Heartland

Boudicca: but you know that used the same type of arguments.
yes i know that i'm labeled here as right-winger, so i'll shut up

Anybody fancy a pint?

derail, or deflect?

emilystrange wrote:derail, or deflect?

A mood lightner.

I'm already through my first large gin and lemonade. Would it be wise to mix my drinks?

My mates birthday p**s-up was just after the e***tion and the deal was "Know one mention politics". Went like a dream.

Why don't we have a tipsy emoticon?

I've just discovered smilies....

or resort to such sixth-form soapbox language ...

You might even get a girlfriend!

NICE!

boudicca wrote:



You guys aren't here to connect with like-minded people, that much is clear. Don't despair though! There are places for people just like you!

You might even get a girlfriend!

boudicca wrote: Now I love a good political debate as much as the next keyboard warrior, but I don't think I'm capable of seriously engaging with the people who call themselves things like "the inescapable truth", or resort to such sixth-form soapbox language as "clearly oblivious to the truth". Classic stuff - the barrel-scraping ravings of someone who has serious difficulty constructing a genuine argument. Don't give this kind of trolling credence by treating it as an impassioned debate. It's not. It's a self-righteous rant.

The thing is you don't see me or any of the other right-leaning people on here (as far as I can recall) resorting to this sort of childish stuff. The few times I've debated' on here I think I've been respectful of other people's opinions and even presented arguments on occasion. You on the other hand, only seem to pipe up with this rant time and time again. In this case, I saw a mention of a person of whom I am particularly fond and felt obliged to comment. I was refraining from getting into another 'debate'. Maggie gets a unjustifiably hard time as far as I am concerned. The fact is, as trite as it sounds, difficult situations necessitate difficult decisions. It is impossible to please everyone. She did her best. I think very simply that we are better off as a result. I would still concede a lot of people were treated very poorly indeed, but it still had to be done. The move to the right in recent years I think is perfect evidence of the widespread agreement that for the most part she was right.

Note the obsession with "truth" in all this, and the conviction of those bandying the word about that they have a handle on it. 1st sign of a tubthumping nutter. Second sign is spending precious hours of your life talking to people on the internet whose worldview you apparently despair of, in some vain attempt to make them think what you think.

The name is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I do not and never have professed to have the inescapable truth. I would agree with you that anyone who says they do is most probably a nutter. But that's not to say there's no such thing as (objective) truth that is worth pursuing either.

You guys aren't here to connect with like-minded people, that much is clear. Don't despair though! There are places for people just like you!

Right. I suspected this was the crux of the matter. 'Not our sort of people', Jews and Gentiles, Catholics and Protestants, North and South, and so it goes... But for what's it worth, I think there's a good chance I've get on with on just fine with a lot of people here. I, seemingly unlike you, can respect people for things other than their political opinions. I have friends (and oh a girlfriend even) of all shapes and sizes and beliefs. I suggest you do to. It might lighten up a bit. I am just glad not everyone on here is - sorry to say - shallow-minded as you. Unless I am mistaken this is a forum for Sisters' fans and nothing more. I am big Sisters fan, and as such I would have thought I'd be perfectly welcome. Oh you mean, the Sisters fans who think the same way as you do! Got you. Or do you mean fans ought to have the same political opinions as the lead singer?

Did you form gangs at school and beat up kids from the other side of town too?

I thought nodubmanshouts made a good point about Apple. Apple is the quintessential American company. A company like Apple would never arise without a market that is free.

And Ayn Rand sucks.

Mod Hat: Can we stop trading insults please?

============================

But anyway: the free market? I wondered when we would get to that. It is the main cornerstone of Thatcherism after all.

Free-market economics is a failure. Surely the recent banking crisis has demonstrated that? Far from the perfect market being driven by competition, what actually happens without regulation is that cartels form, and they manipulate the markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of us.

But when the cartels own the presses (and the TV stations, and the radio stations) as well, they control the mainstream of political discourse and marginalise critics of the system. This is why the BBC is so important in the UK; a truly impartial news source (or at least mostly so) outside political or corporate control. No wonder the Beeb is being targeted for massive cuts by the current government.

The truth of "free markets" is that we are provided with the illusion of choice, but any real alternatives are marginalised to the degree that they may as well not even exist. It's a system for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

And yes, New Labour did little or nothing to correct this, being free-marketeers in their own right, but I stand by my assertion that while they were bad, things could have been much worse.

Who was I supposed to support during the Blair-Brown years? At least they provided a lot of much-needed investment into the education and health systems.

well you're on some way right - free market ( if we can say, because everything is runnig by us - people) failed, but what you saing is (aprox. of course): "we are too stupid to make a good choice, to run our life, let politics decide what is good for us". and i'm pissed everytime when politics trying to steal the last shreds of our free area.

to be fair, if Maggie didn't close mines and cut down the social your country might end up like Grece today. and let's face it too many social benefits make people more lazy ( is that correct form ? ) - if they have something (everything) for free why they have to bother and find a job ?

the_inescapable_truth wrote:The move to the right in recent years I think is perfect evidence of the widespread agreement that for the most part she was right.

Thing is though that a swing to the right always seems to happen during times of economic or social difficulties, and the natural "grass is greener" tendency of people to throw out the incumbent after a certain period of time mustn't be discounted either. I don't see it vindicating anybody's policies, just a natural and normal part of the way things are.

Bartek wrote:if they have something (everything) for free why they have to bother and find a job ?

A surprising amount of people actually do want to work, you know, irrespective of whether or not they have adequate welfare support.

Bartek wrote:well you're on some way right - free market ( if we can say, because everything is runnig by us - people) failed, but what you saing is (aprox. of course): "we are too stupid to make a good choice, to run our life, let politics decide what is good for us". and i'm pissed everytime when politics trying to steal the last shreds of our free area.

I think you misunderstand me. The market isn't run by us, it's run by the global megacorporations. The government is us--or at least it ought to be; "for the people, by the people".

So we might democratically decide that (for example) a National Health Service would be a good idea. I don't see what is wrong with central control and planning when this demonstrably delivers better results than market-driven systems like (say) the USA's.

Back on subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xmmomV-ax-s

markfiend wrote: But anyway: the free market? I wondered when we would get to that. It is the main cornerstone of Thatcherism after all.

Free-market economics is a failure. Surely the recent banking crisis has demonstrated that? Far from the perfect market being driven by competition, what actually happens without regulation is that cartels form, and they manipulate the markets to their own advantage and to the disadvantage of the rest of us.

But when the cartels own the presses (and the TV stations, and the radio stations) as well, they control the mainstream of political discourse and marginalise critics of the system. This is why the BBC is so important in the UK; a truly impartial news source (or at least mostly so) outside political or corporate control. No wonder the Beeb is being targeted for massive cuts by the current government.

The truth of "free markets" is that we are provided with the illusion of choice, but any real alternatives are marginalised to the degree that they may as well not even exist. It's a system for transferring wealth from the poor to the rich.

And yes, New Labour did little or nothing to correct this, being free-marketeers in their own right, but I stand by my assertion that while they were bad, things could have been much worse.

Who was I supposed to support during the Blair-Brown years? At least they provided a lot of much-needed investment into the education and health systems.

The banking crisis in Britain is different from that of the States. We could easily have let NR, RBS and HBOS go under and their productive assets be hoovered up by Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC without us spending billions or the public suffering. But they were major employers in Labour areas, so were saved (RBS for example is also the Scottish Mint). That would have been free-market capitalism. But Labour wanted to shore up it's support in the North-East and Scotland, so the South got to pay through the nose for it.
Yes Labour provided investment, but they provided that much-needed investment with borrowed money. That we have to pay back with interest. So those improvements can only be at best short-term. Especially when you're only method of paying back that money is inflating the worth of real estate.
And shiny new buildings don't mean a lot when your wards are full of viruses and your teachers churn out semi-literates.

DeWinter wrote:The banking crisis in Britain is different from that of the States.

It's all from the same root cause, the British banks that got into trouble were heavily invested in the US banking market.

DeWinter wrote:We could easily have let NR, RBS and HBOS go under and their productive assets be hoovered up by Lloyds, Barclays, HSBC without us spending billions or the public suffering.

So thousands of people suddenly losing their jobs isn't public suffering?

DeWinter wrote: But they were major employers in Labour areas, so were saved (RBS for example is also the Scottish Mint). That would have been free-market capitalism.

And would have put thousands of people out of work, punishing them for mistakes made by their bosses. Yep, the free-market at its finest. What should have happened IMO is full nationalisation of the banks concerned. But the city wouldn't have stood for that. Just supports my contention that the markets are profoundly anti-democratic.

DeWinter wrote:But Labour wanted to shore up it's support in the North-East and Scotland, so the South got to pay through the nose for it.

Or, just maybe, they didn't want to dump thousands of people onto the dole because it was the right thing to do to save their jobs?

DeWinter wrote:Yes Labour provided investment, but they provided that much-needed investment with borrowed money. That we have to pay back with interest. So those improvements can only be at best short-term. Especially when you're only method of paying back that money is inflating the worth of real estate.

Or the economic growth that a healthy and well-educated population would inevitably produce.

DeWinter wrote:And shiny new buildings don't mean a lot when your wards are full of viruses and your teachers churn out semi-literates.

Cleanliness in hospitals and education results have actually improved over the last 13 years.

markfiend wrote:So thousands of people suddenly losing their jobs isn't public suffering?

Thousand of workers in the public sector and their contractors will soon be suffering for it instead because of the deficit cuts that are needed now.

markfiend wrote: And would have put thousands of people out of work, punishing them for mistakes made by their bosses. Yep, the free-market at its finest. What should have happened IMO is full nationalisation of the banks concerned. But the city wouldn't have stood for that. Just supports my contention that the markets are profoundly anti-democratic.

When I worked in what was Abbey back then a few years back, the only employees not involved in sales were the cashiers and the cleaners. Everyone else was well aware of the sales tactics being used for mortgages and loans, and the corner-cutting and in some cases outright fraud going on. So the employees of these banks aren't innocents, they were all part and parcel of what was going so badly wrong.
Why would the markets have any confidence in state-run banks? They would have been headed by Brown appointees, and his record with balance sheets isn't impressive. He also set up the financial regulation that failed so badly.
What I would say needs curbing are the rating agencies. How they can claim any credibility after their ratings for sub-prime assets is beyond me. Watching them drive Greece/ Spain into poverty and riot is sickening.

markfiend wrote: Or, just maybe, they didn't want to dump thousands of people onto the dole because it was the right thing to do to save their jobs?

Again, with borrowed money that has to be paid back, so cuts in government spending, job losses.

markfiend wrote: Or the economic growth that a healthy and well-educated population would inevitably produce. Cleanliness in hospitals and education results have actually improved over the last 13 years.

I'm not positive of this, but MRSA wasn't a factor in British hospitals 13 years ago. We also didn't have TB suddenly reappear. But I avoid the NHS like the plague after my grandmother went into Kingston Hospital after a fall and came out with three different infections in her legs, so perhaps I'm not the man to talk to about possible improvements!
As for education, well, the teens I meet I would be hard put to tell you what they're educated in. They certainly can't spell, or do mental arithmetic. At least half I'm not convinced can read, or are at best functionally illiterate judging by their attempts to read out anything. Since they've been under the comprehensive system as I was, I'm siding with those who claim exams are a damn sight easier then they were even ten years back.

markfiend wrote: I think you misunderstand me. The market isn't run by us, it's run by the global megacorporations. The government is us--or at least it ought to be; "for the people, by the people".

So we might democratically decide that (for example) a National Health Service would be a good idea. I don't see what is wrong with central control and planning when this demonstrably delivers better results than market-driven systems like (say) the USA's.

yes but still "megacorporations" are running by men/ people, that's what i meant by "us", and in some way it's running by us because megacorps are trying to sell us things/ services what we want to buy, or at least made us think that want it. and this financial crisis wasn't just corps/banks fault but our + corps/banks, it was our way of life durning last decade, we thought that we can have everything even when we didn't have money for most of the things.

well sorry Sir but central planning faild here and in few other countiries so i can't argee with you in that.

DeWinter wrote:I'm not positive of this, but MRSA wasn't a factor in British hospitals 13 years ago. We also didn't have TB suddenly reappear.

You might be right. I'm not sure how you can blame Labour for the evolution of antibiotic resistance though!

DeWinter wrote:But I avoid the NHS like the plague after my grandmother went into Kingston Hospital after a fall and came out with three different infections in her legs, so perhaps I'm not the man to talk to about possible improvements!

Well, I don't want to dismiss your grandmother's bad experience, but "data" is not the plural of "anecdote". I do think that the evidence backs up the contention that in general, hospitals have got cleaner.

DeWinter wrote:As for education, well, the teens I meet I would be hard put to tell you what they're educated in. They certainly can't spell, or do mental arithmetic. At least half I'm not convinced can read, or are at best functionally illiterate judging by their attempts to read out anything. Since they've been under the comprehensive system as I was, I'm siding with those who claim exams are a damn sight easier then they were even ten years back.

I think the teens you meet must be a completely different set of people from the teens I meet. Again, data != anecdote. Proper statistical analysis across the country agrees that educational outcomes, on average, have been improving.

nodubmanshouts wrote:See all those government and electorial reforms coming down the road in the UK? Wonder which country they got those ideas from, mmmm.

A promise to hold a referendum on the introduction of the Alternative Vote, which Cameron has already admitted the Tories will campaign against, is hardly ground breaking.
Even supposing it passes, any benefit is likely to be removed by the Tories reducing the number of constituencies, which will effectively swing the boundaries back in their favour.
Admittedly, this kind of gerrymandering is nothing new, but it still sticks in the throat.

As for moving away from the First Past The Post system, I believe an example exists far closer to home...

markfiend wrote: I don't see what is wrong with central control and planning when this demonstrably delivers better results than market-driven systems like (say) the USA's.

Do you think there could ever be a conflict between central control and rights? I've got in mind a couple of different things here--FDR's economic advisor, Rexford Guy Tugwell, argued that central control involved the abolition of capitalism and property rights, for instance. Of course, one of the underlying issues here involves whether or not rights are by nature (i.e., the natural rights of a Locke or a Jefferson) or if rights are granted by government (FDR makes this claim, as does American progressive philosopher John Dewey, to name two). On a related note, Tocqueville and J. S. Mill* both suggest that centralized control may have a morally deleterious effect--in Tocqueville's Democracy in America he writes that it will render the use of free will more and more rare, and the end result will be a sort of infantilization: he suggests it might take away "the trouble of thinking and the pain of living," reducing mankind to something sub-human (one might suggest that Nietzcshe approaches the same question from another perspective in his Zarathustra and the account of European morality as culminating in the autonomous herd in Beyond Good and Evil). Lastly, I'd ask: can centralized control ever be immune from what Hamilton (in The Federalist) called "the ordinary depravities of human nature"? And if it can't be, doesn't that make it--of necessity--a danger to the liberties of the people?

markfiend wrote: It's all from the same root cause, the British banks that got into trouble were heavily invested in the US banking market.

And the US banking market got into trouble because of central control--in this case, the US government compelled banks to make housing loans to people with bad credit, i.e., people who couldn't qualify for the loans without government intervention. The problem, of course, is that with the rise of energy prices many of these homeowners (who had spent beyond their means) were suddenly faced with a choice between paying their gas/electricity bills or paying their mortgage.

markfiend wrote:I think the teens you meet must be a completely different set of people from the teens I meet. Again, data != anecdote. Proper statistical analysis across the country agrees that educational outcomes, on average, have been improving.

I'd be curious to know what those statistics are based on. In other words, has the UK made the (disastrous, in my opinion) turn to standardized testing that public schools in the US have made (pardon any trans-Atlantic confusion--I'm under the impression that "public/private school" is used differently here than in your neck of the woods. I mean "taxpayer funded" schools as opposed to schools to which one pays tuition). In my own experience as a teacher--keeping in mind the data is not the plural of anecdote, of course--many (too many) public school students are incapable of passing anything other than a multiple choice exam. They can recognize what they've seen before, but they can't recall information, analyze it, or synthesize it in the context of an open-ended question (this seems to be the case in both of the fields I teach in, philosophy and political science). They also lack the basic literacy and arithmetical skills that a high-school graduate ought to have. This seems to stem from the emphasis on standardized, multiple-choice testing. So, I'm wondering what the standards are that underlie the date you're referencing (not combatively, mind you--let's call it legitimate professional curiosity).





*I can't give you a reference on the Mill essay off the top of my head. It's been a long time since I've read it; however, it takes up the question of the moral effects of living under an omniscient and beneficent absolute ruler.

I am reluctant to add any more to this thread as it seems to have gone in a more constructive direction, but just to make a few things clear… My last post was not intended to be a mature argument… the foot-stamping tone of what I was reading from a couple of people was just really getting on my wick and I blew a raspberry. Perhaps that’s stooping to the very level of those I am directing my post at, but sometimes things get so completely silly that there’s nothing else for it. It could’ve been worse, I could have invoked Godwin’s Law.

For what it’s worth, Mr. Inescapable Truth (if that is your real name), I have no problem at all with people who have different political views being on this forum. It is true that I am no right-winger (though I once was, albeit for about 2 years – I nearly sent my parents to early graves by suggesting that Margaret Thatcher was a force for good myself )… but I think HL would be poorer without differing opinions and the occasional debate. There are some right-wing people on here who I have a great deal of respect for – their arguments are well thought out, mindful of the complexity of the issues at hand, and don’t constantly resort to polemics.

What I do have a problem with (and despite your claim that I “pipe up with this rant time and time again�, this is actually only the second time I’ve waded into this), is people who contribute almost exclusively to these kinds of threads on HL. Most people are on here to connect in some way, it’s a great community and many of us are very close friends in “the real world�. So when I can set my watch by certain individuals popping up only when there’s a chance to air a controversial Opinion (or more often than not), it does feel a bit like watching someone picking a fight in your beloved local. You talk about respecting people for things other than their political opinions, and I do... but the problem is, when it comes to some of the right-wingers on HL, your political opinions are all I know of you.

And that is the crux of it. Not some inability on my part to tolerate or respect people who think differently from me. When I said “people like you�, I was not referring to any particular political persuasion or set of opinions, but an attitude to one’s own opinions (which just seems to be possessed by a lot of Ayn Rand fans). I just think entertaining a degree of healthy uncertainty in your beliefs is so important (and inevitable once you’ve lived long enough to have realised you’ve been wrong about enough things), and maybe you do, but all I can say is sometimes it doesn’t come across that way.

At the end of the day, there’s no law against it – I’m not a mod and it’s really not my business to tell people what they can and cannot post. Mark has The Power for a reason and, as you can see, he does a better job of it than I ever could.

boudicca wrote: Mark has The Power for a reason and, as you can see, he does a better job of it than I ever could.

Thanks for that. The cheque is in the mail.

Jolly good.