Quantcast
Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
    1. Welcome to GTAForums!

    1. GTANet.com

    1. GTA Online

      1. Los Santos Summer Special
      2. The Diamond Casino Heist
      3. Find Lobbies & Players
      4. Guides & Strategies
      5. Vehicles
      6. Content Creator
      7. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Online

      1. Frontier Pursuits
      2. Find Lobbies & Outlaws
      3. Help & Support
    3. Crews

    1. Red Dead Redemption 2

      1. PC
      2. Help & Support
    2. Red Dead Redemption

    1. Grand Theft Auto Series

    2. GTA VI

      1. St. Andrews Cathedral
    3. GTA V

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    4. GTA IV

      1. The Lost and Damned
      2. The Ballad of Gay Tony
      3. Guides & Strategies
      4. Help & Support
    5. GTA San Andreas

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    6. GTA Vice City

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    7. GTA III

      1. Guides & Strategies
      2. Help & Support
    8. Portable Games

      1. GTA Chinatown Wars
      2. GTA Vice City Stories
      3. GTA Liberty City Stories
    9. Top-Down Games

      1. GTA Advance
      2. GTA 2
      3. GTA
    1. GTA Mods

      1. GTA V
      2. GTA IV
      3. GTA III, VC & SA
      4. Tutorials
    2. Red Dead Mods

      1. Documentation
    3. Mod Showroom

      1. Scripts & Plugins
      2. Maps
      3. Total Conversions
      4. Vehicles
      5. Textures
      6. Characters
      7. Tools
      8. Other
      9. Workshop
    4. Featured Mods

      1. Design Your Own Mission
      2. OpenIV
      3. GTA: Underground
      4. GTA: Liberty City
      5. GTA: State of Liberty
    1. Rockstar Games

    2. Rockstar Collectors

    1. Off-Topic

      1. General Chat
      2. Gaming
      3. Technology
      4. Movies & TV
      5. Music
      6. Sports
      7. Vehicles
    2. Expression

      1. Graphics / Visual Arts
      2. GFX Requests & Tutorials
      3. Writers' Discussion
      4. Debates & Discussion
    3. Gangs

    1. Announcements

    2. Support

    3. Suggestions

BRITLAND

UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

Recommended Posts

Dingdongs

Lol the personalities and character of these candidates in your guys' elections are just a complete circus..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ottae

 

I'm not certain, but I think increasing wages and benefits may have an adverse effect in the long term on the growth of the economy and lead to more unemployment in the future.

 

Oh I see, the reason wages and benefits haven't increased relative to productivity is for the good of the economy, so you'll get more money later! Here I was thinking we lived in a corrupt plutocracy.

 

You're right, wages should be increasing relative to the growth of the economy. I just don't see it as a black and white as "WORKERS GOOD. BUSINESSES BAD" however, there is a lot more to it. I don't pretend to know the ins and outs of the subject, I'm talking purely based on my opinions about the strengths of each party.

 

I'm not touching your "corrupt plutocracy" comment with a barge pole.

 

As a side note, I think you'd get a more of a healthy debate if you didn't reply in a snarky, sarcastic tone which serves no purpose other than to antagonise anyone who has a different opinion to you. I didn't attack you or your opinion, so don't think the " :sarcasm::sarcasm: :sarcasm:" undertone was necessary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

You're right, wages should be increasing relative to the growth of the economy. I just don't see it as a black and white as "WORKERS GOOD. BUSINESSES BAD" however, there is a lot more to it.

Well, it certainly is a dichotomy. The interests are entirely different. Workers want to be compensated fairly, and business wants to maximise profits at all cost. It's wired into the institution, and in many jurisdictions corporations are legally required to take any and all possible steps to deliver maximum profits to the shareholders. It isn't an abstract idea, you literally have two options: support common people, or support big business. Any amount of economic growth is for naught if peoples' income doesn't also grow.

 

 

 

As a side note, I think you'd get a more of a healthy debate if you didn't reply in a snarky, sarcastic tone which serves no purpose other than to antagonise anyone who has a different opinion to you.

hahaha sorry mate, wasn't trying to antagonise you. I'm just very exasperated with the (long, long ago discredited) idea that aiding big business will ultimately aid the rest of us. I suppose I was also p miffed by the idea that pensioners being unable to heat their homes is a non-issue.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I think the notion that the sole purpose in business is to maximise profit, though certainly valid in a great many cases, can't be taken as an absolute. Many companies, large and small, go to great lengths to reinvest their profit in their employees- via stuff like cooperative ownership and other methods for inciting worker involvement, investment and the like in the management of the business. They're certainly not riding their employees into the dirt to maximise shareholder or owner profit above all else- though I'll readily admit that many others do.

 

I don't think choice between business and individual is a binary thing. Plenty of societies (Northern Europe of course being foremost amongst them) understand the notion of employees really being "the business"; it's something Germany does a pretty good job of too.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BRITLAND

Lol the personalities and character of these candidates in your guys' elections are just a complete circus..

Who's your favourite clown at our circus? :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

Also, if UKIP is centre-right, I don't want to hear what you consider far-right stu

 

Touché. Yh they're defenitely not centrist. I guess I should have just said right-wing and left it at that.

 

 

Hang on, end immigration, withdraw from the EU, and reduce taxes on the wealthy (all to be paid for by eliminating a tiny, tiny margin of welfare recipients) is not centre-right, it's far-right goose stepping madness. You've got a lot of balls calling anyone else looney with this nonsense.

 

I don't know why you keep saying UKIP and I want to "end immigration" since UKIP doesn't want to do that, and I don't either. It's about being able to control and reduce it. Not ending it all together. Neither that nor withdrawal from the EU is in any way a far-right policy or even close. Increasing defence spending actually makes sense given the current climate, with an expansionist Russia and IS. I'd certainly rather see that than the greens destroying our ability to protect ourselves by getting rid of our nuclear deterrent and then decimating the armed forces. As for their policies on taxation and welfare, I don't agree with those either, but you can't have everything I guess.

Edited by stu
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Captain VXR

 

Also, if UKIP is centre-right, I don't want to hear what you consider far-right stu

 

Touché. Yh they're defenitely not centrist. I guess I should have just said right-wing and left it at that.

 

 

Hang on, end immigration, withdraw from the EU, and reduce taxes on the wealthy (all to be paid for by eliminating a tiny, tiny margin of welfare recipients) is not centre-right, it's far-right goose stepping madness. You've got a lot of balls calling anyone else looney with this nonsense.

 

I don't know why you keep saying UKIP and I want to "end immigration" since UKIP doesn't want to do that, and I don't either. It's about being able to control and reduce it. Not ending it all together. Neither that nor withdrawal from the EU is in any way a far-right policy or even close. Increasing defence spending actually makes sense given the current climate, with an expansionist Russia and IS. I'd certainly rather see that than the greens destroying our ability to protect ourselves by getting rid of our nuclear deterrent and then decimating the armed forces. As for their policies on taxation and welfare, I don't agree with those either, but you can't have everything I guess.

 

Farage is a fan of Putler and his Russian expansionism. UKIP are even allied to the Kremlin. I dare say many Kippers are fans of the extreme authoritarianism, Christian Fascism, homophobia, racism, traditionalism and nostalgia for past empires that is engulfing Russia as we speak.

http://uatoday.tv/politics/putin-s-european-extremist-allies-412846.html

 

Camus argues that Russia is successfully playing on existing dissatisfaction within the EU over the policies pursued by Brussels. He also sees synergies between the political visions of the Kremlin and Europe's far-right in terms of methods of government (including the imposition of vertical power structures), and agreement over the possible end of Western European hegemony as a result of corruption by American values.

This dissatisfaction with the EU has a number of different roots in different member states. In struggling economies like Greek, tough EU policies have served to make Brussels unpopular. In EU leaders like Germany and the UK, Euro-skepticism tends to be driven by opposition to the financial burdens of supporting economically weaker members.

British political analyst Andrew Foxall warns that Europeans are danger of falling into a Kremlin trap. "European voters need to understand that voting for far-right parties is not merely a vote against the political mainstream – it is a vote for Putin."

There is certainly no doubt that Putin is active in acquiring as many lobbyists as possible in Europe.

Russian influence is expanding within the most important decision-makers within the EU, including the UK, France and Germany, according to political analyst Michael Emerson of the Centre for European Policy Studies. Elections to the European Parliament highlight this growing influence. France's National Front, led by Marine Le Pen, currently has 23 seats in the European Parliament, while Britain's ultra-conservative UKIP party has 24.

These anti-EU parties compete with one another to demonstrate their support for Putin. UKIP leader Nigel Farage has openly called on Europe to cede Ukraine to Russia in return for Russian support against ISIS.

UKIP are Putler collaborators pure and simple. Whilst not open supporters of domestic Fascist politics, they are the modern equivalent of the blackshirts. Edit - their bogeymen instead of the Jews are Muslims and Eastern Europeans from the EU (Russians are OK in their books because the Kremlin would like to suppress most of Eastern Europe). That said, a majority of Kippers wouldn't accept a Jewish PM:

http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/128769/most-ukip-voters-would-not-accept-a-jewish-prime-minister-poll-reveals

 

Edit 2 - I expect a lot of Kippers also don't want an independent Ukraine joining the EU as 'they'll be all over hear takeing are jerbs *frothing at mouth*'

Edited by Captain VXR
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

What exactly do you mean by control immigration? Like quotas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

What exactly do you mean by control immigration? Like quotas?

 

Yeah, pretty much. Only have x amount come in per year. I also don't agree with allowing someone to come here just because they want to. Are they useful to the country and our needs is what should be determining their entry. So if for example there is a critical shortage of a certain type of worker in the UK which can't be quickly and easily filled by training British citizens, then encourage immigrants who can temporarily fill that need and grant short term work visas. Likewise if there is already an overabundance of a particular profession, then don't allow immigrants in who are looking for that type of work, because they'll only make matters worse. We can't do that at the minute though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Svip

So if for example there is a critical shortage of a certain type of worker in the UK which can't be quickly and easily filled by training British citizens, then encourage immigrants who can temporarily fill that need and grant short term work visas.

 

 

You mean what most Western European countries did back in the 1970s, which saw a huge influx of Turkish immigrants? The same immigration spree that would in the 1990s cause the rise of staunch anti-immigration parties in the same countries, such as UKIP, Front Nationale, Dansk Folkeparti, Sverigedemokraterna, Fremskrittspartiet and so on?

 

Most of these Turks later became integrated citizens. And provided a net benefit for themselves and the countries they immigrated to. In fact, studies suggest that immigration still continues to provide a net benefit for the UK along with other countries in the EU.

 

But I assume your arguments are more about passion and feelings and how Great Britain used to be. Rather than just being Average Britain.

 

And that's OK. But I don't think immigration is the reason the British Empire is no more.

Edited by Svip
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

 

What exactly do you mean by control immigration? Like quotas?

Yeah, pretty much. Only have x amount come in per year. I also don't agree with allowing someone to come here just because they want to. Are they useful to the country and our needs is what should be determining their entry. So if for example there is a critical shortage of a certain type of worker in the UK which can't be quickly and easily filled by training British citizens, then encourage immigrants who can temporarily fill that need and grant short term work visas. Likewise if there is already an overabundance of a particular profession, then don't allow immigrants in who are looking for that type of work, because they'll only make matters worse. We can't do that at the minute though.

You would want these workers to fill the positions to eventually get a right to become a citizen? If so then I can somewhat agree, though not entirely with the idea of strict quotas. Historically, at least in the US, those have been bad news.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Thing is, though, people by and large don't emigrate to the UK to do anything other than work. The employment rates amongst EU nationals living in the UK is higher than amongst domestic citizens; we've already implemented legislation to prevent so-called "benefit tourism" from Europe, not that it really existed in any quantifiable way anyway. Granted, the same isn't true (regarding employment rates) of immigrants from outside of the EU but the figures from them are skewed greatly by those coming to the UK to study and those seeking asylum.

 

You could argue from a supply and demand perspective that the current immigration system is working pretty well. The reason net immigration is far higher than expected, and growing, is because the UK is absolutely thrashing pretty much every nation in Europe for economic growth, job creation and wage growth at the moment. I really struggle to actually see why people think there's an issue here when in every quantifiable, measurable way current immigration policy is working well.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

 

You're right, wages should be increasing relative to the growth of the economy. I just don't see it as a black and white as "WORKERS GOOD. BUSINESSES BAD" however, there is a lot more to it.

Well, it certainly is a dichotomy. The interests are entirely different. Workers want to be compensated fairly, and business wants to maximise profits at all cost. It's wired into the institution, and in many jurisdictions corporations are legally required to take any and all possible steps to deliver maximum profits to the shareholders. It isn't an abstract idea, you literally have two options: support common people, or support big business. Any amount of economic growth is for naught if peoples' income doesn't also grow.

 

 

 

As a side note, I think you'd get a more of a healthy debate if you didn't reply in a snarky, sarcastic tone which serves no purpose other than to antagonise anyone who has a different opinion to you.

hahaha sorry mate, wasn't trying to antagonise you. I'm just very exasperated with the (long, long ago discredited) idea that aiding big business will ultimately aid the rest of us. I suppose I was also p miffed by the idea that pensioners being unable to heat their homes is a non-issue.

 

This is pretty much how I feel really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ottae

and sivispacem summed up (much better than I could) what I meant about it not being a black and white issue.

 

I think the notion that the sole purpose in business is to maximise profit, though certainly valid in a great many cases, can't be taken as an absolute. Many companies, large and small, go to great lengths to reinvest their profit in their employees- via stuff like cooperative ownership and other methods for inciting worker involvement, investment and the like in the management of the business. They're certainly not riding their employees into the dirt to maximise shareholder or owner profit above all else- though I'll readily admit that many others do.

I don't think choice between business and individual is a binary thing. Plenty of societies (Northern Europe of course being foremost amongst them) understand the notion of employees really being "the business"; it's something Germany does a pretty good job of too.

 

Not all businesses are evil corporations exploiting their staff for maximum profit, a lot of smaller businesses are good employers. I work for one! Business and individuals can work together very well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

I know it's nuanced, if i truly thought it was that black and white I wouldn't even vote.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

 

and sivispacem summed up (much better than I could) what I meant about it not being a black and white issue.

 

I think the notion that the sole purpose in business is to maximise profit, though certainly valid in a great many cases, can't be taken as an absolute. Many companies, large and small, go to great lengths to reinvest their profit in their employees- via stuff like cooperative ownership and other methods for inciting worker involvement, investment and the like in the management of the business. They're certainly not riding their employees into the dirt to maximise shareholder or owner profit above all else- though I'll readily admit that many others do.

 

I don't think choice between business and individual is a binary thing. Plenty of societies (Northern Europe of course being foremost amongst them) understand the notion of employees really being "the business"; it's something Germany does a pretty good job of too.

 

Not all businesses are evil corporations exploiting their staff for maximum profit, a lot of smaller businesses are good employers. I work for one! Business and individuals can work together very well, it doesn't have to be one or the other.

 

Most businesses other than the f*cking banks are quite good with corporate responsibility and stuff... f*ck banks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

UKIP's new vote-winning policy? Scrapping most of the legislation designed to outlaw racial discrimination at work. His claims that employers aren't allowed to choose between foreign and UK nations when interviewing for jobs is clearly utter bunk too- that choice merely has to be made on the basis of merit.

 

Back to the days of "no blacks, no Irish"...

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

Lol sounds like Ron Paul and the libertarian crowd saying they want to repeal civil rights laws because it's "unconstitutional to have a law stopping you from serving a black in your restaurant".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

He panders to the Libertarian ideals, albeit in a really half-hearted way. Mostly I think it's a case of him showing his true colours after years of protesting loudly that UKIP aren't racist. Which is a little confusing given that UKIP's rhetoric had softened somewhat in recent weeks, to the point they were basically indistinguishable from the Conservatives on immigration policy. Maybe this is their way of opening that gap back up? Still, strikes me as a policy which is not going to see anything resembling popular support amongst the overwhelming majority of people and will probably dissuade people from voting UKIP if anything. Which is good.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ottae

Dumb move from Farage. After spending so long trying to get rid of any racist image, they announce this. Instead of encouraging the support of skeptical Labour voters, who are on the fence about UKIP potential racist undertones, they may have pushed them away in favour of strengthening the support of the voters they already have.

 

UKIP's strategy at this election is not to gain a load of seats, but to gain the vote of those who would normally vote Labour and so coming in 2nd place to the Tories in a large number of seats across the country. The second phase of their plan is to take many of these seats from the Tories in the 2020 election. They're now in danger of losing the support of those would be Labour voters and thus failing the first phase of their plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

I think part of the issue is that they're still a single-issue party trying to pretend they've got policies that aren't about immigration. You're right in that they seem to be attempting to consolidate their existing voter base rather than improve their mass appeal and raise an interesting point W/R/T Labour.

 

It wasn't long ago where UKIP were perceived to be direct challengers to the Tories, taking votes away from their more Eurosceptic supporters. But the recent trend we've seen is UKIP monopolising on the events that have unfolded in the typically Labour-supporting lower-income parts of the North and Midlands. They actually seem to be taking support from Labour to a far greater degree than they do the Conservatives; possibly something to do with the correlation between lower levels of income and education, and the wider prevalence of what could best be described as discriminatory racial views.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

I knew he would come out and advocate for scrapping discrimination laws based on nationality. I didn't think he'd advocate for scrapping discrimination laws based on race though, I mean not publicly anyways. I thought it might be have been misconstrued or something at first, but after seeing the actual video, nope, he does actually say it. Doesn't alter my personal opinion, I'll still vote for them, it could hurt them come the election though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clem Fandango

I knew he would come out and advocate for scrapping discrimination laws based on nationality. I didn't think he'd advocate for scrapping discrimination laws based on race though, I mean not publicly anyways. I thought it might be have been misconstrued or something at first, but after seeing the actual video, nope, he does actually say it. Doesn't alter my personal opinion, I'll still vote for them, it could hurt them come the election though.

'They blatantly admit they're racist, but they've still got my vote.'

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

God you fling that word around like a monkey does it's poo. Scraping much of the of anti-discrimination laws doesn't automatically make them racist, others have even said they have some libertarian views. What constitutes racism is highly subjective in most cases. Just because they take an interpretation of racism which is more in line with previous definitions than the modern very broad definition, and therefore feel it's not as big a problem and therefore we don't need as many laws, doesn't make them racist either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

Scraping much of the of anti-discrimination laws doesn't automatically make them racist

Well, it creates an environment in which being racist is legal, so arguably yes it does. I don't for one second buy the notion that enabling discrimination by decriminalising it constitutes some kind of additional liberty, and thankfully nor does pretty much anyone else. Whilst I'll gladly agree with the notion that racism isn't as big a problem as it has been in the past, the fact we have laws that actively outlaw it is a considerable part of that and I the idea that we somehow don't need these laws because there's less discrimination now, at least partly due to them, is utterly absurd.
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dingdongs

I understand sticking with your candidate even though the particular policy is wrong, but how can this be "libertarian"? It sounds to me like they're pandering to people who don't want South Asians or whoever else in your country getting work instead of a native Briton. I don't know how you can say it is not a racist policy to say that shopowners can terminate people for cause based on their race or national origin.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

UKIP has been doing/saying pretty indefensible sh*t for a while now. I doubt Stu would change his mind just because they are becoming more blatant with their f*ckery. it probably endears him more.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
sivispacem

That's another thing I don't get. There seems to be a view amongst UKIP supporters that Nigel Farage is saying things that everyone, or at least a great many prople, thinks but are too afraid to admit to. The truth is he speakss for a tiny number of people and those views are treated with derision by the majority of people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GTA_stu

I found this quite surprising. click the greens have a lower ratio of ethnic minority candidates than all the "main" political parties, including UKIP. Top f*cking kek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
dante財閥

That doesn't surprise me at all. Greens are a largely liberal middle class party. Guess who tends to middle class and liberal combined? White folks.

Edited by Geth
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • 1 User Currently Viewing
    0 members, 0 Anonymous, 1 Guest

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using GTAForums.com, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.