The Political Thread

[The Legendary Shark]

The sad fact is, Panth, that a government monopoly can only be removed by a government. It's all very nice in theory to believe that if enough ordinary people vote for a change, that change will happen. We know that governments ignore the wishes of the people as a matter of course, or interpret those wishes in a way which suits their own narrow interests.

It is far easier to break a monopoly without government, using a purer form of democracy - the money in your wallet. Each penny you own is a vote. If you don't like a monopoly, don't give it your pennies. If enough people agree with you, that monopoly will either change its ways or starve to death. That's in a capilastic free-trade model, of course. In the corporatist monopolistic world we inhabit, though, governments reserve the "right" to use your tax money to subsidise a struggling monopoly or even pass protective legislation (which is then presented as "law") to limit fair competition. The most blatant contemporary example of this is the banking system - a government enforced monopoly in constant need of bail-outs and quantitative easing, which the general population is forced to pay for. There are several alternatives available for fixing the banking system, none of which is currently being considered seriously by any political party.

Foxconn (a Taiwan-based Apple (amongst others) supplier, not an "Apple factory") could indeed fire all its workers and replace them with a fresh crop, but that would not be very cost-effective. Who would train the new workers with the entire current crop dismissed, for example? How long would the factory be shut down, costing money rather than making it, whilst this transition took place? How much business might Foxconn lose because of this tactic? And what if the new crop of workers turn out to be as disgruntled as the last lot? Fire them and start the process again? And again? And yet again?

Apple (and the other Foxconn customers) would not want this any more than Foxconn itself. It is far more economically sensible, and humane, for all the parties to work towards a mutually beneficial arrangement. The Chinese government's attitude towards strikes limits the options necessary for fairness, leaving the handful of Foxconn executives/shareholders with the ultimate "like it or lump it" tactic.

I think your hopes are already beginning to bear fruit, Panth, because it is in conversations like this one that you and I, and the people who read this thread, pay attention to that begin the process of thinking about change. We do indeed have a system in place which is capable of effecting great change. However, between my ultimate vision of sweeping it all away and your vision of letting it carry on as-is there lie a virtual infinity of possibilities. Keep some bits, change others, abolish the rest.

To my mind, the first step is to understand what government is actually for and what its rights and responsibilities are. My view is that it's government's job to organise and serve, not to preserve and command.

[IndigoPrime]

Online approval. The comment threads of just about every Irish news site and board are heavily policed by right wing racists.

Ah, right. Even so, it's still surprising that general racism trumps "let the British control aspects of our ports".

My dwindling hope is someone wrenches some kind of botched and very British compromise from all this madness. The chance of Brexit being stopped is zero, but some kind of EEA fudge (retaining much of FOM/single market/open border with Ireland) would I think piss off everyone, but make enough people not entirely angry that it could sit there as an 'interim' solution in much the same way as the UK's 'interim' use of Sterling before switching to the Euro. Mind you, if there really are 80 Tory MPs looking to kick up a fuss about Brexit, that could be a really big deal. May's majority isn't very big. If even a quarter of them decide to fuck up the government unless it dials down the bullshit, she could be in real trouble (well, assuming Labour actually gets its act together).

[Professor Bear]

Right wing racists tend to crop up in pretty much every online opinion venue to attempt to police all dissenting opinion, so I wouldn't read much into that in itself. 

[TordelBack]

True, true, but Gruddamnit I hate the way every discussion has to start with their hateful nonsense. And people do believe it when they see it trotted out in B&W: my mother, for example.

[JayzusB.Christ]

True, true, but Gruddamnit I hate the way every discussion has to start with their hateful nonsense. And people do believe it when they see it trotted out in B&W: my mother, for example.

I think a lot of the older generation haven't quite grasped the fact that the internet is essentially a giant toilet wall. (Except this forum, obviously.)

[Frank]

Manchester's gay village, seen on the right wing BBC News in the context of the decision to pardon gay men convicted of buggery and gross indecency. Yes, Zac; it looks like Batman really does V Superman. Maybe even >< and >0 (but only on his birthday).

This is also from the dirty, fascist BBC (no better than The Mail). It's not immediately obvious how this year's compassionate, erudite, and funny Reith Lectures are undermining Jeremy Corbyn, but there's another three talks on the topics of race, nationalism, and gender for the shameful inherent bias to reveal itself. BBC and itunes.

[Hawkmumbler]

Heh. I find the notion of "pardening" gay and bisexual men ridiculous, insinuating they did anything wrong to begun with. Horrible.

[Frank]

I take your point, but I'm not sure we should be allowed to forget that we were locking people up for having a boyfriend at the same time my dad was chatting up my mum at the dancing.

An official pardon keeps the conviction in the cultural conversation as well as on the permanent record. Whitewashing history does no-one any favours.

[Steve Green]

Filibustered

http://attitude.co.uk/tory-minister-branded-a-disgrace-as-he-obstructs-new-gay-pardon-bill-in-parliament/

[Hawkmumbler]

I take your point, but I'm not sure we should be allowed to forget that we were locking people up for having a boyfriend at the same time my dad was chatting up my mum at the dancing.

An official pardon keeps the conviction in the cultural conversation as well as on the permanent record. Whitewashing history does no-one any favours.

It wouldn't be white washing, however. It would the establishment accepting they passed a discriminatory law, cocked it up and apologizing. A pardon on your criminal record can still effect people looking for work, the records should be wiped clean.

[Theblazeuk]

What a joke. Parliamentary conduct has slid rapidly downhill from an already precarious position over the last few terms.

[GordonR]

I take your point, but I'm not sure we should be allowed to forget that we were locking people up for having a boyfriend at the same time my dad was chatting up my mum at the dancing.

An official pardon keeps the conviction in the cultural conversation as well as on the permanent record. Whitewashing history does no-one any favours.

It wouldn't be white washing, however. It would the establishment accepting they passed a discriminatory law, cocked it up and apologizing. A pardon on your criminal record can still effect people looking for work, the records should be wiped clean.

Realistically, how many people convicted under laws that were (mostly) repealed 49 years ago do you think are still out there in the jobs market today?

[Frank]

An official pardon keeps the conviction in the cultural conversation as well as on the permanent record. Whitewashing history does no-one any favours.

It wouldn't be white washing ... the records should be wiped clean

Despite our different metaphors, it certainly sounds like the same thing, Hawk. If you wipe the record clean you remove primary source evidence of the historical injustice perpetrated against a section of society.

The youngest any adult convicted of using their funparts without authorisation from Her Majesty could be today is 66; I'm not sure job seeking is much of a concern.

Given the turn of events Steve linked to, this discussion is academic. Tory Justice minister Sam Gyimah sounds like a right charmer.

[CrazyFoxMachine]

Meanwhile, Robert Crumb draws Trump getting swirlied. Explains the hair at least.

Source

[Frank]

Brexit means ... at least one more vote (probably several): http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37857785


Before the hallelujahs and goading begin, please remember how obnoxious you found it when Brexiters did so a few months ago.

If there's one thing this and the repellent US election should teach us it's that folk who want everything entirely their own way are the real enemy, and that grown ups resolve their differences by discussing the facts, listening to opposing views, and arriving at a compromise.

Which is what should have happened here in the first place.