Tony Benn RIP

BelgianBeerGeek

pinarello001 wrote:

@BBG.

Here's some things to consider.

You need councils. You need people to organise the repair and maintenance of roads, schools, sewerage, hospitals, waste.
At a national level, you need someone to set tax rates, allocate money to the councils for the above, negotiate terms and conditions of trade, set budgets for health, welfare, defences.
You cannot do any of this without politicians and politics. Without a say in the process of delegating responsibility and allocating resources, it would be anarchy.

However, someone quite eloquent once said "The people get the government they deserve".

I know, politicians are a necessary evil. But why are there so many of the f***ers? Anyone who wants to be a politician should therefore be disqualified. Draw lots for the unpleasant job, like the Greeks of old did.
I would say to anyone who has an interest on politics, just have a close look at what goes on at local level. It is easy to blame "Brussells" for our problems but many are much closer to home.
And as that wise commentator on politics, PJ O'Rourke once said "Don't vote, it only encourages the bast****"

pinno

I don't blame Brussels, in fact I thank Brussels for restoring employment rights that Thatcher stripped us of, for paying for the clean up of pollution from the flooded Tin mines in Cornwall, for the bypasses right along the A75, for the CAP (yes, we need to produce as much food in Europe as possible), for the right to work anywhere in Europe, for the right to travel freely in the Eurozone, for the Hague and the International Courts...

BelgianBeerGeek

pinarello001 wrote:

I don't blame Brussels, in fact I thank Brussels for restoring employment rights that Thatcher stripped us of, for paying for the clean up of pollution from the flooded Tin mines in Cornwall, for the bypasses right along the A75, for the CAP (yes, we need to produce as much food in Europe as possible), for the right to work anywhere in Europe, for the right to travel freely in the Eurozone, for the Hague and the International Courts...

Sorry Pina001, don't get me wrong, I am a Europhile and I'm not picking a fight. I just have an issue with the low calibre of politics we endure in Britain.

pinno

BelgianBeerGeek wrote:

pinarello001 wrote:

I don't blame Brussels, in fact I thank Brussels for restoring employment rights that Thatcher stripped us of, for paying for the clean up of pollution from the flooded Tin mines in Cornwall, for the bypasses right along the A75, for the CAP (yes, we need to produce as much food in Europe as possible), for the right to work anywhere in Europe, for the right to travel freely in the Eurozone, for the Hague and the International Courts...

Sorry Pina001, don't get me wrong, I am a Europhile and I'm not picking a fight. I just have an issue with the low calibre of politics we endure in Britain.

It has been a low calibre for a long time. We still haven't got out of the rut. John Lennon:

A working class hero is something to be; they hate you if you're clever and they despise a fool.

It's ok to be a sauvant in France. You can stand around Le Centre Pompidou and talk politics or Philosophy. Here it's, "Nice wevver we're 'avin, innit?..did ya see the game last night?...'Ows yer mota?"

florerider

Pina

I think one of the problems is the lack of argument, analysis and discussion and the trend to fall into sound bites. Hard working families, squeezed middle - these all reach out to certain interest groups without any background as to what they mean. In every policy to appease these groups, some gain and some others lose. My hypothesis on interest rates has been expressed, and though low interest rates and higher inflation suit me personally (reduces the real cost of debt to finance businesses enabling me to recover to cash neutral faster), there are people whom it affects adversely. Making a case for higher rates for those whom it benefits, though a cost to me, was quickly stamped upon in the other threads by those who immediately assumed I had self interest to the opposite.

Yesterday I was discussing special education needs with someone from a college. Funding has been cut back because the special needs students are "unable to progress further", ie once they are past 21 or 22 they are not considered worth funding for further education. Yet for people with Downs syndrome, development is delayed by several years, and continues until their late 20s, unlike that for a so called "normal" person, where it stops at around 20 and then declines. There is a big confusion between the overall level of ability and the point at which the ability to develop further stops. So, not only is this policy socially wrong, it is based upon a wrong interpretation of the facts. Easy target group to take money away from though, especially if the simple proposition is not truth checked.

So I very much agree, the inability to stand around and have a proper debate is very harmful.

Damn it, seem to have agreed with the French, but I do like a bit of politics and philosophy and a good argument in my spare time.

nathancom

florerider wrote:

Making a case for higher rates for those whom it benefits, though a cost to me, was quickly stamped upon in the other threads by those who immediately assumed I had self interest to the opposite.

To be fair mainly because it is such a terrible idea I could only assume your spoke from a position of self interest.

florerider

nathancom wrote:

florerider wrote:

Making a case for higher rates for those whom it benefits, though a cost to me, was quickly stamped upon in the other threads by those who immediately assumed I had self interest to the opposite.

To be fair mainly because it is such a terrible idea I could only assume your spoke from a position of self interest.

and to be fair, if I was elderly, or handicapped, and relied upon my savings and the income from my savings to pay for my care costs it would be self interest, but would be a bit much to say that it was a terrible idea. You see, there are winners and losers to every decision.

pinno

florerider wrote:

Pina

I think...

...unlike that for a so called "normal" person, where it stops at around 20 and then declines.

"Most people would rather die before they think, most people do."

I believe that was WC.

nathancom

florerider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

florerider wrote:

Making a case for higher rates for those whom it benefits, though a cost to me, was quickly stamped upon in the other threads by those who immediately assumed I had self interest to the opposite.

To be fair mainly because it is such a terrible idea I could only assume your spoke from a position of self interest.

and to be fair, if I was elderly, or handicapped, and relied upon my savings and the income from my savings to pay for my care costs it would be self interest, but would be a bit much to say that it was a terrible idea. You see, there are winners and losers to every decision.

When the loser is fundamental economic stability we are all losers. What you suggested would have plunged the entire economy into freefall.

paultheparaglider

nathancom wrote:

When the loser is fundamental economic stability we are all losers.

You are exactly right. 100%. And this is the reason why we, as a nation, must never again vote in Labour. Not ever. Never.

Even those weak kneed, lily livered liberals or those ukip loonies wouldn't be capable of making such a complete and utter Balls up that Labour do. Every time. Without fail.

Voting back Labour must never happen again. Never. Not ever. It is the ultimate, and ultimately dumb, expression of hope over experience.

ballysmate

paultheparaglider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

When the loser is fundamental economic stability we are all losers.

You are exactly right. 100%. And this is the reason why we, as a nation, must never again vote in Labour. Not ever. Never.

Even those weak kneed, lily livered liberals or those ukip loonies wouldn't be capable of making such a complete and utter Balls up that Labour do. Every time. Without fail.

Voting back Labour must never happen again. Never. Not ever. It is the ultimate, and ultimately dumb, expression of hope over experience.

This. 100%

Labour have the goal of making everyone equal, but unfortunately don't care if it means making us all poor.

pinno

All democracies need 2 sides of the argument. Getting rid of Labour would only encourage the far right element in the Tory party and the Facists in UKIP. Similarily, having just Liberal Democrats and Labour parties would encourage far left ideology.
Was it a Tory party that formed the NHS? Was it a Tory party that promoted a welfare state? Capitalism needs checks and balances without which inequalities would be severely exaggerated. The proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberlaist government is stifling and constricting everything we do.
Funny, T Blair was as Tory as a Tory could be. How ironical.

In all it's glory, the peak of the hedonistic neo-liberalism engendered by Thatcher and Reagan did more to destroy the moral fabric, sense of community and the collective in this country than any left wing administration.
How between you, you can say such sweeping statements beggers belief and it conveys a narrow mindedness akin to the xenophobia that this nation often suffers from and suffers as a result.

paultheparaglider

What a complete load of bollox, pinarello. I'm certainly neither xenophobic or narrow minded. I'm married to a foreigner, and spent a lot of my life working overseas.

What I am is a pragmatist, and a realist, with a healthy respect for history and experience. I don't hold any particular political view, nor do I think there needs to always be a counterbalancing opposite view. What I do believe in is small government. I believe this because I believe nobody spends my own money as carefully and wisely as I do myself. Small government means low taxation, and my own real world experience has been that low taxation environments thrive much more than high taxation environments. They help the little guy, who has an incentive to work and to be entrepreneurial. At the same time, they avoid the worst of the perversities of complex taxation systems that generally favour the big companies that are the only ones that can afford to outmanoeuvre them.

Whenever you get big government, you get high taxation and disincentive. When you then take it to the ridiculous extremes that Blair and, more significantly, Brown took it to you just get utter carnage. You get a bubble economy founded on an artificially engineered house price boom and PFIs, but this has to be paid for eventually. This isn't wealth creation, it is political self aggrandisement. You can't simply magic away the economic cycle for so many reasons, and history has always shown that the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. At the very least, in the good times you put a bit away for the rainy days ahead. Not just carry on wastefully spending in the naive view that this is the way to power any economy through a crisis. What doesn't work for a household budget doesn't work at any level. The key comes through accountability, and the further you remove the spending from the earning, the more you erode that efficiency providing accountability.

Whenever any politician has big ideas, I worry. The Tories have them, too, but history seems to show they have less of them. The real world practical trouble with hard core socialist ideals is not that they aren't theoretically desirable, but that they just don't work. They cost too much, are run too inefficiently, and act as a hiding place for the feckless. They, taken over and medium to longer term, hurt the little man much more than a small government, low tax environment.

You and nathancom might think you are smart - and you doubtless probably both are, and also undoubtedly well intentioned- but you are also living in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to economic realities.

ballysmate

pinarello001 wrote:

All democracies need 2 sides of the argument. Getting rid of Labour would only encourage the far right element in the Tory party and the Facists in UKIP. Similarily, having just Liberal Democrats and Labour parties would encourage far left ideology.
Was it a Tory party that formed the NHS? Was it a Tory party that promoted a welfare state? Capitalism needs checks and balances without which inequalities would be severely exaggerated. The proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberlaist government is stifling and constricting everything we do.
Funny, T Blair was as Tory as a Tory could be. How ironical.

In all it's glory, the peak of the hedonistic neo-liberalism engendered by Thatcher and Reagan did more to destroy the moral fabric, sense of community and the collective in this country than any left wing administration.
How between you, you can say such sweeping statements beggers belief and it conveys a narrow mindedness akin to the xenophobia that this nation often suffers from and suffers as a result.

Funny, I don't recall writing anything about promoting Fascism or UKIP, nor posting anything xenophobic. :?
All I said was Labour fcuk up the economy. Yes i agree that the NHS and a welfare safety net are to be lauded, but they are only of use if you have the wherewithall to fund them.
As you seem to be talking about political history, you may remember Denis Healey having to go to the IMF or most recently, after being ousted from power, Liam Byrne left his successor a note, saying we didn't have a pot to pi55 in.
Sense of community? How very 'How green was my valley'
Is it any politicians fault that people now tend to live in brick boxes on housing estates and in many cases have very limited contact with neighbours?
I have not advocated a one party state. The Labour Party should act as a balance. It's just that I don't want them to actually gain power. A sort of 'Bogie Man' to the right if you will, so that politicians think 'If we go too far right, these bastards might get in'

seanoconn

Are will still talking about Tony?

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

Are will still talking about Tony?

Who's Tony?

seanoconn

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Are will still talking about Tony?

Who's Tony?

My Dad's called Tony.

Anyway Off Topic. Mr Benn you will be sorely missed. I used to love your wacky adventures and never knew what you would dress up as next. R.I.P

arran77

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Are will still talking about Tony?

Who's Tony?

My Dad's called Tony.

Anyway Off Topic. Mr Benn you will be sorely missed. I used to love your wacky adventures and never knew what you would dress up as next. R.I.P

Your dad is Tony Benn :shock:

My sincere condolences :P

pinno

paultheparaglider wrote:

What a complete load of bollox...cuckoo land when it comes to economic realities.

Read the 'Spirit Level'.

In countries like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, taxation is very high. They also are highly socialist and enjoy some of the best standards of living in the world bar Monaco and other excessive, obscene tax havens. You are quite wrong in your assumption of the delivery of socialist values and policies.
You have not addressed the issues I raised with Thatcherism simply because her hedonism and the promotion of self obviously suited you but it did not and does not suit the welfare of the greater good.
You have not addresses the proliferation of bureaucracy under neo-liberalist government. Little tick boxes to prove that the government is doing a great job in all spheres of society, stifling life and committing the most of us to a menial existence.

You tell me your income and I can pretty much tell who you vote for.

If you are well off, you would be stupid to vote Labour. If you are less well off, you would be stupid to vote Tory.

arran77

What if you're just an average middle of the road Joe like me Pina

nathancom

paultheparaglider wrote:

nathancom wrote:

When the loser is fundamental economic stability we are all losers.

You are exactly right. 100%. And this is the reason why we, as a nation, must never again vote in Labour. Not ever. Never.

Even those weak kneed, lily livered liberals or those ukip loonies wouldn't be capable of making such a complete and utter Balls up that Labour do. Every time. Without fail.

Voting back Labour must never happen again. Never. Not ever. It is the ultimate, and ultimately dumb, expression of hope over experience.

Yes, because the Labour party was governing every western economy in the years up to the meltdown. It is clearly all their fault. The government was running a surplus before the meltdown and whilst much of the regulatory framework was stripped away during Tony Blair's period the Tories argued for the same and would have done the same. Labour's economic policies weren't in any way left wing.

More propaganda from the Tory boys...

nathancom

paultheparaglider wrote:

What a complete load of bollox, pinarello. I'm certainly neither xenophobic or narrow minded. I'm married to a foreigner, and spent a lot of my life working overseas.

What I am is a pragmatist, and a realist, with a healthy respect for history and experience. I don't hold any particular political view, nor do I think there needs to always be a counterbalancing opposite view. What I do believe in is small government. I believe this because I believe nobody spends my own money as carefully and wisely as I do myself. Small government means low taxation, and my own real world experience has been that low taxation environments thrive much more than high taxation environments. They help the little guy, who has an incentive to work and to be entrepreneurial. At the same time, they avoid the worst of the perversities of complex taxation systems that generally favour the big companies that are the only ones that can afford to outmanoeuvre them.

Whenever you get big government, you get high taxation and disincentive. When you then take it to the ridiculous extremes that Blair and, more significantly, Brown took it to you just get utter carnage. You get a bubble economy founded on an artificially engineered house price boom and PFIs, but this has to be paid for eventually. This isn't wealth creation, it is political self aggrandisement. You can't simply magic away the economic cycle for so many reasons, and history has always shown that the bigger the boom the bigger the bust. At the very least, in the good times you put a bit away for the rainy days ahead. Not just carry on wastefully spending in the naive view that this is the way to power any economy through a crisis. What doesn't work for a household budget doesn't work at any level. The key comes through accountability, and the further you remove the spending from the earning, the more you erode that efficiency providing accountability.

Whenever any politician has big ideas, I worry. The Tories have them, too, but history seems to show they have less of them. The real world practical trouble with hard core socialist ideals is not that they aren't theoretically desirable, but that they just don't work. They cost too much, are run too inefficiently, and act as a hiding place for the feckless. They, taken over and medium to longer term, hurt the little man much more than a small government, low tax environment.

You and nathancom might think you are smart - and you doubtless probably both are, and also undoubtedly well intentioned- but you are also living in cloud cuckoo land when it comes to economic realities.

You sound like a Tea-Party nutter.

Blair and Brown were economically neo-liberal. What specifically, and I mean facts not the blather above, did they institute that was left wing?

pinno

arran77 wrote:

What if you're just an average middle of the road Joe like me Pina

Tired of being the 'median'? Tired of being 'average'? Try the pump action todger enlarger from all major outlets.

arran77

pinarello001 wrote:

arran77 wrote:

What if you're just an average middle of the road Joe like me Pina

Tired of being the 'median'? Tired of being 'average'? Try the pump action todger enlarger from all major outlets.

You clearly have experience of such things

ballysmate

arran77 wrote:

What if you're just an average middle of the road Joe like me Pina

Ppft
Pina aspires to become average.

arran77

Ballysmate wrote:

arran77 wrote:

What if you're just an average middle of the road Joe like me Pina

Ppft
Pina aspires to become average.

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Are will still talking about Tony?

Who's Tony?

My Dad's called Tony.

Anyway Off Topic. Mr Benn you will be sorely missed. I used to love your wacky adventures and never knew what you would dress up as next. R.I.P

Don't forget the little fella with the fez. His little shop has gone tits up with the demise of his best customer.
Mind you, did Mr Benn ever buy anything?

arran77

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Ballysmate wrote:

seanoconn wrote:

Are will still talking about Tony?

Who's Tony?

My Dad's called Tony.

Anyway Off Topic. Mr Benn you will be sorely missed. I used to love your wacky adventures and never knew what you would dress up as next. R.I.P

Don't forget the little fella with the fez. His little shop has gone tits up with the demise of his best customer.
Mind you, did Mr Benn ever buy anything?

I never understood how that business survived

paultheparaglider

pinarello001 wrote:

You tell me your income and I can pretty much tell who you vote for.

If you are well off, you would be stupid to vote Labour. If you are less well off, you would be stupid to vote Tory.

I guess this is your bottom line pinarello. Despite protestations to the contrary, for you it really just comes down to money. So much for your higher socialist ideals. Sadly, such hypocrisy is commonplace.

Some of us vote our consciences, not just our vested self interests. No man is an island.

ballysmate

Of course Benn couldn't buy anything as 'Property is theft'