Jump to content

Anna B

Members
  • Content Count

    11,625
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Anna B

  • Rank
    Registered User

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Brexit has been a very useful diversion for the Tories. They've been slipping unpopular legislation out under the radar ever since Brexit became the prominent, all encompassing news story. Lots of opportunities to bury bad news....
  2. Anna B

    Propaganda

    I wonder what catagory lying by ommision comes into? All too often only one side of a story is given, creating an altogether false impression of what's actually going on.
  3. Anna B

    Propaganda

    Aside from personal experience, (which is generally quite limited,) everything we know about the world is filtered through some form of media, and therefore subject to bias, some unintentional, but usually not. History, as they say, is written by the winning side, and certainly from a particular point of view. Propaganda is universal and all pervasive.
  4. A lot of people do want a Labour government, especially with Corbyn in charge, we're just being told different. Similarly, I agree the Tories are halfwits who have cocked things up over and over again, created austerity politics and have the worst leader ever, but you wouldn't know it from the media who are generally supportive of Mrs May no matter how inept I also agree that the British electorate are by nature probably middle hugging moderates, but the Tories have moved seriously to the right, but Brexit has dominated the agenda, so that, and the unmitigated bias of the media has masked it.
  5. Anna B

    A new small political party

    Wouldn't that just be a re-run of the 1980's when the SDP (gang of four = a few others,) joined up with the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats? That didn't end well did it, still, if they want political obscurity. . .
  6. Anna B

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    Not any more. According to experts, its going to creep inexorably up the pay scale to a lot of more middle class jobs. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/09/27/jobs-risk-automation-according-oxford-university-one/
  7. Anna B

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    Once again, you can't keep referring back to the 19th century. The Agrarian revolution luckily coincided with the Industrial revolution, so people moved from the land into the new factories, and regular wages fostered consumerism. It wasn't called a revolution for nothing. Nor had it been a continual process over 2,000 years. At the time it was a sudden change, unprecedented, affected the entire population, and everything changed. particularly for the 'peasants' who had their first taste of a regular wage and what they could do with it. A new working class was born. This is where we were in the recent past. But we are now realising that this rampant consumerism, which has fueled growth, is wrecking the planet and has to be cut back. The new future, again, has no precedent, and will effect everything. Robots are now capable of learning and replicating, solving problems, and developing new systems all on their own. Yes, a few people will be involved, but not in the numbers they will be displacing. (Look at the effect online shopping has had on the high street: Jobs have been lost, but where's the jobs gain? Even Amazon and the like are now replacing warehouse 'pickers' with fully automated systems, and are even talking about drones to do the deliveries.) As l1L2T3 says in post 68, their company held off with a system that would have replaced 40% of their workforce, but in a competitive system where other employers do not have such scruples, how long are they going to survive unless they join in and tool up?
  8. Anna B

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    It's not doom mongering at all, if handled right it could be the leisured future we've all been waiting for. What work is left can be shared out, and more leisure can be enjoyed by all, but it will take planning and organisation on a scale that has not been seen before. We are on the cusp of huge changes, some of which could be very positive, but this is not a future like any that have gone before so there is no blueprint. Industialisation in the 19th century brought more consumerism which fed jobs and completed a circle, but the next revolution will take more jobs away. When the industrial jobs in the North disappeared in the 1980's the decline of the North began and hasn't really recovered since. Some found new employment but many foundered, creating the under-class with its permanently unemployed. A lot of the new types of industry, like the financial sector, tended to be focused on London and the South East, leaving vast swathes like the North East behind and financially disadvantaged. London and the South East has become overcrowded with house prices unaffordable for many. Globalisation is going to mean many places worldwide will have similar problems and would be better off working together in cooperation, rather than in competition. The more successful countries such as Finland and its Scandinavian neighbours are far more Socialist and streets ahead of us in this. Unless we want to see the world split into the desperately poor masses and the few super rich elite we need to find ways to emulate the Scandinavians rather than the ultra Capitalist American model.. Meanwhile the 'Northern Powerhouse' remains a fantasy and HS2 will take so long to build it will be obsolete before it's even begun. Has nobody realised that in a fast moving world we need to move and adapt far more quickly, and prepare well in advance? That's something that unlike Finland, we never seem to do. We need long term planning and a strategy that needs to be underway now. And hopefully not leave people behind. The future is just around the corner, we need to decide how we are going to deal with it.
  9. Anna B

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    I've tried to make this point before: 10 men make 10 cars. 10 cars are sold, 10 men are paid. The company makes a profit. The 10 men are sacked and replaced by a robot. 1 robot makes 10 cars. 10 cars are sold. No men are paid, so company profits increase,* 10 men are unemployed and poor. But Robots do not buy cars. Unemployed men can't buy cars, so profits start to fall, and soon the company closes. Globalisation, smart technology and increasing automation pose this dilemma right across the world. However, *share the profits, and everyone benefits from smart technology, and advanced automation.
  10. 'Corbyn's Secret Link To Pregnant Jewish MP's Tormentor' - The 2" front page headline in this week's Sunday Mail. This sort of thing (and far worse) on a Daily basis. It'd be funny if it wasn't so desperate don't you think? Especially when considering it's the the Conservatives who actually wield the power at the moment, and are making a total hash of it. Hardly a word about them and their many, multiple failings. (PS. Today's 2" front page headline: 'Leader who's lost the plot' and a full page picture of Corbyn carrying veg on his way home from his allotment... Relentless persecution. Might be a good idea to report things like what Mrs May's been up to.)
  11. I don't resent them at all, they're free to do as they please. If they feel that way, the Labour party is better off without them. I do however agree with Chuka Umunna that our political system is in dire need of change, but I believe that change is embodied in Jeremy Corbyn. I think more and more of the electorate are waking up to the fact that a tick in a box once every 5 years, to then be totally ignored the rest of the time while politicians think they have carte blanche to do whatever suits them, does not necessarily constitute a fair democracy. All this is being acted out through Brexit, but Brexit is more a symptom of the desire for change than an actual wish for the end result. In what way was I or anyone else 'fooled' by Corbyn? He's been pretty steadfast throughout. What perhaps has had an effect on those less informed is the relentless battering he and some of his colleagues have undergone in the media. There is a limit to how many times you can hear someone denounced as dangerous, useless, anti-semitic, etc etc without it having an effect. I'm so sick of seeing the constant, ridiculous stories in the papers, especially at a time when the Tories are so obviously floundering, that I no longer bother to read them or try to defend them. I simply see it as a mark of the desperation that the Establishment is feeling with regards to Corbyn and his undoubted popularity. Just because you don't read or hear about that in the media doesn't mean it isn't still there. The same rules will come into force as last time in an election situation: Corbyn has to be given equal exposure, airtime, and chance to get his message across to the people from the horse's mouth, without spin or editing. The people liked what they heard last time, and they will again. The man is centre- left, eminently pragmatic and sensible, as is his message, 'For the many, not the few.'
  12. Yeah, that just about sums it up. Apart from Chuka Umunna, I doubt most people outside politics have ever heard of them. They certainly don't have the high profile / experience/ respect, that the old gang of four, (Shirley Williams, David Owen, et al) that broke away from Labour and started the short lived Socialist Democratic Party in the 80's. and at least they demonstrated their committment to politics by continuing on into the house of Lords.
  13. I agree. Pity they didn't just defect to the Tories. Chuks Umunna only has the interests of one person in mind, and that's Chuka Umunna.
  14. One of the problems with the Conservatives is that they are totally in the thrall of the big corporations and the lobbyists. The voters, and what the voters want, comes very low down on their list of priorities.
  15. Anna B

    Finland and the Basic Income experiment

    You pose some interesting questions, many of which have been doing the rounds on social media since the banking crisis, and that have been explained and answered with some degree of success, but the truth is, we are not supposed to know how it all works, otherwise we start asking uncomfortable questions that demonstrate what a flawed and unfair system is in place. However on one issue, namely why shouldn't the state take on the role of issueing interest free money for the benefit of the people, has already been answered; the answer is, it can. One of the core points in The Labour party manifesto is its resolve to set up a network of National Banks, using quantatitive easing for the people, to fund major infrastructure projects to get the economy moving and to provide proper, sustainable jobs. As Jeremy Corbyn says, if it's alright to create money via quantatitive easing to give to the banks, then why shouldn't it be applied equally to the benefit of the country. So far, I've never heard a satisfactory argument against it, although of course, the Establishment and the powers that be, with a vested interest in propping up the current banking system and the status quo, are desperately putting spanners in the works to ensure it never happens. They of course want to maintain a system out of which they do exceedingly well. NeoLiberalism/Capitalism depends totally on maintaining unfair advantage and inequality, which is why we have such a divided world. So keeping the likes of Jeremy Corbyn out of power by any means is number one on the aganda. It's also notable that any weaker country which tries to remove itself from the US petro dollar to aid its own economic growth, seems to come to a sticky end via American invasion, intervention, or deliberate destablisation of said country/area.
×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.