Snap General Election called

[Stom]

I blame Neo capitalism, as I’m pretty sure without it we would be better off in every single area. Just Banquo would never agree to slashing his pension pot for the greater good.

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Did you know Stom means dumb in Dutch?

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

[Banquo]

Exhibit a that we’ve become a society that distils everything down to one extreme soundbite devoid of any nuance.

Nah, that’s just Stom

Did you know Stom means dumb in Dutch?

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

yeah but you were originally stomulamos or summat.
On the second point, its a point of view for sure.

[Which Tyler]

There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

[Sandydragon]

We’ve had plenty of talented leaders via fptp and ultimately that system didn’t make Corbyn, May, Johnson, Starmer and Truss our flawed choices.
Personally, I blame A Campbell, debates and social media for reducing our political discourse down to bite size chunks.

Because FPtP is a ridiculous system that presents a binary choice between crap and slightly less crap. We need MMP or PR, pronto.

This is absolutely true, and I 100% prefer a system of PR (and federalisation, TBH)

But I dont think that's what's given us liars and populists, and exaggereated the omnipresent short-termism. I blame social media / reality TV for those.

Fair points. I think I'm probably better saying that FPtP removes any opportunity to escape from the cycle, as leaders are chosen by the increasingly weird memberships and there's no real option for anyone to pick an option that's not, "Oh go on then, I suppose they're not as bad as the other one".

I think Trump was a major part in the decline. So much of our political systems are based on trust, honesty, precedent, and "doing the honourable thing". So many of our control and censure mechanisms require the active engagement of the person being censured and them being "a gentleman" about it and doing the right thing. Trump was the first politician to really road-test the theory of, "Well, what happens if I just... don't?" and it turns out that, if the person blatantly lying doesn't play along resign in shame after being caught, nothing really happens, not even public opprobrium if it's played well enough.

Puja

How do parties pick their candidates though? Obviously parties do it differently with different level of member participation but now so many candidates for both parties are parachuted in by central party HQ regardless of what local people want. That makes the local connection almost redundant. Plus the key criteria today seems to be about looking good on tv and less about actual competence.

[Son of Mathonwy]

There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); fix the media by limiting shareholdings to prevent majority control of news corporations; and clamp down (or even ban outright) political advertising on social media.

Then we might just begin to get decent politics, from which some sanity might flow into everything else, including corporate regulation.

[Banquo]

There is one slight reason for hope: although a number of factors brought Johnson down (that's assuming he really is leaving No.10 for good . . . ), it was the lying that really did for him. Not the parties, but the lying, the layered lies upon lies about the parties.

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.

Seriously, though, without the snark or silliness, I do think neo-capitalism, low corporation tax, and the idea that companies are beholden to shareholders is the major barrier to any real progress on an equitable society.

It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

[Mellsblue]

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

[Stom]

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

I don't actually think political funding needs fixing, to a large extent, but I do think lobbying needs to be changed quite substantially.

[Zhivago]

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

In the Netherlands the parties get a state subsidy based on the number of seats in the parliament. Total subsidy across all parties is 17 million. For the party to qualify they must have at least 1000 members and all membership contributions need to be minium 12 euro pp.

The subsidy comprises 4 parts:
1) General subsidy for the party itself
2) for the political science institute of the party
3) for the youth organisation of the party
4) for foreign activities of the party

For 2-4 there are stipulations regarding its use.

Regarding donations etc, donations over 4.5k must be made public. Loans above 25k also. No donations from non EU.

[Son of Mathonwy]

'twas ever thus.
It's not the crime, it's the cover-up.


It's a fair point - I've no idea how the idea emerged that corporations should essentially have personhood, whilst being absolved of (nearly) all crimes, and being dangerously sociopathic by definition.

We need to fix political funding (ie by bringing in a (low) limit on individuals' contributions, and replacing with state funding); .

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

Sure, it would need to be formula-based. Some combination of matching membership fees/donations and a certain amount per vote gained in previous elections (new parties might need a boosted amount based on fees/donations since they wouldn't have had a previous election).

[Son of Mathonwy]

....so who (decides who) gets funded, and how much?

and who wants to tell the public taxes are going up to pay for it?

I don't actually think political funding needs fixing, to a large extent, but I do think lobbying needs to be changed quite substantially.

Yes, good point. Ban lobbying or regulate it the way Sauron would regulate the Hobbits.

[Mellsblue]

To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

[Zhivago]

To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

What's next? Will he rename the party?? Ludicrous man.

[Puja]

To be fair to Starmer he is trying to limit donations from the unions.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

[Zhivago]

[Lawyers] should refrain from dismissing policies as unlawful and instead give a percentage chance that they may be challenged.

[Mikey Brown]

Perfect.

“Sure, I’m not meant to do this, but will there actually be any consequences?”

[Which Tyler]

Definitely reads as "how busy are the good law society at the moment? Can they afford to bring another case? Or are they fully tied up with all our other illegal actions?"

[Son of Mathonwy]

We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

[Zhivago]

We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

Let's be correct here - unlawful not illegal

[Son of Mathonwy]

We've seen realpolitik. I guess this is reallaw.

Nothing is illegal till it's been challenged, judged illegal in a court of law, and all possible appeals have failed.

How long before they introduce a statute of limitations for government actions? 6 months? 3 months? A week?

Let's be correct here - unlawful not illegal

True, I confused the two.

Unfortunately Braverman regularly confuses lawful and unlawful.

[Which Tyler]

I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

[Sandydragon]

I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

Oh FFS.

You know when you enter a prize draw and one of the T&Cs is that you have to acknowledge that you, or anyone in your immediate family, doesn't work for the company managing the draw? It should be the same in government contracts. Is you company owned by a MP or other senior government official, or do they have shares in it. If so, no contract.

[Son of Mathonwy]

I feel confident that there's nothing to see here, no corruption at all, and no tory donor's / MPs with any links whatsoever to this company.
I'm also, utterly convinced that a 2-person team with expertise in education have all the skills required to oversee... the single most important national project currently going.
https://www.cornwalllive.com/news/cornw ... nt-7407664

A company based in Cornwall has been given the job of overseeing a £70 billion contract to help deliver the country's transition to Net Zero - the target of completely negating the amount of greenhouse gases by reducing emissions. The Place Group - which is based at The Regent, Chapel Street, Penzance - has won the huge framework contract to "control, manage and deliver" the public sector transition to Net Zero.

...

The company has net assets of £344,417 under the directorship of Claire Delaney and Simon James.

...

Oh FFS.

You know when you enter a prize draw and one of the T&Cs is that you have to acknowledge that you, or anyone in your immediate family, doesn't work for the company managing the draw? It should be the same in government contracts. Is you company owned by a MP or other senior government official, or do they have shares in it. If so, no contract.

That would be my first guess . . . hopefully journalists are searching for that link as we speak.

[Zhivago]

Back to the topic of nationalisation.

Our water supply. This really ought to be nationalised and properly funded. Reading articles like this is really shocking.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ish-rivers
Enforcement down from 800 per year to 17...

We should be taking care of our nature, and clearly because private money is involved, the profit motive encourages companies to cut costs by ofloading those costs onto the external environment, and by cutting the enforcement budget of environmental standards the regulations that should prevent this are not enforced. By reducing enforcement of environmental standards, competition of private companies find themselves competing who can get away with the most egregious actions.

Something should be done. Clearly nationalisation is only one solution out of many. But it seems like the problem is caused by private money, so the solution should be to remove private money.