Politics, politics, politics

[DTA]

Why?

What if it wasn't about efficiency and cost? What if kicking a cow every day made steak taste really, really good? Wouldn't that be worth it? I'd happily eat kicked cow.

Why? because it's ethically wrong... Not much difference from me coming round and kicking you for my own gain/pleasure.

This is why animal rights need to be protected by law... because the only real difference between you kicking a cow and me kicking you, is how the law will treat us in return.

 

[scaramanga]

Why? because it's ethically wrong... Not much difference from me coming round and kicking you for my own gain/pleasure.

This is why animal rights need to be protected by law... because the only real difference between you kicking a cow and me kicking you, is how the law will treat us in return.

And because people aren't food.

Animals are, and I'm far more interested in what makes them taste good than I am in what makes them happy.

 

[scaramanga]

This is dogma not fact

the majority of the time I shop I do not have a clue or desire to find out how ethical the supplier is or even the minutiae of the arguments. We vote in governments that hire civil servants to do this for us. Why do I want to find out about pesticides and the potential impact it has on the environment. I vote in a party that has a view on this and they put it into practice - I suspect most others would be in the same situation.

That would suggest you don't care enough to find out - that's OK, neither do I on the whole.

But if you cared enough you'd find out, just like all those Greenpeace weirdos do.

You can't extrapolate people's views on a single issue based on how they vote, there's far too many other issues wrapped up in that vote. You can judge a person's thoughts by their actions though, and their actions are shown when they interact with markets.

As an example. If there were a party offering completely free markets and another offering to keep the status quo but drop the top level of income tax to 20%, I'd vote for the latter, despite my belief in free markets.

 

[r-u-s-x]

That would suggest you don't care enough to find out - that's OK, neither do I on the whole.

But if you cared enough you'd find out, just like all those Greenpeace weirdos do.

You can't extrapolate people's views on a single issue based on how they vote, there's far too many other issues wrapped up in that vote. You can judge a person's thoughts by their actions though, and their actions are shown when they interact with markets.

As an example. If there were a party offering completely free markets and another offering to keep the status quo but drop the top level of income tax to 20%, I'd vote for the latter, despite my belief in free markets.

Action 1 - I shop at Amazon
Action 2 - I vote for a government that I hope stop Amazons business practices

therefore

"You can judge a person's thoughts by their actions though, and their actions are shown when they interact with markets."

is not true for me, there are many other issues wrapped up in purchasing decisions. Just because you keep saying something does not make it true, it is your school of thought. I feel that my wishes can be most effectively put into action by the party I vote for rather than my ill informed purchasing decisions and act accordingly.

(*this not even discussing imperfect information & not paying for negative externalities)

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

That only really holds true if you vote for that party expressly on that one issue.

As Scara points out - thats simply not true, other issues can take precedent.

 

[Robspur12]

It's incredible rare, against EU rules and on its way out:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Council_Directive_1999/74/EC

Hard

And because people aren't food.

Animals are, and I'm far more interested in what makes them taste good than I am in what makes them happy.

People do care though -a lot. Standards in animal welfare have been driven initially by market pressure- people will buy products that are ethically sourced and/or produced and often these standards are higher than the Legislative standards. That is why you have a plethora of voluntary schemes for welfare assurance. Legislation however, created minimum standards something that is the right thing to do in a civilised society. This is a good thing because you (although not "you" specifically judging by your posts) as the consumer will not necessarily have the ability to check standards yourselves but want to buy products that are subject to minimum decent standards of welfare. Furthermore you may not be able to afford the products that are subject to the voluntary schemes.

Btw some of these legislative controls are driven by public health. Taking the example of battery hens, overcrowding birds tended to spread diseases like Campylobacter and Salmonella more easily.

 

[DTA]

And because people aren't food.

Animals are, and I'm far more interested in what makes them taste good than I am in what makes them happy.

People ain't food in this culture, and within this law. People not being food is not a universal fact.

But that misses the point. Let me try to put it another way.

We have laws that make it illegal for someone more gifted in violence than you being able to steal the wealth you have amassed. This was neither always the case nor would you be safe without these laws.

These laws are progression of society, as are laws that protect animal welfare.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The Boris Johnson questions

Laura Kuenssberg Political editor

"Welcome to the age of incompetence," a Tory-backing senior business figure joked this morning, in the crush of the conference hotel while in the background other attendees plundered the breakfast buffet.

The behaviour of the Cabinet is not, of course on the minds of most people going about their daily business but it is most certainly on people's minds in Manchester.

One of his cabinet colleagues admitted "it's all anyone is talking about", another, "we'd be fine if everyone just got on with their day jobs", and the chancellor this morning barely disguising his frustration, reminding him that "no one is unsackable".

Should the PM sack Boris Johnson? Is he trying to get fired? Is he trying to oust her? Is he really going to give a speech titled "Let the Lion roar" tomorrow? That last bit, it seems, is indeed true but the other questions? Not as easy to work out.

Here's the thing though. Of course Boris Johnson is motivated in part by his long-held dream of leading his party, and of making sure Brexit happens.

But is there a strategy, or even thought-through tactics that is driving his current behaviour?

Don't count on it. In fact those who know him well believe not, and the chaos that follows in his wake is not deliberate, they even wish that he was more strategic about what he is up to.

Whether you are reassured by the shenanigans being partly accidental is up to you. But many here this week are not at all amused.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

He really does have to go, doesnt he? The longer he doesnt the weaker May looks (which in her position is not something she cant wear).

I dont know why she wont do it. They guy is scum, and people can see it now. I dont honestly think he gives a stuff about Brexit, only his own ascension. He just used Brexit as an opportunist would, he doesnt actually care about "us" at all. Not that Im a fan of Gove I fudging loved it when he pulled the rug from Boris in the leadership race.

 

[Gutter Boy]

He's still the most popular Tory MP with the party members and general public.

He'll bring May down either from within or without - probably much quicker from the outside too. I'm not sure he'll carry the crown through - he'll be a Hessletine.

 

[scaramanga]

People ain't food in this culture, and within this law. People not being food is not a universal fact.

But that misses the point. Let me try to put it another way.

We have laws that make it illegal for someone more gifted in violence than you being able to steal the wealth you have amassed. This was neither always the case nor would you be safe without these laws.

These laws are progression of society, as are laws that protect animal welfare.

I'm a person, so I matter. Foodstuff does not matter.

I want to treat tasty animals as well as I want to treat carrots - well enough for them to arrive on my plate in good condition.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I certainly hope he doesnt.

If he is a tool for breaking the leadership to allow better in (who?!) then I can live with that.

Him as PM though? fudge me...

And theres the thing. He has shown he doesnt give a damn about anyone but his own aspirations. He is willing to change the course of this country just to get that job. Its criminal really.

 

[Gutter Boy]

And theres the thing. He has shown he doesnt give a damn about anyone but his own aspirations. He is willing to change the course of this country just to get that job. Its criminal really.

Do you not think he would have been in with a better chance of being PM if he'd stayed loyal to Cameron during the referendum, then gone into a 3 way leadership battle with May and Osborne in 2018, like was supposed to happen?

 

[StephenH]

Boris has one motto 'Boris at all cost'

 

[r-u-s-x]

That only really holds true if you vote for that party expressly on that one issue.

As Scara points out - thats simply not true, other issues can take precedent.

Nor does the counter point that the way I shop dictates my moral position on a subject, for most its not a consideration and nor would they want it to be.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

Do you not think he would have been in with a better chance of being PM if he'd stayed loyal to Cameron during the referendum, then gone into a 3 way leadership battle with May and Osborne in 2018, like was supposed to happen?

Possibly, though he clearly thought a great Brexit campaign undermining Cameron was a shorter route to the job.

I think there is some justification in Kuenssbergs assertion that he really doesnt play much strategy, rather he is more impulsive.

Most impulses being his own selfish agenda.

Nor does the counter point that the way I shop dictates my moral position on a subject, for most its not a consideration and nor would they want it to be.

I can choose a party based upon a miriad of factors, some may compromise my morality (to a degree) on some matters but highly support others I feel more strongly about.

If it comes to purchasing a single item, my morality can dictate directly whether or not thats the item for me. I can choose a different item based upon its ethical providence if I so choose.

Your position seems to be that you feel your morality is important, but equally you seem happy to outsource its implementation to politicians.

 

[r-u-s-x]

"Standards on any product should be a consumer choice."

"Most people want to be able to choose what they want (whether that's cheaper food or chickens that get a cuddle). They shouldn't be able to tell others what to have - the only answer to both is to remove regulation and let the markets decide."

My position is that the above is not what happens in practice or desirable - the Market is part of signaling consumers intent and desires but having only the market decide is not a full picture. There are many reasons for this ranging from day to day apathy to monopolies and imperfect information but to say letting the markets decide leads to what consumers desire is false. You outsource the minimum standards and make your decisions from there.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

The theory is sound. If people want battery hen eggs then they buy them, and the battery hen producer does well. If people dont want them, they dont buy them, and the man goes out of business or changes his product to meet demand.

Simplistic, but true.

Ive no real desire to see that and only that, I think an assumed standard is a good thing (though what is "minimum" is open to discuss).

However, this:
"I feel that my wishes can be most effectively put into action by the party I vote for rather than my ill informed purchasing decisions and act accordingly."

Just seems like a cop out to me. Essentially for the reasons Scara posted above. We dont vote on single policies, and if you feel more strongly about a different policy other than Chicken welfare then perhaps you would vote for a party without a care about Chickens.

Either way though - YOU can choose to purchase ethically sourced eggs. You dont need a party to do it for you.

 

[r-u-s-x]

Am I also meant to research all pesticides and their effects on the food chain before buying bread and similar for every other purchase I make. If so why? The current situation is better and more efficient, I know experts are given a bad rep recently but I want them driving companies behavior via regulation not John from around the corner.

If you decide to buy the bread with the pesticides are we ensuring that any externalities are being paid for by the seller or the consumer or would these costs be born by all.

not everything is so simple.

 

[nayimfromthehalfwayline]

I didnt say it was "so simple". Nor did I say there should be no regulation, the opposite in fact.

I dont see much wrong with that example of market forces though. Perhaps regulation could be a simple as clear packaging detailing any/all ingredients/chemicals etc.

That way your informed choice is your own.

 

[r-u-s-x]

I didnt say it was "so simple". Nor did I say there should be no regulation, the opposite in fact.

I dont see much wrong with that example of market forces though. Perhaps regulation could be a simple as clear packaging detailing any/all ingredients/chemicals etc.

That way your informed choice is your own.

Think of all the components that go into your smartphone, you will need to be comfortable with all the components, the countries that they are mined in, how they treat their workers etc. Then you have to multiply that in some degree by every product and good you buy. And then you need to be sure that your choice in consuming this does not adversely effect anyone else and if it does that cost is paid for or insured against. - not really easy to have an informed choice.

I don't think this is possible or even really desired, hence no "Market Forces" party challenging the status quo.