Exciting but somehow sad - saw Baroness Thatcher today
Discussion
Blue Meanie said:
Vario-Rob said:
Just the other day I saw Norman Tebbit in the Bury St. Edmunds Waitrose and pretty much the same.
Once the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
How old is he? A carrier bag for life might not be that long. Once the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
Shortly after he moved to BSE he kicked up a right old stink when he complained about the frightful noise the Chinese were making whilst celebrating New Year.
BSE is not home to many Chinese it has to be said and what noise there was came from the restaurant a few doors up, bless him!
Still I expect Barnsley was never going to be a retirement option.
Vario-Rob said:
Just the other day I saw Norman Tebbit in the Bury St. Edmunds Waitrose and pretty much the same.
Once the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
He is a closet green isn't he? I seem to recall he was very keen on promoting cyclingOnce the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
CDP said:
Vario-Rob said:
Just the other day I saw Norman Tebbit in the Bury St. Edmunds Waitrose and pretty much the same.
Once the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
He is a closet green isn't he? I seem to recall he was very keen on promoting cyclingOnce the scourge of trade unions in his black leather flying jacket but today just another old bloke trying to get his shopping into a carrier bag.
One disappointing thing to note, he was using a carrier bag for life
.Blue Meanie said:
Appeal to authority. You'd be better off explaining why you feel that way, rather than just spouting a quote. Socialism isn't a blanket communist style thing. There are varying degrees of it. Having a national health service is socialist. Having unemployment benefit is socialist, however, are these things intrinsically bad?
I think that you are confusing socialism with social responsibility, which is essential, but should not deprive people of the incentive and opportunity to get out and improve both society and their own position by their own efforts.Since we are into quotes, I'll quote Lord Nuffield - 'Organization is the enemy of initiative'. Think about it.
Jimbeaux said:
cardigankid said:
Britain's national suicide was of course very beneficial to the USA!
How do you figure that?I could go on to point out the way in which BP (which is the only thing keeping private pensions in the UK afloat)is having 'a boot on its throat' in the Gulf, which contrasts rather dramatically with the US domestic response to Hurricane Katrina or Union Carbide's compensation to the families of the thousands of Indian people it killed in the Bhopal poison gas explosion. They were 'gooks' I suppose.
Now I think that the States is admirable in a number of ways, but the whole thing is a bit one sided wouldn't you say? So I think that if the US wishes to pursue a gung ho, badly informed and ill considered foreign policy it is time for the UK to bow out.
Does that cover it?
cardigankid said:
Blue Meanie said:
Appeal to authority. You'd be better off explaining why you feel that way, rather than just spouting a quote. Socialism isn't a blanket communist style thing. There are varying degrees of it. Having a national health service is socialist. Having unemployment benefit is socialist, however, are these things intrinsically bad?
I think that you are confusing socialism with social responsibility, which is essential, but should not deprive people of the incentive and opportunity to get out and improve both society and their own position by their own efforts.Since we are into quotes, I'll quote Lord Nuffield - 'Organization is the enemy of initiative'. Think about it.
It depends I suppose on your definition of socialist. In my view, they are two different but related things, and it is as wrong to regard 'a little bit of Socialism' as a good thing as it would be a little bit of cancer.
A welfare scheme which guarantees without qualification rights to healthcare, education or financial support, or attempts to 'redistribute' wealth on the basis of political judgement, often without regard to the financial implications, are 'socialist', as well as doomed to failure in most cases, so my definition of 'socialist' has a lot to do with political engineering based on left wing dogma.
A health service which offers a service wherever needed at a known and sustainable cost in personal contribution and tax burden, or a tertiary education system which is open to all with the ability, the cost of which is shared partly by the Government (in respect of the expected benefit to the nation) but largely by the prospective student through future payment from earnings, are socially responsible. My definition of social responsibility implies, you will note, a degree of common sense signally lacking in socialism.
I will say this for the States. Someone going to College/University does so in the knowledge that it is going to cost them, and takes the decision and choice of course seriously. The Universities know they have to deliver in return. And if I had a serious medical problem I would be in the Mayo Clinic Minnesota not the Southern General Glasgow. That has a lot to do with a lack of a sense of obligation by the medical staff to the individual patient, which is imho a very great deal to do with 'socialism'.
A welfare scheme which guarantees without qualification rights to healthcare, education or financial support, or attempts to 'redistribute' wealth on the basis of political judgement, often without regard to the financial implications, are 'socialist', as well as doomed to failure in most cases, so my definition of 'socialist' has a lot to do with political engineering based on left wing dogma.
A health service which offers a service wherever needed at a known and sustainable cost in personal contribution and tax burden, or a tertiary education system which is open to all with the ability, the cost of which is shared partly by the Government (in respect of the expected benefit to the nation) but largely by the prospective student through future payment from earnings, are socially responsible. My definition of social responsibility implies, you will note, a degree of common sense signally lacking in socialism.
I will say this for the States. Someone going to College/University does so in the knowledge that it is going to cost them, and takes the decision and choice of course seriously. The Universities know they have to deliver in return. And if I had a serious medical problem I would be in the Mayo Clinic Minnesota not the Southern General Glasgow. That has a lot to do with a lack of a sense of obligation by the medical staff to the individual patient, which is imho a very great deal to do with 'socialism'.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 16th October 15:56
There you go again. As I said, the extremes of most ideologies are damaging. Instead of taking my point about small socialist programs, you head off on some redistribution of wealth tangent. That is completely separate to the things I mentioned.
You seem to have embedded in your mind the extremes, and not simply the middle ground. Socialism does not mean that there is redistribution of wealth, or f
k the rich to help the poor. That is extreme socialism. Socialism can simply be something like the NHS, where everyone contributes, and you can get healthcare, without worrying about a massive, bankrupting medical bill, simply for wishing to stay alive. It can be an education put in place so all can have a decent education, and not just have it there for those who happen to have been born in a rich family. These are not bad things. It does not mean that you automatically end up in some communist state where everyone is equal, despite their contribution to society, etc.
You seem to have embedded in your mind the extremes, and not simply the middle ground. Socialism does not mean that there is redistribution of wealth, or f
k the rich to help the poor. That is extreme socialism. Socialism can simply be something like the NHS, where everyone contributes, and you can get healthcare, without worrying about a massive, bankrupting medical bill, simply for wishing to stay alive. It can be an education put in place so all can have a decent education, and not just have it there for those who happen to have been born in a rich family. These are not bad things. It does not mean that you automatically end up in some communist state where everyone is equal, despite their contribution to society, etc. digimeistter said:
The NHS & Benefits "system" coupled with the "Human Rights Act" will ultimately lead to this Country's downfall
No... Theoor running of the NHS, and the abuse of the benefit system, (I agree they have taken it too far, but that falls into the extreme bracket of the argument), will be the downfall. On their own, and run well, both are beneficial. Your not getting it.
I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 16th October 16:23
cardigankid said:
Your not getting it.
I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
I think you're the one not getting it. The NHS, minimum wage (et al) IS a form of socialism. It doesn't matter what your personal definition of socialism is, the point is that those systems take money from everyone and redistribute it based on who needs it, even if those people hardly contributed. They are anti-capitalist if you will.I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 16th October 16:23
And when you say "having a little bit of socialism is like saying you have a little bit of cancer" it just proves that you don't really know what you are talking about. You sound like the polar opposite of an hardcore communist who might say something ridiculous like "having a little bit of capitalism is like having a little bit of cancer".
To me it sounds like you are probably just one of those people who react emotionally to the word 'socialism' (see lots of American voters for an example).
The bottom line is that a balance needs to be struck. Have unadulterated pure capitalism and it isn't pretty. Have unadulterated socialism and it isn't pretty either.
In theory, have an appropriate mix and we get the best of both worlds. (both capitalism and socialism have their pros and cons - you would be mad to suggest that capitalism is 100% good and socialism 100% bad)
Shay HTFC said:
The bottom line is that a balance needs to be struck. Have unadulterated pure capitalism and it isn't pretty. Have unadulterated socialism and it isn't pretty either.
In theory, have an appropriate mix and we get the best of both worlds. (both capitalism and socialism have their pros and cons - you would be mad to suggest that capitalism is 100% good and socialism 100% bad)
Good postIn theory, have an appropriate mix and we get the best of both worlds. (both capitalism and socialism have their pros and cons - you would be mad to suggest that capitalism is 100% good and socialism 100% bad)
I have no idea what "Theoor" is though
Shay HTFC said:
cardigankid said:
Your not getting it.
I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
I think you're the one not getting it. The NHS, minimum wage (et al) IS a form of socialism. It doesn't matter what your personal definition of socialism is, the point is that those systems take money from everyone and redistribute it based on who needs it, even if those people hardly contributed. They are anti-capitalist if you will.I am saying that, to me, socialism is social engineering driven by political dogma, and as such is a bad thing, whether in small or large, moderate or extreme quantities. If people didn't hold views like those you are putting forward, then incompetent politicians would not keep being elected to carry out urgent practical reform and making a balls of it.
To have concern for other human beings - even if it just realising that we are all in this together - does not involve being a 'socialist'. In fact it involves not being one.
Edited by cardigankid on Saturday 16th October 16:23
And when you say "having a little bit of socialism is like saying you have a little bit of cancer" it just proves that you don't really know what you are talking about. You sound like the polar opposite of an hardcore communist who might say something ridiculous like "having a little bit of capitalism is like having a little bit of cancer".
To me it sounds like you are probably just one of those people who react emotionally to the word 'socialism' (see lots of American voters for an example).
The bottom line is that a balance needs to be struck. Have unadulterated pure capitalism and it isn't pretty. Have unadulterated socialism and it isn't pretty either.
In theory, have an appropriate mix and we get the best of both worlds. (both capitalism and socialism have their pros and cons - you would be mad to suggest that capitalism is 100% good and socialism 100% bad)
cardigankid said:
Jimbeaux said:
cardigankid said:
Britain's national suicide was of course very beneficial to the USA!
How do you figure that?I could go on to point out the way in which BP (which is the only thing keeping private pensions in the UK afloat)is having 'a boot on its throat' in the Gulf, which contrasts rather dramatically with the US domestic response to Hurricane Katrina or Union Carbide's compensation to the families of the thousands of Indian people it killed in the Bhopal poison gas explosion. They were 'gooks' I suppose.
Now I think that the States is admirable in a number of ways, but the whole thing is a bit one sided wouldn't you say? So I think that if the US wishes to pursue a gung ho, badly informed and ill considered foreign policy it is time for the UK to bow out.
Does that cover it?
This sounds like a bunch of sour grapes. As to the "federal response" to Katrina, be careful that you know what you speak of. cardigankid said:
Well I didn't want you to think that we are all just going to agree with you, like Cameron seems to be doing with Hillary Clinton just now, so I'll explain. Britain had to surrender its global dominance so America could take its turn,
It didn't surrender it. It lost it on the fields of WW1. Made it convenient that the only major competition in the world spent so much of the 20th century killing each other.cardigankid said:
pay for two world wars of which America was the prime beneficiary and come out financially and industrially stuffed, and now we are expected to contribute to the cost of an American weapon system we don't need and 'punch above our weight'
Not anymore. Not that American pressure was the key characteristic. The UK liked being an actor on the world stage and the "punch above it's weight" was thought to be a key part of foreign policy.cardigankid said:
in the United Nations, to preserve a 'Special Relationship' which seems to involve supporting countries (including 'Screw the Peace Process and starve Gaza out' Israel) which have some serious moral issues and joining in a lot of wars which it is hard to see the relevance of to a small island in the NW Atlantic, and at the end get next to none of the reconstruction contracts that result.
Not all the much in practice these days. If anything the UK was one of the key supporters of Israel back in the 50's/60's. Does no one remember the old plan to take the Suez Canel back? cardigankid said:
We're on the Security Council. Wowee, big deal. America wishes to adopt the role of world policeman so that it can shape the world in the way it wishes. That is very expensive, but that, my friends, is the cost of empire. Do it if you must, and learn the same lessons the UK did, but don't tell the UK that it's our moral duty to join in.
Well you shouldn't be on the council nor should the french. Basic fundamental issue with the council is that it's suppose to be a club of the major powers and you aren't anymore. It should be the US, Russia, India, China, Europe (as a unified seat), and maybe Brazil. Problem is that it wasn't designed to be changed so that's why it still looks like a list of from the 40's. Thing about being the world policeman is that its nice to complain about it but when something terrible happens all of sudden you need it. No individual European country as the projection capacity to deal with anything more then a minor incident and even combined it's not impressive. Far to disorganized. Defense budgets have been cut to such a level that Europe is losing what little military industry it still has.
Heck, Having british in the name seems to be uncommon. BP drops it and now BAE is majority based in the US.
The basic international system of laws, finance, and trade are beneficial to the world and it would be nice if someone else protected it from time to time...
cardigankid said:
Now I think that the States is admirable in a number of ways, but the whole thing is a bit one sided wouldn't you say? So I think that if the US wishes to pursue a gung ho, badly informed and ill considered foreign policy it is time for the UK to bow out.
Does that cover it?
Welcome to the EU.... Hope you enjoy the stay. Does that cover it?
Thatcher declining is very tragically symbolic. The last Prime Minister that mattered and the only one in modern history I would have vote for even in hindsight.
Tadite said:
Well you shouldn't be on the council nor should the french. Basic fundamental issue with the council is that it's suppose to be a club of the major powers and you aren't anymore. It should be the US, Russia, India, China, Europe (as a unified seat), and maybe Brazil. Problem is that it wasn't designed to be changed so that's why it still looks like a list of from the 40's.
Thats debatable. Britain is still approximately the 6th largest economy in the world, but more to the point higher than that in military capability and the willingness to use said power. Europe just doesnt have that willingness. In fact subtract Britain and it doesnt have much military power either. Brazil?? You jest.s2art said:
Thats debatable. Britain is still approximately the 6th largest economy in the world, but more to the point higher than that in military capability and the willingness to use said power. Europe just doesnt have that willingness. In fact subtract Britain and it doesnt have much military power either. Brazil?? You jest.
Very true. When it comes to large scale deployment only the Brits and France have current capacity for independent operations. Thing is if you added the EU together it would be the largest economy in the world at $16 Trillion or just a little higher then the US. Using standard 2% military budget of GDP (which NATO has been arguing for 30 years and being ignored) that's a $320 Billion defense budget (half what the US is spending but that's not sustainable) but in reality means hundreds of deep water ships, an airforce in the thousands, and likely a good million or so professional volunteer troops who can then be moved around the world. Now Europe is relying upon less then a 25% of that capacity... and that's likely a overestimate. Most European countries would rather have a military for parades and then spend the money on social services. Economists would call them free riders.
haha. Brazil. Well you know how it is. 8th largest economy in the world, single largest agricultural exporter in the world, wide technological and industrial achievements, and a large population. All adds up to one of the fastest growing economies in the world. As long as they stay political stable and continue to work on education and income disparity they will be reasonably large power. Not China/US/India/EU sized of course but 5th or 6th in the world isn't bad and likely should get a seat.
I still would have rather had Thatcher then Reagan or Bush I.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff