that choose not to work to get off their asses by making them do something for their welfare.

You can't come on a site with intelligent people and come out with that kind of nonsense. There may be a handful of people who choose not to work, but they are a tiny minority. What sort of encouragement do you suggest to get them off their arses?

It may mean that we have a bit less, but that would probably do us good

You do realise, I suppose that it will only be the ordinary folk who would have a bit less. You really should have a look at how the other side lives. If you live near Chester, you should be aware of the affluence around there. In the affluent areas in the south they live it up like the French aristocracy or hadn't you noticed?

Are you aware of the extent of the housing crisis? And how it stifles growth, creates social division and widens the wealth gap. Not to mention the rental nightmare a lot of young people have to endure. I suspect Blojo doesn't notice such issues, his sort just pocket the increases in equity to fund those lifestyles I mentioned.

The cult of the individual is not going well either.

Oh and sorry to be a bore, but what does any of this have to do with leaving the EU? Most of what you are proposing has already been adopted and is working very nicely in European countries. It's just this country who can't seem to get it right.

Also there are fundamental systemic problems underlying and causing a lot of these problems which I and fdrake mentioned in our replies to Frank. I won't repeat them here.

Something I really don't understand is why you people on the right think the EU is a leftist project

If you're on the right it's a very steep slope until your head is in the clouds like Rees Mogg. If you're on that slope anything left of Johnson or Cameron is socialism.

It was fascinating. It puts the globalisation/immigration right narrative alongside the globalisation/finance capital narrative in a much richer context, very similar to the one Punshhhand I have been talking about. (Also intimately tied up with issues in your recent chats with @Baden and @StreetlightX about neoliberalism). — fdrake

Awesome. He's written some books I'm going to read.

Punshhhand

Are you talking to the hand? I didn't think I'd tried that approach yet :lol: