• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

Finney Is Back said:
Perhaps not but I think @Lilbaz is advocating an NZ/Aus style points scheme here that you think worked well in those countries…. Sounds like you two should get along… ;)
Click to expand...

Yeah you definitely missed the point I was making ;)

As an aside, unless things have changed since I was there, it’s easier to migrate to that region than the UK.
 
Finney Is Back said:
It is happening already…. One of the companies I own is a tech company. My open software engineering roles were at least 50% filled with those from the EU. Pretty much every open role is now instead filled with an Indian or Nigerian national. A worker is a worker as far as I’m concerned but I know that isn’t the case for a number of the (on the quiet) racists from the older generation. This is the one delicious irony from Brexit that I cling to and love to trot out to the closet racists.
Click to expand...

We've given up hiring programmers in London altogether. We exclusively hire people who are wfh in other countries now.

It is a unique period. Ageing population, a lack of available workers, inflation and supposed recession. Parts of the economy are thriving but how much is due to the money printing teat that has to end?

Along with raising interest rates, are the BoE quietly deleting some liquidity? Or keeping the extra cash they printed in the economy feeding us ‘false’ cash? The world has become addicted to economic stimulation through printing money. It leads to short term exuberance and longer term pain as people earn less in real terms.

No one seems to have a vision of what next. Is it degrowth? In which case a government has to invest in other social things to fill in for our reliance on wealth creation. Or more likely, will we follow the same model of growth and inequality? With an increasing disparity between rich and poor. When the bottom falls out of the economy it is those with the least who feel it the most. It does seem like the UK is in the middle of a reset, which is what our Brexit friends wanted. Maybe they didn’t bargain on it being an economic reset as everything else stays largely the same (or slightly worse).
 
Last edited:
Lilbaz said:
Think the 90s and early 2000s there was a push for globalisation. Whether that was expansion of the eu, production going to china, multinational companies/super rich, bouncing about paying little tax. Or just basically inevitable outcome of capitalism. Middle and working class people from rich countries are less well off. Most economic growth only benefiting the 1%.

The less money you have the more you rely on social networks. Whether that is sister to pick up the kids from school. Doing shopping for nan. Whatever. But we've had a generation of extreme immigration. That has meant a huge strain on social housing. Splitting familes apart and breaking those networks, as kids can't get housing in the area. Even changing the culture of an area. Especially for older people, it is frightening.
Click to expand...

Isn’t it funny, with every generation, the more mature lament an earlier time. Yet on the whole things progress and improve. And if you compare affluence globally to 20,30,40 years ago we are vastly wealthier. The UK in the 1970s was a far cry from where we are now.

This ‘globalisation’ narrative is the latest post-Brexit thing. A way to try and justify the failed experiment. All sane economists agree that trade increases wealth. How we manage extremes of wealth, inequality and tax avoidance are crucial questions, but the notion we can undo progress and go backwards to some imagined utopia where everything was peachy is just another naive sob story that folks are peddling.
 
Last edited:
SpurMeUp said:
Isn’t it funny, with every generation, the more mature lament an earlier time. Yet on the whole things progress and improve. And if you compare affluence globally to 20,30,40 years ago we are vastly wealthier. The UK in the 1970s was a far cry from where we are now.

This ‘globalisation’ narrative is the latest post-Brexit thing. A way to try and justify the failed experiment. All sane economists agree that trade increases wealth. How we manage extremes of wealth, inequality and tax avoidance are crucial questions, but the notion we can undo progress and go backwards to some imagined utopia where everything was peachy is just another naive sob story that folks are peddling.
Click to expand...

The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/pover...est survey data show,33 percent to 23 percent.
 
Lilbaz said:
The best survey data show that the share of wealth held by the top 1 percent rose from 30 percent in 1989 to 39 percent in 2016, while the share held by the bottom 90 percent fell from 33 percent to 23 percent.

https://www.cbpp.org/research/poverty-and-inequality/a-guide-to-statistics-on-historical-trends-in-income-inequality#:~:text=The best survey data show,33 percent to 23 percent.
Click to expand...

There is the greatest ever disparity between the wealthiest and poorest. But overall, people are better off. People are happiest however, when wealth is more even. Communist-style societies, in that regard, are better as everyone is kept within a similar level of wealth. But you wouldn't swap the UK now for Soviet Russia or life in communist Cuba. Yet we can learn from these societies. A greater focus on education, social provisions and the collective is often overlooked in our search for growth and extreme wealth.

Rather than get into an anti-globalisation narrative, shouldn't we focus on the extremely wealthy simply paying some tax - as a first step. They should have to give back a whole lot more. It doesn't have to just be money, could be more nuanced, providing mandatory investment in social enterprises etc.
 
Last edited:
LutonSpurs said:
How come we are not using the Rwanda scheme or blocking legal routes for entry for Ukrainian refugees? How come we are paying people to house them?

I can't qwhite work out the difference.
Click to expand...

You are definitely right. I still don't support taking anyone who just arrives here. But we should have been more active over the years taking our quota of Afgans, Syrians and Iraqis from the aid camps in the countries neighbouring them.
 
SpurMeUp said:
We've given up hiring programmers in London altogether. We exclusively hire people who are wfh in other countries now.

It is a unique period. Ageing population, a lack of available workers, inflation and supposed recession. Parts of the economy are thriving but how much is due to the money printing teat that has to end?

Along with raising interest rates, are the BoE quietly deleting some liquidity? Or keeping the extra cash they printed in the economy feeding us ‘false’ cash? The world has become addicted to economic stimulation through printing money. It leads to short term exuberance and longer term pain as people earn less in real terms.

No one seems to have a vision of what next. Is it degrowth? In which case a government has to invest in other social things to fill in for our reliance on wealth creation. Or more likely, will we follow the same model of growth and inequality? With an increasing disparity between rich and poor. When the bottom falls out of the economy it is those with the least who feel it the most. It does seem like the UK is in the middle of a reset, which is what our Brexit friends wanted. Maybe they didn’t bargain on it being an economic reset as everything else stays largely the same (or slightly worse).
Click to expand...
Interesting that you have given up hiring programmers in London. With this particular company we moved away from London a while ago and instead went to Saudi Sportswashing Machine and Bristol, putting in place a decent grad scheme to take tech graduates from the Unis. However there are a few largish consultancies operating in these locations now and it has become far harder. We're currently exploring the idea of relocating to Estonia as Brexit has created lots of difficulties in our biggest market that will disappear with the move. Access to EU IT workers is a huge added bonus. We've continually made good profits that have generated decent corp tax revenues for the exchequer, these will obviously disappear to Estonia.
 
SpurMeUp said:
There is the greatest ever disparity between the wealthiest and poorest. But overall, people are better off. People are happiest however, when wealth is more even. Communist-style societies, in that regard, are better as everyone is kept within a similar level of wealth. But you wouldn't swap the UK now for Soviet Russia or life in communist Cuba. Yet we can learn from these societies. A greater focus on education, social provisions and the collective is often overlooked in our search for growth and extreme wealth.

Rather than get into an anti-globalisation narrative, shouldn't we focus on the extremely wealthy simply paying some tax - as a first step. They should have to give back a whole lot more. It doesn't have to just be money, could be more nuanced, providing mandatory investment in social enterprises etc.
Click to expand...
The problem is that making the extremely wealthy pay more tax requires actions that go far beyond a single country. It would require (at least) the whole Western World to agree on policies and implement them equally.
 
Finney Is Back said:
Are they arriving on small boats from France?
Click to expand...
The UK has not been great at taking Ukraine refugees either but those that are allowed have a legal route open to them. Therein is the problem - legal routes.
A solution was agreed upon with France to stem the tide of small boats across the channel there a while back but Liz 'human hand grenade' Truss blew that deal up in typical fashion. Sunak is trying to revive the deal now. This problem can mostly be solved through cooperation with the French, but that would take away a big weapon from the tory arsenal (ewww .... those two words together). The cruelty is the point.
 
Rorschach said:
The UK has not been great at taking Ukraine refugees either but those that are allowed have a legal route open to them. Therein is the problem - legal routes.
A solution was agreed upon with France to stem the tide of small boats across the channel there a while back but Liz 'human hand grenade' Truss blew that deal up in typical fashion. Sunak is trying to revive the deal now. This problem can mostly be solved through cooperation with the French, but that would take away a big weapon from the tory arsenal (ewww .... those two words together). The cruelty is the point.
Click to expand...

I don't think we should be dealing with the consequences of the EU's open borders (particularly at the moment with the Western Balkans).

Absolutely there should be legal routes, but from areas of conflict, not from leafy France.
 
Gutter Boy said:
I don't think we should be dealing with the consequences of the EU's open borders (particularly at the moment with the Western Balkans).

Absolutely there should be legal routes, but from areas of conflict, not from leafy France.
Click to expand...
I assume you understand that it is totally legal that they wish to claim asylum in the UK, and they don't have to claim it in the first country they arrive in (which is likely not France either)? And you are more or less contradicting your post from above up saying you should do more for refugees but in reality giving them no way in. The Uk is taking very few refugees as it stands and certainly well below numbers that used to come in. You are being played by the right-wing press.
 
Rorschach said:
I assume you understand that it is totally legal that they wish to claim asylum in the UK, and they don't have to claim it in the first country they arrive in (which is likely not France either)? And you are more or less contradicting your post from above up saying you should do more for refugees but in reality giving them no way in. The Uk is taking very few refugees as it stands and certainly well below numbers that used to come in. You are being played by the right-wing press.
Click to expand...

I just think we have a duty to help the neediest, not the strongest.
 
Finney Is Back said:
The problem is that making the extremely wealthy pay more tax requires actions that go far beyond a single country. It would require (at least) the whole Western World to agree on policies and implement them equally.
Click to expand...

Exactly. There was some traction on this I think. Gordon Brown possibly was pushing it forward internationally. That his reputation sunk and he was undermined in the media is probably not a total coincidence. There are discrete, extremely powerful concerns working behind the scenes to protect establishment interests. Ironically, tax avoidance of the super rich is the kind of thing the EU can help with. If say the EU and the US could have some basic agreement not to undercut each other and some minium tax requirements we could start to address this massive injustice - that the richest pay the least tax. It warps competition with the likes of Amazon able to undercut all smaller competitors, and it siphons off tax into massive profits. Wholly unjust.

The other irony is the UK are really the biggest players in tax avoidance. We more or less invented it. We are the place to go to hide your money offshore. It is how Russia funded Brexit, it is how the rich get richer and hide their wealth. Even public services like Thames Water with a multi-billion turnover was owned by an offshore entity. No one ever knew who the real owner was. Money was taken out and little re-invested into infrastructure. Shocking really. Yet people want to bang on about "globalisation" without any understanding or concern for these injustices. We are not going to give up all the positives of global trade. Global trade has, after all, been around for 1000 years.
 
Last edited:
Gutter Boy said:
I just think we have a duty to help the neediest, not the strongest.
Click to expand...
This is a fine sentiment but how can you judge that until you process their claim?

I don't know the answers but the seems to me that cooperating with France is the only way to address this. The current policy of being as cruel as possible to deter anyone from coming is not humane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back