A Political Thread pt. 2

[ncurd]

We have a huge problems with 'free speech' advocates in this country. There are two issues fundamentally.

1) They seams to think the right to say is also the right to be heard and people should not be able to chose not to listen to them.
2) They believe they have 'equal' footing with experts despite the normally baseless reasoning behind their claims.


This will all likely result into nothing but the government are employing a 'war on woke' policy as part of the new culture war now Brexit is doneish. The whole point is to get people riled up the best thing to do is ignore it and focus on actually important things like the catastrophic death toll due to COVID mismanagement.

Students have long been the err of people who did not go to university and have been a punching bag as long as I can remember they also believe universities brainwash people....conveniently forgetting the education of most people in professional politics.

 

[Reiser99]

We have a huge problems with 'free speech' advocates in this country. There are two issues fundamentally.

1) They seams to think the right to say is also the right to be heard and people should not be able to chose not to listen to them.
2) They believe they have 'equal' footing with experts despite the normally baseless reasoning behind their claims.


This will all likely result into nothing but the government are employing a 'war on woke' policy as part of the new culture war now Brexit is doneish. The whole point is to get people riled up the best thing to do is ignore it and focus on actually important things like the catastrophic death toll due to COVID mismanagement.

Students have long been the err of people who did not go to university and have been a punching bag as long as I can remember they also believe universities brainwash people....conveniently forgetting the education of most people in professional politics.

The thing is that this is nothing new in reality. There have always been people who think they know better than experts or people who have heard things from friends and believe them or even simpler, people with abhorrent views. They've always existed. There are a few issues that add to these.

First, is that now everyone pretty much has a platform to air their views publicly. Whereas before people might say things in the privacy of their own home or circle of friends, they can now air their views publicly to the world and that view can potentially be seen by millions and taken as fact. Generally it is accepted that what you say in the privacy of your own home is private and you shouldn't be punished for it (there are of course exceptions). However, the internet is still a bit of a wild west when it comes to policing and enforcing rules. Does posting something publicly on Facebook, Twitter...etc, count the same as saying something privately in your own home. For me it doesn't. If you choose to post something in public, then it should be the same as if you wrote something in a newspaper or went on air and said it. You've chosen to make it public, regardless of how far you intended it to go and should be held accountable for what you say.

Second issue though is how is this policed. Yes some people still say it openly, but when you've got people using VPNs, the dark web, fake user accounts to spread fake information, it is a big issue. Currently there is no real universal policing of the web and there are so many ways to avoid detection. It is the same with trolls or abusers. In reality unless they are stupid enough to use authentic account details it is very hard to find and punish them. At best you can block or delete their account.

The third issue is how long can you hold someone accountable for their views. If they wrote something 20 years ago and have since apologised and acknowledged they were wrong, should they still be punished?

Fourth issue is that it has really highlighted problems with our education system and how it is mainly based on regurgitating facts. People have been taught not to think for themselves and it is shown by how much people are willing to believe things that aren't true or have no ability to verify which information is true. Supposedly the internet age was to be an age of information, but instead it is an age of misinformation.

My final issue is an extension of your second issue. People, who have abhorrent views, believe their opinion is just as valid as someone else. "I believe all non-white people should be sterilised. You may disagree, but I have a right to air my point of view." At what point is someone's point of view not valid because it is so far away from what is considered acceptable?

To put it simply this cancel culture is for me irrelevant and pointless. So people are ignoring a few celebrities or companies who have said something bad. We have huge problems in Britain and America and soon to be the rest of the world, where our politicians are actively lying to us and people believe it. There is so much misinformation and lies that people are being manipulated into a point of view without even realising. What's the point of worrying if someone was not allowed to speak at Oxford student union when we have people in this country being called traitors for trying to hold the government to account.

 

[Which Tyler]

Plan for campus free speech post prompts autonomy warning

Concerns are raised as ministers announce new free speech role to stop "silencing" in universities.

www.bbc.co.uk

Government trying to promote "free speech" on uni campuses.

Whilst I agree with the idea that free speech and exchange of ideas should be protected, I don't think they have thought this through. Simple ways around this would be things like simply not inviting speakers who hold certain views, students not turning up to talks by these speakers if they do and a bunch of other actions people can take in exercising their free speech.

It's like the right wing complaining about cancel culture in the USA after ignoring the fact that they actually promoted it in the first place. They frequently threatened to boycott companies for not doing what they wanted and said if you disagree with what a company does, don't buy their products. That's exactly what people did to influence company behaviour and now they are whinging that companies are reacting to people refusing to buy their products and calling it cancel culture.

As far as I can see, this will be unenforceable and will result in people with extreme views demanding to be heard at Unis and demanding their talks be fully attended or else their free speech is being infringed.

Simultaneously they also want to host a meeting with the UK's biggest heritage bodies and charities to tell them "to defend our culture and history" from people who want to tell the full story of history, Britain, Empire etc, the bad as well as the good.

These do seem somewhat opposite positions they are trying to advance simultaneously. "People need to be free to express opinions no matter how difficult they are to hear, but also no."

I think it might be that the government had gotten tired of having constant U-turns three days after they announce a half-baked, poorly-conceived policy, so they put the the proposal and the U-turn into the same document to be more efficient.

First, is that now everyone pretty much has a platform to air their views publicly. Whereas before people might say things in the privacy of their own home or circle of friends, they can now air their views publicly to the world and that view can potentially be seen by millions and taken as fact. Generally it is accepted that what you say in the privacy of your own home is private and you shouldn't be punished for it (there are of course exceptions). However, the internet is still a bit of a wild west when it comes to policing and enforcing rules. Does posting something publicly on Facebook, Twitter...etc, count the same as saying something privately in your own home. For me it doesn't. If you choose to post something in public, then it should be the same as if you wrote something in a newspaper or went on air and said it. You've chosen to make it public, regardless of how far you intended it to go and should be held accountable for what you say.

That bit's relatively easy.
Anything said in a private message to an individual is the same as a conversation between 2 individuals.
Anything posted publicly is a "letter to the editor"
Anything posted openly, in a restricted forum is much more lecture hall / clubhouse proselytizing.


As for cancel culture, I consider it to be more "consequences of your speech". It is often "forgotten" that freedom of speech means freedom from prosecution, not freedom from all consequence.

 

[big ginger 8]

Edit: Misread the date

 

[Ticklishchap]

In Wales there has been a swing towards independence ,Labour flashing the jack about here will not help them at all.

This is an interesting development; I have seen several references to it recently. May I ask where the inspiration for this is coming from and who (or what demographic) are the supporters of independence? My understanding has been that Plaid Cymru/Party of Wales has not been pro-independence for some time but instead supports greater devolution of powers or 'Devo Max' as the Scots call it. But has this changed now?

 

[Jimcardiff]

It has come mostly because of the tory dominance of westminster , they care little.and have no empathy for Wales.and it shows , as a result even Plaid Cymru have gone for wanting independence ,

 

[Ticklishchap]

It has come mostly because of the tory dominance of westminster , they care little.and have no empathy for Wales.and it shows , as a result even Plaid Cymru have gone for wanting independence ,

This is a problem that has been building up for a long time. There's a sense in which I can feel it more directly now, as opposed to simply understanding it intellectually, because the current right-wing populist iteration of Toryism neglects and despises London - and other large English cities - favouring (or rather pretending to favour) 'left behind' white working class communities in the North of England. Increase that neglect by the power of ten or maybe twenty and we have the current situation in Wales. In that context, the desire for Welsh independence is unsurprising: the surprise is that it did not come sooner.

Labour at national (i.e.Westminster) level does not have a much better record and has been recalcitrant and unimaginative about electoral and other constitutional reforms.

Is independence attracting disillusioned Labour supporters as well as Plaid voters? I had wondered whether there were other nationalists to the 'left' of Plaid? Also, there are - at least from what I have understood from visits to Wales - still quite profound differences between North and South, Welsh speakers and monolingual English speakers, urban and rural. On top of that, there seem to be quite a few English 'immigrants' and retirees, who might well have tipped the Welsh electoral scales towards Brexit in 2016. With these differences, it will be a challenge to create the kind of 'civic nationalism' that is starting to emerge in Scotland.

 

[Not Mike Brown's Sock]

This is a problem that has been building up for a long time. There's a sense in which I can feel it more directly now, as opposed to simply understanding it intellectually, because the current right-wing populist iteration of Toryism neglects and despises London - and other large English cities - favouring (or rather pretending to favour) 'left behind' white working class communities in the North of England. Increase that neglect by the power of ten or maybe twenty and we have the current situation in Wales. In that context, the desire for Welsh independence is unsurprising: the surprise is that it did not come sooner.

Labour at national (i.e.Westminster) level does not have a much better record and has been recalcitrant and unimaginative about electoral and other constitutional reforms.

Is independence attracting disillusioned Labour supporters as well as Plaid voters? I had wondered whether there were other nationalists to the 'left' of Plaid? Also, there are - at least from what I have understood from visits to Wales - still quite profound differences between North and South, Welsh speakers and monolingual English speakers, urban and rural. On top of that, there seem to be quite a few English 'immigrants' and retirees, who might well have tipped the Welsh electoral scales towards Brexit in 2016. With these differences, it will be a challenge to create the kind of 'civic nationalism' that is starting to emerge in Scotland.

Nationalism in Scotland is anything but "civic"

 

[Ticklishchap]

Nationalism in Scotland is anything but "civic"

I'm sure you're right: it seems to be the term they use, as distinct from ethno-nationalism perhaps. The Nationalists are certainly not being very civil to each other at the moment, from what I have heard. In fact they seem to be splitting, almost?

 

[Bada-Bing!]

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules

The decision could mean thousands of Uber drivers are set to receive minimum wage and holiday pay.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules

The decision could mean thousands of Uber drivers are set to receive minimum wage and holiday pay.

www.bbc.co.uk

Cue "We can't be treating people who do work with any sort of decency! We need to be making money here! Won't somebody please think about the large company?"

 

[McTallshort]

 

[Ticklishchap]

View attachment 9358

The man who "should've gone to Specsavers"!

 

[Ticklishchap]

Uber drivers are workers not self-employed, Supreme Court rules

The decision could mean thousands of Uber drivers are set to receive minimum wage and holiday pay.

www.bbc.co.uk

This issue is not as completely clear-cut as it appears. I should emphasise that I STRONGLY support the principle behind the ruling, namely fair pay, workers' rights and non-exploitative conditions. At the same time, our economy has changed so much (this was already happening before Covid) that many people now work freelance and have 'portfolio careers' instead of a 'job' that defines their identity. Many freelancers welcome the opportunity to set their own hours (fitting them, for example, around caring responsibilities), as well as working part time or having an 'evening' or 'weekend' job to supplement their income.
Therefore it is possible that a Citizens' Income or UBI (Universal Basic Income) is a better way of addressing this problem than an inflexible court ruling.

 

[RedruthRFC]

This issue is not as completely clear-cut as it appears. I should emphasise that I STRONGLY support the principle behind the ruling, namely fair pay, workers' rights and non-exploitative conditions. At the same time, our economy has changed so much (this was already happening before Covid) that many people now work freelance and have 'portfolio careers' instead of a 'job' that defines their identity. Many freelancers welcome the opportunity to set their own hours (fitting them, for example, around caring responsibilities), as well as working part time or having an 'evening' or 'weekend' job to supplement their income.
Therefore it is possible that a Citizens' Income or UBI (Universal Basic Income) is a better way of addressing this problem than an inflexible court ruling.

Yes, but the majority of Uber drivers have a portfolio of one company that they get their gigs from, so are employees in all but status. If the pandemic has done anything to change the gig economy, it is to make people realise that the benefits that they gave up by joining it were more valuable than they thought.

As far as I can see, all that UBI would achieve in this context would be to force the tax payer to foot the bill for drivers to get what they're entitled to rather than a tax dodging multinational dipping into their profits to fund it.

 

[Ticklishchap]

Yes, but the majority of Uber drivers have a portfolio of one company that they get their gigs from, so are employees in all but status. If the pandemic has done anything to change the gig economy, it is to make people realise that the benefits that they gave up by joining it were more valuable than they thought.

As far as I can see, all that UBI would achieve in this context would be to force the tax payer to foot the bill for drivers to get what they're entitled to rather than a tax dodging multinational dipping into their profits to fund it.

I think we're basically on the same page about this. I certainly think that multinationals should be compelled pay their taxes fairly and pay their workers properly. What is needed, however, is balanced approach that enables the drivers as employees or as self-employed to work flexibly.

Beyond that, there is a need to rethink our approach to work and benefits so that they are not based on the outdated assumption of a 'job for life' or a straight line of career progression rather than the zigzag pattern that many now experience. This is where UBI comes in. It offers a safety net without the oppressive bureaucracy of Universal Credit and similar systems. It also induces employers to behave in a more reasonable way because it takes away the fear of unemployment. There are counter-arguments of course but the status quo is literally 'not working' and it is surely time to explore alternatives.

If only we had a better Official Opposition that was willing to think 'outside the box' over the next few years.

 

[Which Tyler]

On UBI - I was having that discussion a few weeks ago elsewhere, and ran some maths (without looking at the potential benefits, or risks of UBI - the discussion had largely covered that already, but decided that affordability was simply not possible without doubling HMG's tax take)...
I'm running on the assumption than UBI would be set at a pretty basic level, at least initially, enough food, housing, gas/electricity and broadband. If you want a big TV with an expensive monthly contract, or an overseas holliday - you can still get a job. With UBI, other forms of government support would not be necessary.



UBI would replace pretty much all other welfare payments (some disabled would need higher UBI). So that's £275B already accounted for.

It would also remove the need for the "personal allowance" 0% tax bracket, so the first £12k of income for 37M people (it'd be less because plenty work, but earn less than £12k - but we're doing approximations here) - so that's another £444B. Essentially, UBI becomes the personal allowance - it's tax-free, anything earned above that, is taxed.

DWP is currently the biggest department of HMG, with 80,000 employees, Staffing costs around £2.6B. A massively simplified UBI would need less than 1\10 of this, so there's another couple of billion on staffing, let alone all the other costs associated - especially London offices. Negligible for these purposes, but allows a little leeway for our margin of error.

Either way, we've can put somewhere around £700-722B into a pot to be redistributed with UBI. If we "simply" did that, and didn't touch the rest of the tax brackets (though I would anyway), for a population of 66.6Million, that gives us £10,510- £10,840 for every man, woman and child in the country (AKA, anyone with a national insurance number).

To put that number into context, HMG think £12k is a livable wage (personal allowance before they start taxing you). From personal experience, my wife and I both earn around that, and we're... okay, no real luxuries, but not particularly close to poverty. We certainly have more than we would ever expect UBI to cover. We live in Gloucestershire, so hardly London prices, but hardly Northumbrian or Highlands either.

I'd suggest that an average around £10-11k as a UBI would be enough to cover the absolute necessities (we spent years earning significantly less than that which was genuinely concerning, but enough to survive).



Okay, so it's more complicated than that; whilst kids are expensive, they don't cost the same in upkeep as an adult, different parts of the country would have different housing costs - though I'd consider the extent of that to be a bad thing etc etc. There would be some fraud, but it'd be tough to pull off, birth certificate and national insurance number needed to qualify, ended at point of death... the only viable way is to bury a body in your back yard, and that typically doesn't end well for anyone. These are all points for discussion - is UBI still universal if it's region dependent? Do we spend enough on it to allow a minimal quality of life in the highlands, and barely enough to buy food in London; or a minimal quality of life in London, and upper-middle-class in the Highlands? Do we go somewhere in between, with differences but not enough, and an attempt to even out inequality over time, using UBI as part of market forces? Do we give people more if they chose to live solo rather than flat-share or with partner?

It would need some administration - probably something like:
1 full-time nutritionist to decide on food requirements - preferably with access to online supermarkets to decide on actual costs.
1 full-time peon with access to USwitch to decide on utilities allowance (we already track how many units of gas and electricity the average household uses).
Depending on how it's set up, 1 part-time contract with the ONS to decide on housing allowance (again, cost of housing is already tracked nationally and regionally).
Obviously, this is a gross over-simplification, but we're not talking 80,000 civil servants.



I would love it if furlough and SEISS reimagined itself as UBI

 

[Ragey Erasmus]

The only concern I have with UBI is the low skill low pay jobs. When I worked in a pub, my earnings were less than the UBI you calculated there would be. I worked in the pub to bring money in, with UBI I simply wouldn't have done that. Lots of students etc do bar work as a way to earn an income but if UBI gives that, could pubs see fewer people turning up to work for them? Salaries would drop by the equivalent of UBI as a pub would say why do you need to be paid 10k or whatever it is if you are getting UBI? We will pay you 1k. Even though effectively you are better off, rather than doing that work for 10k you are doing that same work for only a 1k improvement in your earnings. I can't see people doing that.

Ironically the group it is meant to help the most are the group who will probably end up taking work less as a result. If it works then it makes a lot of these smaller businesses suddenly much more viable as they don't incur the cost of employing people but it relies on people still wanting to work for a much smaller increase in their living standards. Maybe the whole thing would balance out and they'd bump up the wages again to keep attracting people but could this not lead to wages being bumped up across the board, inflation hitting, prices of commodities rising and before you know it you are pretty much back to square 1 as the UBI no longer covers the cost of living?

 

[Reiser99]

The only concern I have with UBI is the low skill low pay jobs. When I worked in a pub, my earnings were less than the UBI you calculated there would be. I worked in the pub to bring money in, with UBI I simply wouldn't have done that. Lots of students etc do bar work as a way to earn an income but if UBI gives that, could pubs see fewer people turning up to work for them? Salaries would drop by the equivalent of UBI as a pub would say why do you need to be paid 10k or whatever it is if you are getting UBI? We will pay you 1k. Even though effectively you are better off, rather than doing that work for 10k you are doing that same work for only a 1k improvement in your earnings. I can't see people doing that.

You kind of answer your own question tbh. If pubs aren't willing to pay a decent wage and people don't do the jobs then they'll be forced to pay higher to attract staff.

However you d raise a good question about wages because I can definitely see some companies trying to lower the wages they pay in order to increase profits and use UBI as a justification. You could still have a minimum wage, especially as based on Which Tyler's calculations the money is coming from existing taxes and revenue and is just being redistributed. I think the idea of UBI is that people won't be desperate for a job so employers actually have to pay more to incentivise people to come and work for them.

 

[ncurd]

The only concern I have with UBI is the low skill low pay jobs. When I worked in a pub, my earnings were less than the UBI you calculated there would be. I worked in the pub to bring money in, with UBI I simply wouldn't have done that. Lots of students etc do bar work as a way to earn an income but if UBI gives that, could pubs see fewer people turning up to work for them? Salaries would drop by the equivalent of UBI as a pub would say why do you need to be paid 10k or whatever it is if you are getting UBI? We will pay you 1k. Even though effectively you are better off, rather than doing that work for 10k you are doing that same work for only a 1k improvement in your earnings. I can't see people doing that.

UBI only works if a job (any job) pays ontop of UBI. UBI comes from the state and your job pays your salary on top of that. Essentially everyone's wages goes down a huge amount.

The huge complication is you have completely rework the tax system, basically corporation tax, NI and income tax has to be completely rehauled to accommodate this. As Which Tyler said you'd pay tax on every penny you earn because the state is giving you the money.

Corporation tax goes up because profits massively increase as your paying your staff far less. When in reality it has to be recouped for UBI.

The rehaul mean small profit businesses pay far less to pay for UBI but could in theory afford to hire more people as their wage bill is significantly reduced.


I certainly think its the best answer out there. I think it requires massively big brains and huge amount of public good will.