Are you Anti-Globalisation? Are you an Anti-Capitalist?

[Lancasterclaret]

By the international renown "The D.S.R." system

Also know as "I'm alright Jack"

[Dejavu]

The problem is that capitalism has gone way to far. In the 70's the unions went way to far and the country needed Thatcher to redress the balance. Now we need a left leaning party that will give more to working people and take more from the rich and corporations. Corporations that pay no or very little tax in this country yet employ people educated and kept healthy by tax payers like you and me, then pay them low wages so they have to be subsidised by taxpayers again. The establishment own and run the press, Osborne is just the latest example of this.
Until people wake up to this reality there will be no change and the rich elite will get richer and richer whilst the masses will get poorer.

[JohnMcGreal]

Nah, only if you don't understand it.

Regarding the point about us being better off than our parents.

Are we really, as a nation?

Not sure, and certainly sure that as a nation our children will not be better off overall

I think it very much depends on your age. The older you are, the more likely you are to be better off than your parents. The younger you are, the more ****** you are, basically.

[ablueclaret]

Capitalism controlled is probably as good as you'll get, but we are moving away from those attempts.
Capitalism as the apotheosis of Darwinian ethics about as unpleasant as you'll get.
Globalisation inevitable but highlights the failings of political institutions to control the excesses of capitalism
Capitalism and the environment, not a good mix, the environment as an expendable asset still remains the dominant way of thinking.
Marxism and many forms of socialism outdated and repressive.
Altruism and social and environmental welfare our only real hope but runs against the grain of most prevalent scientific economic and social thinking, and it's pillars Christianity and Social Democracy diminished forces.
Depending on where you are in society you will view the world very differently, sadly those who suffer and do the dirty work are not deemed worthy of having their voice heard.
That a man like Osbourne is seen to be worth 100 ordinary men tells you the society is rotten at its core, but the justifications are there writ large in the system

[Paul Waine]

I think it very much depends on your age. The older you are, the more likely you are to be better off than your parents. The younger you are, the more ****** you are, basically.

Hi John,

Each generation has always been better off than the one before. There's no reason why this won't continue.

Of course, it's easy to see the gains when we are looking backwards, today's older generation compared with the older generation of 25 years ago, and we can do the same with each of the other age groups. We can compare where we were as 20 year olds, with the 20 years old a generation later, and repeat - if you are already in your 60s... At every stage it's easy to see that the generation that follows is better off than the one before.

It is harder when we look into the future, but only because we are not yet in that future. Things will continue to improve; health will be better (more diseases will be curable), people will be better educated, information technology will have progressed further and many more things will be possible.

Maybe even politics will be better....

[JohnMcGreal]

Hi John,

Each generation has always been better off than the one before. There's no reason why this won't continue.

Of course, it's easy to see the gains when we are looking backwards, today's older generation compared with the older generation of 25 years ago, and we can do the same with each of the other age groups. We can compare where we were as 20 year olds, with the 20 years old a generation later, and repeat - if you are already in your 60s... At every stage it's easy to see that the generation that follows is better off than the one before.

It is harder when we look into the future, but only because we are not yet in that future. Things will continue to improve; health will be better (more diseases will be curable), people will be better educated, information technology will have progressed further and many more things will be possible.

Maybe even politics will be better....

Hi Paul. I think generally that has been the case since the industrial revolution, where the next generation has been better off than the previous one. But the young generation of today are set to be the first generation to be worse off than the previous.

Extortionate tuition fees, sky high rent, unrealistic house prices, unstable and low paid work and poorer pensions are all contributing factors

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... edecessors" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Technology is still moving at a rapid pace and is set to eradicate a sizable percentage of work currently performed by people. There needs to be a serious discussion about what happens when technology makes millions of people redundant. A discussion that isn't even close to being on the agenda, in this country at least.

I'm not as sure as you are about health being better in the future. There is a major storm brewing around antibiotic resistant bacteria which scientists have been warning us about for a good few years now. The obesity and diabetes crisis shows no sign of receding either. Climate change is also a huge challenge which will present more health and wellbeing problems.

So there are obviously challenges in the future, and that's before you start looking at access to health care. Who knows what state that will be in 10 or 20 years from now. Will we still have a health care system that's free to access for all? Or will health care become a privilege only affordable to those who are financially comfortable?

[Paul Waine]

Hi Paul. I think generally that has been the case since the industrial revolution, where the next generation has been better off than the previous one. But the young generation of today are set to be the first generation to be worse off than the previous.

Extortionate tuition fees, sky high rent, unrealistic house prices, unstable and low paid work and poorer pensions are all contributing factors

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... edecessors" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Technology is still moving at a rapid pace and is set to eradicate a sizable percentage of work currently performed by people. There needs to be a serious discussion about what happens when technology makes millions of people redundant. A discussion that isn't even close to being on the agenda, in this country at least.

I'm not as sure as you are about health being better in the future. There is a major storm brewing around antibiotic resistant bacteria which scientists have been warning us about for a good few years now. The obesity and diabetes crisis shows no sign of receding either. Climate change is also a huge challenge which will present more health and wellbeing problems.

So there are obviously challenges in the future, and that's before you start looking at access to health care. Who knows what state that will be in 10 or 20 years from now. Will we still have a health care system that's free to access for all? Or will health care become a privilege only affordable to those who are financially comfortable?

Hi John, agree that there are a list of items that appear more challenging for today's 20-30 year olds than they were for their parents, but think back 30 years, 1990s, and think where the 20-30 year olds were at that time? Student tuition fees, yes, but people can now go to uni that couldn't in the past. House prices and rents in London are ridiculous, but they were 20-30 years ago for the people who were buying then - and interests were 10% and higher, wages/salaries were massively lower. Works a funny thing: we've more in employment today and agree that many of these are "zero hours" or "gig economy" roles - but all the way from 1950s through to 1980s/90s jobs were disappearing all over the country, coal mining, ship building, british Leyland, cotton/textiles, to name a few. Environment wise - we had the smogs, the "killer" coal fires pollution - and lead in petrol.

Yes, we've got challenges with antibiotics and obesity/diabetes, but think about the advances in cardiovascular disease and strokes and the same with cancer. Many people are alive today who wouldn't have survived 20 years ago.

Health care: the NHS does some absolutely brillian things - but it struggles because it was set up with the wrong model. "Free at the point of use" is the problem we need to fix. We need to look at the health care systems in Europe - most of them deliver better health than we get from the NHS - and learn from them. Our children will be better than their parents if we change the UK health care system.

AI/robots and all the rest: some transitions may be painful, some people may be out of work for a time - or maybe not if the gig economy demonstrates what is possible - but, we aren't luddites, we will all use the machines in clever ways, we will all be able to use our human skills in ways that machines can't. Again, the next generation will be better off than their parents were.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Health care: the NHS does some absolutely brillian things - but it struggles because it was set up with the wrong model. "Free at the point of use" is the problem we need to fix. We need to look at the health care systems in Europe - most of them deliver better health than we get from the NHS - and learn from them. Our children will be better than their parents if we change the UK health care system.

An interesting discussion and coincidentally the reason I have logged on bored is because I am overseas in a hotel advising a non UK health jurisdiction that isn't free at the point of use.

I would agree with Paul's general stance. The NHS is frankly, stuffed. We have ideology wrapped around our heads but it is madness. My wife is seeing a private physio for a knee tweak. To get in the loop on the NHS (just in case she has a more serious tear) she has too go on the list to see an NHS physio in 2 months time. Her private physio trained the NHS one she will be seeing. It is a pointless waste of resources. We are unable to cherry pick, paying private for bits of the treatment, simply for ideological reasons. Why? It makes no sense. Having it nearly free at the point of use would free up log jams and improve outcomes for everyone, and yes, the richest would get better care overall, but if the poorest get better than they would have, should that be wrong? There are some health economies I don't agree with either, but the NHS isn't copied overseas for a reason.

On the wider point though, the problems with globalisation are not in my mind to do with big companies but to do with zero barriers where poorer nations can undercut the richer ones (and not just poorer ones, but more immoral ones, such as the Chinese political dissident millions locked up and manufacturing our cheap goods). Without doubt in my mind this is the reason our poorer people who retain a work ethic (rather than the ones who do not) struggle to find full time jobs paying them the same as before. Trump is right. Still a nutter, but right.

That's why I am pro-Brexit. I see this is a brave leap to change the world. Tricky, and risky, but has to be done.

In balance though, today's folk are miles better off than previous generations. My mum was born in a house with one outside loo for the whole street halfway down the road. They had no access to information like Google which we now take for granted. Healthcare was basic. Education (particularly psychological) was often wrong - e.g. "depression - pull yourself together". Mobility was low, people stayed in the town they were born in. Food was unhealthy. There was no work / life balance or anti-discrimination law. Yes, some things now should be better but let's get real for heaven's sake. Even our benefit class don't have it that bad.

[JohnMcGreal]

Health care: the NHS does some absolutely brillian things - but it struggles because it was set up with the wrong model. "Free at the point of use" is the problem we need to fix. We need to look at the health care systems in Europe - most of them deliver better health than we get from the NHS - and learn from them.

It is true that some European countries have very good health care systems, and they are set up and run differently than our NHS.

But here is the problem that I have. If we were to explore a different kind of health care system in the UK, I would have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that our Conservative government would be able to deliver a system like a good European one. Be it the French, Italian or German model. Not only do I not think that they'll be able to deliver that, I don't think they'd even want to deliver it. I fear that when the day comes to move away from our NHS model, the government won't be looking across the channel for inspiration. They'll be looking across the Atlantic.

We are bending over backwards to have a 'special relationship' with Trump's United States, and you can bet your life that the 'trade deal' that we are seeking will involve opening up our NHS to American insurance companies. And the only people who stand to benefit from a deal like that, are the shareholders of those companies. The general public will get stuffed.

Be careful what you wish for when it comes to the NHS, because the alternative could be a damn sight worse than what we have at the moment.

[Paul Waine]

It is true that some European countries have very good health care systems, and they are set up and run differently than our NHS.

But here is the problem that I have. If we were to explore a different kind of health care system in the UK, I would have absolutely no confidence whatsoever that our Conservative government would be able to deliver a system like a good European one. Be it the French, Italian or German model. Not only do I not think that they'll be able to deliver that, I don't think they'd even want to deliver it. I fear that when the day comes to move away from our NHS model, the government won't be looking across the channel for inspiration. They'll be looking across the Atlantic.

We are bending over backwards to have a 'special relationship' with Trump's United States, and you can bet your life that the 'trade deal' that we are seeking will involve opening up our NHS to American insurance companies. And the only people who stand to benefit from a deal like that, are the shareholders of those companies. The general public will get stuffed.

Be careful what you wish for when it comes to the NHS, because the alternative could be a damn sight worse than what we have at the moment.

Hi John, I agree with you that the Conservatives aren't the ones to improve our health care system. But, the biggest barrier to building a better health care system is the Labour Party. Labour created the NHS - and got it wrong. But, they get lots and lots of votes from the "we created the NHS" and "we gave you free at the point of use..." Many people are confused with a good health care system and the nationalisation of the health care system.

I lived in Netherlands for a time. Generally, a left of centre government. A good health care system. Everyone has to have health insurance. If you are working and well paid you also contribute towards the health insurance of the people who aren't working/need assistance. When you need health care you make a contribution to the costs of the care (same as insurance excesses). The deductible you pay is assessed on (a) earnings and (b) family size; a single person has a larger deductible than a couple with children etc. You can chose any doctor you like, you aren't tied to the same GP. When treatment is required, but it's not an emergency, you still get treated quickly. I understand it's the same in France and Spain.

None of us want the US health care system - though you can get excellent health care if you can afford to pay. (I've worked for a number of US companies and have a number of friends in US. Yes, they have all been earning. None of them complained about their health care system).

The UK needs to trade with other countries. For defence/security we need a "special" relationship with the US. We will still need this relationship when Donald Trump is history. Meantime, maybe the UK and other countries can assist Trump in being a good president. We all need that to be the case.

[RingoMcCartney]

You can have a welfare state.

You can have uncontrolled mass immigration.

You cannot have both.

[Imploding Turtle]

We don't have uncontrolled mass immigration.

[Rowls]

We have had.

We're only just getting to grips with it.

It's no longer 'uncontrolled' but it's still a long way off being fully under control.

[Imploding Turtle]

At what point was it uncontrolled?

What will "fully under control" immigration look like?

[Rowls]

At what point was it uncontrolled?

After Labour came to power in 1997 when they dismantled systems to track visa-holders, abandoned border controls and openly went about enticing immigration into the country. We also did not have control over EU immigration (still don't) and failed to place temporary restrictions on new EU members states who joined the EU in 2004. We also had (still don't) enough resources to keep track of any asylum seekers who abscond from their reported residences.

The overwhelming number of asylum claims received in this period were granted "indefinite leave to remain" because there were not enough resources allocated to deal with the claim which meant cases were simply not considered properly - they were allowed to remain instead.

That's just off the top of my head. Goodnight.

[Rowls]

What will "fully under control" immigration look like?

Working migrants will require visas unless a bilateral agreement is reached between ourselves and the other country. Immigrants wishing to work in the UK will be skills assessed and only those with talents we require or value highly will be permitted work visas.

Asylum seekers will be processed speedily and humanely but those rejected will be quickly returned to their country of origin.

Refugees will be taken in on a quota system devised by ourselves and determined by global factors such as humanitarian disasters.

[Imploding Turtle]

You have anything to back up any of that? I'm particularly interested in evidence supporting the idea that Labour abandoned border controls. Did Labour dismantle the part of the Home Office that handled immigration and border controls?

I know the answer, i just want to see what mental gymnastics your offer up to explain that while these controls existed it still was uncontrolled controls, or something.

BTW, even if they weren't tracked at all, ever, visas are still a control. That alone disproves the idea of "uncontrolled mass immigration".

[Imploding Turtle]

Asylum seekers will be processed speedily and humanely but those rejected will be quickly returned to their country of origin.

Refugees will be taken in on a quota system devised by ourselves and determined by global factors such as humanitarian disasters.

Asylum seekers aren't immigrants, they're asylum seekers.
Refugees aren't immigrants, they're refugees.

Working migrants will require visas unless a bilateral agreement is reached between ourselves and the other country. Immigrants wishing to work in the UK will be skills assessed and only those with talents we require or value highly will be permitted work visas.

Working migrants do need visas to work here, special ones, actually, unless there is a bilateral agreement in place that means they don't need one. See if you can find the clues i've left in your quote to help you. Pro tip: swap them around.

Immigrants wishing to work in the UK will be skills assessed and only those with talents we require or value highly will be permitted

What, like this?
http://www.visabureau.com/uk/tier-1-gen ... ation.aspx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rowls]

You really are very, very dim aren't you.

I'll do you a favour tonight and assume you've had a few too many sherries.

Night night. I shan't be replying again because I'm off to bed. Don't stay up too long.

[Imploding Turtle]

You really are very, very dim aren't you.

I'll do you a favour tonight and assume you've had a few too many sherries.

Night night. I shan't be replying again because I'm off to bed. Don't stay up too long.

Oh, damn. Well argued.

[Paul Waine]

You have anything to back up any of that? I'm particularly interested in evidence supporting the idea that Labour abandoned border controls. Did Labour dismantle the part of the Home Office that handled immigration and border controls?

I know the answer, i just want to see what mental gymnastics your offer up to explain that while these controls existed it still was uncontrolled controls, or something.

BTW, even if they weren't tracked at all, ever, visas are still a control. That alone disproves the idea of "uncontrolled mass immigration".

Hi IT, I heard something on the radio this morning, Tony Blair admitting that opening up the UK to the new members of the EU, Jan 2004, I think, resulted in EU immigration jumping from <20,000 p.a. to > 100,000 p.a. (I'm sure the exact figures are available somewhere...).

That's probably what gives people the impression that immigration hasn't been controlled.

I'm not anti-immigration, but pretending it isn't happening doesn't do anyone any favours. Some have suggested that the surge in EU immigration is the reason for "leave" achieving a majority, although I guess it could be argued that lower costs workers from countries in central Europe is one of the reasons some supported maintaining membership of the EU.

[AndrewJB]

Perception is everything. The statistics say that our net immigration added several billion to the economy each year. During the last decade the government has sharply cut back spending, which has resulted in many people feeling anxious about the NHS, housing, public services in general, and jobs. This anger should have been directed at the government responsible for these cuts, however migration and the EU has been set up as the blame for why everything is underfunded.

[Imploding Turtle]

Perception is everything. The statistics say that our net immigration added several billion to the economy each year. During the last decade the government has sharply cut back spending, which has resulted in many people feeling anxious about the NHS, housing, public services in general, and jobs. This anger should have been directed at the government responsible for these cuts, however migration and the EU has been set up as the blame for why everything is underfunded.

It's pretty easy to blame others for your own country's problems, especially if you have an excessive amount of pride in your nationality.

[ArmchairDetective]

Capitalists are for the people

Maybe by definition. At the moment though I'd argue not in application.

[ClaretCliff]

It's pretty easy to blame others for your own country's problems, especially if you have an excessive amount of pride in your nationality.

Hello, Miss Sturgeon.

[Damo]

Ken Livingston has been in 5 live ranting about Hitler again

[Sidney1st]

You have anything to back up any of that? I'm particularly interested in evidence supporting the idea that Labour abandoned border controls. Did Labour dismantle the part of the Home Office that handled immigration and border controls?

I know the answer, i just want to see what mental gymnastics your offer up to explain that while these controls existed it still was uncontrolled controls, or something.

BTW, even if they weren't tracked at all, ever, visas are still a control. That alone disproves the idea of "uncontrolled mass immigration".

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/648008 ... referendum" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/03 ... d-come-uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

He's tried blaming the Tories and he also didn't realise what he could and couldn't do re border control .

[Hipper]

All the various political systems could work if they were properly and willingly applied - communism, anarchism, capitalism.......

However it seems that the least damaged by human failings is capitalism. To misquote Churchill, capitalism is the worst system, except for all the others.

What is required I would think is that more of us get involved in running the country, councils etc..

[Rowls]

It's wrong to human emotions as "human failings". You sound like a Cyberman, Hipper.

There comes a point, after several failed attempts, when saying "Communism would work if only it were applied properly!" starts to make as much sense as saying "an army of rabbits could be trained to hunt and kill our enemies if only we could implement proper training."

The only thing stopping us doing this is badly trained rabbits.

[claretabroad]

An interesting theoretical debate.

Marx's observations on the flaws of capitalism still hold up and many of his theories on how capitalism would progress were quite eerily prophetic. Unfortunately his solution to the problem is unworkable, primarily due to the self sustaining nature of bureacracies. We have also moved on from the bourgeoisie/proleteriat class structure with people now having an active participatory role as a consumer in a competition driven market place.

Capitalism is fundamentally flawed due to it being based on the consumption of finite natural resources. When these resources run out (and in certain cases we are very close to this) then capitalism will no longer be able to function and society will change radically. We are about to give our future generations the biggest hospital pass in history and it won't be pretty. Marx thought this change would come through revolution but what constitutes revolution isn't clearly defined. It doesn't necessarily mean storming the gates with pitchforks, it could simply mean change pushed through using existing political processes.

This transition can be graceful and in my opinion it can be achieved through technological advances. We are not far away from being able to provide food, water and shelter for everyone on the planet. I just hope the place isn't as trashed as a teenagers bedroom by the time this happens.

[Rowls]

And today...
Yet another reason for Labour supporters and anti-Globalists to celebrate:

Today Trump has signed a bill to reduced government penalties on miners and help these industries wherever possible.

Just as anti-Globalizaion and anti-Capitalist demonstrators must have been celebrating Mr Trump last week, this week pro-miners supporters (such as Jeremy Corbyn, Billy Bragg, Arthur Scargil, Neil Kinnockl and Ken Loach) must be itching to celebrate what Mr, Trump has achieved in the name of government support for industry.

[Sidney1st]

Does Billy Bragg do anything other then moan at things and write the odd bit of music?

[Imploding Turtle]

It's funny to me that an anti-globalist thinks that Trump doing something to help the fossil fuel industry is anti-globalist.

The only way Trump is anti-globalist is when it comes to global warming and climate change. His "**** the globe" principles, in evidence today, is pretty anti-globalist but that's the closest he gets to anti-globalism.