O/T Democracy

[KerrAvon]

There's little doubt in my opinion that those that champion the free market ideology definitely like to criticise their neighbours back garden rather than front out some uncomfortable truths about the state of their own cabbage patch lawns , it's a pretty good assumption that they are sheltered from the realities of these policies and so in effect don't give a fuq .

Trump , Johnson and Brexit happened because of the catastrophic failures of neoliberalism to put its own house in order and things have clearly come to a head .

When profit is king then there are consequences to face , unethical policies that inflict on the environment and the exploitation of workers tend not to be popular .

When goods and services that aren't produced despite a necessity because there's little profit in them tends not to be popular either .

Give it enough time and you create the UK of today which is to say is pretty much dumped at the doorstep of free market capitalism .

Your fuq up but without ever wanting to take full responsibility for it would be a pretty much good take on the situation .

So you don’t like neoliberalism (whatever you mean by that), but your only alternative seems to be a system that has repeatedly failed the people it is supposed to benefit and has delivered misery and poverty to the many, not the few.

A couple of years ago, you told the Barnsley Board that you were sitting on a nest egg with which you intend to retire to Spain. That suggests that you, like ‘two car’ Roly, seem to have done quite well out of the system that you criticise. Again, perhaps you should put your money where your keyboard is and give the money away to good causes?

https://www.shbarcelona.com/blog/en/help-homeless/

Or perhaps it is only other people’s wealth you want to redistribute?

[rolymiller]

Why don't I sell one of my car's? I wouldn't get owt for it! I'll show you a pic of it if you like! You talk about socialism as a failed system but capitalism fails because even if it does create wealth it does not trickle down because the people who have that wealth are not willing to share it. It is called greed and how you can not accept the likes of the privileged wealthy and the media moguls for example of not being greedy is beyond me.

[Exiletyke]

See post 148 – page 23 - 17.9.19 7:57 PM

Is there anything else that I can assist you with?

It is a matter that is entirely for you if you want to keep making a fool of yourself.

Can't see what the post from raging [post 148] has to do with it Now who's the fool?

[BigLadonOS]

I was simply highlighting a contradiction It was your intervention that took it down a different route.

Read back on the exchanges. You first targetted me by jumping in to defend the incredible B I G. When more was revealed you went on the offensive against Biglad. I* was quite amused at how it escalated and left it to the two you.

But, the mist of time seem to have faded your memory. You now appear to forgotten why I re-posted the 'immigration quote'. You seem to imply there may be a hidden agenda as to why I did it.* I will remind you.

The relevant post is dated 17.09.19 at 9.44 pm where Biglad agrees with Kerr saying the reason he voted leave was that the EU lacked proper democratic processes and "I do not want to see my grandchildren called up to an EU army which is exactly the way it is going."

I highlighted the contradiction by saying he'd posted previously citing immigration as his main reason for voting leave (on 12.09.19).

You then made your intervention (read the exchanges between you and big lad from 17.09.19 at 10.22pm). The 2 of you doubted that he'd said it and (I assumed) implied I was being economical with the truth (Big lad stating "I may well have said that immigration was a factor but I do not think I said it was the main reason alone"). I then reposted the 'immigration quote' simply as a reminder as to what Biglad actually said (18.09.19 at 04.56am).

Actually mate what you have really done is copy and paste what I wrote and you have read in to that post what you think I meant by it without asking me what I meant by it. In other words you saw what you wanted to see and that sums it up really.

I do not and never have had a problem including immigration as one of the reasons that I voted to leave the EU but one thing I can tell you is that I have never said that immigration was the main reason I voted to leave because that just is not true.

[Exiletyke]

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings [steps back in amazement]
So I assume the Supreme Court can't be wrong [ are they not human beings?]
And as for your ridiculous assertion that they may have some cynisism of their own doesn't sit well with them making their decision based on.......... exactly what?

[BigLadonOS]

News to me that it's a judge who decides if cases go to court
Isn't it the CPS?

No that is not the way it works so once again I guess I am going to educate you and enlighten you to even greater knowledge. The CPS gather the info and decide if they think they have enough evidence to take it to the courts. With very little evidence can be provided it will go to a preliminary hearing, where a judge decides if there is enough evidence to proceed and at that point with the only evidence the prosecutor can provide (which I sad above) is that they think he might have been thinking of doing something it would be thrown out before it got to being a court case.

Consider yourself better educated mate

[BigLadonOS]

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court then you don’t understand the judicial system.

The English High Court can be wrong because they are human beings and because the issue before the court is a novel one. It is not one upon which the courts have been asked to rule on before. The courts are breaking new ground.

Scottish law is different to English law, but the matter before both the Court of Sessions and the High Court was upon an issue of UK constitutional law, not of Scottish or English law. So why isn’t your argument that the Supreme Court has to agree with the Court of Sessions to avoid making the Scottish judges look unfit for purpose?

I wouldn’t be greatly surprised if the Supreme Court delivers a spilt decision, in which case are you saying the majority would be asserting that the minority are unfit for purpose?

The Supreme Court has tried to guard against the potential consequence of a split decision by sitting with 11 judges (from 12 possibles), but, unfortunately, there are three possible outcomes:

1. The courts have no jurisdiction over what is a political decision;
2. The courts have jurisdiction, but do not consider the decision of the government to have been unlawful; and
3. The courts have jurisdiction and consider the actions of the government to have been unlawful.

Bearing that in mind, the fun would really start if the court were to split 4:4:3 or in another inconclusive configuration.

If you think that the Supreme Court would tailor its decision so as to avoid embarrassment to the High Court?

Where did I say that? I said that if 3 of the highest judges England or to be told that they are wrong then that implies that they do not know the law. As far as I know the law is the law and if the law says that the courts cannot get involved with political issues then surely that means they cannot get involved with political issues. If the Supreme court rules against Boris then they are clearly in breach of the law and are deliberately doing it for other reasons.

[ragingpup]

I’m not sure that my critique of Socialism has much value when compared with the judgement upon it made by the millions who streamed out of the Socialism ravaged economies of Eastern European countries or who are abandoning Venezuela by the thousands every day. Then again, as someone far more cleaver than me once said: “We learn from history that we do not learn from history.”

Capitalism works because it can reward individual endeavour and innovation as opposed to supressing the same. Market forces drive endeavour, efficiency and innovation at a corporate level, which is why the East Germans got Trabants, whilst Germans in the West got BMWs.

Your question about how Capitalism works for the homeless, jobless, oppressed and poor suggests that you don’t understand the issue. Capitalism is a system of economic organisation that history demonstrates works for the reasons that I have set out above. How the wealth created by the system is distributed is largely a matter for government. Towards one end of the spectrum you have the (Capitalist) Scandinavian countries that have large states and at the other end you have the US, which is focused upon having a much lower level of state intervention. Would the Scandinavians and Americans be better off in Socialist states? Ask a Venezuelan.

If you don’t create wealth, you can’t distribute it.

There are plenty of people who are impoverished in the world due to an unequal distribution of wealth, but before you start throwing stones at Capitalism, take a good look at the glass house that you are standing in. You could start by looking at your two cars or the meat in your fridge – they are there courtesy of the Capitalist economy in which you have the good fortune to live. If you want to actually do something instead of pontificating, why don’t you sell one of your cars (particularly as you told us that you barely use one) and give the proceeds to a good cause:

https://donate.unhcr.org/gb/venezuel...E&gclsrc=aw.ds

This is all well and good but is anyone on here suggesting pure socialism or economic systems along the lines of East Germany and Venezuela?

Personally, as I've always said, I'm all for Denmark style social democracy - a heavy state presence with all paying in higher taxes progressively for better quality public services and less focus on cut throat capitalism 80 for 2 litres of milk etc.

Sorry but the constant references to Venezuela and East Germany just sounds like scare mongering to keep things exactly as they are. I take your point about Labour looking at securing the workforce a % stake in company profits and whilst there is vagueness about what extent goes to the state if it is set up to encourage worker productivity, then I think it's worth putting options such as this forward to address low productivity.

I'm interested if other lefties on here would be looking beyond social democracies, into more pure state ownership models? Is anyone suggesting that? If they aren't, constant referral to Venezuela etc doesn't seem very relevant? Corbyn may well have wished them well in their revolution days, looked at that people's revolution under Chevez as inspirational but their economic circumstances are so specific they don't bear any relation to where we are, nor where we would like to head. Makes a good scare story to keep our current economic model exactly as it is though, if you feel that the current one is working for you and the world you see around you.

[Exiletyke]

This is all well and good but is anyone on here suggesting pure socialism or economic systems along the lines of East Germany and Venezuela?

Personally, as I've always said, I'm all for Denmark style social democracy - a heavy state presence with all paying in higher taxes progressively for better quality public services and less focus on cut throat capitalism 80 for 2 litres of milk etc.

Sorry but the constant references to Venezuela and East Germany just sounds like scare mongering to keep things exactly as they are. I take your point about Labour looking at securing the workforce a % stake in company profits and whilst there is vagueness about what extent goes to the state if it is set up to encourage worker productivity, then I think it's worth putting options such as this forward to address low productivity.

I'm interested if other lefties on here would be looking beyond social democracies, into more pure state ownership models? Is anyone suggesting that? If they aren't, constant referral to Venezuela etc doesn't seem very relevant? Corbyn may well have wished them well in their revolution days, looked at that people's revolution under Chevez as inspirational but their economic circumstances are so specific they don't bear any relation to where we are, nor where we would like to head. Makes a good scare story to keep our current economic model exactly as it is though, if you feel that the current one is working for you and the world you see around you.

Good points rp

[rolymiller]

Agree pup. There are shades of socialism. Society should be based on need not greed. People should be rewarded for their contribution to that and by that I don't mean massive salaries even then. Greed us just accepted in the media and never questioned. You never hear the likes of Kerr criticise greed or privilege.

Whenever folks work it should be for the good of others and making a fair cohesive society not to make excessive wealth for your self. I still stick by my argument that nobody needs excessive wealth. It's wrong and unnecessary.