Politics

[ewerk 26827]

[Meenzer 14136]

This is quite the read: http://www.bleedingheartland.com/2016/06/16/throwback-thursday-best-and-worst-1996-russian-presidential-election-ads/

[Sonatine 10144]

[PaddockLad 14911]

 

Sadly no job stateside for niggsy, instead he's going to a the new James Whale..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38517624

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284]

 

Sadly no job stateside for niggsy, instead he's going to a the new James Whale..

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-38517624

 

Can we get the Japanese to harpoon the cunt?

[ewerk 26827]

I’ll be here all week. Try the veal

[Kevin Carr's Gloves 3284]

I’ll be here all week. Try the veal

 

 

That's a shame.

[ewerk 26827]

[Rayvin 4970]

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/11/29/world/americas/western-liberal-democracy.html?_r=2

 

Belief that it is absolutely imperative to live in a democracy is falling rapidly amongst younger people. In the 1930s it was around 70%. It's now at about 25%.

 

Not that politics, our system, or our parties are failing or anything.

 

1 in 6 Americans are now happy with the idea of living under military rule...! Compared to 1 in 16 about 20 years ago.

Edited January 9, 2017 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26827]

So trust in the military has increased nearly threefold in that time? Wonderful progress for which we should all be very proud.

[Alex 30802]

Kids today, eh?

[Rayvin 4970]

The military rule one is surprising tbf. But I think the issue here is that (looking at Britain) you have people on the 'Remain' side who now think democracy is a waste of time as it doesn't offer solutions in the best interests of the people (I sympathise with this but tbf, I thought this about democracy even before the referendum), and Brexiters who think democracy is constantly being perverted by elites and special interests. Which is also a view I can sympathise with. Basically, trust in the centreground is failing/has failed.

 

We also have stable authoritarian states in play whose people do not appear to be subjected to widespread suffering (as far as we can easily see) such as China.

 

I would caveat all of this by adding, for consistency, that I think we're in a sham of a democracy anyway

[ewerk 26827]

 

Mad bantz but still no real position on EU rather than not being 'wed to' the idea of free movement of labour.

[ewerk 26827]

 

Jeremy Corbyn says he would like to see a maximum cap on the amount people can earn.

 

The Labour leader said he thought introducing the limit would be "the fairer thing to do".

 

Mr Corbyn said he was "not wedded to a figure" but told BBC Radio 4's Today programme: "Let's look at it."

 

 

Looks like Corbyn isn't keen on being wedded to anything.

[Rayvin 4970]

There you go:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

 

Believes we can be better off out, wants single market and immigration controls (I know, impossible, but the Tories are saying the same sorts of things), wants economic restructuring so that employing migrants simply isn't as advantageous as employing Brits.

 

All sorts of Labour people BTL on the Guardian are up in arms about it, people talking about defections to the Lib Dems and so on.

[Rayvin 4970]

Looks like Corbyn isn't keen on being wedded to anything.

 

I'm conflicted about this policy depending on where they set the line

 

The problem I suppose is that it stifles innovation and entrepreneurship. People might simply look at the maximum cap and decide that it isn't worth it and take some manner of easier route through life (The Gemmill way). That said, I can see the need for something. I'd suggest that the cap is relative based on the average earnings of employees throughout the company. CEO pay can't be more than 50% (for instance) higher than the average salary level within the organisation. Thus, they're incentivised to pay people well and make the company work for all employees.

[ewerk 26827]

 I'd suggest that the cap is relative based on the average earnings of employees throughout the company. CEO pay can't be more than 50% (for instance) higher than the average salary level within the organisation. Thus, they're incentivised to pay people well and make the company work for all employees.

 

 

You wouldn't get a CEO worth their salt prepared to work under those sort of conditions. 500% higher would be closer to a realistic figure.

[Rayvin 4970]

You wouldn't get a CEO worth their salt prepared to work under those sort of conditions. 500% higher would be closer to a realistic figure.

 

It was just a hypothetical figure The main point still stands - I think it'd be a good way of ensuring everyone benefits from the company's success.

[ewerk 26827]

There you go:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jan/09/jeremy-corbyn-uk-is-better-off-out-of-eu-with-managed-migration

 

Believes we can be better off out, wants single market and immigration controls (I know, impossible, but the Tories are saying the same sorts of things), wants economic restructuring so that employing migrants simply isn't as advantageous as employing Brits.

 

All sorts of Labour people BTL on the Guardian are up in arms about it, people talking about defections to the Lib Dems and so on.

 

So he wants tariff free access to the single market but wants the ability to reject freedom of movement and also to undercut European rivals by providing state aid to targeted industries? This is the same sort of idiocy coming from the pro-Brexit Tories.

[Rayvin 4970]

So he wants tariff free access to the single market but wants the ability to reject freedom of movement and also to undercut European rivals by providing state aid to targeted industries? This is the same sort of idiocy coming from the pro-Brexit Tories.

 

Which is what I said tbf. The only difference is that with his plans for low paid workers, his version might actually have legs. If he can make hiring British people simply more appealing than hiring immigrants, then the market will reject the aspects of freedom of movement that people are actually concerned about - low paid workers. No, I don't know how he would do this - but I don't think the Brexit Tories have come up with anything approaching that as an explanation of how the same goal might be achieved.

 

His position seems to be that we need freedom of movement at a middle class level to ensure that vital public services (the NHS) are maintained, but that it needs to be stopped at a working class level. He didn't use those terms but I'm just calling it for what it is.

Edited January 10, 2017 by Rayvin

[ewerk 26827]

It was just a hypothetical figure The main point still stands - I think it'd be a good way of ensuring everyone benefits from the company's success.

 

No it does not stand, it's balderdash and piffle. If you want to lose our best business leaders to other countries then that's how you do it. We'd inevitably see the fall of capitalism in the UK but that's exact what you wanted all along, isn't it?

[ewerk 26827]

Which is what I said tbf. The only difference is that with his plans for low paid workers, his version might actually have legs. If he can make hiring British people simply more appealing than hiring immigrants, then the market will reject the aspects of freedom of movement that people are actually concerned about - low paid workers. No, I don't know how he would do this - but I don't think the Brexit Tories have come up with anything approaching that as an explanation of how the same goal might be achieved.

 

His position seems to be that we need freedom of movement at a middle class level to ensure that vital public services (the NHS) are maintained, but that it needs to be stopped at a working class level. He didn't use those terms but I'm just calling it for what it is.

 

Why does it need to be stopped at a working class level?

[Rayvin 4970]

No it does not stand, it's balderdash and piffle. If you want to lose our best business leaders to other countries then that's how you do it. We'd inevitably see the fall of capitalism in the UK but that's exact what you wanted all along, isn't it?

 

 

You can't be serious. Are you just arguing for the sake of it or do you really think that it is sustainable to have earning gaps as high as what we're seeing? What I've suggested here doesn't even cap anyone's earnings, it just ensures that pay is more equitably distributed through the company.

 

Also, most CEOs, the vast majority I would suggest, aren't great. If they up sticks it's no great loss, they can be replaced. They get replaced all the time anyway in the merry-go-round of directorships.

 

Lose our best business leaders to other countries Like fuck would we, that's the same sort of nonsense as 'the banks will all leave if we hold them accountable!!!' Bollocks.

[Andrew 4277]

Genuine question, what problem does an upper earnings cap solve?

[Rayvin 4970]

Why does it need to be stopped at a working class level?

 

His points appears to be that the damage being done by immigration is occurring at a working class level - i.e. low paid jobs are going to immigrants rather than the working classes. If this can be stopped, the majority's reason for supporting an exit from the EU is terminated; however, we do rely on immigrants for higher skilled work that we can't source within the UK as it stands, so he has identified that the influx of these people would need to be maintained.