UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
Marc - and Arthur Scargill wasn't trying to oust the Government of the day? Come on, look at both sides of the equation for a change. Whole generations consigned to the scrapheap? Or people retrained into new industries instead of blindly trying to keep on outmoded industry on its feet?
Linking conservativism to original sin has the benefit of being amusing if nothing else. You really don't understand it.
Michael Cargill wrote: "Brownfield is a term used in urban planning to describe land previously used for industrial purposes or some commercial uses. Such land may have been contaminated with hazardous waste or pollution ..."I believe from the link Geoff gave above, it also includes back gardens. presumably they have been contaminated by the roses...
I would have a great deal of sympathy with the idea of poisoned by leylandii though
Marc wrote: "Socialism believes that all people are equal if it weren't for social, educational and economic factors differentiating them...."I confess that I've only ever seen the economic definitions of socialism such as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
Your version seems to have more in common with William Temple, "The primary principle of Christian ethics and Christian politics must be respect for every person simply as a person. If each man and woman is a child of God, whom God loves and for whom Christ died, then there is in each a worth absolutely independent of all usefulness to society. The Person is Primary, not the society; the State exists for the citizen, not the citizen for the State."
At which point you can see why people claim that the Labour Party owned more to Methodism than Marx
Will wrote: "Marc - and Arthur Scargill wasn't trying to oust the Government of the day? Come on, look at both sides of the equation for a change. Whole generations consigned to the scrapheap? Or people retrained into new industries instead of blindly trying to keep on outmoded industry on its feet?
Linking conservativism to original sin has the benefit of being amusing if nothing else. You really don't understand it. ."
I am no fan of Scargill. But your original positing was that the mines were shut only for economic reasons. Not solely they weren't.
Clearly you haven't read my post closely enough, or I suspect Max Weber. I was quoting Weber and historical instances of whole generations, not applying it to 1984.
I may not fully understand Conservatism because of a political blinkeredness, but you clearly have no appreciation for the opposite world view and value system either. But that's okay. That's what makes us impassioned/entrenched/parochial
Jim wrote: "Marc wrote: "Socialism believes that all people are equal if it weren't for social, educational and economic factors differentiating them...."I confess that I've only ever seen the economic defin...
At which point you can see why people claim that the Labour Party owned more to Methodism than Marx "
it certainly did in the UK, with its roots in Fabianism, George & Beatrice Webb and socialist utopian experiments such as New Lanark.
Right-Wing historians will ascribe the roots of the Labour Party to "guilt-ridden middle classes looking for expiation"
Marc - I think you need to read my post again, especially the conclusion which calls for something in between conservatism and socialism. The conservatives can be too harsh, because they tend to look beyond the immediate suffering and only see the greater good. Socialism tends to be too soft, because it often can't see past the initial hurt to the greater good.
The answer, surely, is to blend the two? Which incidentally is what Tony Blair and Ed Milliband tried to do.
and failed. Actually I don't think Blair did try anything of the sort. He too left the communities disregarded by Thatcher to their own devices, failing to improve education, tackle crime that ran those estates etc. That's why you had places like Salford in the 2011 riots being completely out of control, because certain criminal gangs have been in control of them for years and the Police have been kept away as a no go area, so in 2011 there was no way they could go in and re-establish a control they'd never had in the first place. Blair had a huge majority and the benefit of an economic upturn and did precisely nothing with that safety net. Middle England (that Blair was so hellbent on courting) were content because the economy was performing well. Remember Robin Cook's ethical foreign policy speech? How long did those ideals last? Frank Field, that most rare of MPs a man with huge knowledge of his subject, was appointed to Pensions minister in 1997 to shake up the system that we all knew was going to cripple us as our population aged and lived longer. He was gone from the post in 3 months as soon as he'd presented his initial proposals which Blair knocked back.
Blair & Brown freed the interest rate being set by the Chancellor (which had got the Tories into so much trouble) and made it the responsibility of the Bank of England, then seemed to sit back and bask in the synchronous economic growth. Apart from overseas wars, can you think of any significant measures they enacted? Too busy hobknobbing with Cool britannia pop music types and sportsfolk at number 10.
"Apart from overseas wars, can you think of any significant measures they enacted?"The devolution act, which led to the creation of the Scottish parliament, and the eventual end of the United Kingdom.
R.M.F wrote: ""Apart from overseas wars, can you think of any significant measures they enacted?"The devolution act, which led to the creation of the Scottish parliament, and the eventual end of the United Kin..."
Whilst avoiding the difficult issues, The Midlothain Question and The correction of the Barnard Formula. As Blair always did, do the easy, avoid the hard.
I'm in two minds about Blair. On the one hand, he did take us into an illegal war with Iraq and helped to overspend us into the current deficit. On the other hand, he introduced a number of important ideas and policies such as the devolution of power, banning smoking in public places, the freedom of information act, the national minimum wage.Apart from a disastrous foreign policy, he started well and new Labour actually had some principled ideas. Some of the ideas were as nutty as a fruit cake, but others have survived.
The only way for Labour to recover from their electoral defeat is to rekindle some of the energy and principles of New Labour and not to lurch backwards to old Labour.
R.M.F wrote: ""Apart from overseas wars, can you think of any significant measures they enacted?"The devolution act, which led to the creation of the Scottish parliament, and the eventual end of the United Kin..."
ha ha, fair point. And ultimately the demise of the Labour Party, so reliant was it on its Scottish bloc
Will wrote: "I'm in two minds about Blair. On the one hand, he did take us into an illegal war with Iraq and helped to overspend us into the current deficit. On the other hand, he introduced a number of importa..."wasn't banning smoking in public inevitable given what was happening elsewhere in the EU?
The freedom of info act hasn't helped release the Chilcot inquiry any the quicker.
If those plus the national minimum wage are the sum total of Blair's positive achievements in ten years, it's not up to much is it?
Will I may not understand the appeal of Conservatism, but I do know England is an inherently Conservative-leaning nation as a whole. Labour I think is finished as a serious political power, because it is not going to win seats in Middle England and the South-West, so that with the loss of Scotland, first to the SNP and inevitably to independence, they're knackered. The only possible hope would be for a messianic inspirational leader, but looking at the 4 candidates currently battling it out, that's not happening any time soon.
And as for an earlier assertion that Miliband like Blair was seeking some sort of midway between Tory & Labour, that strikes me as risible. People buying into the Tory claim backed up by certain of the media that miliband represented some sort of throwback to left-wing socialism shows that they don't understand Socialism. Miliband accepted the primacy of the market other than a few commitments to things like capping power prices. He wouldn't raise income tax or corporation tax, so instead went scrabbling around for ridiculous ideas like the Mansion Tax. He attacked certain anti-austerity strands such as bedroom tax and zero hours contracts, but accepted the general economic analysis, there was no alternative socialist view in evidence whatsoever. This is why Blair-like Labour Party now makes little sense, how can Labour outmanage the Tories regarding the economy if they're not fundamentally going to change it. It's Tory Lite Labour, or Tory with a smiley face, applying a sticking plaster to absorb some of the pus and pain of austerity. This is not to say that a return to genuine Socialist agenda would re-elect them either. As I say the country is inherently Conservative.
Don't write any party too quickly, Marc. I remember the despair of the Conservatives after the first electoral success of the Blair government. The navel gazing caused years of poor results for the Conservatives. Poor leader followed poor leader.I remember the comment by a Conservative MP after the election of Iain Duncan Smith as he walked down to his first PMQ. The comment was "What have we done?"
And here we are in 2015 and it is Labour's turn to wring its hands and fret. They are going through the same thing. Someone will arise, eventually. However, the party needs to unite first.
Marc wrote: "Will I may not understand the appeal of Conservatism, but I do know England is an inherently Conservative-leaning nation as a whole. Labour I think is finished as a serious political power, because it is not going to win seats in Middle England and the South-West, so that with the loss of Scotland, first to the SNP and inevitably to independence, they're knackered. The only possible hope would be for a messianic inspirational leader, but looking at the 4 candidates currently battling it out, that's not happening any time soon...."This is a really serious issue. Once we had Scots devolution it was inevitable. I used to do freelance stuff for one Scots paper and within a year of devolution the sort of stuff I covered was irrelevant.The Scots perspective had become so different.
It was the same with politics. Scots politics diverged from English, and most English people are more likely to know what's happening in Germany than in Scotland (perhaps because it's more relevant to us)
But it was pretty much inevitable that the Labour party would at some point not be able to call upon Scots MPs to rule England. I confess that I felt that this wouldn't happen until there was a change to produce some form of English parliament, but the SNP swing has pushed things forward. It's also pushed the establishment of an English parliament forward as well.
Labour is very lucky that it happened in the same election that the Libdems imploded. Had this happened in an election where the Libdems grew their share of the vote we might see the Labour party being replaced by them as the automatic choice as alternative party of government in England.
The collapse of the libdems and the growth of UKIP has kicked a lot of things up into the air. But the labour party is in deep trouble because it doesn't appear to know what it stands for or what it wants. It apparently doesn't want what it campaigned for at the last election.
From the point of view of England this is a serious problem. We need both a strong Labour and a strong Conservative party, keeping each other on their toes and making sure that neither party gets fat and idle and starts feeling 'entitled' to power and the fruits of power.
Geoff, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Labour Party now. It's MP-returning core vote is pretty much restricted to all major towns and cities. But voters in Sunderland and Salford have virtually nothing in common with those in Islington and Hackney. How does the Party appease both these constituencies?
A question for English folks here: is England really as Conservative as the newspapers make it out to be? Cameron has a majority, but on what? A third of the vote. Even in the high-water mark days of Ted Heath and Margaret Thatcher, the Tories only polled in the low 40s.
I lived in England for a number of years, and it didn't strike me as being overly Conservative.
After all, this is a nation that produced the Levellers and the Diggers.
it is RMF believe me. The electoral system may be skewed and I have no idea if Devizes is the same size as Newcastle Central as a constituency, but it is what it is and has pretty much always been. The point being places like Devizes, the market towns, and the rural areas or the areas like The New Forest are and will always be Conservative. And these outnumber the metropolitan areas in total.
Small 'c' conservative. And there's probably still a belief in 'fairness'How long the latter will last with the social engineering we've seen over the last thirty years who knows
On it might actually come out more strongly because people begin to feel someone is taking the micky and they've had enough.
My guess is that in the next ten years we'll see this country as a very different place.
We may or may not be in the EU
We may or may not be in the UK.
There could even be a winnowing out of various religious communities. In the next couple of years we'll have a home grown ISIS atrocity (we'll be lucky if it's not this year to be honest) with a serious death toll and at that point people will turn on institutions. I don't think they'll turn on people because they know people and quite like them, but the institutions might get a good kicking. A lot of people who've made good money out of being 'community leaders' might find that they get paid back by their own 'community' who have had enough
but being British we don't want to make any ruckus that might disturb the horses.A lot of what you say makes sense Jim, but I still don't see there being a grass roots pushback of any significance. We just need to keep providing a 5-test match series against a former colony, some jumping new music releases and continue the flow of cheap alcohol and peace will pretty much prevail. That is not to say on an individual level people won't scapegoat a neighbour for some perceived otherness
Marc wrote: "but being British we don't want to make any ruckus that might disturb the horses.A lot of what you say makes sense Jim, but I still don't see there being a grass roots pushback of any significanc..."
panem et circenses
It's true, it's like Lenin's comment about the peasantry in Russia (I think it was him) that all they wanted was a good harvest under a good tsar.
But at some point you get a glitch or something goes wrong and the government doesn't even provide the bread and circuses.
It always struck me that governing a people is a bit like clockwork.
You can wind it up a bit, but then you have to let it run down a bit. If you wind it up too much, and keep the mechanism too tightly locked, finally the spring breaks and all hell breaks loose.
again very true, but historically I think us British have been one of the least revolutionary of societies. We like a good punch-up in the pub or car park, but then we'll buy our adversary a drink afterwards...
message 623:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited Jun 28, 2015 09:28AM)
(new)
Marc wrote: "Geoff, there is a fundamental contradiction at the heart of the Labour Party now. It's MP-returning core vote is pretty much restricted to all major towns and cities. But voters in Sunderland and S..."They made it worse for themselves by parachuting Metrosexual candidates and ideas into local seats. The biggest grumble I heard this last election was that the candidate wasn't local.
Mind you I do live in a safe Conservative seat, so I suppose it's a moot point.
it is an odd rationale behind some selections. Often for a first-time candidate who they foresee possible bigger things (ie frontbench material) , they normally like to test them out in an unwinnable seat to see how they perform. The if they do okay, next time they are likely to be shifted into a much safer seat
I wonder if it's a sign that the party has lost its way. Militant tried entryism to control it, the Hampstead set tried entryism to control it.But none of them tried reaching out to those who had always voted for the party, to see what they wanted. In fact their supporters on the ground seem to have been taken for granted and ignored
Islington set please not Hampstead! An important difference down here in old London Town :-)Which is why many turned to UKIP, which seemed to have affected labour more than the Tories who ingeniously managed to conjure up fear of Scots controlling Westminster rather than Europeans to bring back their supporters from Farage.
I'm pleased to see that there is a genuine labour candidate for the leadership in Jeremy Corbyn who has managed to get enough support to stand.Now the party has a 3 way choice: Tory-lite, Blairite or socialist.
The result of the choice could well split the party apart.
I'm surprised by how little socialism Corbyn offered in the TV debate. He seemed limited to anti-austerity and anti Blair's wars, but didn't really offer any breadth of vision for an alternative to where Labour's beliefs currently lie.
I've not listened to any of the leaders but what has struck me is how none of them have made a mark. Given the friends I have on facebook or elsewhere I'd have thought that at least one or two of them would have sung the praises of this candidate or that. But nothing.One problem I have with Corbyn is he never seems to have had a job in the real world. To quote the wiki, which might be wrong
"Before his election to Parliament, he was an elected councillor in the London Borough of Haringey (1974–83). He was also a full-time organiser for National Union of Public Employees and served on a health authority."
I'd have been happier if he'd worked FOR a health authority rather than 'Served on' one
I think being a full time officer for the NUPE rather was a real world job, Jim.Sadly all the rest seem only to be politicians too, and mostly conservative ones at that. Have you seen the rather funny facebook post (it's on my timeline at least) suggesting Ms Kendall for next leader of the Tory party?
if he was a Haringey councillor, at least he'll be used to crisis management :-)
But yes, all singular uninspiring. No vision, no real leadership charisma. Funnily enough there seems better quality in the deputy leadership race. Maybe they're smart enough to realise this is a poisoned chalice and they're better positioning themselves for the leadership contest beyond this one, though i think they're over-optimistic to view that far into the future
Will wrote: "I think being a full time officer for the NUPE rather was a real world job, Jim...."
Cannot be all that high powered if it's all he's done after leaving uni
My first thought was he's worked in local government, but no, I went to check his own web page. " I started my working life as a trade union official, representing public sector workers."
Marc wrote: "I'm surprised by how little socialism Corbyn offered in the TV debate. He seemed limited to anti-austerity and anti Blair's wars, but didn't really offer any breadth of vision for an alternative to..."Just hope you don't get Corbyn. If Labour get Corbyn then it's apparent they never learned anything from Michael Foot.
doesn't matter who they get, it will leave one wing of its core support alienated
People tend to forget that political parties in the UK are coalitions. You have to be to get enough support under our system.This means that we get governments formed by people who're grown-up enough to work with those who they disagree with on many things. Which is probably a good training :-)
until you get a divisive issue like the Iraq War (Labour) or EU membership (Tories). People never seem to forgive or forget their own Party opponents on those scores...
Left-wing, right wing, New Labour, Old Labour, I don't think it makes any difference who's leading the labour party. They may not get back in for years. In Scotland, they've been practically wiped out, and in the Scottish Parliament elections next year, it's odds on for another SNP landslide.
Scottish Labour's finances are rock bottom and they've lost a ton of money that their Scottish MPs used to provide. Party membership is as low as 6,000.
Compare that to the SNP's 100,00!
In England, boundary changes will help the Tories, and Labour are looking like they will go back to the Blair days, which will do nothing to help them in Scotland...
It's the 1980s all over for Labour, again.
I fear that you are right, RMF, and weep for the our poor country in the hands of heartless gits like Osborne and IDS.As an apropos, did you know that the money IDS has wasted on his failure to install Universal Credit alone is the same as 5% of the Greek Government Debt? And 125% of the entire Welfare Budget cuts planned? Don't see that in the papers much, do we?
Such economic parsimony! Such careful stewardship of the nations finances.
The SNP are riding the crest of a wave at the moment, RMF. The problem is they now have no one else to blame if and when things go wrong.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Marc wrote: "I'm surprised by how little socialism Corbyn offered in the TV debate. He seemed limited to anti-austerity and anti Blair's wars, but didn't really offer any breadth of vision for an a..."I don't know, Geoff. Michael Foot and Gordon Brown had the same issue. Very intelligent and capable, but not leaders capable of presenting a policy and making it sound believable. Corbyn might be able to do that.
The worry I have is that none of them have ever shown that they can stand up in the House Of Commons and perform there, which is sort of necessary in the Leader of The Opposition.
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The SNP are riding the crest of a wave at the moment, RMF. The problem is they now have no one else to blame if and when things go wrong."Very right, Geoff. The SNP have a few years grace where they can blame others (Osborne and Cameron managed to sell a story that the global financial crash was somehow Labour's fault for 5 years) . That lame excuse won't run any more of course. Come the next election we will see how well the SNP do then. Mind you, if the Tories continue trying to Welsh on the Devo max promise made at the referendum, they might have no problems!
Will - here we go again. You keep looking at the world through woes-coloured glasses. Universal credit is an attempt to streamline six benefits payments into one and to reduce costs by using IT more and reducing bureaucracy. And like most large IT projects (under any Government) it is taking longer to implement than originally expected.
The amount that is forecast to be spent on it is not money that has been wasted. Most of that money is being paid to people claiming benefits.
What has happened here is that the opposition has compared the latest costs for the scheme with costs that were produced in 2012. And then claimed that the £3 billion difference is due to waste. Meanwhile the DWP point out that the difference is due to a change in accounting procedures.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/20...
Try to get the facts right, hm? I know you like to moan, but at least try to see things from both sides.
Accounting procedures are a permanent government catch all to hide facts Will.After years in the civil service you should know that as well as I do... (and everyone else does for that matter)
And here we will keep going, as until the administration comes up with policies for the general benefit, they will be criticised.(YOu are of course welcome to continue as the official apologist ;-) )
The French had a phrase which is translated as 'To lie like a bulletin'Apparently Napoleon was a tad mendacious in his press releases ;-)
Every government, every lobby group, they are all players in the game and they all present the truth in a manner which will suit their cause
Would anybody really miss the Labour party if they were to disappear? Bear with on this one. In Scotland, until recently, Labour have ruled the roost since World War Two.
In that time, we had corruption, cronyism on an industrial scale, nepotism etc etc You would not believe it. It was sickening at times.
Areas that had been Labour for decades (Glasgow) were some of the most deprived in the UK.
The old joke about monkeys with red rossettes was never more true.
In May of this year, it was quite funny to see Labour MPs have to go out and work for their votes. They could not do it, they did not know what to do!
And when the end came, it wasn't their fault. Most blamed the voters for not listening to THEM :)
Anyway, Labour will fade, because the Britain they were born into, no longer exists. The miners, the shipyards, they're all gone.
Labour died in 1983, but they haven't realised it yet...
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "The SNP are riding the crest of a wave at the moment, RMF. The problem is they now have no one else to blame if and when things go wrong."They have 5 years of Tory rule, which gives them an easy get out of jail free card.
Will wrote: "I fear that you are right, RMF, and weep for the our poor country in the hands of heartless gits like Osborne and IDS.As an apropos, did you know that the money IDS has wasted on his failure to i..."
I did not know that. Shocking. That's the only word I can use.
R.M.F wrote: "Would anybody really miss the Labour party if they were to disappear? Bear with on this one. In Scotland, until recently, Labour have ruled the roost since World War Two.
In that time, we had c..."
and yet the dream of a decent Scotland football team will not die with you. Double standards? ;-0
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
Ah, no, sorry. Nothing like that.
Planning decisions are made by local councils - di..."
I have (trust me on this) no issue with editing my earlier post to read Local Government instead of Government...