The Scots who rail against the anti-democratic refusal of the UK Government to grant a referendum would not be sympathetic to the democratic will of its borderers to remain in the UK.
[citation needed] I think if there were a vote in favour of independence and there were clear indications that some areas would rather be separated from Scotland than separated from the UK (which is a rather different question from the independence one) most pro-independence folk would think it right and proper that there be referendum(s) prior to formal independence.
The question is who governs groups of people who live in defined geographical areas. We can't say that we accept that those in the current borders of Scotland should be able to choose whether to be governed from London or Edinburgh without also saying that we would accept the rights of those in the south of Scotland to choose differently (and, hence potentially redraw borders, which are fairly arbitrary anyway), or for those in northern islands to say "well, actually we're more Scandinavian than British ...". With due democratic process the express wills of the people who live in different regions has to be respected.
I gather that there are parts of the Belgium-Netherland border which are fractal with enclaves of one the size of a city block wholly inside the other and vice versa. But on the whole life is easier when countries are contiguous and borders are straightforward which makes it difficult to accommodate everyone.
Arethosemyfeet There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
I'm quite a long way from the Scottish borders here in the north Midlands but I'd love to be independent of our current Londoncentric administration. I notice the latest proposal to put some decent rail routes in around here has been scuppered. I'd throw my lot in with Edinburgh over London any day.
I know at least one person in Northumbria, living in that area between the border and Hadrian's Wall, who would be very happy for an independent Scotland with the border re-aligned along the Wall.
Historically, Cumbria had been part of the old Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Northumbrian kingdom had extended north to Edinburgh. So, both sides of the country have historical precedent to build on in their claim to be part of Scotland.
A border through the middle of Newcastle would not be very practical
Arethosemyfeet There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
I'm quite a long way from the Scottish borders here in the north Midlands but I'd love to be independent of our current Londoncentric administration. I notice the latest proposal to put some decent rail routes in around here has been scuppered. I'd throw my lot in with Edinburgh over London any day.
Why not just go and live there ?
Because I don't want to. And it would hardly solve the problem of incompetent government failing "the regions" over and over.
Arethosemyfeet There have been suggestions of that in Shetland but it's hard to tell how much of it is real and how much unionists trying to muddy the waters of Scottish independence.
Perhaps Shetland and Orkney might wish to revert to Norway, but what about those local authority areas in the south of Scotland that might wish to remain in the UK? The problem, of course, is that it might extend to Edinburgh if the 2014 referendum is any guide. Still, it would satisfy the imperatives of democracy. There is, however, no reason why Scotland's borders should be considered sacrosanct. I recognise an equal argument that those living on the English side of the border should be offered the reverse opportunity, but I don't see any chance of them taking up the offer. I wonder why?
I'm quite a long way from the Scottish borders here in the north Midlands but I'd love to be independent of our current Londoncentric administration. I notice the latest proposal to put some decent rail routes in around here has been scuppered. I'd throw my lot in with Edinburgh over London any day.
I know at least one person in Northumbria, living in that area between the border and Hadrian's Wall, who would be very happy for an independent Scotland with the border re-aligned along the Wall.
Historically, Cumbria had been part of the old Kingdom of Strathclyde, and the Northumbrian kingdom had extended north to Edinburgh. So, both sides of the country have historical precedent to build on in their claim to be part of Scotland.
A border through the middle of Newcastle would not be very practical
No. There it would probably be best to use the Tyne.
Obsessing over the economy, stupid (that's me by the way), I cannot get over the simplistic fact that average per capita UK national wealth per family is a million dollars, or quid now.
Median household net wealth in Great Britain was £302,500, a marginal increase on the previous period but a 20% increase compared with July 2006 to June 2008, after adjusting for inflation.
Still there's plenty of room for leveling up, even if a large percentage of wealth is held as property:
Wealth inequality is a measure of how unequally wealth is distributed across the population. The wealthiest 10% of households held 43% of all the wealth in Great Britain in the latest period; in comparison the bottom 50% held only 9%.
Dwellings are 16% of assets, land is 56%. Nearly as bad as the ratio of income to wealth. 1:7 as I recall.
UK popn. 67.89 million
Per capita net worth that is £156,982.913, call it £156,983 ... £157,000.
Avg. UK household = 2.36 people gives £370,480, so yeah I'm in the wrong order of magnitude above. Stupidly assuming 2.4 kids and all that.
The point remains that the guys I was talking to today outside the homeless hostel opposite our enormous bastion of privilege - the church, the 13th largest landowner in England - aren't getting their money's worth.
Firstly, on a global, not just national scale. And secondly 'From each according to his (her) ability, to each according to his (her) need'. Imagine if we all managed to do that; not because we were coerced by a military, and a secret police, and a network of informants, but simply because we were voluntarily following Jesus' second great commandment, to love our neighbour as ourselves. Radical, huh?|
Total assets £46,892,585 mn = £47 trillion
Pop 68 mn
Per capita assets £690714
Avg household 2.36
Avg household assets £1,630,085
So I was being conservative.
Are my guys getting their ROI?
Ooh, and UK tax revenue £634.64 billion
ROI 1%
Anyone else see the cat yet?
Can't be arsed to do the annuity calculation, but what, 2.5%? £15-20 grand a year?
So, to put that in perspective, the latest global figures (end of 2021) I have are:
Gross World Production $95 trillion (google has that).
Total World Wealth $463.6 trillion (credit suisse has that)
Divide by the World population of around 8 billion, you get:
approx annual income per man, woman and child of $12,000 each.
approx net worth per man, woman and child of $58,000 each.
Or four times those numbers for the conventional nuclear family.
This leaves out whatever portion needs to get assigned to cover infrastructure.
So sorry, guys and gals, if you're doing better than that, you're hogging part, all, or many people's fair share of God's providence.
Given there are around 56 million millionaires in the world, we really shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of the world's population are living on $2.50 per day, or less.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Fixed broken link - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
"Money's worth" and "ROI" are curious terms to use when calling for national (or global) wealth to be shared equally between everyone regardless of how much they have contributed to generating it in the first place. Surely the whole point of equal distribution of resources is that everyone gets the same amount regardless of "their money's worth" or how much they have invested?
Given there are around 56 million millionaires in the world, we really shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of the world's population are living on $2.50 per day, or less.
$2.50 per day is more than enough to live on in many parts of the world. Your calculations fail to take into account the local purchasing power of a given amount of a given currency.
Given there are around 56 million millionaires in the world, we really shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of the world's population are living on $2.50 per day, or less.
$2.50 per day is more than enough to live on in many parts of the world. Your calculations fail to take into account the local purchasing power of a given amount of a given currency.
I think you will find they are at ppp - purchasing power parity. However, are you really suggesting that those on that income should eke out their meagre existences at that level? They can barely afford to eat, sometimes, not even that. How then, in the absence of a welfare state, are they supposed to afford health care and to educate themselves and their families? However hard they work, it seems to me that they are locked into poverty, and will continue to be so until rescued by the wealthy West. Meanwhile, we are missing out on a massive resource, half the world's human capital.
Strikes me that's just foolish, as well as unethical.
"Money's worth" and "ROI" are curious terms to use when calling for national (or global) wealth to be shared equally between everyone regardless of how much they have contributed to generating it in the first place. Surely the whole point of equal distribution of resources is that everyone gets the same amount regardless of "their money's worth" or how much they have invested?
Incidentally, though I can appreciate how you might have got that impression, I would not advocate the equal distribution of the world's wealth. There can be no quicker way to destroy an economy than by removing all financial incentive to study hard, work hard, and improve one's lot in life. Clearly, a doctor is more important to society than a supermarket checkout operator, and should see that difference reflected in his or her remuneration package.
However, there is no justification for for the world's wealth to be distributed as inequitably as it is at present. So, I would advocate the equitable distribution of the world's wealth.
"Money's worth" and "ROI" are curious terms to use when calling for national (or global) wealth to be shared equally between everyone regardless of how much they have contributed to generating it in the first place. Surely the whole point of equal distribution of resources is that everyone gets the same amount regardless of "their money's worth" or how much they have invested?
I'm talking just our 1% of the world. The excellent @2ndRateMind is rightfully extrapolating globally. And nobody contributed anything except the poor. They contributed everything. All the land. All the labour. Oooh, they didn't provide the capital, or the entrepreneurship. Silly them!
@2ndRateMind um, many people can barely afford to eat, if at all, in the West too. That's why nurses are going on strike for the first time ever, and Angola has spoken up in criticism of the UK's failing to care for its most vulnerable people. Clearly, even amongst the Global South the UK government has a poor reputation.
"Money's worth" and "ROI" are curious terms to use when calling for national (or global) wealth to be shared equally between everyone regardless of how much they have contributed to generating it in the first place. Surely the whole point of equal distribution of resources is that everyone gets the same amount regardless of "their money's worth" or how much they have invested?
Incidentally, though I can appreciate how you might have got that impression, I would not advocate the equal distribution of the world's wealth. There can be no quicker way to destroy an economy than by removing all financial incentive to study hard, work hard, and improve one's lot in life. Clearly, a doctor is more important to society than a supermarket checkout operator, and should see that difference reflected in his or her remuneration package.
However, there is no justification for for the world's wealth to be distributed as inequitably as it is at present. So, I would advocate the equitable distribution of the world's wealth.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Sorry, where were you during lockdown when it became pretty obvious just how important supermarket workers are? Doctors are not more important to society than the people who enable people to feed themselves.
Also this feels ironic given your previous insistence on every person having £27k pa to live on being The Christian Option™️...
Also, as an aside - it is not true that countries in the Global South do not have welfare states. Many do in fact, and some outpace the UK. India for instance provides free school meals and free vitamin supplements for all pupils in public/state schools, and meanwhile children in the UK are going hungry due to free school meals eligibility criteria being frozen since 2018. Malnutrition is really dangerous and children in the UK will die unnecessarily this winter.
Sorry, where were you during lockdown when it became pretty obvious just how important supermarket workers are? Doctors are not more important to society than the people who enable people to feed themselves.
Also this feels ironic given your previous insistence on every person having £27k pa to live on being The Christian Option™️...
No one is unimportant, but doctors have a routine life and death responsibility. Supermarket checkout staff do not. Furthermore, in order to befit themselves for that responsibility, doctors study and train for at least 10 years (to be a GP - other specialities take longer). Supermarket checkout staff need around 3 hours till training.
The 27k figure was wrong, I discovered, when I rechecked my figures prior to posting here. I have given you the source of the figures I have used, and how the calculation was done. You can check for yourself which is correct. So far as I can, I am in the process now of reducing my income (by giving more of it away). I did not mean to mislead anyone, and apologise if you were mislead.
Also, as an aside - it is not true that countries in the Global South do not have welfare states. Many do in fact, and some outpace the UK. India for instance provides free school meals and free vitamin supplements for all pupils in public/state schools...
India has a space program, and puts rockets and satellites into orbit. I should jolly well hope it has something of a welfare state. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is generally not in that position.
@2ndRateMind um, many people can barely afford to eat, if at all, in the West too. That's why nurses are going on strike for the first time ever, and Angola has spoken up in criticism of the UK's failing to care for its most vulnerable people. Clearly, even amongst the Global South the UK government has a poor reputation.
Indeed. Google has, on Angola:
The number of poor people in the country has been following an upward trend. In 2016, there were around 13 million Angolans in extreme poverty. By 2025, it would increase to 19.2 million.
The economy of Angola remains heavily influenced by the effects of four decades of conflict in the last part of the 20th century, the war for independence from Portugal (1961–75) and the subsequent civil war (1975–2002). Despite extensive oil and gas resources, diamonds, hydroelectric potential, and rich agricultural land, Angola remains poor, and a third of the population relies on subsistence agriculture. Since 2002, when the 27-year civil war ended, government policy prioritized the repair and improvement of infrastructure and strengthening of political and social institutions. During the first decade of the 21st century, Angola's economy was one of the fastest-growing in the world, with reported annual average GDP growth of 11.1 percent from 2001 to 2010. High international oil prices and rising oil production contributed to strong economic growth, although with high inequality, at that time.
Corruption is rife throughout the economy and the country remains heavily dependent on the oil sector, which in 2017 accounted for over 90 percent of exports by value and 64 percent of government revenue. With the end of the oil boom, from 2015 Angola entered into a period of economic contraction.
The Constitution of 2010 establishes the broad outlines of government structure and delineates the rights and duties of citizens...After the end of the civil war, the regime came under pressure from within as well as from the international community to become more democratic and less authoritarian. Its reaction was to implement a number of changes without substantially changing its character.
The new constitution, adopted in 2010, did away with presidential elections, introducing a system in which the president and the vice-president of the political party that wins the parliamentary elections automatically become president and vice-president. Directly or indirectly, the president controls all other organs of the state, so there is de facto no separation of powers. In the classifications used in constitutional law, this government falls under the category of authoritarian regime
Angola does not have a welfare state, but does benefit from around $320 million US Aid in this respect.
I should not, given all this, place too much weight on what Angola has to say about the UK.
My general attitude towards UK poverty is to deplore it, but leave it to the government to sort out. If they don't, we have the option, every so often, to vote them out, and put in place a government that will. I ought to declare an interest: I am on Employment and Support Allowance of £135.35 per week, plus rent. I get by quite contentedly on that, and still find it possible to buy the occasional book to read, and support a few favourite charities.
Why, thank you for that. But the truth is, I know a few First Rate Minds, and I am not among them. I understand the words they say, but often enough, not the points they are making, or their significance. But they seem to understand that of each other, so there must be some reality out there beyond my capacity to grasp!
Also, as an aside - it is not true that countries in the Global South do not have welfare states. Many do in fact, and some outpace the UK. India for instance provides free school meals and free vitamin supplements for all pupils in public/state schools, and meanwhile children in the UK are going hungry due to free school meals eligibility criteria being frozen since 2018. Malnutrition is really dangerous and children in the UK will die unnecessarily this winter.
Google:
What percentage of the UK is undernourished?
2.5 %
Prevalence of undernourishment (% of population) in United Kingdom was reported at 2.5 % in 2020, according to the World Bank collection of development indicators, compiled from officially recognized sources.
Google:
How much of India is undernourished?
According to FAO estimates in 'The State of Food Security and Nutrition in the World, 2020 report, 189.2 million people are undernourished in India. By this measure 14% of the population is undernourished in India.
Why, thank you for that. But the truth is, I know a few First Rate Minds, and I am not among them. I understand the words they say, but often enough, not the points they are making, or their significance. But they seem to understand that of each other, so there must be some reality out there beyond my capacity to grasp!
Best wishes, 2RM.
Yer don't have to be first rate in privilege, in education, in intellectual capacity. I mean, look at me! And very very few such first rate minds apply themselves to social justice. I can only think of one Oasis of such. The only meaningful gospel in any light, transcendent or no. Including here. Even in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn and his team came closest. So, it's down to blokes on the bus like you and me, here, to poke our betters.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
@2ndRateMind I literally said that Nigeria, which I'm pretty sure is in sub-Saharan Africa, also has free school meals.
2.5% of 70 million people being malnourished is fucking HUGE. That you don't seem to be concerned about that is pretty alarming. By 'leave it to the government' do you mean that people should not give to charity addressing poverty in the UK? Are you saying that nurses should shut up about having real-terms pay cuts of up to 20%? It would help if you could actually explain your comments rather than quoting huge chunks of anonymous quotes - Google and Wikipedia aren't sources!
Did you read the links I posted? Do you think kids taking mouldy bread to school for their only food is something that can be solved simply by waiting possibly until 2025 for the next General Election?
Supermarket workers being responsible for guaranteeing the UK food chain is in fact a routine life and death responsibility. People die if they can't eat.
Also @2ndRateMind regarding benefits, do you have any children? Any dependents? Do you have to pay to use public transport or pay for petrol? Do you live in an area with a high cost of living or in a food desert? Do you live alone? The circumstances of a single person living alone on legacy disability benefits (which pay more than Universal Credit even for the exact equivalent) is completely different than the circumstances of say someone with three children (so only get child tax credits and child benefit for two of them) who earns just too much for Free School Meals but not enough to not be in poverty. Many people are on lower incomes than you, eg people under 25 who are for some reason not entitled to the full rate of benefits despite having to pay the full price of rent, bills etc.
I get Universal Credit at the Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity rate, because in my area all new benefit claimants had to claim Universal Credit rather than legacy benefits like ESA. Despite this being the equivalent type of UC to ESA, I get less money than you do for no other reason than the government deciding to make UC pay less. The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
Because they identify the root cause. I don't.
But how do they identify the root cause? I don't think they do.
@2ndRateMind I literally said that Nigeria, which I'm pretty sure is in sub-Saharan Africa, also has free school meals.
Yes, Nigeria has free school meals for some of it's population. It sounds as if the initiative is working well, and let us hope it is continued and expanded.
2.5% of 70 million people being malnourished is fucking HUGE. That you don't seem to be concerned about that is pretty alarming.
Sure, it's nearly 2 million people. But we get the government we vote for. And the British people have decided to keep the conservatives in power for the last 12 years. We have only ourselves to blame if, as we seem to, we think nearly 2 million undernourished people are an acceptable price to pay for the middle class to remain affluent.
By 'leave it to the government' do you mean that people should not give to charity addressing poverty in the UK? Are you saying that nurses should shut up about having real-terms pay cuts of up to 20%?
Don't be silly. People can send their charity where ever it makes best sense to them. So far as I am concerned, I have such paltry sums to donate, I want to get maximum bang for my buck, and to me that means getting it amongst the very poorest in the world. As for nurses, they have a legitimate grievance, I think. It's about time the government addressed it, in my opinion. Fortunately, I don't think people will forget or forgive the Truss debacle, and I fully expect to see Starmer installed as prime minister at the next opportunity.
It would help if you could actually explain your comments rather than quoting huge chunks of anonymous quotes - Google and Wikipedia aren't sources!
If you follow the links I provide, you will find Wikipedia quotes it's sources. You are welcome to follow them up, if some aspect of the general article interests you.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
I didn't say that, did I? Your're making up stuff to suit your hostile attitude. As for the relative distincion between doctors and supermarket checkout staff: A doctor could stand in for a supermarket worker with three hours till training. Supermarket checkout staff cannot stand in for a doctor without 10 years training, assuming they have the qualifications to start such a training regime in the first place.[/quote]
Also @2ndRateMind regarding benefits, do you have any children? Any dependents? Do you have to pay to use public transport or pay for petrol? Do you live in an area with a high cost of living or in a food desert? Do you live alone? The circumstances of a single person living alone on legacy disability benefits (which pay more than Universal Credit even for the exact equivalent) is completely different than the circumstances of say someone with three children (so only get child tax credits and child benefit for two of them) who earns just too much for Free School Meals but not enough to not be in poverty.
I think I have explained enough concerning my personal circumstances for the moment.
Many people are on lower incomes than you, eg people under 25 who are for some reason not entitled to the full rate of benefits despite having to pay the full price of rent, bills etc.
I know that. If you don't like it, change the government, and/or stand for office yourself. You seem to have a lot to say, and I am sure would be just as qualified as anyone else for the role. Just don't complain to me/about me. I am in no position to help you.
I am asking you to defend the points you are making as a normal part of taking part in a discussion on a discussion board. It's not your job to make statements and then act offended if anyone disagrees or points out flaws in your arguments. I don't want to stand for office and it's not something I should have to do in order to point out flaws in your argument.
You have stated your income and personal circumstances (which nobody had actually asked you to do) - you have chosen to involve your personal circumstances. It is pretty hypocritical to then object to further questions given that these factors would play a huge role in someone's individual experience of poverty in the UK. For example from what you've said it sounds like your rent is covered by Housing Benefit and therefore you must not be renting privately. Even officially-designated 'Affordable Housing' must be charging no more than 80% of the local market rate - so inevitably that's 20% not covered by Housing Benefit, if landlords will even accept it. Many people in poverty are forced to rent privately as there isn't enough social housing. That's an area in which you are better off, and don't have experience of really struggling in this area. Your attitude suggests that because you are on a low income and manage, everyone else should be fine - I ask those questions in order to point out that this is very far from the case. Having dependent children and particularly more than two will have an enormous impact, and kids are expensive and can't exactly be got rid of once they're here.
Are you suggesting that it's the fault of 2 million malnourished people that they are malnourished, because they didn't vote correctly?
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
Because they identify the root cause. I don't.
But how do they identify the root cause? I don't think they do.
The maldistribution of wealth. And all wealth starts with land.
@Martin54 what are you actually saying? It's impossible to tell, because you aren't situating yourself. Unless one is foolish to fall for the "bloke in the pub" shtick, of course.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
Because they identify the root cause. I don't.
But how do they identify the root cause? I don't think they do.
The maldistribution of wealth. And all wealth starts with land.
But that's nonsense and doesn't actually address the problems of late stage capitalism and anthropogenic climate change (which is part of late stage capitalism).
Wealth starts with capital, which is not necessarily land. Jeff Bezos, for example, likely owns a lot less land than the King - but is obviously more wealthy given that Bezos is the second richest person in the world, and the richest isn't the King. Bezos doesn't get his money from his land, he gets it from the exploitation of his workforce. Even when Amazon workers are relatively well-paid, they are still exploited - it's about more than just income.
Where was the capital of hunter gatherers? Of subsistence farmers? And it certainly does address the injustice known as capitalism. And it's got an order of magnitude less to do with income. It's all to do with wealth. Common wealth. The tragedy of the commons. Capitalism is theft, to paraphrase Proudhon. Bezos has registered business addresses. A PO Box No. in cyberspace trails to a bank with a postal address.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
I am asking you to defend the points you are making as a normal part of taking part in a discussion on a discussion board. It's not your job to make
statements and then act offended if anyone disagrees or points out flaws in your arguments.
I don't want to stand for office and it's not something I should have to do in order to point out flaws in your argument.
You have stated your income and personal circumstances (which nobody had actually asked you to do) - you have chosen to involve your personal circumstances. It is pretty hypocritical to then object to further questions given that these factors would play a huge role in someone's individual experience of poverty in the UK.
I am quite at liberty to decide how much or how little of my personal circumstances to divulge on a public forum. In no way is that hypocritical, where ever I decide to draw the line. What might be considered hypocritical, could be, say, if I was a millionaire, who had inherited wealth, had never worked, and then blamed poverty on the poor because 'they do not work hard enough'.
Are you suggesting that it's the fault of 2 million malnourished people that they are malnourished, because they didn't vote correctly?
No.
1) There is no 'correct, 2RM approved way to vote. We live in a free country; people will and should vote as they wish, if, indeed, they decide to vote at all.
2) I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
Surely even you can read my post and 2RM's post and work out that I'm referring to 2RM's idea that it's the fault of the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition for not voting correctly? I'm aware of how FPTP works, I was pointing out that people living in poverty didn't choose poverty.
Where was the capital of hunter gatherers? Of subsistence farmers? And it certainly does address the injustice known as capitalism. And it's got an order of magnitude less to do with income. It's all to do with wealth. Common wealth. The tragedy of the commons. Capitalism is theft, to paraphrase Proudhon. Bezos has registered business addresses. A PO Box No. in cyberspace trails to a bank with a postal address.
Did you seriously interpret my comment as suggesting that Jeff Bezos owns no private property?
@2ndRateMind I dunno, what about the idea that since you manage to live on your income, everyone else should be able to do so even if they have four kids and can only find privately rented accommodation? That seems like a pretty big flaw.
Are you suggesting that the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition deserve it because even if many of them did not vote Tory, they got a Tory government? What about children going hungry, given that children can't vote? I have never voted Tory in my life but my income is lower than yours, for no reason other than that UC pays less than ESA even for disabilities of the same severity. Do I deserve that?
Where was the capital of hunter gatherers? Of subsistence farmers? And it certainly does address the injustice known as capitalism. And it's got an order of magnitude less to do with income. It's all to do with wealth. Common wealth. The tragedy of the commons. Capitalism is theft, to paraphrase Proudhon. Bezos has registered business addresses. A PO Box No. in cyberspace trails to a bank with a postal address.
Did you seriously interpret my comment as suggesting that Jeff Bezos owns no private property?
Do you seriously interpret my comment as suggesting that you do? How?
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
So do you think Germany should rescind its ban on the NSDAP?
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
So do you think Germany should rescind its ban on the NSDAP?
Honestly, yes I do. Though obviously I hope very few people would want to vote for them.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
So do you think Germany should rescind its ban on the NSDAP?
Honestly, yes I do. Though obviously I hope very few people would want to vote for them.
Do you think any organisation should be "banned", then? I mean, I can see an argument that banning membership in itself is a sort of thought crime, and really the likes of National Action should only be prosecuted when they attack people or blow things up. I don't agree though, I think that Nazis of all kinds, any group whose election (or plebiscite following seizure of power) would be "one person, one vote, once" cannot be part of the democratic process and membership of such an organisation quickly tips over into a conspiracy against a democratic society.
The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
I'm for the spirit, not the letter. Suffrage is sacrosanct, part of the spirit. So is pluralism. But nothing, as in nothing can reverse moves to equality of outcome. No vote. No motion.
One of the biggest issues with the position that @2ndRateMind seems to be putting forward is that it seems to limit democracy to casting votes at elections. There are, of course, a lot of things that people can, indeed I'd say should, do between elections to have their voices heard. It's not simply a matter of whether or not any individual voted for a candidate in the party of government, nor whether enough people voted for those candidates to have put one party or another into government. If the policies of the government are things that you consider wrong then if we consider ourselves to be democrats we have options to act, we don't need to just shrug our shoulders, grin and bear it, and hope enough people are worried to vote differently next election. We live in a democracy, so we have rights to write to MPs, Ministers or the papers (or, these days, comment on their online content); we can organise or join campaigns to change laws (that may lead to the current government changing, or it may make those issues things that get campaigned on in the next election); we can march in protest, make a noise and get noticed.
For many of the issues raised in the last few posts - the millions in the UK who face hunger, levels of benefit that are inadequate for many people to live on etc - the "Enough is Enough" campaign has been drawing thousands of people onto the streets of British towns for months, or stunts at sporting events (banners displayed by large sections of the crowds, for example). Or, for general issues of low salaries and low job security and conditions, unions have always taken the lead, and you can roll up to your local picket line and show your support.
Comments
[citation needed] I think if there were a vote in favour of independence and there were clear indications that some areas would rather be separated from Scotland than separated from the UK (which is a rather different question from the independence one) most pro-independence folk would think it right and proper that there be referendum(s) prior to formal independence.
Why not just go and live there ? A border through the middle of Newcastle would not be very practical
Because I don't want to. And it would hardly solve the problem of incompetent government failing "the regions" over and over.
I get my figures from here. Similar to yours,
Table C.
Net worth £10,657,570 million. £11 trillion.
Dwellings are 16% of assets, land is 56%. Nearly as bad as the ratio of income to wealth. 1:7 as I recall.
UK popn. 67.89 million
Per capita net worth that is £156,982.913, call it £156,983 ... £157,000.
Avg. UK household = 2.36 people gives £370,480, so yeah I'm in the wrong order of magnitude above. Stupidly assuming 2.4 kids and all that.
The point remains that the guys I was talking to today outside the homeless hostel opposite our enormous bastion of privilege - the church, the 13th largest landowner in England - aren't getting their money's worth.
Total assets £46,892,585 mn = £47 trillion
Pop 68 mn
Per capita assets £690714
Avg household 2.36
Avg household assets £1,630,085
So I was being conservative.
Are my guys getting their ROI?
Ooh, and UK tax revenue £634.64 billion
ROI 1%
Anyone else see the cat yet?
Can't be arsed to do the annuity calculation, but what, 2.5%? £15-20 grand a year?
Best wishes, 2RM.
So, to put that in perspective, the latest global figures (end of 2021) I have are:
Gross World Production $95 trillion (google has that).
Total World Wealth $463.6 trillion (credit suisse has that)
Divide by the World population of around 8 billion, you get:
approx annual income per man, woman and child of $12,000 each.
approx net worth per man, woman and child of $58,000 each.
Or four times those numbers for the conventional nuclear family.
This leaves out whatever portion needs to get assigned to cover infrastructure.
So sorry, guys and gals, if you're doing better than that, you're hogging part, all, or many people's fair share of God's providence.
Given there are around 56 million millionaires in the world, we really shouldn't be surprised that nearly half of the world's population are living on $2.50 per day, or less.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Fixed broken link - la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
"Money's worth" and "ROI" are curious terms to use when calling for national (or global) wealth to be shared equally between everyone regardless of how much they have contributed to generating it in the first place. Surely the whole point of equal distribution of resources is that everyone gets the same amount regardless of "their money's worth" or how much they have invested?
$2.50 per day is more than enough to live on in many parts of the world. Your calculations fail to take into account the local purchasing power of a given amount of a given currency.
I think you will find they are at ppp - purchasing power parity. However, are you really suggesting that those on that income should eke out their meagre existences at that level? They can barely afford to eat, sometimes, not even that. How then, in the absence of a welfare state, are they supposed to afford health care and to educate themselves and their families? However hard they work, it seems to me that they are locked into poverty, and will continue to be so until rescued by the wealthy West. Meanwhile, we are missing out on a massive resource, half the world's human capital.
Strikes me that's just foolish, as well as unethical.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Incidentally, though I can appreciate how you might have got that impression, I would not advocate the equal distribution of the world's wealth. There can be no quicker way to destroy an economy than by removing all financial incentive to study hard, work hard, and improve one's lot in life. Clearly, a doctor is more important to society than a supermarket checkout operator, and should see that difference reflected in his or her remuneration package.
However, there is no justification for for the world's wealth to be distributed as inequitably as it is at present. So, I would advocate the equitable distribution of the world's wealth.
Best wishes, 2RM.
I'm talking just our 1% of the world. The excellent @2ndRateMind is rightfully extrapolating globally. And nobody contributed anything except the poor. They contributed everything. All the land. All the labour. Oooh, they didn't provide the capital, or the entrepreneurship. Silly them!
Sorry, where were you during lockdown when it became pretty obvious just how important supermarket workers are? Doctors are not more important to society than the people who enable people to feed themselves.
Also this feels ironic given your previous insistence on every person having £27k pa to live on being The Christian Option™️...
No one is unimportant, but doctors have a routine life and death responsibility. Supermarket checkout staff do not. Furthermore, in order to befit themselves for that responsibility, doctors study and train for at least 10 years (to be a GP - other specialities take longer). Supermarket checkout staff need around 3 hours till training.
The 27k figure was wrong, I discovered, when I rechecked my figures prior to posting here. I have given you the source of the figures I have used, and how the calculation was done. You can check for yourself which is correct. So far as I can, I am in the process now of reducing my income (by giving more of it away). I did not mean to mislead anyone, and apologise if you were mislead.
Best wishes, 2RM.
India has a space program, and puts rockets and satellites into orbit. I should jolly well hope it has something of a welfare state. Sub-Saharan Africa, on the other hand, is generally not in that position.
Indeed. Google has, on Angola:
Wikipedia has:
and
Angola does not have a welfare state, but does benefit from around $320 million US Aid in this respect.
I should not, given all this, place too much weight on what Angola has to say about the UK.
My general attitude towards UK poverty is to deplore it, but leave it to the government to sort out. If they don't, we have the option, every so often, to vote them out, and put in place a government that will. I ought to declare an interest: I am on Employment and Support Allowance of £135.35 per week, plus rent. I get by quite contentedly on that, and still find it possible to buy the occasional book to read, and support a few favourite charities.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Why, thank you for that. But the truth is, I know a few First Rate Minds, and I am not among them. I understand the words they say, but often enough, not the points they are making, or their significance. But they seem to understand that of each other, so there must be some reality out there beyond my capacity to grasp!
Best wishes, 2RM.
Google:
Google:
Best wishes, 2RM.
Yer don't have to be first rate in privilege, in education, in intellectual capacity. I mean, look at me! And very very few such first rate minds apply themselves to social justice. I can only think of one Oasis of such. The only meaningful gospel in any light, transcendent or no. Including here. Even in the Labour Party. Jeremy Corbyn and his team came closest. So, it's down to blokes on the bus like you and me, here, to poke our betters.
I'm saying, in my privilege, that I want to be led in social justice. I don't see any such lead in politics, in the intelligentsia, the commentariat. Bar one remote Oasis.
So why are you championing the likes of @2ndRateMind who thinks poverty and malnutrition in the UK is no big deal and that supermarket workers are unimportant compared to doctors?
Oasis do plenty of good work but identifying them as the one sole source of social justice in the UK is very strange.
2.5% of 70 million people being malnourished is fucking HUGE. That you don't seem to be concerned about that is pretty alarming. By 'leave it to the government' do you mean that people should not give to charity addressing poverty in the UK? Are you saying that nurses should shut up about having real-terms pay cuts of up to 20%? It would help if you could actually explain your comments rather than quoting huge chunks of anonymous quotes - Google and Wikipedia aren't sources!
Did you read the links I posted? Do you think kids taking mouldy bread to school for their only food is something that can be solved simply by waiting possibly until 2025 for the next General Election?
Supermarket workers being responsible for guaranteeing the UK food chain is in fact a routine life and death responsibility. People die if they can't eat.
I get Universal Credit at the Limited Capability for Work and Work-Related Activity rate, because in my area all new benefit claimants had to claim Universal Credit rather than legacy benefits like ESA. Despite this being the equivalent type of UC to ESA, I get less money than you do for no other reason than the government deciding to make UC pay less. The candidate I voted for at the last General Election didn't win, but even if they did it wouldn't have changed the overall result - so that just apparently means tough luck, you didn't manage to vote the government out so somehow you chose this? Bollocks.
Because they identify the root cause. I don't.
But how do they identify the root cause? I don't think they do.
Sure, it's nearly 2 million people. But we get the government we vote for. And the British people have decided to keep the conservatives in power for the last 12 years. We have only ourselves to blame if, as we seem to, we think nearly 2 million undernourished people are an acceptable price to pay for the middle class to remain affluent.
Don't be silly. People can send their charity where ever it makes best sense to them. So far as I am concerned, I have such paltry sums to donate, I want to get maximum bang for my buck, and to me that means getting it amongst the very poorest in the world. As for nurses, they have a legitimate grievance, I think. It's about time the government addressed it, in my opinion. Fortunately, I don't think people will forget or forgive the Truss debacle, and I fully expect to see Starmer installed as prime minister at the next opportunity.
If you follow the links I provide, you will find Wikipedia quotes it's sources. You are welcome to follow them up, if some aspect of the general article interests you.
I didn't say that, did I? Your're making up stuff to suit your hostile attitude. As for the relative distincion between doctors and supermarket checkout staff: A doctor could stand in for a supermarket worker with three hours till training. Supermarket checkout staff cannot stand in for a doctor without 10 years training, assuming they have the qualifications to start such a training regime in the first place.[/quote]
I think I have explained enough concerning my personal circumstances for the moment.
I know that. If you don't like it, change the government, and/or stand for office yourself. You seem to have a lot to say, and I am sure would be just as qualified as anyone else for the role. Just don't complain to me/about me. I am in no position to help you.
Best wishes, 2RM.
You have stated your income and personal circumstances (which nobody had actually asked you to do) - you have chosen to involve your personal circumstances. It is pretty hypocritical to then object to further questions given that these factors would play a huge role in someone's individual experience of poverty in the UK. For example from what you've said it sounds like your rent is covered by Housing Benefit and therefore you must not be renting privately. Even officially-designated 'Affordable Housing' must be charging no more than 80% of the local market rate - so inevitably that's 20% not covered by Housing Benefit, if landlords will even accept it. Many people in poverty are forced to rent privately as there isn't enough social housing. That's an area in which you are better off, and don't have experience of really struggling in this area. Your attitude suggests that because you are on a low income and manage, everyone else should be fine - I ask those questions in order to point out that this is very far from the case. Having dependent children and particularly more than two will have an enormous impact, and kids are expensive and can't exactly be got rid of once they're here.
Are you suggesting that it's the fault of 2 million malnourished people that they are malnourished, because they didn't vote correctly?
The maldistribution of wealth. And all wealth starts with land.
But that's nonsense and doesn't actually address the problems of late stage capitalism and anthropogenic climate change (which is part of late stage capitalism).
Wealth starts with capital, which is not necessarily land. Jeff Bezos, for example, likely owns a lot less land than the King - but is obviously more wealthy given that Bezos is the second richest person in the world, and the richest isn't the King. Bezos doesn't get his money from his land, he gets it from the exploitation of his workforce. Even when Amazon workers are relatively well-paid, they are still exploited - it's about more than just income.
Yes, that's how democracy works. It doesn't mean each individual "you" chose the government, of course, but it does mean that the collective "you" chose it. And before anybody complains about FPTP, that's true of any electoral system. Hell, it would even be true of direct democracy where the entire electorate votes on every single issue.
What's the alternative - saying that certain things can never (or only under very unlikely circumstances) change regardless of what the electorate votes for? That doesn't sound very democratic to me.
But voting for fascism is?
Voting for anything in a free and fair election is democratic, by definition.
That doesn't mean it's a good idea, of course. But suffrage is not conditional on voting for Approved Parties, nor should it ever be.
What flaws?
I am quite at liberty to decide how much or how little of my personal circumstances to divulge on a public forum. In no way is that hypocritical, where ever I decide to draw the line. What might be considered hypocritical, could be, say, if I was a millionaire, who had inherited wealth, had never worked, and then blamed poverty on the poor because 'they do not work hard enough'.
No.
1) There is no 'correct, 2RM approved way to vote. We live in a free country; people will and should vote as they wish, if, indeed, they decide to vote at all.
2) I am saying the entire nation gets the government it voted for, and deserves.
Best wishes, 2RM.
Do you seriously believe that?
I'm part of the *entire nation*, but I didn't vote tory, so I'm stuck with them for the time being. Fair enough, given FPTP and all that.
Why do I deserve them, though?
Surely even you can read my post and 2RM's post and work out that I'm referring to 2RM's idea that it's the fault of the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition for not voting correctly? I'm aware of how FPTP works, I was pointing out that people living in poverty didn't choose poverty.
Did you seriously interpret my comment as suggesting that Jeff Bezos owns no private property?
Are you suggesting that the 2 million people in the UK experiencing malnutrition deserve it because even if many of them did not vote Tory, they got a Tory government? What about children going hungry, given that children can't vote? I have never voted Tory in my life but my income is lower than yours, for no reason other than that UC pays less than ESA even for disabilities of the same severity. Do I deserve that?
Do you seriously interpret my comment as suggesting that you do? How?
So do you think Germany should rescind its ban on the NSDAP?
Honestly, yes I do. Though obviously I hope very few people would want to vote for them.
Do you think any organisation should be "banned", then? I mean, I can see an argument that banning membership in itself is a sort of thought crime, and really the likes of National Action should only be prosecuted when they attack people or blow things up. I don't agree though, I think that Nazis of all kinds, any group whose election (or plebiscite following seizure of power) would be "one person, one vote, once" cannot be part of the democratic process and membership of such an organisation quickly tips over into a conspiracy against a democratic society.
I'm for the spirit, not the letter. Suffrage is sacrosanct, part of the spirit. So is pluralism. But nothing, as in nothing can reverse moves to equality of outcome. No vote. No motion.
For many of the issues raised in the last few posts - the millions in the UK who face hunger, levels of benefit that are inadequate for many people to live on etc - the "Enough is Enough" campaign has been drawing thousands of people onto the streets of British towns for months, or stunts at sporting events (banners displayed by large sections of the crowds, for example). Or, for general issues of low salaries and low job security and conditions, unions have always taken the lead, and you can roll up to your local picket line and show your support.