The Next UK PM everybody... - Page 29 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
#15036271
Presvias wrote:More of Johnson's bizarre and hilarious speech about Prometheus and fennel...
Image

Classic Boris! :lol:
#15036272
@Presvias, I am from the UK. I have socialist opinions but I am fed up with people thinking there is something wrong with spending to your means. Cameron was a fucking idiot and got a lot wrong. But at least he sorted out the 2008 finanical mess. But sure, argue that there is no need to make surplus, but please don't insult your obvious intelligence by thinking a deficit is better.
#15036273
Beren wrote:Help me see the point in the Prometheus thing, please. It's like his liver represents Brexit always stolen by an eagle (Germany-Merkel-EU?), however, Prometheus wasn't supposed to deliver a liver, was he? He was simply punished that way. :?:


You're overthinking it mate.

Boris isn't making a very detailed analogy, he's evoking a laugh and some classical imagery to give his bamboozlement and buffoonery an air of culture, grace and sophistication.

Just think of him running through the halls of Eton drunk and holding a big stick going woo.
#15036275
Presvias wrote:A point that you eminently did not get: the Tories expressly wish to create a surplus; they said so. All they care about is money as everyone knows..


The UK debt/GDP ratio is around 87%. To get that down to more sustainable levels you need a surplus to pay some of the debt.

Moreover, during times of economic growth it's expedient to reduce debt because that gives you the necessary reserves for stimulating the economy when you go into an economic downturn. The next recession will always come. When you enter a recession with excessive debt, you are screwed.

The UK needs a constant inflow of investment to compensate for the double deficit (budget and trade). As the BoE chief said: "the UK lives by the kindness of strangers". If Corbyn were to increase debt, that would make debt repayment more expensive and/or drive investors away, which would tank the economy.

The financial markets are a limiting factor on national politics far more than the EU would ever be.
#15036276
Presvias wrote:You're overthinking it mate.

I may be overthinking it because I'm a big fan of great analogies. This was a bad one though, I wonder if he meant to combine, or rather confuse, Prometheus with Sisyphus. :lol:
#15036279
Atlantis wrote:The UK debt/GDP ratio is around 87%. To get that down to more sustainable levels you need a surplus to pay some of the debt.

Moreover, during times of economic growth it's expedient to reduce debt because that gives you the necessary reserves for stimulating the economy when you go into an economic downturn. The next recession will always come. When you enter a recession with excessive debt, you are screwed.

The UK needs a constant inflow of investment to compensate for the double deficit (budget and trade). As the BoE chief said: "the UK lives by the kindness of strangers". If Corbyn were to increase debt, that would make debt repayment more expensive and/or drive investors away, which would tank the economy.

The financial markets are a limiting factor on national politics far more than the EU would ever be.


The Stability & Growth Pact allows for a 3% deficit and a 60% debt.

I'd say that's sensible, but 75% seems a little bit fairer.

There is absolutely no point in being fiscally disciplined if people suffer for it. And people already are suffering a lot..

And it often costs the country more money to cut things. You're looking at things in a one sided way.

When you improve education (= skilled workers), recycle more money into the economy, improve the health service ( = healthier workers) and all the other stuff (the trains running on time would improve people commuting on time for example), it all has a large knock on effect.

You'd maximise your credit lines if you needed to urgently fix a broken country, obviously within appropriate limits, but now is not the time to impose further austerity on people in this country.

Maybe you're unfamiliar with the UN ruling on the serial inequality in this country.

So while I'd like to see 60% debt and a surplus, it's not possible with the state of the country at the moment. The govt should aim to reduce spending very slowly by making efficiency savings.

By the way, this would yield an interesting result:

presents the results of a simulation conducted by students at ESCP Europe Business School. The aim was to uncover the amount of interlinked debt between Portugal, Ireland, Italy, Greece, Spain, Britain, France, and Germany; and then see what would happen if they attempted to cross cancel obligations.

The results were astounding:

The countries can reduce their total debt by 64% through cross cancellation of interlinked debt, taking total debt from 40.47% of GDP to 14.58%

• Six countries – Ireland, Italy, Spain, Britain, France and Germany – can write off more than 50% of their outstanding debt

• Three countries – Ireland, Italy, and Germany – can reduce their obligations such that they owe more than €1bn to only 2 other countries

• Ireland can reduce its debt from almost 130% of GDP to under 20% of GDP
France can virtually eliminate its debt – reducing it to just 0.06% of GDP


http://econ.anthonyjevans.com/2012/08/e ... write-off/

http://www.cityam.com/article/it-s-time ... revolution
#15036281
Speculating to accumulate:

In a paper published by the Social Market Foundation, Dr Advani demonstrates that the average targeted audit of a tax payer costs on average £2,500, but brings in between £10,000-£15,000 in previously unpaid tax. Despite the very large benefit for the government, the number of audits have been falling, even though HMRC now has more data than ever and so a better chance of finding people who have not been paying their fair share.

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/hm ... 68591.html

There is no reason IMHO why a competent govt shouldn't be able to have something like 60% debt, a surplus and still have a well-funded, properly looked after country.

Our current state of affairs is purely due to years of Tory & Labour mismanagement.

IMHO, dark money + lobbyists/big biz, oligarchs, and large financial institutiins + the rating agencies tend to dictate a pretty monstrous agenda & false dichotomy. They make a lot of money out of seeing things go wrong.

As you can well see with Brexit.
#15036283
Atlantis wrote:The vote counts for nothing?

Good to see the antidemocratic hard-right outing itself. No more need for pretense. The next thing you lot will want is a military coup against parliament, ie. against the sovereign.

Traitors be hanged!

The vote only counts if the voter has the right to vote on the subject. If Don Corleone and his chums vote to rob a bank that does not make it any less theft. A vote is not a magical get out of being a crook card. Sorry to disappoint you.

The land of the UK absolutely rightfully belongs to Her Maj. If the house of commons vacate her palace of Westminster and set themselves up as a rogue government in Corbyn's terrace house then fine they can do that but they would have no rightful authority over the land.
#15036336
SolarCross wrote:The vote only counts if the voter has the right to vote on the subject. If Don Corleone and his chums vote to rob a bank that does not make it any less theft. A vote is not a magical get out of being a crook card. Sorry to disappoint you.

The land of the UK absolutely rightfully belongs to Her Maj. If the house of commons vacate her palace of Westminster and set themselves up as a rogue government in Corbyn's terrace house then fine they can do that but they would have no rightful authority over the land.

@Atlantis: SolarCross is, of course, absolutely correct about this. The British political constitution is still, in its essence, aristocratic and feudal rather than bourgeois and democratic. This is why nothing less than a revolution will do. This system cannot simply be tweaked or reformed. To make the people sovereign, nothing less than a revolution will do.
#15036338
^ One can argue similar flaws exist in communism as they do in capitalism though.

IE; Monopolization, the oligarcs rise to the top and oppress everyone else.

And the argument that "it'll be different next time" is the exact same argument that capitalists use over centuries..
#15036343
Disagree with the odds but still a nice article:

Boris Johnson’s Strategy of Assured Mutual Destruction: Crazy but not Irrational

In Game Theory, scholars grapple with a seminal constellation dubbed the „Chicken Game“: Two cars hurtle towards each other at maximum speed, on collision course. Whoever swerves is the “chicken”. If no one swerves, both lose their lives, the worst result. One possible solution is a credible threat or self-commitment: If one of the drivers noticeably throws the steering wheel out of the window, the other driver has no choice but to eschew the other car. This seemingly irrational behavior suddenly appears to be perfectly rational. In political economy this parable is often cited to explain an actor’s ostensible lunacy as rational in a setting of strategic interaction. Legend has it that Nikita Khrushchev purposefully brought a third shoe to the United Nations General Assembly Meeting in 1960, to “put his foot down”, as the idiom goes, on the console — and to nourish the myth of the hotheaded and wayward gambler (a legend that is as famous as incorrect by the way).

One of the frequent equivocal “courtesy” titles that has been awarded to Boris Johnson these days is that of a plunger or reckless gambler. Boris Johnson may be many things — his language coarse, his conduct ruthless — but if you analyze his behavior in the current Brexit affair from a decision theoretic angle there is a rational interpretation for his seemingly irrational approach. While the other EU Member States act through their governments and align their negotiation strategy secretly, Parliament has a say on the British side as it has to legally sanction the Brexit agreement. Government has to justify its negotiation tactics in plain sight in front of the world — and audibly to the other parties of the deal. None of the negotiation results is ultimately approved of, all draft laws fail flat. As if that were not enough, Parliament is also utterly and hopelessly at loggerheads, there are no majorities for any of the conceivable solutions, no faint accord on what an acceptable outcome of the Brexit negotiations with the EU could look like.

For the negotiators on the EU side, this initially makes for a comfortable situation. They can dictate the conditions and retire from the negotiation table pointing to the fact that the UK is not capable to organize majorities and voice a clear position. And because ultimately any deal is better than no deal, they can demand: It’s Hobson’s choice — sink or swim!

Now, which options does Boris Johnson have facing this situation, how can he avoid being a chicken? He has to express a credible threat. That is not an easy task, because it is true: The EU position — including the “backstop”, which is the major if not only point of discussion — is better than a hard Brexit.

If Johnson wants to maintain any prospect to a success in his negotiations with the EU (say: the withdrawal of the backstop) and to become a national hero, he will have to appear to the world as a reckless gambler, a plunger; as one whose political narcissism is so pronounced that he is unhesitatingly willing to engulf British parliamentarism in the abyss, to endure martyrdom by taking any punishment for not requesting a further extension of the Brexit deadline without rational motives, although Parliament has committed him to do so. This is his only resort to turn the tables and to signify to the EU: for you, too, any deal is better than no deal. Or more specifically: an orderly Brexit without a backstop is better than a no-deal Brexit without a backstop. If the EU negotiators act rationally in this situation, then they will rather pass on the backstop then on a deal altogether.

Part of this strategy was Johnson’s attempt to avoid that Parliament butts in from the backseat. From his strategic perspective, Parliament had ample opportunity to controvert Brexit, to bat the backstop around, to act out the “Order!” drama, it is obviously inapt to contribute to a constructive solution or even a rotten compromise — and it has also effectively undermined any sensible diplomacy of the British negotiators. Consequently, he arranged for a prorogation of Parliament. This act that has now been undone by the Supreme Court, and the ruling will drastically complicate Johnson’s endeavor to pose a credible threat.

And yet: as the Supreme Court has not seen through such possible ruse (after all, Johnson himself cannot express his motives if he wants to maintain his strategy, and nobody in the know can speak to the true colors of the Emperor’s clothes) and thus exhorted Boris Johnson today, the ruling may in fact accentuate his perception of an unpredictable and lunatic gambler.

If Johnson’s strategy works out and the EU renounces the backstop, then the British public will praise him as a savvy rascal with a preeminent negotiation talent, and his narcissism will be forgotten; history is always written by the winners. At any rate, Johnson can only credibly voice his threat to lead the UK out of the EU without a deal if necessary, and ultimately succeed with his strategy, if the world sees in him — as the Supreme Court did today — a hotheaded and wayward gambler. His odds are favorable.


https://verfassungsblog.de/boris-johnso ... irrational
#15036345
Potemkin wrote:@Atlantis: SolarCross is, of course, absolutely correct about this. The British political constitution is still, in its essence, aristocratic and feudal rather than bourgeois and democratic. This is why nothing less than a revolution will do. This system cannot simply be tweaked or reformed. To make the people sovereign, nothing less than a revolution will do.



I don't believe in Her Highness and Her Royal whatever and her Majesty Potemkin. That shit should have been dumped a very very long time ago.

That old aristocratic rigid class system is awful and outdated. It is impeding progress. It should be put up in a museum and taken out of politics.

That it continues in the UK? Makes the UK an obsolete old ex Empire flailing at the tides of history.

Someone should take the Queen's land and put her on a pension that what a middle class pendeja gets and get it over with. ;)

I think class systems will never function over many thousands of years. Cooperative units and mutually beneficial working class people as the majority making decisions over many international borders is the only rational solution to all that rigid class conscious stupidity in my opinion.
#15036349
Tainari88 wrote:I don't believe in Her Highness and Her Royal whatever and her Majesty Potemkin. That shit should have been dumped a very very long time ago.

That old aristocratic rigid class system is awful and outdated. It is impeding progress. It should be put up in a museum and taken out of politics.

That it continues in the UK? Makes the UK an obsolete old ex Empire flailing at the tides of history.

Someone should take the Queen's land and put her on a pension that what a middle class pendeja gets and get it over with. ;)

I think class systems will never function over many thousands of years. Cooperative units and mutually beneficial working class people as the majority making decisions over many international borders is the only rational solution to all that rigid class conscious stupidity in my opinion.


That's different to a 'revolution' though...he proposes, presumably, a marxist-leninist revolution.

Capitalism is forced on everyone whether they like it or not, and similarly, a revolution of that one ideology forces that system on everyone else instead.

What if people want to live under a different system?
Last edited by Presvias on 25 Sep 2019 20:31, edited 1 time in total.
#15036353
SolarCross wrote:The land of the UK absolutely rightfully belongs to Her Maj.


The monarchy has become an empty shell, which is an ideal vessel for a tin-pot dictator to turn your country into a banana republic.

This non-elected PM has usurped democracy by using royal powers for his own personal use. It can't get worse than that.
#15036359
Rugoz wrote:Disagree with the odds but still a nice article:

https://verfassungsblog.de/boris-johnso ... irrational

I think it misses the EU's priorities and some political realities regarding the backstop, while I also wonder if Johnson means to impress his target audience in Britain rather than trying to convince the EU with his "strategy".
Last edited by Beren on 25 Sep 2019 20:26, edited 1 time in total.
#15036360




B0ycey wrote:Mock Swinson if you like, but at least your country isn't going bust with her in charge.


But if she was in charge, she'd be doing the same as the party in charge. Source: her voting record.



Back on topic:
#15036367
Presvias wrote:That's different to a 'revolution' though...he proposes, presumably, a marxist-leninist revolution.

Capitalism is forced on everyone whether they like it or not, and similarly, a revolution of that one ideology forces that system on everyone else instead.

What if people want to live under a different system?


Presvias, we are living in a specific time and place in history. The Nation-State has emerged as the administrative body of how to organize government. The idea of popular votes and democracy relies on the majority. The majority of the world's citizens are working people. Not wealthy elites and not completely broke underclass people. But mostly working class, lower middle class and middle class and upper middle class, those are the world's majority of peoples. Increasingly they are urban, city dwellers with very specific incomes and consumption patterns within a capitalist framework or economy. They should be dictating government action in a representative democracy. But they don't. Because the wealthy, oligarchic and corporate globalists have taken over.

Sure people want to live under a different system. Every time they try to do so the capitalist multinationals and globalist banker etc class comes in and uses their power to make the economies scream, kill or destroy the elected leaders and kill thousands of dissenters. They are murderers and killers and bloody savages the pro capitalists who don't want any other system to be tried or to succeed. They are incredibly resistant to any changes. It is crazy. They should realize that the more they pollute, repress and oppress the less chance they have of surviving the onslaught of their lack of control. You can't expand and consume and use and abuse the planet, lower classes, poorer nations, and be incredibly oppressive without severe consequences down the line. But it falls on deaf ears to these people on the Right who believe that the Left is disturbing the class system that is perfect and fine an dandy. The class system SUCKS. That they hold on to old and ancient shit that is proven to NOT FUNCTION shows the world how bad their thinking is. But no....They want bullets and violence to change. It is horrible.

I am a socialist that thinks that the government is supposed to SERVE the interests of the vast majority first and foremost. Not the elite in a nation or the corporate. Corporations are not supposed to dictate terms to government. That they do? Is part of the reason you have terrible politics right now.

I am far left. The socialism should lead to a classless society. Not that everyone is forced to do this or that. But that everyone agrees that human beings have rights and have obligations and responsibilities and so do governments. To serve and not be corrupt, and to be in the activity of helping people administer goods, services, plan to educate, keep healthy, and protect the vast majority of working people. People who can't work due to some physical or mental incapacity need to be supported as well and activities dealing with destruction, pollution, unreigned and unbridled greed need to be stopped and stamped out.

A well balanced society until human beings understand that they need to be as fair, balanced and inclusive as possible and to treat many people with respect, dignity and equality...as the only way to bring lasting peace, prosperity and balance to this world.

The other stuff that is about raping the planet and forcing poor nations to carry the load for the rich ones to party on without any regard to the suffering involved in those activities is suicidal.

That is my proposition Presvias.
#15036371
What about others who don't want to live under your system?

I do not support or defend the current system as you well know, but you wrote:

But that everyone agrees that human beings have rights and have obligations and responsibilities and so do governments.

There may be people who want to live under a strict buddhist society with rigid hierarchies, or those who wish only to live in a mormon society, or what about hierarchical tribal societies?

Your ideas about 'abolishing' class< and 'obligations' imply some forced policies that apply universally. But surely the only way of giving everyone, from the marxist leninists, to the capitalists, to the left coms, what they want..is to offer people the choice of being part of many differebt societies?

Your idea of 'obligations' is not the same as everyone else.

I want to live under a very, very specific type of society that I have no business on forcing on everyone else.

Is that humble enough? Or must everyone acquiesce to the 'dominant' ideology of the day?
  • 1
  • 27
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 46
Capital Punishment

That does not change the fact that a person can g[…]

This is about rule of law, which is also a Conserv[…]

Trump, Oh my god !

Rental assistance, for one. Medicare is another, […]