Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[MorleyDev]

I'm really curious to try and see if I can put forward my idea for how Britain can succeed regardless of EU membership (In fact the below seems to me like the path we were basically on as country inside the EU), then challenge people to either convince me the idea is ridiculous or that a specific political party is planning on delivering it. Labour under Corbyn, the Green Party, the SNP, or the Lib Dems from 10 years ago seem to be the closest matches. Basically, if I was going to talk at a rally my speech would be something like:

***

The best way, in fact maybe only real way, for the UK to succeed is for it to act as a finance, science and technology hub of the world. We need an innovation economy. It's the main thing we can compete on globally and when you get down to it, it's the only thing that really matters and will impact and benefit not just ourselves, but all future generations.

There are two main ways to accomplish this, either the establishment of a lower working 'slave class' which supports the 'intellectual elite', or a system encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds.

The former could come in the form of either physical coercion, or an imposed class system. Physical coercion in a resource rich environment will fail, history shows this. The imposition of a class system via segregation from youth and with different tracks of education is simply not as efficient as it gives a smaller resource pool to draw from for innovation, knowledge and advancement. This environment is a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution, but is not sufficient for the modern world. Needless to say, it may of been necessary then, but it has allowed us to pave the way to something better.

The latter system, encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator role in people of all backgrounds, is not only the more ethical and moral position, but also the one which stands to bring the longest term benefits to not only Britain but the entire human race. It is the only choice in the small, interconnected world which always has been and always will be growing smaller and more interconnected as technology continues to advance.

To do this we need a high quality school system with free (or cheap, I'll allow for cheap) access to education, churning out large numbers of educated experts and innovators capable of entering and bolstering those industries. Affordable healthcare helps keep those numbers high too, as then people do not need to sabotage their future for their health. Public (as in government) ownership and oversight is required for these things, as corporate interests are too often and too easily immediate profit oriented, and so at odds with that long-term goal.

As old industries inevitably are made irrelevant and die in the rapidly evolving market of the world, we need a strong welfare system able to support and retrain people to work the new industries. This system can also simultaneously be used to catch people who fall through the cracks of schooling, training them to enter the service industries.

The death of large scale manufacturing in the UK, the mining and steelworks industries, was an inevitable reality of being a relatively small first world country in modern times. Our welfare system has failed to support the people of those industries, leaving them abandoned and disenfranchised by the advancements that should of brought only benefits to their lives. The systems of support that the government have so recklessly cut in the name of austerity must be revitalised.

Long gone are the days where a person can work the same basic job cradle to grave. We must embrace the ever-changing nature of the modern world, and accept the reality that no matter what job you are doing now, some part of it will be irrelevant in ten years. And you may be that part. At some point it is near guaranteed you will be. Flexibility of the workforce is a necessity, and we need a strong welfare system and a strong and open education system to enable that flexibility.

Immigration is required to bring in low-level workers to plug the gaps we are not producing unskilled workers in enough volume to fill. And then their children will be able to enter the British system and achieve the above, bringing further resources and pools of talent into this country.

Universities must cooperate on international projects with other university's around the world. Such cooperation benefits the development of local and global industry, and if we already have the basis down, which we do, guarantees more new industries and opportunities in this country.  Our world-class universities and industries will further attract existing talent and prospective talent from abroad, ever growing the UK resource pool.

In keeping with the themes of both scientific innovation and future generations, a key field of UK research must be in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. This creates whole new industries whilst working to protect the environment for our children and children's children. Another win-win scenario where ethics and practicality line up.

As the possible benefactors and markets of technology and science are not just limited to the country it takes place in, but the entire world, Britain must support and elevate other countries where it can, working to minimise the hostility that hampers progress, and encouraging the development of new economies, markets, and sources of talent in areas that are lacking in such things. These are both new markets for our technologies and sciences, and new sources of advancements. This is accomplished locally through the welfare, education and healthcare systems, and globally through supporting international charity endeavours.

The setting and development of these foundations can be supported by taxation of both high earners and businesses, as those taxes act as an investment from high earners. By investing in the development of resources, they help guarantee future growth. The kinds of businesses that would not benefit from this system are the kind of exploitative monstrosities which in the long run only hinder progress, and so would not be welcome.

Additionally, by attracting, developing and maintaining talent for the innovation economy, by developing the science and engineering infrastructure for these specialised areas, we ensure those businesses benefit from setting up in this country above others.

Encouraging the development of new businesses from both local and international talent ensures the UK remains a globally important centre. A place that not only benefits from the world, but benefits the world we all share.

***

Other things I want: Stem cell research, genetically modified foods to solve problems of food shortages, co-operation with international bodies on space research. At the end of the day and current rates of population growth, the planet is risking being overpopulated by the 2050s. We need to prepare for this by finding ways to produce food and energy more efficiently, and ultimately aim to be getting the hell off this planet.

Also scrap trident, it's just money being pissed away so blind old bulls can feel like big men.

[Neonivek]

But the UK already has slaves... it is actually kind of a social issue for them. (their words, not mine)

[MorleyDev]

Breaking: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37461219

Jeremy Corbyn wins the labour leadership election by 61.8%, an even larger margin than he get elected in the 1st place.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

With the Orbs of Direction under his control, no force of mortal men may stand against him. Soon the world entire shall fall beneath the shadows of Corbyn.

[MorleyDev]

I like to imagine his speech ended with "But beware of the right wing policies. Prejudice, fear, greed; the dark side of politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a debate. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Tony Blair."

The whole kerfuffle with Corbyn has been pretty hilarious, since from the looks of it the reason Labour allowed member votes on leader selection like they did was them trying to reduce the influence of unions in an attempt to give MPs more power over who their leader is. And that bit them in the arse something fierce, because it became very clear very quickly a large chunk of the Labour members have been pretty unhappy with their current policy of "basically being a slightly less obviously maniacal version of the Conservative party under a different banner".

[Loud Whispers]

With the Orbs of Direction under his control, no force of mortal men may stand against him. Soon the world entire shall fall beneath the shadows of Corbyn.

QFT

I like to imagine his speech ended with "But beware of the right wing policies. Prejudice, fear, greed; the dark side of politics are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a debate. Once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will, as it did Tony Blair."

Even better: Beware of the neoliberals

Right wing will stab left wing in the face
Neoliberal will stab left wing in the back
Here's his full speech btw
He talks about the new Tory government, and how it's Cameron's government but with a "hard right edge." Which to me confirms that Theresa May's right wing government is actually right wing, Osbornites btfo again

Spoiler: snip (click to show/hide)

I'm really curious to try and see if I can put forward my idea for how Britain can succeed regardless of EU membership (In fact the below seems to me like the path we were basically on as country inside the EU), then challenge people to either convince me the idea is ridiculous or that a specific political party is planning on delivering it. Labour under Corbyn, the Green Party, the SNP, or the Lib Dems from 10 years ago seem to be the closest matches. Basically, if I was going to talk at a rally my speech would be something like:

***

The best way, in fact maybe only real way, for the UK to succeed is for it to act as a finance, science and technology hub of the world. We need an innovation economy. It's the main thing we can compete on globally and when you get down to it, it's the only thing that really matters and will impact and benefit not just ourselves, but all future generations.

There are two main ways to accomplish this, either the establishment of a lower working 'slave class' which supports the 'intellectual elite', or a system encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds.

The former could come in the form of either physical coercion, or an imposed class system. Physical coercion in a resource rich environment will fail, history shows this. The imposition of a class system via segregation from youth and with different tracks of education is simply not as efficient as it gives a smaller resource pool to draw from for innovation, knowledge and advancement. This environment is a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution, but is not sufficient for the modern world. Needless to say, it may of been necessary then, but it has allowed us to pave the way to something better.

The latter system, encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator role in people of all backgrounds, is not only the more ethical and moral position, but also the one which stands to bring the longest term benefits to not only Britain but the entire human race. It is the only choice in the small, interconnected world which always has been and always will be growing smaller and more interconnected as technology continues to advance.

To do this we need a high quality school system with free (or cheap, I'll allow for cheap) access to education, churning out large numbers of educated experts and innovators capable of entering and bolstering those industries. Affordable healthcare helps keep those numbers high too, as then people do not need to sabotage their future for their health. Public (as in government) ownership and oversight is required for these things, as corporate interests are too often and too easily immediate profit oriented, and so at odds with that long-term goal.

As old industries inevitably are made irrelevant and die in the rapidly evolving market of the world, we need a strong welfare system able to support and retrain people to work the new industries. This system can also simultaneously be used to catch people who fall through the cracks of schooling, training them to enter the service industries.

The death of large scale manufacturing in the UK, the mining and steelworks industries, was an inevitable reality of being a relatively small first world country in modern times. Our welfare system has failed to support the people of those industries, leaving them abandoned and disenfranchised by the advancements that should of brought only benefits to their lives. The systems of support that the government have so recklessly cut in the name of austerity must be revitalised.

Long gone are the days where a person can work the same basic job cradle to grave. We must embrace the ever-changing nature of the modern world, and accept the reality that no matter what job you are doing now, some part of it will be irrelevant in ten years. And you may be that part. At some point it is near guaranteed you will be. Flexibility of the workforce is a necessity, and we need a strong welfare system and a strong and open education system to enable that flexibility.

Immigration is required to bring in low-level workers to plug the gaps we are not producing unskilled workers in enough volume to fill. And then their children will be able to enter the British system and achieve the above, bringing further resources and pools of talent into this country.

Universities must cooperate on international projects with other university's around the world. Such cooperation benefits the development of local and global industry, and if we already have the basis down, which we do, guarantees more new industries and opportunities in this country.  Our world-class universities and industries will further attract existing talent and prospective talent from abroad, ever growing the UK resource pool.

In keeping with the themes of both scientific innovation and future generations, a key field of UK research must be in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. This creates whole new industries whilst working to protect the environment for our children and children's children. Another win-win scenario where ethics and practicality line up.

As the possible benefactors and markets of technology and science are not just limited to the country it takes place in, but the entire world, Britain must support and elevate other countries where it can, working to minimise the hostility that hampers progress, and encouraging the development of new economies, markets, and sources of talent in areas that are lacking in such things. These are both new markets for our technologies and sciences, and new sources of advancements. This is accomplished locally through the welfare, education and healthcare systems, and globally through supporting international charity endeavours.

The setting and development of these foundations can be supported by taxation of both high earners and businesses, as those taxes act as an investment from high earners. By investing in the development of resources, they help guarantee future growth. The kinds of businesses that would not benefit from this system are the kind of exploitative monstrosities which in the long run only hinder progress, and so would not be welcome.

Additionally, by attracting, developing and maintaining talent for the innovation economy, by developing the science and engineering infrastructure for these specialised areas, we ensure those businesses benefit from setting up in this country above others.

Encouraging the development of new businesses from both local and international talent ensures the UK remains a globally important centre. A place that not only benefits from the world, but benefits the world we all share.

***

Other things I want: Stem cell research, genetically modified foods to solve problems of food shortages, co-operation with international bodies on space research. At the end of the day and current rates of population growth, the planet is risking being overpopulated by the 2050s. We need to prepare for this by finding ways to produce food and energy more efficiently, and ultimately aim to be getting the hell off this planet.

Also scrap trident, it's just money being pissed away so blind old bulls can feel like big men.

Sounds like a fucking retarded manifesto, that were it to be implemented by state intervention, would cause me to run for Prime Minister under the mandate of "I will nuclear bomb this country into oblivion so that we may escape this grimdark current year through the sweet release of the future we chose," - and I would win, with the NUKIT party winning 100% of Parliament's seats.

Being a financial, scientific and technological hub of the world is certainly in London's future, and I don't like the phrase "innovation economy" - planning in any measure an economies' growth without expecting high levels of innovation is like discussing fertilizer compounds and seed mixes for a field you never intend to water. All efforts will be wasted, and merely result in piles of useless shit everywhere. I put a full stop at the end there so that paragraph sounds serious, so just pretend there are :P everywhere to lighten the tone

The first system of a lower working slave class supporting the intellectual elite is fucking horrendous, the intellectual elite have done an absolutely shit job of handling their political power and have grown contemptuous of working class Britons - taking away their remaining agency just to further empower the intellectual elite sounds like the neoliberal wank of Oxbridge aristocrats cocksure in their intellectual superiority that they truly know what's better for the world better than worldly people know themselves.
This idea does not even deserve to be put to paper, it is just an overt realization of what the EU's critics fought so stringently against. The humble Nige was once asked by a young un how to get into politics, how to get work experience to get into Parliament asap. Are based Nige told them - don't, get a real job first, get real life experience - then try for politics. Your chances are lower but you'll actually have a far better understanding of what you're doing, you'll actually know what problems people face. That's the issue with a dedicated class of political bureaucrats who are born in elite prep schools, raised in elite global Universities and through their connections end up as the new political elite - one, it becomes incredibly easy to consolidate control over future rulers, and two - future rulers are fundamentally disconnected with reality, having only existed in it as Siddhartha Gauthama surrounded by pleasure, wealth and prestige.

But you are not suggesting that, you are just suggesting that our two options are the one you suggest or slavery - which to me is a lot like suggesting our only options for foreign policy are dissolving the nation or joining the United States, or our NHS policy are eugenic death squads or privatization. Unless you really have that level of a deficit in imagination, it's just not in any way improving your argument case - you must surely be more imaginative than that.

Your more realistic proposal of an intellectual elite founded on the basis of a high quality school system allowing for global social mobility of elites across the world is our current system. It works, there's not much to say about that. That said your impression of the UK is at places wrong, or incredibly wrong, or just outdated - and to use a word that has since become meaningless, ignorant.
My tl;dr before the boring bit commences is this:

• 1. You are running off of incorrect information and thus have set up to accomplish goals that in reality are milestones of failure.
• 2. Your understanding of innovation is that it is something generated by an intellectual elite commanding from above down to workers, when innovations is made by workers and in an ideal world, protected by politicians. Note well - politicians, not the intellectual elite that make up our politicians.
• 3. This is ultimately just a proposal for the neoliberalism that has been failing the United Kingdom.

Spoiler: Allow me to elaborate (click to show/hide)

It's the main thing we can compete on globally and when you get down to it, it's the only thing that really matters and will impact and benefit not just ourselves, but all future generations.

"Finance, Science and Technology" are not the only world class industries in the UK that benefit the United Kingdom and the world.
For example, the City of London's Livery Companies represent:

Mercers (general merchants), Grocers (spice merchants), Drapers (wool and cloth merchants), Fishmongers, Goldsmiths (bullion dealers), Skinners* (fur traders), Merchant Taylors* (tailors), Haberdashers (clothiers in sewn and fine materials, eg. silk & velvet), Salters (traders of salts and chemicals), Ironmongers, Vintners (wine merchants), Clothworkers, Dyers, Brewers, Leathersellers, Pewterers (pewter and metal manufacturers), Barbers (incl. surgeons and dentists, since people used to have surgery/dentistry by the most experienced human cutters... Barbers), Cutlers (knife, sword and utensil makers), Bakers, Wax Chandlers (wax candle makers), Tallow Chandlers (tallow candle makers), Armourers and Brasiers (armour makers and brass workers), Girdlers (belt and girdle makers), Butchers, Saddlers, Carpenters, Cordwainers (fine leather workers and shoemakers), Painter-Stainers, Curriers (leather dressers and tanners), Masons (stonemasons), Plumbers, Innholders (tavern keepers), Founders (metal casters and melters), Poulters (poulterers), Cooks, Coopers (barrel and cask makers), Tylers and Bricklayers (builders), Bowyers (long-bow makers), Fletchers (arrow makers), Blacksmiths, Joiners and Ceilers (wood craftsmen), Weavers, Woolmen, Scriveners (court scribes and notaries public), Fruiterers, Plaisterers (plasterers), Stationers and Newspaper Makers (journalists and publishers), Broderers (embroiderers), Upholders (upholsterers), Musicians, Turners (lathe operators), Basketmakers, Glaziers and Painters of Glass, Horners (horn workers and plasticians), Farriers (horseshoe makers and horse veterinarians), Paviors (road and highway pavers), Loriners (equestrian bit, bridle and spur suppliers), Apothecaries (physicians and pharmacists), Shipwrights (shipbuilders and maritime professionals), Spectacle Makers, Clockmakers, Glovers, Feltmakers (hat makers), Framework Knitters, Needlemakers, Gardeners, Tin Plate Workers, Wheelwrights, Distillers, Pattenmakers (wooden-shoe makers), Glass Sellers, Coachmakers and Coach Harness Makers (now for cars), Gunmakers, Gold and Silver Wyre Drawers (threadmakers for military and society clothing), Makers of Playing Cards, Fanmakers, Carmen (vehicle drivers), Master Mariners, City of London Solicitors' Company (lawyers), Farmers, Air Pilots, Tobacco Pipe Makers and Tobacco Blenders, Furniture Makers, Scientific Instrument Makers, Chartered Surveyors, Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, Chartered Secretaries and Administrators, Builders Merchants, Launderers, Marketors, Actuaries, Insurers, Arbitrators, Engineers, Fuellers, Lightmongers (electric lighting suppliers), Environmental Cleaners, Chartered Architects, Constructors, Information Technologists, World Traders, Water Conservators, Firefighters, Hackney Carriage Drivers (licensed taxicab drivers), Management Consultants, International Bankers, Tax Advisers, Security Professionals, Educators and Arts Scholars.

I believe every single trade known to mankind that is not illegal by British law is represented. My favourite are the wax workers because they contribute much to bee conservation <3

With each of them contributing to innovation, expansion and conservation of their industries and their sources. That is for the City of London, not counting just under a million businesses being run in London or the 4 million businesses ran across the United Kingdom doing every job known under the sun. Of all those businesses, 90,000 of them are in Finance & Insurance, 687,000 are in Science and Tech.

What could possibly make sense about destroying millions of businesses to cater to Fin, Sci and Tech - when all three are already world-class? It doesn't even work like that, our workers who end up in forestry, construction, catering, education, fashion, the arts e.t.c. are not likely to be people interested in going into STEM or Finance.

There are two main ways to accomplish this, either the establishment of a lower working 'slave class' which supports the 'intellectual elite', or a system encouraging the development of and ascension to the innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds.

I've already commented on the whole "either we choose nuclear holocaust or make some toast" comparisons but the whole notion of creating a system for "innovative/creator roles for people of all backgrounds" fails on three points:

• In your system there are no mechanisms for an educated elite to not simply consolidate generation upon generation their "innovative/creator role"
• Your system supports mass migration to have unskilled labour, when the whole system is fundamentally designed to eliminate the need for unskilled labour. The new migrants would then have to be integrated and brought up to standard so they may join in on the innovative and creator role at cost of the taxpayer they are replacing... Which creates a gap of unskilled jobs without workmen that the system promised to render obsolete on top of top demographic bants. Where have I seen this before? Unless of course the real plan is to create an oppressed caste of disenfranchised unskilled workers, which just ends up producing criminal gangs which drain on society.
• The notion of an "innovative/creator role" is interesting. I have never seen a job title like it, the closest I can think of is an entrepreneur or inventor. Innovation is done by workers who have experience and expertise in their fields, capable of identifying opportunities unexploited or problems unsolved. It's not taught out of a textbook; such a move would be a waste of time and money that would risk steering away our most scientifically adept students from actually pioneering fields of work in scientific research, clinical trials, engineering (basically, STEM).

The imposition of a class system via segregation from youth and with different tracks of education is simply not as efficient as it gives a smaller resource pool to draw from for innovation, knowledge and advancement. This environment is a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution, but is not sufficient for the modern world. Needless to say, it may of been necessary then, but it has allowed us to pave the way to something better.

Whilst reading this I could hear the screams of old sons of England burning through steam pipes
This environment is not a good description on Britain circa the industrial revolution.
1833, Factory Act, the government makes two hours of daily education compulsory for children working in factories, and begins allocating funds to charities providing free education to children.
1844, Ragged Schools Union forms. Ragged Schools were charity schools that taught impoverished children numeracy, literacy, Christianity, provided food, clothing, lodging - and when they formed the Union, were able to pool together their resources  to increase in scope and organization. Crucially, they were able to begin expand teaching into industrial and commercial fields.
1868, The Public Schools Act (1868) reforms the top public schools of that time (of which most are still the top today). Not for reasons of accessibility mind you, for reasons of expanding the curriculum.
1880, the Education Act makes school attendance compulsory for children up to the age of 10. Factory owners feared losing a great source of cheap labour, but the ensuing expansion in manufacturing and innovation caused by a new generation of literate and numerate workers ushered in the wealthiest period of British civilization. But what we really need is cheap labour lmao
1902, Education Act passed founding the secondary school system, to further develop on literacy and numeracy to more advanced subjects.
Also around this time whilst our elite Universities were off teaching Latin, new Universities were founded in places like Birmingham and Bristol focusing on what we now call STEM - places that would be come central hubs of industrialization.

To do this we need a high quality school system with free (or cheap, I'll allow for cheap) access to education, churning out large numbers of educated experts and innovators capable of entering and bolstering those industries.

Our education system is already world quality. There is currently the issue in how our teachers of state primary and secondary schools are ideologically opposed to working methods in favour of dysfunctional teaching methods that fail our students. It's honestly disgusting that people can look at British kids failing to compete with kids whose 2nd language is English and think "mission accomplished." Fundamentally nothing can be done to reform this mess without in some way challenging the control of the teachers' unions. Unbelievable that they legitimately warned our (now former) education secretary not to identify successful British schools because it made teachers from other schools uncomfortable.
It should make them uncomfortable that they're failing their students and don't know how to do their jobs. First things first, education standards in the teachers themselves need to be upped immensely, they need to be able to teach if students are at all expected to learn from them.

Secondly the pressure for all kids to go to Uni to acquire useless degrees needs to stop. Getting a job, learning trades, becoming specialists - if we can't bring back trade schools due to union opposition, then we can call them technician schools or simply defer to apprenticeships. Really begin telling students about how they could better plan their future careers, from getting work experience to their first jobs, to using those jobs to get onto access courses/integrated degrees/degrees and use those to further promote their careers, instead of ending up with a useless degree, no career and massive student debt. For Universities give massive sponsorship to talented and keen students wishing to enter highly competitive degrees like STEM, Economics, Law e.t.c. - to international and national students. This creates a very socially mobile system based off of merit, with most of the students in the former category (far be it being left behind from the students with competitive degrees), often earning more (doctors pays are shit).

Furthermore an expert or innovator is not born out of a book. One cannot mass produce experts from a Uni mill, you get an expert from someone who's been living the field for decades and understands how it works. This is really obvious and goes without saying, but it has to be said anyways. Vocational degrees, conversion courses, sandwich courses, offer even more options for those who want to gain work experience and an academic qualification for their field of work. There are so many options available, not just "slavery or technocratic neoliberalism." Those are just options available to students in place NOW, not options we could implement.

Affordable healthcare helps keep those numbers high too, as then people do not need to sabotage their future for their health. Public (as in government) ownership and oversight is required for these things, as corporate interests are too often and too easily immediate profit oriented, and so at odds with that long-term goal.

We cannot get any cheaper than free healthcare, and I do not see how students sabotage their future for their health. A student is capable of going to Uni and not drinking and drugging their liver into paradise :P

As old industries inevitably are made irrelevant and die in the rapidly evolving market of the world, we need a strong welfare system able to support and retrain people to work the new industries. This system can also simultaneously be used to catch people who fall through the cracks of schooling, training them to enter the service industries.

That sounds like a good idea, (specifically, retraining individuals who have devoted their lives to an industry that has been made obsolete). I would not entrust it to the welfare system however, as our social services are mentally ill and could not save a life even if the life wasn't in peril to begin with. There are many routes to retraining, both private and public, this is not something that would be aided by stifling it with bureaucracy. I'm also rather disturbed by your vision of the service industry to say the least, or what you mean by those who fall through the cracks of the education system.

Our welfare system has failed to support the people of those industries, leaving them abandoned and disenfranchised by the advancements that should of brought only benefits to their lives. The systems of support that the government have so recklessly cut in the name of austerity must be revitalised.

I like virtue signalling, because it means people want to do good, or at least care enough to appear good. I like a good plan more than good appearances by far though. Putting large sums of unemployed people on benefits until the money borrowed runs out is not a long term solution, it's not even a short term one. Money spent on regeneration projects, or better yet, money spent from international investors on regeneration projects have been far better use of the money towards increasing the growth of Britain's former industrial centres instead of merely having them languishing on the government dole. The United Kingdom could benefit greatly from greater transport links, though I am critical of the highspeed railway, I am hopeful someone comes up with a better version that will not merely end up concentrating greater wealth to London. Oh! And one thing that has certainly helped immensely has been giving greater autonomy to local councils and devolved governance, so that they may spend their taxes on local projects they understand most of all will benefit their communities the most.

Long gone are the days where a person can work the same basic job cradle to grave. We must embrace the ever-changing nature of the modern world, and accept the reality that no matter what job you are doing now, some part of it will be irrelevant in ten years.

"Transferable skills" - a phrase good Londoners learn before they can walk. Don't know about the rest of the UK, but they seem to produce workers with even more transferable skills than London, where urbanites tend to specialize in one subject of one field to become a consultant. Much of what doctors did in 2000 for example has been made entirely irrelevant, which is why they are continually learning and adapting to the changes in their work environment. It seems rather odd to pretend this is something new, it is something the United Kingdom's workers have been doing since the Romans invaded :]

And then their children will be able to enter the British system and achieve the above, bringing further resources and pools of talent into this country.

But zero incentives mentioned for the benefit of large, strong family units? If so much emphasis is placed on the atomised professional, then the value of a parent teaching their child their professional skills, or helping them gain work experience, or having them branch the family business is gone - furthermore, the nation ends up wholly addicted to immigration, further exacerbating its dependency and social issues. It also seems to be making a rather odd strategic choice, rather than seek to elevate British children into higher talent pools on the global workplace, and to additionally bolster our workplace with proven talented workers from around the world - why take unskilled workers from around the world, provide them family welfare and then educate their children into the global talent pool? There is an obvious stage of redundancy here.

Recruit skilled migrant workers. Teach British children good. Keep enrolling talented students from abroad. Result: Success for everyone. Leave the German strategy for the Germans, and let them reap the rewards for their plans.

Universities must cooperate on international projects with other university's around the world.

They already do, on many many levels. Foreign exchange, student swaps, language courses, research collaboration - this has been reality for a very long time m8. This is not something Unis "must do," this is what Unis do business as usual.

In keeping with the themes of both scientific innovation and future generations, a key field of UK research must be in alternative energy sources to fossil fuels. This creates whole new industries whilst working to protect the environment for our children and children's children. Another win-win scenario where ethics and practicality line up.

Here's a gov index on government grants for low-carbon energy research grants for you

As the possible benefactors and markets of technology and science are not just limited to the country it takes place in, but the entire world, Britain must support and elevate other countries where it can, working to minimise the hostility that hampers progress, and encouraging the development of new economies, markets, and sources of talent in areas that are lacking in such things.

You had me until "elevate" and "minimise the hostility that hampers progress."

Elevate assumes Britain is the end-all high state of civilization. While that is obviously true (joke deployed), Nation states will obviously have different interest, priorities and concepts of what high stages of civilization are than to us. More worrying, "minimising the hostility that hampers progress" is so fucking vague, yet it commands the ability to create an Empire whose dissidents "are just hostile to progress."

This is accomplished... globally through supporting international charity endeavours.

This would actually be a step backwards from our foreign development programs - whereas many global international aid charities are propping up a system for an even larger collapse, our foreign development programs develop the education, civil oversight, sanitary systems and infrastructure of their nations so they can create self-sustaining and democratic nations

The setting and development of these foundations can be supported by taxation of both high earners and businesses, as those taxes act as an investment from high earners.

They act as an investment from the government, the taxes on high earners are taxes on high earners. I support such efforts, at least as far as we can get away without them fucking off to the other international financial hubs of the world. As long as the focus is on increasing tax revenue by increasing value created in the UK, all is well with the Universe.

By investing in the development of resources, they help guarantee future growth. The kinds of businesses that would not benefit from this system are the kind of exploitative monstrosities which in the long run only hinder progress, and so would not be welcome.

You're going to need to elaborate on everything here a great deal. Development how, of what resources, to ensure growth how? What businesses are monstrosities, why? What is the "progress" they are hindering, why are they not welcome, and what is to stop abuse of such a system to eliminate competitors by a cartel of "progressing" companies?

Additionally, by attracting, developing and maintaining talent for the innovation economy, by developing the science and engineering infrastructure for these specialised areas, we ensure those businesses benefit from setting up in this country above others.

Holy fucking shit we can't do everything for the entire world, fucking hell not even the USA could pull this off

Encouraging the development of new businesses from both local and international talent ensures the UK remains a globally important centre. A place that not only benefits from the world, but benefits the world we all share.

Encouraging development of new businesses how? I agree fully, whole heartedly that is a prime objective. Gov grants? Tax cuts for startups? Setting up business apprenticeships?

Other things I want: Stem cell research, genetically modified foods to solve problems of food shortages, co-operation with international bodies on space research.

1. Stem Cell research, we do it already
2. GMO deregulation, wait until we leave the EU
3. We already cooperate with the space agencies of other nations. It'd make much more sense to increase the size of our space agency to match our private sector space agency, or else just invest in British space companies that show promise

At the end of the day and current rates of population growth, the planet is risking being overpopulated by the 2050s. We need to prepare for this by finding ways to produce food and energy more efficiently, and ultimately aim to be getting the hell off this planet.

That will be insufficient if political stability is not brought to Africa, Near Asia and SAsia and SE Asia

Also scrap trident, it's just money being pissed away so blind old bulls can feel like big men.

10/10 insightful analysis of national security

But the UK already has slaves... it is actually kind of a social issue for them. (their words, not mine)

I swear down Neo if you don't stop slagging my country without a single bit of sources of "their words" I'm gonna start spreading shit about how Canada funds ISIS and wants to be annexed by Donald Trump :P
t. their words

Anyways I'm assuming you were referring to the human trafficking Theresa May was cracking down on before she became Prime Minister
Top Leader that Theresa May
Now the thing about human trafficking is that it's international, there's estimated 20.9million people victims of trafficking around the world, no exceptions
Crush the slaver scum, something everyone can get behind no?

[Neonivek]

PFT!

Naw the whole UK has slaves thing was a joke about wage slaves, that often foreigners took (at least that is the best I could understand it. It might be more nuanced or even more dire then simple wage slaves...).

And this joke was told... by the UK .. From a Television show... made in the UK (that... I forgot the name of O_o)

It is the glory of actually watching British television. Which I know is insane (Because OHH BOY are a lot of British shows just plain awful! If I see another Bratty blonde...)

I haven't heard the Canadian joke where we say we fund ISIS. I have seen the one where our GST was created as a way to make us pay more taxes instead of fixing up the country AND that ALL finance ministers are secretly daemonic imps!

[Flying Dice]

A beginning is a very delicate time. Know then that it is the year 2091. The Known Universe is ruled by the Halal Emperor Saddam IV, my father. In this time, the most precious substance in the universe is the syrup Maple. The syrup extends life. The syrup expands consciousness. The syrup is vital to space travel. The Musk Guild and its cosmonauts, who the spice has mutated over 40 years, use the orange syrup gas, which gives them the ability to load Skype. That is, travel to any part of the system without moving.
Oh, yes. I forgot to tell you — the syrup exists in only one country in the entire system. A desolate, wet land with vast tundra. Hidden away within the ice of this tundra are a people known as the Québécois, who have long held a prophecy that a man would come, a messiah who would lead them to true freedom. The country is Canada, also known as America's Hat.

[RedKing]

The syrup must flow. Slowly.


Also, so the gist of what I'm reading is that Labour is actually a respectable damn party again?

[Neonivek]

Wait I think I remember the show it was from!

Bromwell High

I do not suggest watching it... Or... Do I? because when I think about it, it has strangely become more relevant (what with only a single student in the school actually originating from England and only three teachers)

[Loud Whispers]

I also think T. May is actually making a good start - I was particularly heartened to see this from her (though ironically, I suppose her saying that could be accused to be just 'virtue signalling' until she actually does something about it. In context though, I think it makes more sense to take it as her setting out her stall somewhat). Though if that's an 'epic speech', Churchill is probably spinning in his grave.

I have trouble finding things to criticise May for. Just the other day I was reading in the guardian this little gem from Yvvette Cooper: "May believes in justice, but not in social justice."
That's the greatest endorsement of a Tory I've seen from Labour in my life

PFT! Naw the whole UK has slaves thing was a joke about wage slaves, that often foreigners took (at least that is the best I could understand it. It might be more nuanced or even more dire then simple wage slaves...).

capitalist bourgeoisie D:<
into the bog

It is the glory of actually watching British television. Which I know is insane (Because OHH BOY are a lot of British shows just plain awful! If I see another Bratty blonde...)

If the show was born in the West Midlands, retreat immediately

I haven't heard the Canadian joke where we say we fund ISIS. I have seen the one where our GST was created as a way to make us pay more taxes instead of fixing up the country AND that ALL finance ministers are secretly daemonic imps!

One of your immigration agencies was called ISIS, and so you had these funny posters Canada set up around the world saying "Want to immigrate to Canada? Contact ISIS." Canucks rebranded that shit ASAP into the Create Institute

The syrup must flow. Slowly.
Also, so the gist of what I'm reading is that Labour is actually a respectable damn party again?

Not quite, they're still pretty damaged by the carnage Milipede wreaked upon Labour, and the leadership purges that removed most of their most experienced MPs from the shadow cabinet, and the unpopularity of comrade crusher Corbyn's policies amongst everyone who isn't communist

The hope was once Corbyn demonstrated to the MPs who resigned that they have no chance of defeating him, they would come back to work for the Labour party. But the MPs who left believe that as long as Corbyn is leader, the Labour party is unelectable and are salty about it.
The Mirror has this list of MPs who resigned from Labour due to Corby

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

    Angela Eagle
    Seema Malhotra
    John Healey
    Heidi Alexander
    Lucy Powell
    Owen Smith
    Lord Falconer
    Lisa Nandy
    Maria Eagle
    Chris Bryant
    Lilian Greenwood
    Vernon Coaker
    Ian Murray
    Nia Griffith
    Kerry McCarthy
    Kate Green
    Gloria De Piero
    Karl Turner
    Luciana Berger
    Pat Glass
    Nick Smith
    Sir Keir Starmer
    Steve Reed
    Thangam Debbonaire
    Yvonne Fovargue
    Diana Johnson
    Toby Perkins
    Anna Turley
    Alex Cunningham
    Wayne David
    Roberta Blackman-Woods
    Jenny Champman
    Susan Elan Jones
    Nick Thomas-Symonds
    Jack Dromey
    Sharon Hodgson
    Melanie Onn
    Richard Burden
    Nic Dakin
    Mike Kane
    Andy Slaughter
    Alan Whitehead
    Andrew Gwynne
    Barbara Keeley
    Lyn Brown
    Sarah Champion
    Christina Rees
    Clive Efford
    Kevin Brennan
    Liz McInnes
    Jenny Chapman
    Emma Lewell-Buck
    Paul Blomfield
    Mary Glindon
    Stephen Kinnock
    Chris Matheson
    Neil Coyle
    Jess Phillips
    Karin Smyth
    Ruth Smeeth
    Matthew Pennycook
    Gerald Jones
    Colleen Fletcher

For a total of 63 members in total
PLUS: Hilary Benn, sacked
AND: Baroness Smith and Lord Bassam (Lords shadow leader and chief whip) have stopped attending shadow cabinet meetings.

And polls just in, more Labour voters support Theresa May than Corbyn. In short, Corbyn has suicide bombed labour in order to destroy liberals, which makes for dank memes but doesn't make for a genuine opposition party to the Tories. I still find it respectable because they're fighting for what they believe in, the issue is they're fighting themselves and neither faction is capable of uniting the other without a good deal of jolly cooperation (neither want jolly cooperation)

[Starver]

A shame, in a way - I'm all for the Labour party moving away from the Blairite hive of scum and villainy it's become, and it actually moving back to the Left would be fantastic, but Corbyn just isn't the man for the job. We need someone who'll turn Labour back into the party of the working class, rather than selling out the working class in favour of the cause du jour, or in favour of an immigrant population who'll vote for you - or at least, who'll vote for you for the first five years or so, then they'll realise you're absolutely mental and switch to the Tories (as seems to have been noted in places like Birmingham in the last two big votes we've had).

Corbyn's (re)confirmation opens the way to some mid-left figure to become the acceptable successor to Corbyn, definitely not Blairite, and by becoming a key part of the Shadow Cabinet (and not spontaneously resigning from it in what turns out to be an ill-timed fit of pique) gets to be regarded as a 'good egg', if not entirely a 'good comrade', in the fight against the real enemy, the Judean People's Front Tories, across the dispatch boxes.

This person may not be even elected, yet, as I can't think of any obvious names, but if they can gain the confidence of the membership ('not so bad') the PLP ('not so Trotskyist') and Corbyn ('not too far from my vision') then the reigns of power can get passed over unforced, and without the destructive atmosphete of a coup-or-attempted-coup like we just had.


Or it goes a different way. Predictions are difficult, especially about the future.

[MorleyDev]

LW: Thank you! It's so hard to find a good millstone to refine ideas on nowadays, any disagreement is usually just offered with no more explanation than "just because". Makes it hard to improve the way thoughts are articulated.

Also I'm not used to that writing style (was trying for 'political speech style'), though if that's the standards to even be halfheartedly called a manifesto it makes me worry about the state of political manifestos. If I was going to write an actual political manifesto I'd be pulling in citations, comparing current laws and policies and proposed changes, going into way more detail because length wouldn't be a concern and I'd be writing it over a much larger period of time.

I'm also aware a lot of it is what we currently have, I'd just like to see re-commitment to and doubling down on those parts. With all this talk of "hard" vs "soft" brexit, that kind of re-commitment would be useful.

Basically, my main political concern at the moment is it look like there are a subset of people desperately trying to take Britain back to the days when the 'day in the life of the average worker' was "Go to the factory, spend a whole day tightening bolts on a conveyor belt, hate it, get paid, then go out and get pissed and into a fist fight to blow of steam and return to work on Monday ready to do it all over again", which is actually how I've heard elderly relatives describe life 'back in the day' (and not in a negative light, either!). I don't think that going in that direction is good for the country, economy, or planet.

All Corbyn's winning the race does is ensure that really, the Tories don't have to worry about the opposition for a while longer - at least until they cock up catastrophically, or until the Corbynistas grow up and get jobs and lose interest in politics and old-school Labour manage to finally get rid of Red Jez.

Actually a lot of the pro-Corbyn people I know are employed workers. Lots of office worker types, programmers, business project managers, graphical designers, script writers for industrial education packages. A few people who run their own businesses too, mostly tech businesses trying to push the city I live in as a cheaper alternative to London, with easy access to travel via a nearby airport, a world class university and an existing tech industry to draw talent from. They are the circles I also work in, being also a fully employed software developer. Plus it would appear a good chunk of the 300,000 growth in Labour membership were people who left during the Tony Blair era. So ya know, not the 'know nothing students with nothing better to do' the media seems to paint them as.

I do find it odd that the man just who won yet another election despite having the entire mainstream media biased against him is apparently still "unelectable". Can you imagine how "unelectable" he'd be if the media wasn't determined to convince the public "he's unelectable so don't bother"?

************************

Which brings me to my response to LW's first point, that "being a science, finance and tech hub is London's future", it's not just London's future. I don't live in London. I've never worked in London. Yet as a software developer I definitely work in "technology". There are tech companies and offices dotted around the country, it's the way most cities are having to go. We need to encourage new and existing businesses to consider places outside of London, which providing strong transport links does (Heathrow and Gatwick are not the only airports in the UK). It's working in computer software, there are plenty of cities with thriving communities of developers that are distinctly not London.

Now admittedly I do have some long standing biases against villages that make me not really think about them much. They've always seemed like places the young want to escape and the old wait to die in. So I do tend to have a city-centric view, though I like to think not London-centric.

The 'slave class' thing was more just me trying to bring up and dismiss the idea of practices which reinforce the class system. Wasn't sure if I should even include that little paragraph. Basically, I'm not a fan of restoring grammar schools, to me the better solution would be a system that focuses on identifying the different types of learning that benefit different students better, and encouraging their development in the same subjects by using more tailored education methodologies, whilst also giving students more choice over their education path (Maths, English and basic Sciences are required skills. But a focus on more spreadsheet focused ICT, web design focused, or Computing? Whether to engage with more academically algorithmic mathematics of applied engineering?).

"Science, Technology and Finance" is a poor choice of wording on my part, I'm just stuck for what to call it. Office work? Business work? Well that one just sounds stupid since all work is business work by definition. Not-mass-production-where-you-sit-on-a-production-line work? Skilled work? Help me out here. Basically, the large scale manufacturing of the past is dead. Our new industries are the offshoots of more bespoke and specialised discoveries. It's very much the state of things. But we're at the tail end of that migration away from a large scale generic manufacturing industry, to more bespoke and rapidly changing specialised industries. Am I making sense here? I'm not sure what the name of what I'm thinking is. It's not just STEM I'm referring too, unless things like "Graphical Design", "Product management" or "Bespoke Manufatoring" fall under STEM now? The TE I guess is kinda them?

A flaw in this I admit is that it effectively creates a racial caste system that changes generation on generation, at least whilst those jobs still exist to be filled. Some jobs always will for the foreseeable future, we need cleaners and taxi drivers. But even they're changing (Self-driving cars aren't too far away, suddenly taxi driving becomes a whole different job). I guess there the heavy immigration reliance is more something that should close itself off naturally as things advance.

But when I refer to "creator/innovator roles" I'm again failing to express myself and for that I apologise. I'm talking about those who work in the above industries I mentioned, not just those doing the "innovative stuff" but those who work for them. Programmers, graphic designs, product managers, researchers, engineers, quality assurance staff, accountants, sales people, doctors, receptionists, people who work in the specialised manufacturing industries (cars and jet engines seem to be the main ones we still hold onto)...Can you think of better terminology to describe that broadness?

Our education system is also world quality, like I said I think we need to double down on it. Sounds lime we more or less agree here actually. You went into more detail than my very wooly little post, which I like. Like I said, I'm not used to that kind of writing and wasn't sure exactly where to draw the "detail/hyperbole line". I'm not describing changes I want to happen hear so much as what I'd kinda see as a goal to work to.

I like the NHS, I don't want it privatised. Like you said, can't get better than free. I want it to say as such.

"Our social services are mentally ill and couldn't save a life", I know people who've gone through it and benefited. We need to strengthen it, like I said. Is there a way to draw from private business for extra funding without making it entirely the responsibility of for-own-profits industries? Maybe, it'd be a balancing act though. It needs retooling and having a greater focus on retraining, not throwing away with the bath water. I want a political party that recognises it as fundamentally a good thing, and focusing on how to make it better and not break it down.

"fall through the cracks", At the end of the day, if you can't get into those above "office job type things" (seriously, good name for that? Anyone?) you'll probably wind up being a cleaner, taxi driver, or otherwise in low skilled labour. That's fine, there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not a stable industry anymore, advancement happens too fast. Welfare needs to support that. And at the end, I suspect the system most likely won't produce enough people to fill those roles. Hence the need to 'prop the numbers' via immigration. Which in a lot of ways is the current system, and I don't object to it. I think it needs doubling down on.

It's not something new, but it is something that is more rapid nowadays. And it's something that's much less restricted to 'specialised industries' than it used to be. Yeah, medicine advanced every year, but did construction? Transferable skills, like you said.

Yeah, we do good investment into research. Keep doing that. Like I said, I'm not describing changes I want to happen so much as trying to put down the things and directions I value.

Well we need to elevate the UK too. Basically, I don't object to foreign intervention to encourage stability, and I don't think we are perfect either. Historically we've been bad at encouraging stability. Supporting those whose countries are in crisis or whose human rights are threatened is in our best interest as well as the right thing to do, so we should remain in the international organisations that seek to do that.

It looks to me like the main benefactors of deregulated industries and a large unskilled work force are bulk manufacturers, which I'm putting forward as industries we should be moving away from in favour of more bespoke, specialised industries which need the more skilled labour and provide more benefits via trickle down technology.

Whilst I don't believe in the trickle economy down I do believe in trickle down technology and science. If our research means we can improve farming output or reduce the threats to people posed by water shortages, or just develop smaller, faster and cheaper processors for computers, then that benefits the world.

1,2,3: 1: I know, we should keep doing it please. 2. Yeah this is not exactly banned under the EU, just regulated. I'm fine with regulation and studies to check it's healthy for people, but do think it's a good thing to look into. 3. I know, again we should keep doing it.

Trident: Yeah, I know. It's just really hard not to think of Trident as a 200 billion pound penis pump nowadays. Like, if someone can provide a post-cold war situation that was successfully deescalated and our ownership of nuclear weaponry played a significant enough part in that deescalation to justify that expenditure I may reconsider that point of view. But at the moment it's looking more and more like Bear Patrol.

[Loud Whispers]

"Theresa May accused of leaving David Cameron to 'fight alone' during the EU Referendum, according to former No 10 director.
Mr Cameron begged Mrs May to “come off the fence” ahead of the referendum but her refusals led to her being described as “an enemy agent” by allies of the former prime minister.
Mrs May eventually backed Mr Cameron’s Remain campaign, but made only one notable intervention during the almost six-month long campaign.
This led to Downing Street nicknaming her as “submarine May” because of her habit of disappearing when Mr Cameron asked for help, it is alleged."

I'm not sure if there's much left Submarine May can do to raise my opinion of her even higher than it is

It is claimed that after Mrs May and Mr Hammond said they could not support the plans, Mr Cameron said: “If it wasn’t for my lily-livered cabinet colleagues.”

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Get in the water lovelies

[Cheeetar]

At the end of the day, if you can't get into those above "office job type things" (seriously, good name for that? Anyone?) you'll probably wind up being a cleaner, taxi driver, or otherwise in low skilled labour.

The distinction I'm most used to is 'white collar' for office-type jobs, and 'blue collar' for non office-type jobs.