Proof that fanatics are picking the new Prime Min

New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 ericinbristol 18 Jun 2019

The proof is here: https://twitter.com/Sisyphusa/status/1140892389336342528

More than half of Conservative Party members polled would be willing to accept the following as the price of Brexit happening: significant damage to the UK economy, Scotland leaving the UK, Northern Ireland leaving the UK, the Conservative Party being destroyed. 39% would accept Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM as the price. 

Fanatical monomaniacs

11
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

I've long suspected that Tory Party members are f***ing insane.

Couldn't we just give them their own windswept little island somewhere in the North Atlantic, where they can have all the sovereignty they can eat? And leave the rest of us in peace.

11
 ianstevens 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I've long suspected that Tory Party members are f***ing insane.

Goes without saying, they're the most Tory of all Tories.

> Couldn't we just give them their own windswept little island somewhere in the North Atlantic, where they can have all the sovereignty they can eat? And leave the rest of us in peace.

Sadly they think the UK is that.

8
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ianstevens:

One thing I don't understand is how they all keep banging on about being One-Nation Tories. Disraeli would be rolling in his grave if he could see this bunch of spivs, zealots and megalomaniacs. They patently are not one-nation Tories, and neither are the membership, who mostly just give a f*** about themselves, so why bother with the claim? Is it that nobody actually knows what it means any more?

6
In reply to ericinbristol:

Rabid even in their own unpleasant terms.  They are more worried about Jeremy Corbyn becoming Prime Minister than their own party being destroyed, massive economic damage to the country or Northern Ireland or Scotland leaving the UK.

7
 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

Incredible. I guess they just don't believe any of that, let alone all of it, will happen so feel safe claiming they don't care.

jk

Post edited at 10:43
7
 Jon Stewart 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

Thanks. Made my piss boil.

8
 john arran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> Incredible. I guess they just don't believe any of that, let alone all of it, will happen.

> jk

Most may never have visited the further reaches of the Empire (Scotland, Northern Ireland) so won't have any great concern for those outposts remaining a part of Greater England. They'll also have pensions that they mistakenly assume will let them live to the same standard despite the economy continuing to slide.

8
 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

True, this is all stuff it's easy to imagine will happen only to other people.

At least we'll provide an interesting opening chapter for the books that will be written on the early years of the information warfare era.

jk

4
OP ericinbristol 18 Jun 2019

From the click through of dislikes I see we have one of the fanatics reading the thread.

Post edited at 11:19
9
 Bob Kemp 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

Nah... it's just the Phantom Disliker back on shift...

5
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

> True, this is all stuff it's easy to imagine will happen only to other people.

> At least we'll provide an interesting opening chapter for the books that will be written on the early years of the information warfare era.

> jk

It's a shame that "loss of your own job/pension/livelihood" wasn't one of the conditions in the survey.

OP ericinbristol 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> It's a shame that "loss of your own job/pension/livelihood" wasn't one of the conditions in the survey.

Like x 1000

2
In reply to ericinbristol:

Interesting that more are willing to lose Scotland than Northern Ireland.

I spoke to a (very stupid) Tory the other day who told me of her passionate wish that the Tories should unite the country (other than in hating them, I assumed).

’So you’re a One Nation Tory, then?’, I said.

’Oh *no*’, she replied, evidently shocked.

jcm

2
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> Interesting that more are willing to lose Scotland than Northern Ireland.

I wonder if people of this sort of mindset see Ireland as England's by right, whereas they see Scotland as a kilt-wearing rabble up north that just want to split anyway.

> I spoke to a (very stupid) Tory the other day who told me of her passionate wish that the Tories should unite the country (other than in hating them, I assumed).

What reality do these people inhabit?

> ’So you’re a One Nation Tory, then?’, I said.

> ’Oh *no*’, she replied, evidently shocked.

Did she appear to know what was meant by the term?

2
In reply to Trevers:

> It's a shame that "loss of your own job/pension/livelihood" wasn't one of the conditions in the survey.

To be fair, that was covered under  "accept Jeremy Corbyn becoming PM as the price."

12
pasbury 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> It's a shame that "loss of your own job/pension/livelihood" wasn't one of the conditions in the survey.

I think a previous survey had asked is Brexit worth a close family member losing their job, 39% said yes.

Here it is https://www.businessinsider.fr/us/yougov-poll-leave-voters-happy-for-relati...

OP ericinbristol 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

The most benign interpretation I have seen that it is people weighting something they really want to happen against things they don't believe will happen as a result of them getting what they want. Which is perhaps why they are most worried about Corbyn being elected - they see that as most likely

Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

It is interesting isn't it.

My first thought is about that phrase that anyone who wants to be an MP is by definition, not suited to be one. I think the same could be said of party members and by that I mean members of any party. After all, an MP does generally have to demonstrate a degree of rational intelligence to become an MP. You don't have to sit an intelligence test to join a party.

Secondly, I suspect there's some fairly profound psychology going on here. Some sort of effect that is causing people to act in an obviously irrational manner.

 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I wonder if people of this sort of mindset see Ireland as England's by right, whereas they see Scotland as a kilt-wearing rabble up north that just want to split anyway.

I suspect having seen the blood spilled in 'the troubles', likely plenty of them from the back of a Landrover at one point or another, they believe we've earned Northern Ireland. Having not fought for Scotland in living memory I guess they're just not as attached. I suspect in the same group you'd find more attachment to the Falklands than Scotland for the same reason.

jk

Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

Having been out fir a walk I've thought about a bit more.

I think it's English nationalism. The belief that their freedoms are curtailed by a greater power and that almost any price is worth paying to be "free" of it. It's an attitude common in the SNP where activists say they will happily accept they will be poorer, have fewer jobs and perhaps even a government they wouldn't vote for now just so ling as they are free from the chains of Westminster etc..

I imagine that most of these people, had you asked them in 2015, would have been committed to a United Kingdom but the polarisation of the Brexit debate has seen their priorities narrow to a single easily identifiable goal.

Post edited at 13:07
1
 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Removed User:

Or they figure that if Scotland wants to leave it’ll leave, and we shouldn’t be not doing things to please Scotland when (a) they’re a small minority of the population and (b) they might well leave regardless of what we do.  The U.K. being in the EU makes leaving easier for Scotland, not harder.

 Tyler 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

> The most benign interpretation I have seen that it is people weighting something they really want to happen against things they don't believe will happen as a result of them getting what they want. Which is perhaps why they are most worried about Corbyn being elected - they see that as most likely

In which case they are too thick to understand the concept of hypothetical situations

3
 Tyler 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Or they figure that if Scotland wants to leave

But if the country wants to vote for Labour it will, it was a hypothetical question were each of the posited outcomes were true.

> it’ll leave, and we shouldn’t be not doing things to please Scotland when (a) they’re a small minority of the population and (b) they might well leave regardless of what we do.  The U.K. being in the EU makes leaving easier for Scotland, not harder.

 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

> But if the country wants to vote for Labour it will, it was a hypothetical question were each of the posited outcomes were true.

And that hypothetical outcome was too much of a loss.  Scotland leaving because it cannot act as part of the union (ie wants special treatment and won’t follow national decisions) is less of a loss.  Personally I’ve come around to thinking it’d be a shame but perhaps better than the current situation, and if it’s inevitable sooner rather than later would also be better.

7
 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> The U.K. being in the EU makes leaving easier for Scotland, not harder.

Can you show your working please?

jk

 Tyler 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

The point I was making was that the survey was about different outcomes happening all other things being equal, your initial post ("they figure that if Scotland wants to leave") re-enfroces my point that they seem to be answering based on the likelihood of each outcome. It's a semantic point so probably not one that needs discussion as I don't want to derail further. 

 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Okay, I’ll reword - if leaving the EU, which the U.K. decided as a whole to do, will cause Scotland to leave then clearly Scotland cannot accept being part of a union that makes decisions as the U.K.  It’s therefore not that big a loss (and is likely inevitable anyway), and not worth overturning the referendum.

Post edited at 13:46
7
 Tringa 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> It's a shame that "loss of your own job/pension/livelihood" wasn't one of the conditions in the survey.

Good point.

I think quite will a few accept some severe results, as long as they are not affected directly.

Although the Tories are thought to be the party most keen on the UK, most of the party members do not live in Scotland or Norther Ireland, so they aren't really bothered what happens in S or NI.

Dave

 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

See the NI border furore.

Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Or they figure that if Scotland wants to leave it’ll leave, and we shouldn’t be not doing things to please Scotland when (a) they’re a small minority of the population and (b) they might well leave regardless of what we do.  The U.K. being in the EU makes leaving easier for Scotland, not harder.


Well maybe but what exactly does the "Unionist" bit of the Conservative and Unionist party mean? Only in favour of keeping England unified? I'd always assumed that meant keeping the UK unified?

 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> See the NI border furore.

rUK and an independent Scotland being in the EU certainly makes the land border easier to deal with but there is no obvious route to that position while individual EU members battling active secessionist movements hold vetos over new (newly seceded) members joining. It's just another unicorn dream.

Also it seems quite unlikely following this brexit debacle much enthusiasm could be mustered anytime soon for another costly, divisive decades long independence fight should we somehow emerge from this one unscathed and still in the EU. Scotland voting to ditch a deranged England in the deadly grip of a nostalgic nationalist fever, confident of being able to re-take its place in the EU, that's believable. A controlled land border is a serious social and economic issue it is not (yet) one with the same flash-point potential and baggage NI's has.

jk

Post edited at 14:26
1
 Tyler 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Okay, I’ll reword - if leaving the EU, which the U.K. decided as a whole to do, will cause Scotland to leave then clearly Scotland cannot accept being part of a union that makes decisions as the U.K.  It’s therefore not that big a loss (and is likely inevitable anyway), and not worth overturning the referendum.

It's a view, certainly, but one that goes against hundreds of years of Conservative policy and principle. Likewise, I doubt any UK party fought so hard for retaining NI as part of the UK so for the Tories to turn their back on that does make it seem as though they are in the grip of some messianic force. Never has the idiom "sold it's birthright for a mess of pottage" been more apposite. 

OP ericinbristol 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Tyler:

Maybe. Another reading of it is that they understand hypotheticals but are choosing not to answer it in that way.

 john arran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Personally I’ve come around to thinking it’d be a shame but perhaps better than the current situation, and if it’s inevitable sooner rather than later would also be better.

I wonder whether you would still consider Scottish independence "inevitable" were we to have enjoyed in recent years  a UK government of national unity that doesn't seem hopelessly SE-centric. People don't look for major change without good reason.

1
 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Removed User:

You can’t have everything, and I’m sure they’d be campaigning for Scotland to stay. Preferably they stay, accepting that they can’t overrule national decisions.

You’ve not forgotten Wales have you?

2
 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> I wonder whether you would still consider Scottish independence "inevitable" were we to have enjoyed in recent years  a UK government of national unity that doesn't seem hopelessly SE-centric.

If the world was other than it is then things would be different...  The SNP made great strides under a government that pushed devolution, and nowadays the U.K. government doesn’t have that much say in Scotland.

> People don't look for major change without good reason.

Interesting to hear you say that!

2
Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> You can’t have everything, and I’m sure they’d be campaigning for Scotland to stay. Preferably they stay, accepting that they can’t overrule national decisions.

> You’ve not forgotten Wales have you?


Why is Brexit more important than keeping the UK together?

People often make accommodations on certain things to keep the peace. A parent will accept their child carrying on in ways they don't approve of because they feel it more important that family relations don't break down. A no deal Brexit makes the loss of Scotland and NI a real possibility but it seems many tory or ex tory voters are content to see their country greatly diminished. Why? It's beyond me.

 jkarran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Interesting to hear you say that!

I don't think you'll find many remainers claiming our world is roses. We acknowledge the serious problems, we just disagree fundamentally with the diagnosis and the proposed remedy which is nothing of the sort.

jk

 Ramblin dave 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

It's the Corbyn thing that really does my head in. Like, these people have been hardened to the point that the dismantlement of the United Kingdom, the destruction of their own political party and significant damage to the economy are prices worth paying for Brexit, but the idea that a bearded allotment-botherer might nationalise the railways still stops them in their tracks. We are so far past rational politics in this country...

Post edited at 15:38
Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> It's the Corbyn thing that really does my head in. Like, these people have been hardened to the point that the dismantlement of the United Kingdom, the destruction of their own political party and significant damage to the economy are prices worth paying for Brexit, but the idea that a bearded allotment-botherer might nationalise the railways still stops them in their tracks. We are so far past rational politics in this country...


Well put.

I'm reminded of Waffen SS fighting to the last bullet in Normandy. Nothing, absolutely nothing matters except adherence to a cause.

..and like the SS their demise is inevitable.

1
 john arran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to thomasadixon:

> Interesting to hear you say that!

I can only presume you're referring to the turkeys' voting record three years ago, in which case the 'good reason' that caused many to look for the major change of leaving the EU was that they had been sold a unicorn at a price that was too good to be true. Unsurprisingly, such a deal will have sounded attractive. Now we know the unicorn deal doesn't exist and the price of even a poor substitute is astronomical, everybody with a vested interest is doing their level best to prevent the same people from expressing their opinion again at the ballot box, for fear that the people might actually choose a different path now.

1
In reply to Trevers:

Rather than a windswept island out in the Atlantic, there is a suitable island - Gruinard Island - closer to the mainland that is hardly populated at the moment.

1
Pan Ron 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Or perhaps they simply feel they voted for something, probably not on racist or zenophobic grounds (despite accusations) but because they prefer localised government to distant government, and they have now been denied what they voted for.  I can understand being more than a little pissed off, disenfranchised and thinking fuk it to the system.

If Labour voters asked for social justice, and the Labour government basically delivered Tucker Carlson-like rhetoric and action, I'm pretty sure the voters would be out protesting, throwing fire-extinguishers off the top of the BBC, and abandoning Labour for a more dogmatic Momentum party or Respect Redux.  They'd probably even be willing to chance the total economic melt-down that might come with Venezuela-style redistributive policies.

Post edited at 18:46
16
 Mike Stretford 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Or perhaps they simply feel they voted for something, probably not on racist or zenophobic grounds (despite accusations) but because they prefer localised government to distant government, and they have now been denied what they voted for.  I can understand being more than a little pissed off, disenfranchised and thinking fuk it to the system.

I have to chuckle at your obsession with defending this idealised brexiteer in your own head.

Post edited at 18:54
1
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> If Labour voters asked for social justice, and the Labour government basically delivered Tucker Carlson-like rhetoric and action, I'm pretty sure the voters would be out protesting, throwing fire-extinguishers off the top of the BBC, and abandoning Labour for a more dogmatic Momentum party or Respect Redux.  They'd probably even be willing to chance the total economic melt-down that might come with Venezuela-style redistributive policies.

So you basically accept that leave voters voted for something which, by the terms which it was advertised to the electorate, was completely undeliverable?

1
 gavmac 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

I am now at the point of wishing the rabid Tory brexiteers success in this leadership race to induce a second Scottish independence referendum. 

How people wish to remain part of this sh*t show is beyond me. It appears only a Westminster led economic catastrophe will convince some folk of how utterly unrepresentative UK politics has become and how self serving these cretins (both red and blue) are.

Scotland, the SNP and Holyrood is far from perfect but Westminster represents nothing of what I wish my country to be. 

Post edited at 19:21
1
Removed User 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

No excuse makes their attitude either rational or acceptable.

 Ramblin dave 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

To be honest, my point was more about the tribalism that means that for all that your average Tory seems to be happy the watch the world burn for Brexit, they still see  the idea of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street as being an apocalyptic bridge too far. Like, "we're fine with economic disaster and the break-up of the union, but imagine if /he/ got into power, I mean damn, what a mess we'd be in then..." 

 pec 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

> To be honest, my point was more about the tribalism that means that for all that your average Tory seems to be happy the watch the world burn for Brexit, they still see  the idea of Jeremy Corbyn in Downing Street as being an apocalyptic bridge too far. Like, "we're fine with economic disaster and the break-up of the union, but imagine if /he/ got into power, I mean damn, what a mess we'd be in then..." 


Perhaps that's because Corbyn being PM would very likely result in economic disaster and the break up of the UK anyway, that's not unlikely. So its a choice between economic disaster and break up in the EU or economic disaster and break up out of the EU, at least if out, they get one thing they want!

17
 Trevers 18 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> Perhaps that's because Corbyn being PM would very likely result in economic disaster and the break up of the UK anyway, that's not unlikely. So its a choice between economic disaster and break up in the EU or economic disaster and break up out of the EU, at least if out, they get one thing they want!

In what way are those things likely though? A hard Brexit makes all those things pretty much certain.

 thomasadixon 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Why is Brexit more important than keeping the UK together?

If you want rhetorical questions just turn it around - why is membership of the EU more important than keeping the UK together?

> People often make accommodations on certain things to keep the peace. A parent will accept their child carrying on in ways they don't approve of because they feel it more important that family relations don't break down. A no deal Brexit makes the loss of Scotland and NI a real possibility but it seems many tory or ex tory voters are content to see their country greatly diminished. Why? It's beyond me.

The basic accommodation that we in the UK accept is that we have elections and we accept the results of those elections, whether they approve the result or not.  Unfortunately some don't accept that accommodation, they feel it more important that they get their way than to have good family relations.  Remaining a member of the EU would be seeing the country greatly diminished.  You don't have to believe it but it shouldn't be beyond you to appreciate that drives people's thinking, and so to understand the "why".

12
 Ridge 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ramblin dave:

Unbelievable isn’t it? They're happy to destroy the UK, but they’re horrified by the thought of a Labour government because it could damage the UK...

 john arran 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Ridge:

> Unbelievable isn’t it? They're happy to destroy the UK, but they’re horrified by the thought of a Labour government because it could damage the UK...

It's like Man U deciding that relegation to the Championship is an acceptable price to pay for ensuring Man City don't win the Premier League.

1
 colinakmc 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

“Couldn’t we find them their own little windswept island....”

Why dyou think the SNP government is paying so much attention to Rockall?

Post edited at 21:05
In reply to Ridge:

Brexit is a very hot topic across the business world and at my firm (one of the largest US investment banks) we have a huge team involved in studying and understanding all the possible scenarios and advising all of our clients. I listened to a talk with our most senior platinum client advisory manager who  told the firm that Brexit is a distant second in concerns she is constantly hearing to the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn government. 

1
 summo 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

There was a trader on r4 some time ago said he has 5-10 key companies or institutions he was watching to act on depending on which way Brexit went. When asked about Corbyn being PM he said 30 plus! 

1
Pan Ron 18 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> I have to chuckle at your obsession with defending this idealised brexiteer in your own head.

After 50 posts braying over how insane more than half of voters must be, I think you can handle a single contrary viewpoint, and perhaps consider that yet another thread about how demonic the Tories are might mean it's not me who is obsessed.

8
 Greenbanks 18 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

Not City - but certainly Liverpool

 FactorXXX 18 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

> More than half of Conservative Party members polled...

Not dismissing the statistics out of hand because I'm sure there's a fair amount of swivel eyed loons amongst the Conservative Party Membership.
However, a couple of points:

1. How do they know who to ask as I'm sure there isn't a list of Conservative Party Members.
2. "More than half of Conservative Party members polled". Classic statement in such surveys. Totally meaningless though, unless they state numbers polled and under what conditions/location, etc. the poll was taken.

Not sticking up for the Conservatives, just highlighting that statistics don't always tell the real story...

1
 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> After 50 posts braying over how insane more than half of voters must be,

This thread is about the Tory membership, there's about 120k of them. I'll let you do the maths......

 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

> 1. How do they know who to ask as I'm sure there isn't a list of Conservative Party Members.

If there is no list, how do Conservative party HQ send ballot papers out to those eligible to take part in the final ballot........

OP ericinbristol 19 Jun 2019
In reply to FactorXXX:

Reasonable questions. YouGov provide extensive detail of their methodology even if it is not reported in the news or tweets

The full poll is here https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/mxtlaay6zu/Y...

YouGov maintains a panel of over 1 million British adults and they have extensive detailed information about each one. https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/ It's not an absolute guarantee that someone will lie about being a Tory party member or not but there is no obvious reason why this would happen a lot or have a more than marginal impact on the results. Here YouGov provide detailed responses about their methods https://yougov.co.uk/about/panel-methodology/research-qs/

It says their sample size was 892 and gives details of how they made the sample representative of Tory party members in refering voting, age, gender, social grade and region. They make sure that they have the right number of people in the right proportions.

YouGov is one of the most reputable polling organisations around. It is a founder member of the British Polling Council and follows its rules. See http://web.archive.org/web/20141113110233/http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_upl...

OP ericinbristol 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

I suspsect FactorXXX means 'Did YouGov have access to the list?' I don't know the answer to that for sure. 

 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> Perhaps that's because Corbyn being PM would very likely result in economic disaster and the break up of the UK anyway, that's not unlikely. So its a choice between economic disaster and break up in the EU or economic disaster and break up out of the EU, at least if out, they get one thing they want!

Thats nothing but innuendo based project fear - remaning in the EU, is actually the status quo, so how on earth could you get to the idea that maintaining the status quo would be economically disastrous  and lead to the break up of the UK? Especially since the parts of the UK that would break away all want to remain in the EU?

On what basis do you think that Corbyn being PM - with all the checks and balances of the UK civil service machinery - would lead to economic disaster?

 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

The checks and balances are in parliament and not the civil service. The civil service does not hold that sort of restraining power.

 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

> 'Did YouGov have access to the list?'  

 "I'm sure there isn't a list of Conservative Party Members."

I suspect you are being very charitable here........

 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

Ok than, I'll rephrase.....

On what basis do you think that Corbyn being PM would lead to economic disaster?

 wercat 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

I suggest we prohibit all other parties from existing as clearly it is only the conservatives who can save us by adopting a one-party system. All praise to the One Party

 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to wercat:

It would make life simpler. No need for all these ridiculous debates and disagreements for one thing......

 MG 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> Ok than, I'll rephrase.....

> On what basis do you think that Corbyn being PM would lead to economic disaster?

By inflexibly pursing policies based on an outdated, ideological thinking, including brexit.  By eroding (further) the UK's standing in the world by supporting despotic regimes such as Venezuela and Iran. By being guided by a visceral hostility towards the US, one of our biggest trading partners. By being generally incompetent and promoting similar incompetence in his government.

8
 jkarran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> I listened to a talk with our most senior platinum client advisory manager who  told the firm that Brexit is a distant second in concerns she is constantly hearing to the prospect of a Jeremy Corbyn government. 

No shit! The ultra-rich are worried about a left wing government. Mind blown.

Their interests and our interests are not necessarily the same. A good government finds a way to ensure sufficient overlap that peace is maintained. This one hasn't. We don't know if a Corbyn government would.

jk

 Rob Exile Ward 19 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

I feel like playing those Tory members at their own game: do they really think their fathers and grandfathers landed on Normandy beaches 75 years ago, so a few thousand or so Tory party members could get to choose the next PM without the rest of us having even the tiniest say in the matter? It's frigging unbelievable, and will be used against us whenever we try and promote 'democratic values' in the future.

1
 Ian W 19 Jun 2019
In reply to MG:

Swap a few words, it sounds like a particularly accurate description of current Tory policy......

 pec 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

> On what basis do you think that Corbyn being PM - with all the checks and balances of the UK civil service machinery - would lead to economic disaster?

On the basis that the last two Labour governments had brought the country to a state of economic disaster when they left office in 1979 and 2010 and that they were both relatively modest compared with Corbyn. John Macdonald must be the only shadow chancellor in history who has felt it necessary to make preparations for a run on the pound in the event that he were to be elected. When even the party itself fears its own election could cause such an outcome it speaks volumes.

Regarding the break up of the UK, Corbyn is a long standing Republican who would happily cede N. Ireland to a united Ireland and he may well end up in office only with the support of the SNP, the price for which would be a second independance referendum.

Like I said, economic disaster and the break up of the UK are not unlikely scenarios under a Corbyn government.

15
 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

On the basis that the economy is about business .Would you say he was pro business?Is he a supporter of business?Does he get what businesses do?

1
 kestrelspl 19 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

As a point of balance, we're pretty annoyed with the government in the SE too. Financial services, that a lot of us rely on for work/local prosperity that generates work for example have been utterly sidelined in the Brexit discussion. London has some of the most international businesses in the country and has again been ignored in so far as how this Brexit debacle will affect it.

Let's stop scrapping with each other and just recognise this government as bad for everyone!

In reply to jkarran:

"No shit! The ultra-rich are worried about a left wing government. Mind blown."

I was just pointing out that big business is  less concerned about Brexit than a JC government. Obviously for someone on the pulse, like yourself, this is completely obvious  So I apologise. But it isn't to a lot of people including the audience it was directed at who thought Brexit was the number 1 doomsday scenario global businesses in the UK were stressing about.

You seem certain Brexit will be economically disastrous. You will back this up with countless examples of companies moving away and shutting down plants etc with the uncertainty. In fact, you talk about nothing else on here. If we cancel BREXIT and JC gets in...expect the same.  It's a chaotic picture inside the UK and the EU at the moment and laser focusing on your pet hate can give the impression some are blinkered to other factors in play. Hence my original point.

Post edited at 10:16
6
 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> "No shit! The ultra-rich are worried about a left wing government. Mind blown."

> I was just pointing out that big business is  less concerned about Brexit than a JC government.

"big buisness" is a huge umbrella term. One example from the City does not make your case.

 john arran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to kestrelspl:

> As a point of balance, we're pretty annoyed with the government in the SE too. Financial services, that a lot of us rely on for work/local prosperity that generates work for example have been utterly sidelined in the Brexit discussion. London has some of the most international businesses in the country and has again been ignored in so far as how this Brexit debacle will affect it.

> Let's stop scrapping with each other and just recognise this government as bad for everyone!

Well your example demonstrates pretty well that it's actually Brexit that's been bad for everyone (barring a few influential disaster capitalists, of course). Prior to that the Tory government wasn't quite so bad for some of those in the SE, at least compared to those in the rest of the country (those earning more than average, of course).

In reply to Mike Stretford:

It does when the lady speaking and her team cover most of the FTSE 100 / 250 , CAC 40, DAX, IBEX, FTSE MIB , AEX and OMX

Sorry, but it was extremely compelling.

4
 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus: Different worlds then, it's not what I hear from Japanese and US business in my sector.

I was impressed by the sentiment from a US contact... that socialists governments come and go in Europe with no big shakes, whereas Brexit is permanent. Also recognised that even in the  very unlikely event of Corbyn forming  a majority government his MPs wouldn't let him do anything too silly.

Project fear eh....

 MG 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Ian W:

Well, yes.  We are in trouble.

 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

Most  owners of SME's are in a general state of frayed nerves at the moment over JC, and those owners are not ones who have the capabilities of upping sticks and leaving the UK unlike what you might term the ultra rich.

It is not good when you have a combination of Brexit and the potential for JC. But the Tories are hardly shining examples of politically stability at the moment and therein lies the paradox. The Uk is shooting itself in the foot economically.

So its hardly encouraging.

And yet despite all the Tory woes we have strong employment figures, low inflation and most peole are starting to see salaries/wages increase.I say " most".Hammond and Carney are not doing a bad job.

3
 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

I would tunr that round and say most Americans have not got a clue on Brexit. But they have a morbid fear of socialism.

In reply to pasbury:

> I think a previous survey had asked is Brexit worth a close family member losing their job, 39% said yes.

A question like that is meaningless to a 'believer'. They would just assume that the person would get another job when the economy 'takes of like a rocket' in the post Brexit boom.

 Bob Kemp 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

I see you're still peddling the Cameron-Osborne myth that Labour were responsible for the economic crisis after the American sub-prime financial meltdown. Labour had actually done a lot to turn things around until the Tories applied their misbegotten austerity policy after the election. 

 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

> I would tunr that round and say most Americans have not got a clue on Brexit. But they have a morbid fear of socialism.

Maybe your average American but not those who actually study what is going on.

I've never worked in the city or had much to do with them, but it's always struck me as sentiment driven. People I work with in science and engineering are generally sensible and numerate. 

Western European democracies do not turn into socialist republics on election results. Corbyn doesn't even have enough support in his own party to do anything silly, even if he got a majority, which as I say is very unlikely. Nor does he have the loyalty of any of the organisations which could empower him by other means. This fear mongering is ridiculous.

What you might get is a government which favoured higher, Scandanavian levels of taxation to pay for the services the British public do actually want. Yeah, that would scare some business off, but government spending on infrastructure, health ect  is a boost to many others.

Post edited at 11:29
 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

If Trump is still in power then what do you reckon is going to happen ? I cannot see it being good either way

it is a very mixed on infrastructure spending. How do you think the markets are going to react to nationalisation ( even though it’s a few years off) and Labour potentially not buying the businesses at market valuations?Difficult and not clear cut. 

Unfortunately people in science and engineering are not the “ market”. 

Post edited at 12:00
 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

> If Trump is still in power then what do you reckon is going to happen ? I cannot see it being good either way

I don't think they follow each other on twitter.

> it is a very mixed on infrastructure spending. How do you think the markets are going to react to nationalisation ( even though it’s a few years off) and Labour potentially not buying the businesses at market valuations?

It would be the government and a Corbyn government would not get the support for a string of nationalisations which left shareholder out of pocket. Rail nationalisation might happen in the first parliament.... how do the numerous western democracies with nationalised rail get on?

> Unfortunately people in science and engineering are not the “ market”. 

No but they are big business. In reality the sentiment driven markets will be yet another limit on what Corbyn could do.

 wercat 19 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

I'd like to see the debates chaired by Lord Sugar,helped by Claude as a CV destroyer, in the boardroom.  He don't take no shit or prisoners

Post edited at 12:32
Pan Ron 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

> Western European democracies do not turn into socialist republics on election results.

True.  Then why the automatic assumption that Tory leadership will drive us into the ground? 

Nearly a decade of Tory rule has resulted in few of the Mad Max scenarios we are always being warned about.  It shouldn't really be a surprise that Brexiteers doubt the negative outcomes Remainers scream about, after forever being given doomsday predictions that never eventuate.  The Left has cried wolf too many times on major political issues, and at a micro societal scale does the same.

As I've mentioned before, Labour policy is a return to free tertiary education.  That seems pretty extreme to me and either they will become guilty of manifesto breaking or happily deliver something extraordinarily costly for little gain.  Given the preponderance of left-wing thinking in Higher Education, the right could be forgiven this is little more than a money-for-the-boys scheme and it appears to tick all the boxes that the right are accused of doing.    

9
 MG 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

>  Given the preponderance of left-wing thinking in Higher Education, the right could be forgiven this is little more than a money-for-the-boys scheme and it appears to tick all the boxes that the right are accused of doing.    

How do work that out?  Since fees were introduced, there has been substantially more cash in HE than previously.

 timjones 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Trevers:

> I've long suspected that Tory Party members are f***ing insane.

> Couldn't we just give them their own windswept little island somewhere in the North Atlantic, where they can have all the sovereignty they can eat? And leave the rest of us in peace.

I would extend that to say that to include all members of all parties. I'm far from convinced that membership of any political party is a sign of either sanity or intelligence.

1
 Alkis 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> Nearly a decade of Tory rule has resulted in few of the Mad Max scenarios we are always being warned about. 

Really now?

https://fullfact.org/economy/how-many-people-use-food-banks/

1
 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> True.  Then why the automatic assumption that Tory leadership will drive us into the ground? 

> Nearly a decade of Tory rule has resulted in few of the Mad Max scenarios we are always being warned about. 

What I've seen in Manchester is a dramatic rise in homelessness and other social problems. It's the same across the country. I'm not a huge fan of Blair's governments for various reasons but inequality was slowly being tackled and there's been an abrupt reversal to that. I will campaign against the Tories on those grounds.

As for Brexit, we saw the guy who will very probably be next PM quote Article 24 of GATT without a clue as to what it actually is..... he was basically quoting Farage's bullshit. This is happening.

Post edited at 13:11
 timjones 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Alkis:

The problem with proclaiming that as a "fullfact" is that it is only part of the picture, it doesn't even begin to consider whether people were receiving support from elsewhere in '09 or how many people were receiving similar support through different channels in '09.

1
Removed User 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pan Ron:

> True.  Then why the automatic assumption that Tory leadership will drive us into the ground? 

> Nearly a decade of Tory rule has resulted in few of the Mad Max scenarios we are always being warned about.

Well it all depends upon what you're expecting but a No Deal Brexit would be a spectacular act of auto sodomy. And they've got form of course, decimating UK manufacturing in the 80's and nineties, the ERM debacle and 15% mortgage interest rates, not preventing the Falklands war etc, etc. But at the moment things are indeed tolerably dull if you have decent job and are not living in poverty, if you aren't trying to buy a house for the first time, you're not chronically ill or unable to care for yourself through old age.

What I see when I look at most of those candidates for leadership is at best a continued decline in the standards of our public services and in some cases an ideologically driven desire for more tinkering to ensure the rich pay less tax while the poor are on the receiving end of the cuts that are coming their way.

Look around you and ask yourself if this is the best the fifth largest economy in the world can do for its citizens.

All of them.

 jkarran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to timjones:

> The problem with proclaiming that as a "fullfact" is that it is only part of the picture, it doesn't even begin to consider whether people were receiving support from elsewhere in '09 or how many people were receiving similar support through different channels in '09.

Isn't that rather the point. Whatever support existed, the safety net we (I at least) want and expect a civilised prosperous state to provide, that no longer exists, the needs of the vulnerable now have to be met by charity where once they were met by the state.

jk

 timjones 19 Jun 2019
In reply to jkarran:

I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?
 

8
 jkarran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to timjones:

> I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?

Obviously. The problem I see with a reliance on community (defined as narrowly as necessary to escape personal obligation) and charity is that in general where most need occurs the community is least able to provide. Personally I consider the most equitable and constructive solution to ensuring those needs are fully met is to ensure the cost is borne by all but predominantly those of us better able to bear them. Additionally that resources are channelled into reducing need through through adequately funded education, health, social services and targeted economic development programs.

Other outlooks are available.

jk

Post edited at 13:35
Removed User 19 Jun 2019
In reply to timjones:

> I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?


That's what we had before the welfare state. We mustn't go back there.

pasbury 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Removed User:

> Look around you and ask yourself if this is the best the fifth largest economy in the world can do for its citizens.

Projected to be overtaken by India and France this year. Not that that bothers me but it hardly supports the view that the Tories are encouraging a booming economy.

pasbury 19 Jun 2019
In reply to timjones:

> I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?

A statutory level of support should be provided by the state from taxation (in line with a basic social contract) to keep those in need in a state of dignity. Any further help can be provided by charities or communities as a top up - not part of basic provision.

1
 neilh 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Mike Stretford:

If you consider that Brexit is a bigger economic issue that JC, why support a party which is just as split on Brexit.You need to vote liberal if you consider that staying in the EU is the best option.

 Mike Stretford 19 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

> If you consider that Brexit is a bigger economic issue that JC, why support a party which is just as split on Brexit.

They aren't as split, take a look at the indicative votes.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/ng-interactive/2019/mar/27/how-did-your...

Tories are split 50/50 between no deal and May's deal. There isn't that split for Labour on any of their preferred options, and they certainly don't want no-deal, which for me is a priority.

> You need to vote liberal if you consider that staying in the EU is the best option.

Depends where you live.

Post edited at 15:08
 Trevers 19 Jun 2019
In reply to ericinbristol:

This tweet is certainly enlightening:

https://twitter.com/NickCohen4/status/1141314760388108289

 jethro kiernan 19 Jun 2019

> On the basis that the last two Labour governments had brought the country to a state of economic disaster when they left office in 1979 and 2010 and that they were both relatively modest compared with Corbyn. 

In reply to pec:

Ah the Urban Myth’s that Neoliberalism and austerity were built on

Both of these were global financial crises and labour didn’t  excel at sorting them out but didn’t fail either, The Tories however were very quick in both cases to apply dogmatic “solutions” to problems that they claim were political rather than admitting they were global financial crisis. 

In reply to timjones:

> I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?

That State is the community we all live in. It's not some amorphous entity, entirely detached from the people of the country.

1
 pec 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bob Kemp:

> I see you're still peddling the Cameron-Osborne myth that Labour were responsible for the economic crisis after the American sub-prime financial meltdown. Labour had actually done a lot to turn things around until the Tories applied their misbegotten austerity policy after the election. 


No, I'm pedalling the truth that Labour spent the previous decade p*ssing money up the wall because they thought they'd ended boom and bust when they should have been reducing the national debt in the years of plenty (which they were fortunate to inherit). Instead of which, when the crisis hit, we were nowhere near as well prepared as we should have been.

15
baron 19 Jun 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

.

> That State is the community we all live in. It's not some amorphous entity, entirely detached from the people of the country.

An idea for which Mrs Thatcher has often been ridiculed

6
In reply to baron:

Which one?! 

jcm

 john arran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

The numbers don't appear to support your analysis.

According to https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc..., from 1995-2017 the UK national debt remained essentially flat as a % of GDP, under Labour. Prior to the financial crisis striking, the UK debt was around 2/3 the equivalent value in France or Germany.

1
pasbury 19 Jun 2019
In reply to baron:

> .

> An idea for which Mrs Thatcher has often been ridiculed

What when she said there's no such thing as society. Pull the other one.

pasbury 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

If you were more bothered about facts then you could refute this bullshit for yourself.

1
baron 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

> What when she said there's no such thing as society. Pull the other one.

You must be smarter than to try that old chestnut.

You do know what she actually said about society, don’t you?

Yes you do

1
 pec 19 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> The numbers don't appear to support your analysis.

> According to https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=ds22a34krhq5p_&met_y=gd_pc..., from 1995-2017 the UK national debt remained essentially flat as a % of GDP, under Labour. Prior to the financial crisis striking, the UK debt was around 2/3 the equivalent value in France or Germany.


Except that since we were quite obviously in an unsustainable boom which would inevitably end at some point we shouldn't have been borrowing at all.

After a few years of budget surplus in the late 90's (when Labour stuck to the Conservatives spending plans) they started spending like the boom was never going to end when we could have been in surplus and paying of debt.

https://www.economicshelp.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/net-borrowing-tota...

10
 john arran 19 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

Some serious confirmation bias going on there, pec.

2
 Rob Parsons 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Bjartur i Sumarhus:

> It does when the lady speaking and her team cover most of the FTSE 100 / 250 , CAC 40, DAX, IBEX, FTSE MIB , AEX and OMX

> Sorry, but it was extremely compelling.


What were the particular concerns and detailed arguments?

 Pete Pozman 19 Jun 2019
In reply to timjones:

> I guess that depends on whether you believe that all support has to come from the state or that some of it can and maybe should be provided within the communities that we all live in?

"Depends" is the key word here. People in trouble for whatever reason, should not have to depend on ad hoc expressions of charity. A large prosperous country like ours should be able to organise things for the greater good of as many as possible. We, the UK, are failing because voters persistently fall for the blandishments of ruthless and unscrupulous rich men: the Tory Party. 

Post edited at 21:52
 summo 19 Jun 2019
In reply to john arran:

> The numbers don't appear to support your analysis.

>   ..........the UK national debt remained essentially flat as a % of GDP, under Labour. Prior to the financial crisis striking, the UK debt was around 2/3 the equivalent value in France or Germany.

They were borrowing, but only under the radar by PFI-ing schools, hospitals etc.. so it looked like they were spending but really the bill was being kicked down the road for future governments in office. They also sold off assets such as gold and qinetic. 

Granted Gordon ended boom and bust in their 2nd term, that's why it's been so fantastic since then.  

3
 summo 19 Jun 2019
In reply to Pete Pozman:

> "Depends" is the key word here. People in trouble for whatever reason, should not have to depend on ad hoc expressions of charity. A large prosperous country like ours should be able to organise things for the greater good of as many as possible. We, the UK, are failing because voters persistently fall for the blandishments of ruthless and unscrupulous rich men: the Tory Party. 

The only solution is tax rises. The UK just won't vote for it, they'd rather just risk it's not them suffering and in need of support.

pasbury 19 Jun 2019
In reply to baron:

> You must be smarter than to try that old chestnut.

> You do know what she actually said about society, don’t you?

> Yes you do

Full passage from that speech;

“I think we have been through a period when too many people have been given to understand that when they have a problem it is government’s job to cope with it. ‘I have a problem, I’ll get a grant. I’m homeless, the government must house me.’ They are casting their problems on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women and there are families. And no governments can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It is our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbours. People have got their entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There is no such thing as an entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation.”

I find no comfort in that sentiment. I remember listening to it as she said it. Chilling.

3
In reply to pasbury:

Indeed - you wonder how the sick children of poor parents are supposed first to have met their obligations, don’t you?

I don’t remember when she made that speech - was it during the later, totally deranged, period, or earlier?

jcm

1
In reply to baron:

> You do know what she actually said about society, don’t you?

Yes, I remember it well. And it's been reinterpreted many times, but I don't think she was trying express the same concept as I did (which is, essentially, that of the Welfare State). She was arguing for personal responsibility, not a reliance on the state. With, possibly, some responsibility to our immediate neighbour. Rather pushing our social responsibility onto personal, charitable works.

Then, of course, Cameron took on the mantle with:

“There is such a thing as society, but it’s not the same as the state.”

as the foundation of his 'Big Society', aka small government, supposedly supported by personal voluntary effort/donation.

I clearly disagree with Cameron's view, as I see the state as a fundamental part of society.

Post edited at 23:22
baron 20 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

Do you really find the concept of personal responsibility and looking after your neighbour chilling ?

6
 jethro kiernan 20 Jun 2019
In reply to baron:

I

> Do you really find the concept of personal responsibility and looking after your neighbour chilling ?

 think the point is we have moved on from self contained villages, Society is now our village I can give my neighbour a lift to the hospital 

i cant

provide an MRI scanner

Emergency care

i cant build the roads to get them to the hospital

i can’t provide 24 hour remedial care

i can’t provide medicine 

 I still help out my neighbours and they help us, However  times have moved on, yes we used to help our neighbours when they were ill and dying but life was short and brutal if you want to go back to that time fine I’d rather rely on the skills of the NHS for myself and my family.

I’d rather consider someone in Newcastle or Birmingham  as my neighbour and support them through a decent society, and by default I’d rather be neighbourly to our friends across the channel 

 TobyA 20 Jun 2019
In reply to captain paranoia:

> That State is the community we all live in. It's not some amorphous entity, entirely detached from the people of the country.

Or is it?

"The agent-structure problem" is an old nut in social science: of course society wouldn't exist without the people who make it up, but then why does it seem that all our lives are structured by a society that predates us?

If Dave Garnett is reading this, I noted with interest the other day, that Bourdieu's idea of cultural capital (which is basically one of the ways in which an agent accommodates the preexisting power structures around them) is mentioned in the newest Ofsted's newest school inspection framework! ...Although I'm not certain they are using it as Bourdieu meant.

 neilh 20 Jun 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

My local community,employees and friends and family are the ones I really  connect with.

Somebody who I do not know 200 miles away.... I have no connection to...they are not part of my " community" .

The EU iactuallyputs this across well...first your local town flag, then your country flag and then the EU flag.

I have little issue with that.

2
 MonkeyPuzzle 20 Jun 2019
In reply to baron:

> Do you really find the concept of personal responsibility and looking after your neighbour chilling ?

I am both responsible (responsible enough, anyway) and neighbourly, but assuming everyone is capable of looking after themselves, or lives next door to someone who is capable of looking after both themselves and their neighbour is totally out of touch with reality. As part of my personal responsibility, I'm happy to work hard and pay more tax so that there are strategically organised, properly trained and prioritised resources in place to look after the more vulnerable. Thatcher's speech was just another version of the Conservative "I managed it, so you can manage it as well" trope that only makes sense until you consider it for even a second.

1
 David Riley 20 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

The point was "entitlement".   Not that the nasty Tories or the evil Thatcher thought that you should be left to die on the street if you had not contributed to the system.  But that you should not think you had a right to everything without any desire or intention to ever give anything back. You are not entitled.  It is just there if you really need it,  and only because others have worked hard to provide.

2
 jethro kiernan 20 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

The trouble with that is it isn’t very useful unless you and your work colleagues have chipped in for an MRI scanner next to the photocopier 

There is an old Arab Bedouin saying: I, against my brothers. I and my brothers against my cousins. I and my brothers and my cousins against the world. That is jungle law. It is the way of the world when the world is thrown into chaos. It is our job to avert that chaos, to fight against it, to resist the urge to become savage. Because the problem with such law is that if you follow it, you are always fighting against someone.

pasbury 20 Jun 2019
In reply to David Riley:

The point is she was using a straw man. Where was the evidence for this widespread sense of 'entitlement', and could it not be just an awareness of rights as well as responsibility.

This trope was planted by thatcher and has since festered into a resentment of 'benefits claimants' as leeches and cheats - even though the figures show cheating costs the taxpayer almost nothing. the gutter press can take a huge responsibility for building this nasty fiction.

3
 neilh 20 Jun 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Well considering the Arabs are always fighting each other I am not sure it’s a good saying!

MRI scan is a service and you can equally argue that your tax is paying rent to somebody to provide that service. 

It is of course interesting to debate these points. 

Post edited at 10:49
1
 jethro kiernan 20 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

I’m not sure your reading other people’s posts properly :-/

In reply to pasbury:

It certainly wasn’t planted by Thatcher; it’s a hardy perennial going back to the Poor Laws and, I am sure, long, long before - to whenever the notion was first propagated that maybe rich men should prevent poor men starving, I imagine.

jcm

 Mike Stretford 20 Jun 2019
In reply to baron:

> Do you really find the concept of personal responsibility and looking after your neighbour chilling ?

No, I do both.

The point is we do not live in a homogeneous society with rich living next to poor, giving a helping hand when needed. Poor are concentrated in poor communities which the better off never go to. Poor people do help each other, mostly, but there's obviously a limit to what they can do. 

The better off give their kids the best start in life, they know it matters, then the right wing ones whinge about kids born into sink estates not taking personal responsibility. Pathetic.

And the thing is, there's no avoiding the spend in a populace post industrial country. Look what happens when the right wing wet dream is actually implemented. People with no hope turn to crime, so the US spends 3 time per capita what we do on locking people up (6 times per capita prison population). So children are born into poverty with parents in jail, not the best start in life and the cycle continues.

1
 neilh 20 Jun 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

Just reading yours 

pasbury 20 Jun 2019
In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

> It certainly wasn’t planted by Thatcher; it’s a hardy perennial going back to the Poor Laws and, I am sure, long, long before - to whenever the notion was first propagated that maybe rich men should prevent poor men starving, I imagine.

> jcm

Yes you're right; but I think the Thatcher years were a turning point away from the idea of a social contract; represented most visibly by the building of a welfare state that had been in progress for most of the twentieth century.

In reply to TobyA:

> Or is it?

No.

> social science

pfffttt...

> but then why does it seem that all our lives are structured by a society that predates us?

Primate empathy.

1
 seankenny 20 Jun 2019
In reply to pec:

> ... at some point we shouldn't have been borrowing at all.

So you're saying that the UK government should have paid off *all* its debt and not borrow any money at all? This throws up two questions. 

Firstly, the UK government has borrowed money for hundreds of years. What do you know that Thatcher, Atlee, Gladstone, Walpole, etc, didn't know?

Secondly, what about when our pension funds want to invest a portion of our money in something safe with a guaranteed return, how are they going to do this without government bonds, ie debt?

 neilh 20 Jun 2019
In reply to pasbury:

It was dead in the late 60's  early 70's before Thatcher.As an example the unions breaking social contract guidelines on wage increases whilst ignoring the inflationary effects on the rest of society.

It can be argued that the sense of collectivism was a hangover from WW2 where everything was - naturally - very planned as we were turned into an industrial base fighting Nazism.Naturally that faded with time.I doubt for example the NHS would have been set up without WW2.

Post edited at 13:23
2
 jethro kiernan 20 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

> It was dead in the late 60's  early 70's before Thatcher.As an example the unions breaking social contract guidelines on wage increases whilst ignoring the inflationary effects on the rest of society.

The world was going through a financial crisis and inflation was rampant world wide, the union has a contract with its members to ensure the continued improvement in wages and conditions (maybe they didn’t go about it in the best way and the broke ranks with labour policy) inflation means that the unions have to ask for more to ensure their members stay on the same wage relative to the cost of living. quite how we came to believe the urban myth that all problems of the 70’s were down to the unions but it proved a useful tool to push thatchers neoliberal agenda.

maybe with stronger unions we might not have rolled over quite as much when we were told we had to take one for the team in the form of austerity. And our ridiculous wage curve between top and bottom wouldn’t look as bad compared to our neighbours 

 wbo 20 Jun 2019
In reply to seankenny:. More to the point, how do you take the effects of inflation  - if the state doesn't borrow money then it gradually becomes poorer, then rapidly becomes poorer.  It also very greatly limits the ability of the general economy to grow.

It's a nonsense, up there with returning to the gold standard

Post edited at 14:43
 neilh 20 Jun 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

It was part of the overall picture and just illustrates that the so called social contract had started to brake down in the 1960's( they were also called wages and incomes policies in another guise).Nothing against the unions, it was just they were not keeping pace with the rate of social and economic change both in the UK and globally.There were also a number of other instituitions that failed to keep pace ( management was hardly a paragon of virtue at the time).

As I said if you really want to go back to proper collectivisim etc you need to look at WW2 and the changes that brought to society.But you need a global war for that strong collective sense of community I am not sure that either of us desire that.

Our wage curve is no different plus or minus a bit to most of our neighbours. Just more hidden say in Germany where there are more billionaires its just their secrecy keeps them out of the public eye for example.

Post edited at 14:50
 Pefa 21 Jun 2019
In reply to jethro kiernan:

> quite how we came to believe the urban myth that all problems of the 70’s were down to the unions but it proved a useful tool to push thatchers neoliberal agenda.

Murdoch the dirty digger told Thatcher if she promised to change the law prohibiting him from buying another paper - he owned The Sun but wanted to buy The Times as well- then he would ensure she got voted into power in 1979.

She promised and so did he by completely demonising the trade union movement and exaggerating the effects of strikes. If you looked at his disgusting gutter press you would be forgiven for thinking we had the largest amount of strike days lost but in reality more strike days were lost in France and West Germany during the so called winter of discontent than in the UK.

But as is the case people believe what the media want them to hence why the billionaires own over 80% of the British media. And they are all tory. 

Post edited at 18:19
1
baron 21 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

I feel better now that I know that I didn’t really have to do my homework by candlelight. Thanks for correcting my memory.

 Blunderbuss 21 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

> Murdoch the dirty digger told Thatcher if she promised to change the law prohibiting him from buying another paper - he owned The Sun but wanted to buy The Times as well- then he would ensure she got voted into power in 1979.

> She promised and so did he by completely demonising the trade union movement and exaggerating the effects of strikes. If you looked at his disgusting gutter press you would be forgiven for thinking we had the largest amount of strike days lost but in reality more strike days were lost in France and West Germany during the so called winter of discontent than in the UK.

> But as is the case people believe what the media want them to hence why the billionaires own over 80% of the British media. And they are all tory. 

How old are you? 

 neilh 22 Jun 2019
In reply to Pefa:

Have you heard of the 3 day working week at the time because of the power cuts for example?

Lusk 22 Jun 2019
In reply to neilh:

3 day weeks ... Happy days!

Bring em back I say 😀


New Topic
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...