(Part 2) Best products from r/ukpolitics

>Indeed there is still a coercive element to Syndicalism and Mutualism because, in the former there is the power of the union - it may well be representative or invoke direct democracy but it is still a power structure over which the invidual only has a token input (better than none granted).

You'd do better to talk to a syndicalist to get a proper response on why syndicates aren't coercive, but you've partly answered it yourself above - direct democracy, consensus decision-making, immediately recallable delegates not representatives etc. - added to which membership would be strictly voluntary of course. In essence, unlike under capitalism where the powerful coerce the powerless, with syndicates it's the powerless who hold the reins over those they, for a time and for a limited stated purpose, temporarily grant their collective power. I don't see that you've made any justification for the additional point that mutualism is coercive, so I won't respond to that unless/until you expand.

>We already have mutalist organisations in society, Co-op and John Lewis spring to mind and they perform reasonably well but not as well as less idealogically driven organisations.

I've had this debate before, fairly recently, so I don't want to spit out too much of the same material, but suffice it to say there are examples of mutualist cooperatives functioning fairly well on a large scale in direct competition with corporate capitalist concerns in a corporate capitalist State/world, where they are considerably hampered by those States' interventions on behalf of corporate concerns. The obvious prime example being the Mondragon corporation. If you read to the end of this post, you'll see I draw your attention to another reference which shows the claims of mutualists that their organisations can be as if not more productive than corporate capitalist ones are not just spurious assertions.

Not all coops and worker-owned businesses are created equal though, and - just as with environmentalism, organic produce, fairtrade, healthy-choices etc., many such labels are window-dressing (anarcho-washing?) for what are effectively capitalist concerns.

>the majority of humanity has not been free in the sense that you mean for hundreds if not thousands of years. We have replaced those freedoms with different types of freedom.

Indeed not, and those freedoms which were enjoyed were enjoyed under circumstances the vast majority of us would not wish to see the like of again - nomadism, bare subsistence farming, feudalism... Nonetheless, if you read the writings of contemporary political philosophers, moralists, industrialists and capitalists from the time when the British transitioned from feudalism into capitalism, there is clear, commonly and unashamedly annunciated thread running through it as to how to get the once tied peasants now freed common people to labour for their new capitalist masters in the factories rather than to choose work for themselves as and when they will. The solutions found ranged from throwing them off of their lands (directly through the abolition of copyhold title, or indirectly through taxation and enclosure), to the passing of laws limiting their ability to move around the country, to freely associate, poor laws etc.

>If we were to have a state/societal provided basics e.g. food, shelter then we as a society must pay for it. In our current incarnation of society we do have this in place to a basic degree. If you do not work there are benefits available to ensure that you have the basic necessities for life. Sure it is a struggle some times but the principle is clearly implemented there.

>How would you say that those currently on benefits differ from the principle of self-sufficiency as you understand it?

Obviously, the most important two elements are that the current welfare arrangements are State-provided rather than self-provided, and that, as a consequence, they are (ideally) set precisely at the level gauged to coerce people into an employee relationship. Anarchists would wish to organise things so people have the means to provide for themselves, but at a level that they are not compelled to seek outside employment.

>The reduction of jobs requiring "peculiar dexterity and steadiness of hand" make sense in a logical way as such skills, or more likely just human error mean that problems will be caused. Mechanisation in such cases is desirable for the reduction in error and increase in productivity. Labour for labours sake is unproductive I feel.

I certainly have no time for makework schemes, nor maintaining drudgery simply to keep more people working. Efficiency and productivity through technology are 'goods' which we should pursue aggressively, but then we should share the benefits from them rather than using them to enrich an elite. It's also notable that corporate capitalism is far more interested in maximising profit via technology than maximising efficiency and productivity. The works I obliquely referred to above are both by Noble and are touched on in that piece. He wrote two barnstormers which challenged the claims of the corporate capitalist factory model to be the most productive/efficient and included some case studies on worker-self-managment. These were America by Design and Forces of Production. It has to be said he was something of a Luddite though (e.g. Smash Machines, Not People!; Fighting Management's Myth of Progress and Progress Without People; In Defence of Luddism), unlike myself...

>I can see where Carson is coming from so to speak and I think the idea has merit based on the passage provided, it would be interesting to read more and see some case studies.

Most of Carson's books are available online for free, he also blogs extensively and usually replies pretty comprehensively to sensible and courteous queries regarding how mutualism would operate - though I'm sure he gets pissed off about having to debate the minutae in a way no capitalist would be expected to.

You have ignored every single one of Raico's primary points. I don't care that Churchill was racist or loved war (which by themselves are not damning), and I don't really care about Bengal or Iraq. I care that he was a unprincipled, flip-flopping, power-besotted, politically incompetent, quasi-fascistic, war-mongering war-criminal. I'll respond to this..

> It seems odd that you several times admit that Churchill wanted to destroy Hitler "at all costs" yet you feel it's necessary (or rather the author does) to include that Churchill once said “one may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated, I hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations" Churchill even stated he disliked his political and economic system.

1. I didn't "feel it necessary", and neither did Raico very much, considering it was a footnote. I added it primarily for the Mussolini praise.
   
   
2. The point, I think, is that Churchill saw war as a game or a sport. You can respect or even like your opponent (at the same time as disagreeing with them), and still want to demolish them in whatever sport you are playing. To an extent, that probably was the case with Churchill regarding Hitler.
   
   That said, what I didn't quote from Raico was Churchill's social/economic views which were, early on, essentially fascistic..
   
   > Churchill “had already announced his conversion to a collectivist social policy” before his move to the Board of Trade [1908]. His constant theme became “the just precedence” of public over private interests. He took up the fashionable social-engineering clichés of the time, asserting that “Science, physical and political alike, revolts at the disorganisation which glares at us in so many aspects of modern life,” and that “the nation demands the application of drastic corrective and curative processes.” The state was to acquire canals and railroads, develop certain national industries, provide vastly augmented education, introduce the eight-hour work day, levy progressive taxes, and guarantee a national minimum living standard. It is no wonder that Beatrice Webb noted that Winston was “definitely casting in his lot with the constructive state action.”
   
   > Following a visit to Germany, Lloyd George and Churchill were both converted to the Bismarckian model of social insurance schemes. As Churchill told his constituents: “My heart was filled with admiration of the patient genius which had added these social bulwarks to the many glories of the German race.” He set out, in his words, to “thrust a big slice of Bismarckianism over the whole underside of our industrial system.” In 1908, Churchill announced in a speech in Dundee: “I am on the side of those who think that a greater collective sentiment should be introduced into the State and the municipalities. I should like to see the State undertaking new functions.”
   
   > The statist trend met with Churchill’s complete approval. As he added: I go farther; I should like to see the State embark on various novel and adventurous experiments.... I am very sorry we have not got the railways of this country in our hands. We may do something better with the canals.
   
   > This grandson of a duke and glorifier of his ancestor, the archcorruptionist Marlborough, was not above pandering to lower-class resentments. Churchill claimed that “the cause of the Liberal Party is the cause of the left-out millions,” while he attacked the Conservatives as “the Party of the rich against the poor, the classes and their dependents against the masses, of the lucky, the wealthy, the happy, and the strong, against the left-out and the shut-out millions of the weak and poor.”
   
   > At this time, Churchill fell under the influence of Beatrice and Sidney Webb, the leaders of the Fabian Society. At one of her famous strategic dinner parties, Beatrice Webb introduced Churchill to a young protégé, William—later Lord—Beveridge. Churchill brought Beveridge into the Board of Trade as his advisor on social questions, thus starting him on his illustrious career. Besides pushing for a variety of social insurance schemes, Churchill created the system of national labor exchanges: he wrote to Prime Minister Asquith of the need to “spread... a sort of Germanized network of state intervention and regulation” over the British labor market. But Churchill entertained much more ambitious goals for the Board of Trade. He proposed a plan whereby The Board of Trade was to act as the “intelligence department” of the Government, forecasting trade and employment in the regions so that the Government could allocate contracts to the most deserving areas. At the summit... would be a Committee of National Organisation, chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to supervise the economy.
   
   This is why he praised Mussolini. And the ultimate irony, regarding labour unions..
   
   > Finally, well aware of the electoral potential of organized labor, Churchill became a champion of the labor unions. He was a leading supporter, for instance, of the Trades Disputes Act of 1906. This Act reversed the Taff Vale and other judicial decisions, which had held unions responsible for torts and wrongs committed on their behalf by their agents. The Act outraged the great liberal legal historian and theorist of the rule of law, A. V. Dicey, who charged that it confers upon a trade union a freedom from civil liability for the commission of even the most heinous wrong by the union or its servants, and in short confers upon every trade union a privilege and protection not possessed by any other person or body of persons, whether corporate or unincorporate, throughout the United Kingdom.... It makes a trade union a privileged body exempted from the ordinary law of the land. No such privileged body has ever before been deliberately created by an English Parliament.
   
   > [In the early 50s] he directed his leftist Labour Minister, Walter Monckton, to appease the unions at all costs. Churchill’s surrender to the unions, “dictated by sheer political expediency,” set the stage for the quagmire in labor relations that prevailed in Britain for the next two decades.
   
   > It is ironic that the immense power of the British labor unions, the bête noire of Margaret Thatcher, was brought into being with the enthusiastic help of her great hero, Winston Churchill.
   
   Did Churchill change his tune later on? Sure, but ultimately..
   
   > When the Tories returned to power in 1951, “Churchill chose a Government which was the least recognizably Conservative in history.” There was no attempt to roll back the welfare state, and the only industry that was reprivatized was road haulage. Churchill “left the core of its [the Labour government’s] work inviolate.”
   
   In summary..
   
   > Yet, in truth, Churchill never cared a great deal about domestic affairs, even welfarism, except as a means of attaining and keeping office. What he loved was power, and the opportunities power provided to live a life of drama and struggle and endless war. There is a way of looking at Winston Churchill that is very tempting: that he was a deeply flawed creature, who was summoned at a critical moment to do battle with a uniquely appalling evil, and whose very flaws contributed to a glorious victory—in a way, like Merlin, in C. S. Lewis’s great Christian novel, That Hideous Strength. Such a judgment would, I believe, be superficial. A candid examination of his career, I suggest, yields a different conclusion: that, when all is said and done, Winston Churchill was a Man of Blood and a politico without principle, whose apotheosis serves to corrupt every standard of honesty and morality in politics and history.
   
   I'll respond to this quickly..
   
   > Are you denying that Hitler stewardship of Germany in the 1930s from an economic wasteland hurt by the Great depression to a larger extent than even the US into the most capable military, economic and industrial forces in the world in such a short space of time was anything but remarkable?
   
   Yes. It's very easy to slash unemployment and get "growth" - i.e, a boost in gdp - when you are operating a war/socialist economy. The point is, it diverts valuable, scarce resources from their most desired ends (living standards drop) and, crucially, the boost is temporary. The German economy was doomed to failure. The real "miracle" was post WWII Germany that rolled back the giant bureaucracy/nationalisations which set the stage for decades of strong, legitmate growth (with the guidance from Austrian School scholars such as Wilhelm Ropke). Of course, it's not a miracle if you understand basic economics.

> the Lib Dems chose coalition specifically because it would allow them to go further with welfare cuts.
>
>Except they didn't. The Lib Dems briefly explored a coalition with Labour but it ended pretty quickly because the numbers didn't add up. Lib Dems + Labour didn't make a majority, and there were too many competing interests from the smaller parties required to make it work. This combined with the evidence that they wanted *fewer* cuts than labour really doesn't give your theory much legs to stand on. As it happens, I have read "22 Days in May", and although it's been a while I don't recall your claim ever being made in it.

I'll dig out the quote where Laws mentions Labour's red lines on pensions as confirming that they couldn't work with Labour.

Comparing pre-election promises on cuts whilst ignoring the actual negotiations and retrenchment by the coalition government doesn't make sense.

>I didn't claim Labour would have been worse, only that they promised to cut more than what was actually cut. Maybe they they would have been worse, maybe they would have been better, we'll never know, but thats the only information we have to go on. You're the one implying that Labour would have done better even though that is something we can't know.

It absolutely is something we can know. We can know this because that's a lot of research on the politics of retrenchment that shows that a single-party government can't go as far as a coalition with cuts.

Both the Lib Dem and the Conservative accounts of Coalition negotiations emphasise the importance of establishing a coalition (rather than, say, a supply and confidence arrangement) as a coalition would allow the burden of painful cuts to be shared between two parties - it would help establish the political consensus, necessary for success, that these cuts were necessary.

David Laws is explicit about this in his accounts of the negotiations:

> [Besides the option of supply and confidence] there was, according to the Conservative leader, ‘a case for going further’ into a full coalition. The case was based in part on the need to tackle ‘the biggest threat’ to our national interest – Britain’s huge budget deficit.
That required, according to Mr Cameron, ‘a strong, stable government that lasts [and] . . . which has the support of the public to take the difficult decisions that are needed. . .’

> [...]

> The prizes for Mr Cameron were obvious: government, not opposition; stability, not chaos; joint responsibility for tough decisions, not sole blame for the painful cuts to come; and an opportunity to change the entire perception of the Conservative Party and to reshape British politics.

And later, more explicitly:

> Finally, David Cameron and his senior team seemed to have decided that a coalition agreement was not merely something that they wished to be seen to be trying to secure; it was something that they actually wanted to secure. This may have been because of doubts about how easy it would be to fight and win the second election, which we all felt was inevitable if a coalition agreement could not be struck. But there were also, surely, major advantages of a coalition from both a national and a Conservative Party perspective. The coalition gave the Conservatives the votes to govern strongly and to push through tough measures on the economy, while getting another political party to share the pain.


As for the Tory account, Seldon's Cameron at 10 has some good insight:

> Cameron and Osborne approve of the input of Laws over their first taster of cuts. Osborne misses Hammond, though finds Laws as ‘dry as a bone’ and ‘more fiscally conservative’ than any of them. Laws deals firmly with the unprotected departments including the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG), Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS), Work and Pensions (DWP), and above all with the Home Office. After long torrid discussions, Home Secretary Theresa May settles in the nick of time – at 11 p.m. on Friday 21 May.7 Laws dispels altogether any apprehensions that the Lib Dems cannot take the heat of delivering Plan A on the ground. ‘Lib Dem support for fiscal consolidation was important, because it broadened the legitimacy for the strong action that was taken and it underpinned the whole government,’ says a senior Treasury official


So it's pretty clear that the Coalition was seen as necessary, by both sides, in the pursuit of massive cuts to public spending. The reason a Coalition was necessary is because voters react strongly and negatively to perceived losses, and so retrenchment programs are incredibly difficult to pursue without risking electoral oblivion. There's a really good paper (though slightly outdated) on this by Paul Pierson called The New Politics of the Welfare State. Page 176 onwards explains the conditions which facilitate the implementation of policies of retrenchment. Essentially, the major factors are electoral slack (a weak opposition in the form of a Labour Party confused as to which way to turn), a problem pressure (the GFC), and a cross-party consensus that retrenchment is the necessary response to the crisis (the Coalition with the Lib Dems). There's obviously a bit more to it than that, but the pdf isn't easy to copy & paste from, so I won't bother with quotes here. The case studies also outline why the Tories would never have been self-destructive enough to pursue these cuts without a partner back in 2010.

>It probably has. Tribal politics is a well used turn of phrase.

The English word tribe occurs in 12th-century Middle English literature as referring to one of the Twelve Tribes of Israel. The word is from Old French tribu, in turn from Latin tribus, referring to the original tripartite ethnic division of the Ancient Roman state...In 242–240 BC, the Tribal Assembly (comitia tributa) in the Roman Republic was organized in 35 Tribes (four "Urban Tribes" and 31 "Rural Tribes").

To relate this to contemporary politics:

Has Boris Johnson, irrespective of his tribe, learned this lesson already?

Background:

Johnson is the eldest of the four children of Stanley Johnson, a former Conservative Member of the European Parliament and employee of the European Commission and World Bank, and the painter Charlotte Johnson Wahl (née Fawcett), the daughter of Sir James Fawcett, a barrister and president of the European Commission of Human Rights...

He was educated at the European School in Brussels, at Ashdown House School and at Eton College, where he was a King's Scholar.

He read Classics at Oxford as a Brackenbury scholar, and was elected President of the Oxford Union at his second attempt... Along with David Cameron, George Osborne and Radosław Sikorski, he was a member of Oxford's Bullingdon Club...

MP for Henley...

As Mayor of London...

... It added that he would donate £25,000 each towards two scholarships: one for students of Journalism, and the other for the teaching of Classics.

Johnson is a popular historian...

Now lets look at some of this further:

The European Schools... are established to provide education solely for children of personnel of the European Institutions and leading to the European Baccalaureate.

Ashdown House is one of the leading prep schools in Britain,[citation needed] with many scholarships being won to major public schools. In the 2010/2011 academic year, 6 academic scholarships were won by students of the relatively small school. Notable future schools of choice for Ashdown pupils include: Harrow, Eton, Benenden, Charterhouse, Bryanston, Oundle, Rugby, Sevenoaks, Stowe, Radley, Marlborough, Winchester and Wellington College.

Eton is one of nine English independent schools, commonly referred to as "public schools", included in the original Public Schools Act 1868... It has educated nineteen British Prime Ministers and generations of aristocracy, and has been referred to as the chief nurse of England's statesmen.

A King's Scholar is a foundation scholar (elected on the basis of good academic performance and usually qualifying for reduced fees) of one of certain public schools. These include Eton College, The King's School, Canterbury and Westminster School... At Eton College, a King's Scholar is one who has passed the College Election examination and is awarded a Foundation Scholarship and admitted into a house, College, which is the oldest Eton house and consists solely of King's Scholars. There are, at any one time, around 70 King's Scholars, and they are distinguished by the black gown which they wear. The other pupils at the school, more than 1200 of them, all boys, are known as Oppidans.


Brackenbury donated money to Balliol College, Oxford University to fund scholarships in history...

Classics (sometimes encompassing Classical Studies or Classical Civilization) is the branch of the humanities comprising the languages, literature, philosophy, history, art, archaeology and other culture of the ancient Mediterranean world.

Popular historians may become nationally renowned or best-selling authors and may or may not serve the interests of particular political viewpoints in their roles as “public historians”

That is all a preamble to say; here is a man who's passion is studying the history of civilizations, can speak multiple languages, and I think we can assume was groomed to rule. Surely he is learning lessons from all this study, he has and is doing it at the highest and most influential positions in this country after all. What has he got say about 'tribes'? Well maybe we can find out:

Boris Johnson Jeremy Paxman note it's before the last election.

Book: The Dream of Rome by Boris Johnson - I'd suggest anyone skim the first few pages just so you get a feel for his knowledge on the subject. note 'Johnson has not been intimidated by dry classics masters: his style is bright, breezy, populist and pacy.' The Times

Video: Boris Johnson and the Dream of Rome Part 2 * Their are numerous quotes of interest in this documentary. Perhaps the most interesting would be Johnson from 36:20-39:50 where Johnson seems to stress his love for Roman values and 'us versus them' mentality in fact the whole documentary is a discussion on how to maintain these values while expanding and integrating outsiders. Beware: Straussian content (that is, with multiple or layered meanings, often disguised within irony or paradox, obscure references, even deliberate self-contradiction) particularly on the subject of patriotism see 54:10 on european strongmen.

Edit: Adding more links.

Bugger. You stole my suggestion. OP, read this book. It is great.

On a simliar bent but obviously inferior, I'd recommend The Dictator's Handbook which covers more of a political science approach, and will make you reconsider 'stupid' political actions and Freakonomics which covers economics and unintended consequences.

However, the recommendation I'm going to make, in line with my flair, is The Lion and the Unicorn, a dual biography of the greatest political rivalry in British politics, between William Gladstone (the intellectual champion of classical liberalism) and Benjimin Disraeli (the cynical strategist who created the modern conservative party and massively expanded the franchise.

On the face of it, a book about 19th century British prime ministers might not be what you immediately thought of, but it has everything. Parties being created, and destroyed. Idealism against strategy, moral outrage against cynicism, Imperialism and foreign interventions against liberal internationalism, where a candidate elected on a ticket of anti-imperialism inadvertantly triggered the largest colonial expansion in world history. It covers how British politics was created, and the strategies and ideologies that were perfect then remain in place to this day, with Neoliberalism, Globalisation and 'One Nation' effectively a bastardisation of Gladstone's economic policies, Free Trade vs Imperial Preference debates, and the original One Nation Conservatism championed by Disraeli allying the industrious elite with the upper working class populace against the liberal elite (remind you of anything...)

Panama Papers among other investigations into tax avoidance and evasion, yes.

Maybe, but everything I've read suggests that once the money is safely offshore the best outcome is that it gets taxed heavily when it gets repatriated.

As an example, Apple have trillions currently sat in Bermuda hoping that Trump will change the tax laws.

If the UK was serious about addressing the problem there are two obvious and important measures they could take.

The first would be to tackle the huge British-controlled network of offshore territories ranging from the City itself, the Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernsey etc etc and all the way to BVI, Cayman etc etc.

There is an excellent book called Treasure Islands which explains this complex web and the role it plays in global tax avoidance.

The second would be to adopt transparency laws, like those already used in some Scandanavian countries where individuals tax returns are published publicly. It was those laws which helped journalists determine that tax evasion is actually extremely concentrated to the top 0.01% of households. This is an interesting read on this investigation.

Of course neither of these will be adopted as, far from being a force against tax evasion, the UK represents one of the most powerful enablers of it and you only need to take a quick walk around Mayfair and hear the conversations to appreciate why.

Why Priti Patel is wrong about overseas aid and immigration | Fraser Nelson | Coffee House

The Empire for International Development has a tough job justifying its deeply unpopular budget. In recent years, it has made out that development aid will stem the flow of migration. The following line appears in a piece that Priti Patel, the DFID Secretary, writes for the Sunday Telegraph today.

>We are taking immediate steps to protect our borders and tackle people smuggling. But the only way to resolve this crisis in the long term is to address the root causes. We need to create jobs across Africa and provide its growing population with a route out of poverty where they are.

Her overall point – about how Africa needs more capitalism – is brave and correct. But this idea about development quelling immigration is the opposite of the truth. Now and again, you hear this line trotted out – offering a Marie Antoinette-style view of migration. Do the Africans come here in rubber boats? Well, give them jobs! Hand them a rake! See if they can keep or roast some chickens! This misses the reason why people move. They want better jobs than those on offer at home; they want a better life. They want what we have; they want their children to have the chances ours have. And understandably so.

Emigration is a sign of development, not poverty, as I argued in my Daily Telegraph column a while ago. The only people who join the Great Migration are those who have the money – often thousands of dollars – that it costs. They seek better jobs, a better life. This is the most powerful force in human history, the force that created the United States of America, the force that led so many from Scotland and Ireland to risk their lives making the Atlantic crossing a few generations ago. They sold assets to pay for the journey – and moved to what they hoped would be something better.

Bill Clinton had an excuse when he repeated the ‘development means emigration’ trope: he was speaking a generation ago, before scholars had assembled the massive database of census data which today allows us to compare a thousand censuses from hundreds of countries. Results, from World Bank data, are below. When a poor country starts to become richer, its emigration rate soars – until it’s a middle-income country, like Albania. And only then does extra wealth mean less migration.

[Graph]

And for emigration flows, the same relationship holds:-

[Graphs]

Michael Clemens, the American development economist who published the graph, explains it thus:-

‘>In all years, there is no hint of a negative relationship between income and emigrant stock between PPP income per capita of roughly $600 (that of today’s Niger or Ethiopia) and about $7,500 (today’s Albania or Colombia). In this range of income, in fact, the relationship is positive. The rise in emigrant stocks associated with higher income levels in this range is statistically significant at the 5% level. The magnitude of the positive relationship is substantial. Early in the second half of the 20th century, richer countries in this range on average had emigrant stocks about three percentage points larger than the poorest countries. By the end of the century, this difference grew to nine percentage points, and seems to have continued growing since then.’

It doesn’t take too much imagination to work out why. Let’s consider our own recent history. In 1948, the UK government passed the British Nationality Act allowing all 600 million of Commonwealth subjects to live and work in Britain. Here’s Andrew Marr, in his History of Modern Britain:-

>‘It was generally assumed that the Black and Asian subjects of the King would have no means or desire to travel to live in uncomfortable, crowded Britain. Until the fifties, so few black of Asian people had settle in Britain that they were often treated as local celebrities. Officially, it was not even considered worth while trying to count their number.’

Indeed, hardly anyone took up this offer; even during the partition of India, which claimed a million souls and displaced ten times as many, there was no clamour to seek refuge here. The Indians and Pakistanis were far, far poorer than they are today – but that’s the point. They were so poor that not many could afford to come to Britain, not many had means of finding out that a better life was available. Why go to this cold, wind-battered island – which itself was losing people to the New World?

In 1951, the UK signed the UN Refugee Convention saying that we’d shelter anyone – anyone!—with a well-founded fear of persecution. Such offers were easy to make, then, because no one really had been showing up: the famous influxes were tiny by today’s standards: 50,000 Hugenots, for example. After the war we offered 200,000 Poles the right to live in Britain, rather than face the Soviets: about 162,000 did (pdf) – a fraction of today’s Polish population. Even in the early 1990s, immigrants were arriving at about 150 a day.

Now, it’s 1,500 a day. Globalisation has kicked in, global poverty has halved over 25 years. The poor world is becoming richer, so people are on the move. War acts as a catalyst; far more of those affected by violence have the means and inclination to flee. But globally, there is less war and less poverty than at any time in our history. The Great Migration should be understood as the flip side of the greatest triumph of our age: the collapse in global poverty.

Study after study shows this to be the case. When aid was given to poor rural Mexican villages in exchange for occupants attending school and health clinics, it led to them leaving rather than staying.

As I wrote the last time Priti Patel made this point, she would be right if she meant that when middle-income countries become richer, the migration rate falls. But even the politicians who make this caveat talk as if this process is a short-term thing. In fact, it takes generations. I’ll leave the final word to Michael Clemens:-

>‘At a healthy real per capita growth rate of 2% per year, it would take 133 years for a country starting from $500 per capita (today’s Niger or Burundi) and 63 years for a country starting from $2,000 per capita (today’s Cambodia or Zambia). At a strong growth rate of 3% per year, these durations would be 89 years and 42 years, respectively. These are optimistic growth scenarios, given that during 1960–2000 the average country experienced real growth in per capita income of 1.8% per year. And most poor countries grew more slowly.’

If Africa develops as Ms Patel hopes, then we can expect more rather than fewer immigrants. We’ll need a better strategy for dealing with the Great Migration than to hope that it will just go away.

There's not even an argument in all that waffle. Just a series of unsupported statements with no structure and a lot of metaphors.

> THE peevishness of the campaigning has obscured the importance of what is at stake.

No, everyone realises that this is important.

> A vote to quit the European Union on June 23rd, which polls say is a growing possibility, would do grave and lasting harm to the politics and economy of Britain.

Ok, why?

> The loss of one of the EU’s biggest members would gouge a deep wound in the rest of Europe.

Umm, ok but why?

> And, with the likes of Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen fuelling economic nationalism and xenophobia, it would mark a defeat for the liberal order that has underpinned the West’s prosperity.

Wait, you still have not supported any of the above statements, why are you just moving on to people not involved with the UK?

> That, clearly, is not the argument of the voices calling to leave.

It's not the argument of anyone, because it is not an argument.

> As with Eurosceptics across the EU, their story is about liberation and history. Quitting the sclerotic, undemocratic EU, the Brexiteers say, would set Britain free to reclaim its sovereign destiny as an outward-looking power.

Ok... and that's bad why?

> Many of these people claim the mantle of liberalism—the creed that this newspaper has long championed. They sign up to the argument that free trade leads to prosperity. They make the right noises about small government and red tape. They say that their rejection of unlimited EU migration stems not from xenophobia so much as a desire to pick people with the most to offer.

Ok... still not explained any of the above statements yet.

> The liberal Leavers are peddling an illusion.

Ok, why?


> On contact with the reality of Brexit, their plans will fall apart.

Jesus are you going to explain or try and back up any of your statements?

> If Britain leaves the EU, it is likely to end up poorer, less open and less innovative.

Right. Why?

> Far from reclaiming its global outlook, it will become less influential and more parochial. And without Britain, all of Europe would be worse off.

So that would be a no to the whole explanation thing then?

> Start with the economy.

I'd like you to start with what you started with.

> Even those voting Leave accept that there will be short-term damage (see article). More important, Britain is unlikely to thrive in the longer run either.

Le sigh.

> Almost half of its exports go to Europe.

Well if you are in an agreement with Tesco that you get their goods without paying VAT and every other supermarket you have to pay VAT at then maybe it is not a surprise if you do more of your shopping at Tesco?

> Access to the single market is vital for the City and to attract foreign direct investment.

Most foreign direct investment comes from China, who are not in the EU. And remember this is direct investment not indirect investment which just gets routed through and past us into the EU using passporting.

> Yet to maintain that access, Britain will have to observe EU regulations, contribute to the budget and accept the free movement of people—the very things that Leave says it must avoid. To pretend otherwise is to mislead.

To pretend that 'access' to the single market is the same as a free trade agreement is misleading. South Korea has a FTA with the EU that allows them 'access' but they are not part of the single market so do not pay to the EU budget, do not pay tariffs on exporting, do not have free movement of people, and are not constrained by the common external tariff.

> Those who advocate leaving make much of the chance to trade more easily with the rest of the world. That, too, is uncertain.

Nothing is certain, so that's a terrible benchmark. What we are talking about is likely. And given that nations like to trade with each other and the UK is a large economy with global links it is likely that other nations would like to trade with us.

> etc etc

I mean this is all weak stuff. There isn't even proper argument structure just a lot of assertions. They never seek to explain anything in the article.

I think you should buy this book:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Critical-Thinking-Skills-Developing-Effective/dp/0230285295/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1466217014&sr=1-1&keywords=critical+thinking

It is really good and will teach you the difference between an argument and a statement.

Is overpopulation a problem? Are we running out of resources? Where did the concern over population growth and resource depletion come from? How accurate were the past predictions of gloom by people who were concerned about the two issues? Will we manage to combine rising numbers of people and higher standards of living with decent stewardship of the planet in the future?

These are just some of the questions answered in Population Bombed: Exploding the link Between Overpopulation and Climate Change, an extensively researched, well-written and concise new book published by the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

The book comes out exactly 50 years after Paul R. Ehrlich published The Population Bomb, in which the Stanford University biology professor famously claimed that population growth would result in resource depletion and the starvation of hundreds of millions of people. The authors of Population Bombed, Pierre Desrochers, who is an associate professor of geography at the University of Toronto, and Joanna Szurmak, who is a doctoral candidate in the graduate program in Science and Technology Studies at York University, Toronto, take stock of past scholarship on “depletionism” and provide a cheerful rejoinder to the doomsayers.

Desrochers and Szurmak begin by outlining the case for the prosecution. The “pessimists” claim that, on a finite planet, population and consumption cannot continue to expand forever; that, to maintain a high standard of living, the number of people will have to come down; that resource exploration and extraction are subject to the law of diminishing returns and will, therefore, become more expensive over time; that discoveries, inventions and innovations do not obviate the need for more resources; and, finally, that human successes in overcoming resource constraints in the past are not relevant to coping with environmental challenges today.

Conversely, the “optimists” claim that population growth makes humanity richer through division of labour and economies of scale; that human ingenuity enhances efficient modes of production and “delivers increasing returns … [through] progressively less damaging ways of doing things”; that, unlike other animals, humans use trade and innovation to get around resource constraints; and, finally, that there is no reason why our past successes cannot be repeated in the future.

To quote the British historian Thomas Babington Macaulay, “On what principle is it that with nothing but improvement behind us, we are to expect nothing but deterioration before us?”

Depletionism has a long pedigree that goes back to the Atra-Hasis, an 18th-century BC epic in which the Babylonian gods deemed the world too crowded and unleashed a famine to fix the “problem”. Confucius, Plato, Tertullian, Saint Jerome and Giovanni Botero revisited the issue over the succeeding centuries.

The modern concern with overpopulation is usually traced to the British cleric Thomas Malthus who argued that the human population grows exponentially, while food production grows linearly. Thus, population will eventually outgrow the food supply, resulting in mass starvation.

Depletionism reached its apogee in the concluding decades of the 20th century, when Garrett Hardin pointed to the “tragedy of the commons” (i.e., overuse of resources that are not privately-owned), the Club of Rome predicted stratospheric prices of resources and Paul Ehrlich warned of mass starvation. It was Ehrlich who, unwisely, agreed to a wager with Julian Simon from the University of Maryland on the future availability of resources – and lost.

According to the wager, Ehrlich would choose a “basket” of raw materials that he expected would become less abundant in the coming years and choose a time period of more than a year, during which those raw materials would become more expensive. At the end of that period, the inflation-adjusted price of those materials would be calculated. If the “real” price of the basket was higher at the end of the period than at the beginning, that would indicate the materials had become more precious and Ehrlich would win the wager; if the price was lower, Simon would win. The stakes would be the ultimate price difference of the basket at the beginning and end of the time period.

Ehrlich chose copper, chromium, nickel, tin, and tungsten. The bet was agreed to on September 29, 1980, with September 29, 1990, being the payoff date. In spite of a population increase of 873 million over those 10 years, Ehrlich lost the wager. All five commodities that he had selected declined in price by an average of 57.6 percent. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07. Today, raw materials, including rare earths, are abundant and the concept of depletionism, as originally understood, has ceased to be the pessimists’ cri de coeur.

Instead, the pessimists have changed their tack (somewhat). Rather than emphasising depletion of raw materials, like Ehrlich used to do, they now warn of human overconsumption and the related loss of biosphere integrity (the destruction of ecosystems and biodiversity), climate change, ocean acidification, land system change (from woodland to cropland), unsustainable freshwater use, perturbation of biogeochemical flows (nitrogen and phosphorus inputs to the biosphere), alteration of atmospheric aerosols (particulate concentration in the atmosphere), and ozone depletion.

Desrochers and Szurmak engage with many of these relatively new concerns by noting, for example, the methodological problems inherent in the overconsumption models, including the “planetary boundaries framework” that I described in the previous paragraph.

Wisely, the authors do not get bogged down in the science of global warming. Full discussion of global warming would, of course, require a book of its own. As it is, Population Bombed is 250 pages long, and includes 900 footnotes and an extensive 33-page bibliography. Instead, they call for honesty. They note that the use of fossil fuels is at the centre of today’s calls for population control and point out that the pessimists are simply taking the benefits of fossil fuel use, including environmental ones, for granted. Desrochers and Szurmak do not dismiss all concerns about CO2 in the atmosphere, but point out that getting rid of fossil fuels under present circumstances would have dire economic, social and environmental consequences – especially for the world’s poor.

To give just a few examples, production would have to become more expensive for businesses, the price of heating and cooling would become more expensive for households, and land, currently occupied by animals, would have to be covered by wind turbines.

That said, keep in mind that our species has addressed many environmental problems before and we will, probably, solve the future ones as well. Desalination, for example, can help with water shortages, while genetically-modified crops could eliminate the need for excessive use of fertiliser and pesticides. These breakthroughs, and the prospect of many more, make Desrochers and Szurmak’s book a reminder of humanity’s “can do” instincts and problem-solving ability.

It already has a sequel :


Slammed By The Substantial Amount Of Press Generated By My Book "Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"

Buck Trungle is in serious trouble. Struggling to find the inspiration for a follow up to his critically acclaimed short “Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union", the erotica author finds himself desperate to stay relevant in the ever quickening press cycle.

But when Buck receives a love letter from the physical manifestation of his own book’s press coverage, he jumps at the chance to turn their short fling into something even more thrilling… something real. Soon enough, Buck and his sentient press are on a rooftop high above Billings, unraveling the secrets of The Tingleverse as they learn each other’s bodies.

Will Buck and his own living press find a way to prove their worth to the masses in the greatest meta spin-off of all time? Will a video of their hedonistic encounter be uploaded to the highest layer of The Tingleverse and that prove love is real? There’s only one way to find out.

This erotic tale is 4,100 words of sizzling human on physically manifested press action, including anal, blowjobs, rough sex, cream pies and living marketing concept love

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Slammed-Substantial-Amount-Generated-Pounded-ebook/dp/B01HWROW0W/ref=pd_sim_351_1?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=KWGSESCZFB79AENAPJYJ

> You would be surprised how powerful an argument based on non-judgement is to a group of people whom have been brought up with the idea of "may he who is without sin cast the first stone".

You're such an ameteur. Jesus did not tell people not to judge.

> Your hedonism, which you so decry, does not seem to be having a notable effect on the human species other than to make weekends more enjoyable.

If you were to read this book, you would learn that the working-class of the 19th century were far more educated than those today. Hedonism and anti-intellectualism are bound tightly, like two rotten peas in a pod. I'm sure you've lamented the dreadful level of political discourse... Well, you indirectly support it.

Moreover, it is well known that people are generally less happy than they used to be, despite huge increases of personal wealth. Huh, I wonder why that is... Certainly nothing to do with the fact that we live in a spiritual wasteland.

> In those societies where the protestant ethic was not so brutally imposed on the populace and they have a far more balanced idea of hedonism - surprise surprise - they do not have this problem.

You don't appear to even understand what the Protestant Work Ethic is. A country with a Protestant Work Ethic would have no problems with hedonism; work itself would be pleasing.

I do think you make valid points - I genuinely think that many people voted to leave, not because they were anti-EU (though of course, many were) but precisely because they did feel that they had been ignored by previous governments. Hell, I was having an interesting discussion with my dad the other day who was saying that, had the referendum been held under Tony Blair's government he almost certainly would've voted to leave for precisely this reason.

I also think that this talk of a transitional period, whilst absolutely necessary in the case of a hard Brexit, when used as a way to mitigate the result is perhaps a bit disingenuous. I think those politicians who are opposed to Brexit need to be clear with their intentions and explain their reasons why, rather than pussyfooting around the issue.

I don't think a UKIP government is likely - in fact I genuinely don't think that many people who voted for UKIP actually necessarily supported them. The majority of UKIP supporters I've met actually just saw them as a viable protest vote.

I should mention that I absolutely do support democracy, though I genuinely think a lot of the issues we face now with apathy and indeed people finding a protest vote necessary are precisely down to failures with our current system - most notably, the first past the post voting system which disenfranchises many voters.

To say that leaving the EU is just a matter of leaving a treaty is possibly the most misleading oversimplification I've ever seen. The reality is that leaving the EU is hugely complicated. It certainly doesn't have to leave the UK in a bad position (though I suspect this is likely, given the quality of government we have at present), but to imply that it's not a hugely complicated matter is ridiculous.

Keep in mind that businesses love stability - Brexit removes confidence in the UK simply because nobody is entirely sure what the UK is going to do now or what the UK is going to look like outside of the EU. We can't negotiate any trade deals just yet without losing the chance of a deal with the EU (which, like it or not will be hugely important to the UK) and equally no country wants to negotiate a trade deal with us just yet without knowing what our relationship with the EU is likely to be. Not to mention that remaining in the customs union may well end up being necessary anyway to maintain an open border with the Republic of Ireland.

If you are bored and want something to read I highly recommend this book as it explains just how incredibly complex Brexit will be.

https://www.channel4.com/press/news/brexiteer-jacob-rees-mogg-estimated-have-earnt-ps7m-investments-referendum-according

It's not a smoking gun but he runs a hedge fund that's made a packet since the referendum. And his father co-wrote the bible on disaster capitalism. Here's a taster:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blood-Streets-Investment-Profits-World/dp/0446353167/ref=sr_1_1?qid=1563380879&refinements=p_lbr_books_authors_browse-bin%3AWilliam+Rees-Mogg&s=books&sr=1-1

There's money to be made in failing economies.

Bear in mind also the anti tax avoidance measures brought in this year by the EU targeting offshore tax havens, bypassed if we leave.

Is his push for Brexit, and that of others with large funds hiding in offshore accounts, about sovereignty or is it about financial gain and keeping prying eyes away from those accounts?

What about these guys:

https://badboysofbrexit.com

https://bylinetimes.com/2019/03/13/the-disaster-capitalism-club-vote-leave-backers-who-made-billions-from-brexit/

What do you think? Noble champions of political freedom in the face of EU oppression or chancers on the make?

Would you buy a used car from any one of them with confidence?

Edit: Clarity.

I've mentioned a lot of what you just said in another comment, so I won't reply to specific disputes.

But I will say that it matters very little what the media say about UKIP as a party so long as they get coverage. Robert Ford's recent research on the phenomenon shows that UKIP attracts emotional support from a few middle and working class voting groups. A recent poll showed that a clear majority of the public guessed wrongly when quizzed about Farage's background even though he's clear to flaunt it whenever.

So really, extreme-right sentiment - about benefits, immigration or europe and general discontent/government fuckupery covered by the media is likely to build up hysteria and public support for UKIP. Looking at the media lately, its hard to doubt that's the case.

What's the answer then? More diversity in the press - give more of a voice to trade unionist and left-wing opinion than at present. Don't call climate change and otherwise settled matters a 'debate', accept them as fact. Realise that there are some opinions that are plain wrong and some voices that don't need to be heard. Focus on a wider portfolio of government activity - not just DWP stuff but whats happening in local government, infrastructure, house, energy and foreign policy. Engage with young people and otherwise looked over groups rather than focusing everything on the elderly.

Not that you're probably interested in the reality of the situation, this (probably now outdated) book is well worth a read, on the topic of Islam vs Islamists - The Islamist by Ed Husain

I kid you not this book is often left in our office by people who are reading it:

Dangerous Hero: Unmissable new biography of Jeremy Corbyn from our best investigative biographer https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/0008299579/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_XZ2BDbE7VDV60




I work with a few Jewish people and they are all convinced that he hates Jews.

This is well known, if pretty disgraceful stuff.

EDIT: Essential reading if you've not read it already.

Ian Dunt's book on Brexit is a great short read https://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B01M74JXK5/

OK well here's one SOLEY about universities.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8560409/Universities-The-breeding-grounds-of-terror.html

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/20/westminster-university-islamic-students-society-ultra-conservative-muslims

And here's an entire book about it:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Islamist-joined-radical-Britain-inside/dp/0141030437

Meta-book about the popularity of the book


Slammed By The Substantial Amount Of Press Generated By My Book "Pounded By The Pound: Turned Gay By The Socioeconomic Implications Of Britain Leaving The European Union"

https://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/aw/d/B01HWROW0W/ref=pd_aw_sim_351_3/253-0503810-8471017?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=V9H82KP5S6WBD6SGYYPK

Andrew Marr had two tv series with tie-in books that were a fairly good overview of the 20th Century in British Politics.

The Making of Modern Britain Book and DVD


History of Modern Britain - Book and DVD

Edit: stream availible here:
http://britain.docuwat.ch/videos/history-of-modern-britain/history-of-modern-britain-01-advance-britannia-1945-1955-

I recomend a refersher course in The Intellectual Life of the British Working Classes

But they've got detailed drawings of the plan how to carry it out profitably.

(edit: They've already written the book)

Portfolio Before Country.

Revolt on teh Right

By far the most indepth, analytical insight into UKIPs support base. I reccomend anybody to read it. Guardian luvvies Goodwin and Ford have produced a worldy that is very well recommended by even the said paper as well as by BBC BookTalk. I am using their figures.

> NHS....

Evolving policies. I think they may lose a lot of that support if they went into 2015 with such policies, hence why they won;t. They tap into the anxiety of globalisation, something people scoff at and deem racist. Bizzarely.

> I'm not sure why you think it shields them or their supporters from criticism

I think you should be careful about mocking genuine economic concerns and labelling them merely racist, when they are on the whole normal people who observe the world around the, and perceive to know what is in their best interests. Mass influxes of cheap labour is not in their interests.

Ok less opinions, more facts -

Reese-Mogg is estimated to have made seven million off the back of the referendum result.

Reese-Moggs father literally wrote the book on profiteering from a financial crash

If you'd rather stay in denial by reading critical literature through a skewed eye glass, then fine.

I don't recommend you try this one then.

I found this and the follow up sequel here

Warning: NSFW

> That's what happened anyway though. I realise there's an effort to change the narrative on the Lib Dems but 2010 resulted in them being seen as complete hypocrites.

There were books written in the same year that said the one of the reasons they went with full coalition was because they wanted to show coliations would work. It may be wrong but it isn't changing the narrative to state that now.