The 2015 Popularity Contest (aka UK General Election )

[peteblue]

Quick warning when debating with Peteblue; he lived through Thatcherism, just in case you didn't know, which totally validates everything he has to say on the matter as fact. If you didn't live through it you have no understanding on the issue at all.

This ignorance is why it is pointless.

Once again, you got it completely wrong......

 

[edge]

Singapore had a sort of benign dictatorship, as it was described to me by a colleague who was based there. Lots of central control but all focussed on generating wealth in order to provide infrastructure and services to the populace.

I like the comparison with complex systems and chaos theory, as you say no one person or group can totally control events especially when others are involved. An example would be Russia totay where Putin has complete control and is fully supported by the people, but sanctions and the oil price are decimating the economy.....

have been there Pete, Singapore safest place abroad i have been to even late into the night , coppers are harsh with the people if they step out of line, some local woman jumped the taxi Que, and the plain clothes coppers jumped out of a car and beat the hell out of her, i mean booting her all over the place, then said sorry to us for her bad manners, and just left her there, imagine that over here

 

[edge]

The idea of Boris in charge scares the crap out of me. The world is a dangerous place at the moment and while most of this debate has been internally focused on the economy, defence and International relationships are going to be crucial over the next ten years.

I agree about the borrowing going up, that's what prompted my original remark of 'what austerity'.........

if call me Dave dosnt win the election( i think he will) it will be Osborne or Boris at the helm dangerous times indeed

 

[Bruce Wayne]

You think Stalin was a Marxist? You need to wise up, mate.

As though Capitalism doesn't have the blood of millions on its hands

Try telling that to the peasants who suffered under Somoza in Nicaragua or Batista in Cuba or any number of central and south American nations where "capitalism" and the USA shackled millions. Try asking Jamaican farmers if "capitalism" is working.

Didn't know IDS used to work in Czechoslovakia.

Is it telling? In what way? Are you saying that there are no enemies of the state in the West? That Edward Snowden is not seen an enemy of the state even though he acted in the interests of the people? That the CIA has not assassinated thousands of "enemies of the state" over the decades?

Eugenics is more a Nazi thing, is it not, although state sponsored sterilisation has also taken place in America, Peru, Israel, Sweden and even post velvet revolution Czech Republic. And then there's the treatment of the indiginous populations of the USA, Australia, south America. Wholesale kidnapping of children, mass murder, rape, enslavement, genocide - that sort of nasty business.

When the Sandinistas overthrew Somoza, half the population was illiterate. Within a few years, 88% could read.

Really? Why don't you point it out, then? You never do.

Even if that were true - and the points I make above cast huge doubt over than assertion - does that mean we can't criticise liberal capitalism? And are you denying it was a liberal capitalist ideology that lead to the economic crash?

I'm not suggesting that capitalism is perfect, or at least the form of it practised by most western democracies, merely that the majority of implementations of socialist branded central economies have been awful failures and have done little to give real power or freedom to the citizens of those nations.

The Nordic countries seem to be doing well, and I'm a big fan of the various participatory budgeting projects that are emerging around the world, but those kind of projects that return some power to people don't seem to be what is advocated when we talk of socialism in these discussions.

It seems that a central power is still what is demanded, albeit one that is benevolent (to whatever demands are seemed appropriate). I'm not sure that's really any better than having power centralised in corporate hands.

 

[peteblue]

Dude, it really isn't as simple as that, though, as someone who is much more left wing than the major parties, I'll agree that they all need to shoulder their share of the blame. The notion of Thatcherism as some sort of economic miracle is long-exploded, though, no matter which way you look at it and I get the feeling that you're avoiding that core issue in all of this.

The Blessed Margaret and her ideology have been thoroughly discredited.

Of course it isn't that simple. We've never, ever, had someone in charge who got everything right, or even most of it right. My favourite PM was Harold Wilson who was as smart as they come, but he got dragged down as well. I think the reason people will defend Maggie is not because she was some fantastic person, but that some things she got right as well as getting somethings spectacularly wrong. Tony Blair did the same. It happens and we all understand that.

I can't be doing with anyone who has an ideology because no single ideology suits us all.

The scary bit for me is having a lightweight PM such as Miliband. Cameron was the same but at least he's now got some experience, he's still crap mind........

 

[peteblue]

have been there Pete, Singapore safest place abroad i have been to even late into the night , coppers are harsh with the people if they step out of line, some local woman jumped the taxi Que, and the plain clothes coppers jumped out of a car and beat the hell out of her, i mean booting her all over the place, then said sorry to us for her bad manners, and just left her there, imagine that over here

Same used to happen in Liverpool, but without the cops.....

 

[peteblue]

I'm not suggesting that capitalism is perfect, or at least the form of it practised by most western democracies, merely that the majority of implementations of socialist branded central economies have been awful failures and have done little to give real power or freedom to the citizens of those nations.

The Nordic countries seem to be doing well, and I'm a big fan of the various participatory budgeting projects that are emerging around the world, but those kind of projects that return some power to people don't seem to be what is advocated when we talk of socialism in these discussions.

It seems that a central power is still what is demanded, albeit one that is benevolent (to whatever demands are seemed appropriate). I'm not sure that's really any better than having power centralised in corporate hands.

In the world we have some outstandingly bad examples of Capitalism and Socialism. I have always favoured an approach of capitalism for wealth generation and socialism for distributing our wealth. The problem is that we can only get that by first voting in Capitalists then after a while vote in the Socialists, and repeat. I think there have been elements in this coalition which have been quite different to the norm, and if we could ever get a government made up of both the Conservatives AND Labour where they are looking after the country and not looking at the next election we could be onto a winner.........

 

[Lukaku'sLeftTesticle]

'My kids can't get a school place!'
'Rent and house prices are extortionate!'
'Wages are to low pay the living wage!'
'Millions of our youths need jobs!'
'The NHS is dying !'


Better import another 576,000 people then

 

[bring the ghost on]

I think the reason people will defend Maggie is not because she was some fantastic person, but that some things she got right as well as getting somethings spectacularly wrong. Tony Blair did the same. It happens and we all understand that.

The subtext of your post is that Thatcher and Blair made some mistakes and we should just understand and move on because mistakes happen.

The problem is that they didn't make mistakes, they made conscious decisions which had horrendous affects on millions of lives. Thatcher more so domestically, and Blair more so with foreign affairs, both of them were unforgiving of anyone who happened to be in the way of their ideological pursuits - put it down as collateral damage.

 

[peteblue]

The subtext of your post is that Thatcher and Blair made some mistakes and we should just understand and move on because mistakes happen.

The problem is that they didn't make 'mistakes', they made conscious decisions which had horrendous affects on millions of lives. Thatcher more so domestically, and Blair more so with foreign affairs, both of them were unforgiving of anyone who happened to be in the way of their ideological pursuits - just collateral damage to them.

Personally I would like to see Blair brought to court over taking the country to war based on lies........

 

[edge]

Personally I would like to see Blair brought to court over taking the country to war based on lies........

agree not going to happen unfortunatly

 

[peteblue]

This TV debate malarkey is hotting up and getting sillier by the day. Whether they are of any use or not we have discussed before, but it's now got to the point where the BBC et al are now telling the Prime Minister that he must turn up at a certain points of time just because they want to broadcast a series of shows. If I were DC I'd tell them all to [Poor language removed]. What would happen if Milliband said he didn't want to do it, would there be two empty chairs ?. Who the fck do these broadcasters think they are......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Singapore had a sort of benign dictatorship, as it was described to me by a colleague who was based there. Lots of central control but all focussed on generating wealth in order to provide infrastructure and services to the populace.

I like the comparison with complex systems and chaos theory, as you say no one person or group can totally control events especially when others are involved. An example would be Russia totay where Putin has complete control and is fully supported by the people, but sanctions and the oil price are decimating the economy.....

It does require a level of humility that I suppose is by its very nature lacking in many leaders though.

 

[peteblue]

It does require a level of humility that I suppose is by its very nature lacking in many leaders though.

Even the pope throws his weight around......

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Even the pope throws his weight around......

There are many similarities between religious leaders and political leaders (and indeed in their followers).