|
I mean, historically speaking, forcing people to take literally any work under any conditions or face starvation through lack of state assistance has been the perfect recipe for rising wages and increased living standards. It just stands to reason.
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
namesake posted:I completely trust the Tory government to get us half way to a low welfare, high wage economy. Don't forget the low taxes. They can get us halfway there, too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:19
|
|
|
Look, I'm not sure what's so hard to understand: if we cut tax credits then the employers will instantly and automatically make up the entire shortfall, because they would never pay people really shittily just because it will save them money and they can. e: And if they didn't lots of people would be worse off and the Prime Minister has repeatedly and categorically refused to say that they will be worse off, so clearly they won't be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:20
|
|
|
I too am not sure what's hard to understand: when rich people pay less tax, they spend the money they save funding roads, buses, state schools, and public hospitals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:22
|
|
|
The Ragged-Trousered Philanthropists still contemporary
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
I'm waiting for some loudmouth Tory back bencher to advise low earners to make do and mend until they jolly well find a better paying job. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:31
|
|
|
I do not understand. I see many poor families, and many have pets. If these people so hungry, why they not eat dog? Checkmate liberlols.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:33
|
|
|
A Tory minister walks onto a building site and sees half the house is being held up by temporary supports. He screams "We need proper permanent brick walls not these stop-gap half-measures making up for the bricklayer's shortcomings!" and kicks them away, killing everyone inside.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:43
|
|
|
I approached this weekend with the determination to read some anarchist texts. Just opened "Working Class Politics and Anarchism" which is a collection of essays. Essay 1 rips into direct action as being "elitist" and advises activists to work within established democratic structures "no matter how inept their leaders" on the argument that the methods of direct action are inherently esoteric and mysterious - as if a petrol bomb is beyond the intellect of the average person. Second essay calls trade unions a useless spent force that nobody should be a part of. I'm getting some seriously  vibes from this poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 15:55
|
|
|
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/31/peers-block-police-powers-internet-browsing-history gently caress it, go get 'em you aristocratic bastards.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I approached this weekend with the determination to read some anarchist texts. Just opened "Working Class Politics and Anarchism" which is a collection of essays. Essay 1 rips into direct action as being "elitist" and advises activists to work within established democratic structures "no matter how inept their leaders" on the argument that the methods of direct action are inherently esoteric and mysterious - as if a petrol bomb is beyond the intellect of the average person. Second essay calls trade unions a useless spent force that nobody should be a part of. I'm getting some seriously I'm currently reading Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier, and he had a serious thing about how socialism was being ruined by vegetarians, nudists, birth-control advocates, fruit-juice-drinkers, pacifists, teetotallers and sex-maniacs. Crashbee fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:05
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I approached this weekend with the determination to read some anarchist texts. Just opened "Working Class Politics and Anarchism" which is a collection of essays. Essay 1 rips into direct action as being "elitist" and advises activists to work within established democratic structures "no matter how inept their leaders" on the argument that the methods of direct action are inherently esoteric and mysterious - as if a petrol bomb is beyond the intellect of the average person. Second essay calls trade unions a useless spent force that nobody should be a part of. I'm getting some seriously Was it written by ubisoft or summat? e: was it the AWL one? Published by a trot group, but going by the contents there seems to be some back and forth, so it might get better? Not sure the woman who wrote the first two is an anarchist. Ichabod Sexbeast fucked around with this message at 16:14 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:09
|
|
|
Kaislioc posted:http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/oct/31/peers-block-police-powers-internet-browsing-history How many of the Lords are actually hereditary these days?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
Crashbee posted:I'm currently reading Orwell's Road to Wigan Pier, and he had a serious thing about how socialism was being ruined by vegetarians, nudists, birth-control advocates, fruit-juice-drinkers, pacifists, teetotallers and sex-maniacs. Haha I read that exact passage yesterday. Was a little surprised to see feminist dropped in there as well. While the exact types of people ruining socialist organisations by being in them is a bit outdated I think he's got a very good point about the general psychology of them even today.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
thespaceinvader posted:How many of the Lords are actually hereditary these days? Around 90, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
Wikipedia says that since the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, only 92 out of over 800 Hereditary peers are allowed to sit in the House of Lords. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hereditary_peer
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:I approached this weekend with the determination to read some anarchist texts. Just opened "Working Class Politics and Anarchism" which is a collection of essays. Who recommended that and when do we give em the boots? Read God and the State, Statism and Anarchism (Bakunin) or The Conquest of Bread (Kropotkin). None of that Trotsky bollocks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 16:58
|
|
|
C'mon, Lords, you've got the Tories on the ropes, all you need to do is deliver the coup de grace.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:04
|
|
|
The lords have cancelled "Dave and friends" after only one and a half seasons. This is terrible! Enterprise got kinda maybe OK a bit? During season 3. gently caress you out of touch lords! Give us enterprise season 4!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:50
|
|
|
Dead Goon posted:Wikipedia says that since the House of Lords Act 1999 was passed, only 92 out of over 800 Hereditary peers are allowed to sit in the House of Lords. Isn't there some sort of weird system where when a currently sitting hereditary peer dies, the lords that have a claim to his seat have to have some sort of vote between themselves on who gets it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
I can't wait for the conservatives to throw a shitfit at the concept of the upper house doing what it exists to do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:54
|
|
|
They started like a week ago
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:55
|
|
|
Phoon posted:They started like a week ago I mean I'm going to enjoy it going from "lords can't overrule the commons on financial matters" to "lords can't disagree with us at all!!!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 19:58
|
|
|
See, they could have avoided all this if they'd put it in their manifesto.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:05
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:Isn't there some sort of weird system where when a currently sitting hereditary peer dies, the lords that have a claim to his seat have to have some sort of vote between themselves on who gets it? When a hereditary peer in the Lords dies (or since last year's Reform Act, retires fron the House) there's an election from amongst the peerage about who fills his empty seat. There's actually been quite a number of these byelections in the past 16 years, half-a-dozen gave been called just this year, it's a pretty well-tested system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/By-elections_to_the_House_of_Lords I think it strikes a decent balance. If someone won't compromise on the existence of peers full stop then of course he won't be satisfied, but if hereditary peers are to remain in the Lords as the law allows then it seems a practical way to do it - it stops criticisms that the Lords is "moribund" by ensuring that whoever takes the seat has some active interest in the role. kapparomeo fucked around with this message at 20:26 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I mean I'm going to enjoy it going from "lords can't overrule the commons on financial matters" to "lords can't disagree with us at all!!!" The Heselswine was getting pretty close to that on Any Questions this week - partially redeemed by him straight up calling UKIP a racist party. Don't listen to Any Answers unless you like swearing, so many imperialist throwback shitehawks.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
kapparomeo posted:When a hereditary peer in the Lords dies (or since last year's Reform Act, retires fron the House) there's an election from amongst the peerage about who fills his empty seat. There's actually been quite a number of these byelections in the past 16 years, half-a-dozen gave been called just this year, it's a pretty well-tested system. e: It's like someone decided to combine the worst features of a democracy with the worst features of a literal plutocracy and use that as a basis for an eighth of one of our houses of Parliament. pumpinglemma fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
If they'd let it continue to grow in size at the same rate that it did from 1707-1999 then eventually it would have encompassed the entire population of the UK (except the royal family and serving MPs of course).
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
I suppose that's one way to implement direct democracy and mincome.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:35
|
|
|
If everyone was a lord, who would they lord it over? Doesn't make sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:41
|
|
|
The commons, presumably.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Ichabod Sexbeast posted:Was it written by ubisoft or summat? Tesseraction posted:Who recommended that and when do we give em the boots?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:It's the Worker's Library one, and yeah the later essays have responses to the opening two. Can't believe how retarded you'd have to be to make those two essays be the openers for any book on anarchism though. quote:We will not join in with moralistic condemnations of your “violence”
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:13
|
|
|
What's "post left"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:20
|
|
|
"Right"
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
It's anarchism without the focus on class-based politics or ideology, I think.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
That sounds like a euphemism for liberalism.
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Oberleutnant posted:This is me picking poo poo at random by my own hosed up instincts. I got God & the State already and I'll grab the rest tomorrow, thanks!
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Fun Graph:
|
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 06:01 |
|
|
TomViolence posted:It's anarchism without the focus on class-based politics or ideology, I think. It's still class based, it's the rejection of leftist tactics like trade-unionism in favour of a "fun" politics. Bookchin called them lifestylists, the middle class uni kid who doesn't bother to engage with any theory, but really wants to smoke crack in a squat. WhiskeyWhiskers fucked around with this message at 21:41 on Oct 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 31, 2015 21:38
|
|