Also in the news

[Buce]

36 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your exact words were "they were mostly cutting public spending at an eye-watering rate so as to eliminate the deficit & reduce public spending to 35%", not eye-watering cuts for unprotected areas. You referred to public spending as a whole hence you spoke of 35% of GDP. But yes if you move the goalposts I can accept it could be eye-watering in some areas. 

 

 

Presumably therefore you're struggling for evidence given that you managed 4 'sources' on eye-watering cuts but one supposedly on ideology which is about about the state taking a step back from people's lives (you can have a higher spending state without interfering in people's lives, it's what the Nordics do), not explicitly about economic policy (he never had much interest in economic policy himself) and makes perfect sense when matched up to Cameron's words about being as "radical a social reformer as Thatcher an economic reformer". In fact his social 'reforms' show, him floating with the wind rather than having an idea of what society should look like. His most reform on this was same-sex marriage despite him having previously been 'squeamish' on the matter. Which fits with Cameron's own words "that I'm not a deeply ideological person" and "I'm a practical person" and his stated preference for instinct rather than introspection. Rupert Murdoch said that "he doesn't believe in anything, he's a PR guy" and a tutor at uni said he didn't concern himself with philosophy. As for Osborne, his biographer described him as "an extreme pragmatist, even less ideological than David Cameron". Alistair Darling said he was a cynical opportunist. He was always seen as the political strategist of the operation and he followed public opinion; the public at the time believing cuts were necessary and that Labour policy (despite barely opposing it at the time) was the reason for economic woe. 

 

Yeah the Big Society was a slogan without a policy, its almost as if it backs up the idea they were media politicians rather than ideological. 

 

Regardless of anything else, the cuts the Tories made to Welfare payments was purely ideological: juxtaposing slogans like 'workers and shirkers' and 'strivers and skivers' were used to justify slashing benefit payments to the unemployed, the sick and the young. They made no attempt to hide their ideological belief that making it more difficult to live on benefits was the best way to get people into work, and that no one on benefits should receive more than a working man/woman. They made no attempt to hide their belief that work is liberating and that anyone capable of breathing should be eligible. They tightened up the qualification for sickness benefits to such an extent that dying people were deemed able to work. All of that is a matter of public record.

 

You can argue all you like about whether it was fair or not but the fact that it was an ideological assault on the unemployed isn't even open to debate.

[Alf Bentley]

29 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Your exact words were "they were mostly cutting public spending at an eye-watering rate so as to eliminate the deficit & reduce public spending to 35%", not eye-watering cuts for unprotected areas. You referred to public spending as a whole hence you spoke of 35% of GDP. But yes if you move the goalposts I can accept it could be eye-watering in some areas. 

 

I don't distance myself from that comment. Most areas of public spending were unprotected - and suffered eye-watering cuts. I presume that the overall impact (spending not falling much below norms from previous decades) was because a couple of those protected areas - pensions & NHS - are two of the biggest spending areas. But that is also in a context where, with a mushrooming elderly population & growing numbers of children, you might expect a temporary INCREASE in public spending just to maintain per capita spending on dependent age-groups

 

29 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

 

Presumably therefore you're struggling for evidence given that you managed 4 'sources' on eye-watering cuts but one supposedly on ideology which is about about the state taking a step back from people's lives (you can have a higher spending state without interfering in people's lives, it's what the Nordics do), not explicitly about economic policy (he never had much interest in economic policy himself) and makes perfect sense when matched up to Cameron's words about being as "radical a social reformer as Thatcher an economic reformer". In fact his social 'reforms' show, him floating with the wind rather than having an idea of what society should look like. His most reform on this was same-sex marriage despite him having previously been 'squeamish' on the matter. Which fits with Cameron's own words "that I'm not a deeply ideological person" and "I'm a practical person" and his stated preference for instinct rather than introspection. Rupert Murdoch said that "he doesn't believe in anything, he's a PR guy" and a tutor at uni said he didn't concern himself with philosophy. As for Osborne, his biographer described him as "an extreme pragmatist, even less ideological than David Cameron". Alistair Darling said he was a cynical opportunist. He was always seen as the political strategist of the operation and he followed public opinion; the public at the time believing cuts were necessary and that Labour policy (despite barely opposing it at the time) was the reason for economic woe. 

 

Yeah the Big Society was a slogan without a policy, its almost as if it backs up the idea they were media politicians rather than ideological. 

 

Er, no, I wasn't "struggling for evidence". I was amazed that I found so much evidence so quickly, as I didn't have much time. I had to reply quickly so as to go and cook dinner for my daughter, then eat, then watch a bit of Glastonbury coverage with her before my ex-wife came to pick her up. 

 

Anyway, this is supposed to be a discussion of ideas, not a willy-waggling contest about who can find most examples! I'm happy for you to think that you won or that I dodged your killer argument if that's what you want. Indeed, I'm happy to tell everyone that you've got a bigger penis than me....but I thought you were better than that?!    

 

I'm sure that, with 5 minutes on Google, either one of us could find multiple quotes "proving" that (a) Cameron & Osborne were ideological; and (b) they were not. There's probably some truth in both arguments. Certainly, references to them as "PR guy", "extreme pragmatist", "cynical opportunist" and "following public opinion" ring true.

 

However, was Big Society just a slogan without a policy, or was it a cover for an ideological policy? The Big Society element was mainly substance-free PR guff/rhetoric, but the Smaller State bit wasn't. Yes, they were pragmatic/following the public in "protecting" the NHS & pensions, but they cut hard in most other areas - and explicitly wanted to cut spending back to 35-36% (can't remember precise figure)....at a time when that would have equated to a lower rate than previous years in per capita terms, due to the higher dependency ratio in recent years.

[Kopfkino]

9 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

I don't distance myself from that comment. Most areas of public spending were unprotected - and suffered eye-watering cuts. I presume that the overall impact (spending not falling much below norms from previous decades) was because a couple of those protected areas - pensions & NHS - are two of the biggest spending areas. But that is also in a context where, with a mushrooming elderly population & growing numbers of children, you might expect a temporary INCREASE in public spending just to maintain per capita spending on dependent age-groups

 

 

Er, no, I wasn't "struggling for evidence". I was amazed that I found so much evidence so quickly, as I didn't have much time. I had to reply quickly so as to go and cook dinner for my daughter, then eat, then watch a bit of Glastonbury coverage with her before my ex-wife came to pick her up. 

 

Anyway, this is supposed to be a discussion of ideas, not a willy-waggling contest about who can find most examples! I'm happy for you to think that you won or that I dodged your killer argument if that's what you want. Indeed, I'm happy to tell everyone that you've got a bigger penis than me....but I thought you were better than that?!    

 

I'm sure that, with 5 minutes on Google, either one of us could find multiple quotes "proving" that (a) Cameron & Osborne were ideological; and (b) they were not. There's probably some truth in both arguments. Certainly, references to them as "PR guy", "extreme pragmatist", "cynical opportunist" and "following public opinion" ring true.

 

However, was Big Society just a slogan without a policy, or was it a cover for an ideological policy? The Big Society element was mainly substance-free PR guff/rhetoric, but the Smaller State bit wasn't. Yes, they were pragmatic/following the public in "protecting" the NHS & pensions, but they cut hard in most other areas - and explicitly wanted to cut spending back to 35-36% (can't remember precise figure)....at a time when that would have equated to a lower rate than previous years in per capita terms, due to the higher dependency ratio in recent years.

 

Managed the time for 4 sources to manoeuvre your point on spending. It wasn't a willy-wagging contest or anything of the sort, I just thought a singular weak example might be a sign of your struggle, and certainly not thinking about winning or that I provided a killer argument. I'll keep my elbows tucked henceforth though. 

 

Yeah you can find anything on google (or just the guardian search bar on here) if you type in the right words. That's why I'm more interested in the multiple biographies written about both and the words of those that have close experience with them rather than googled articles. At the end of the day only a few people know to what extent it was ideological so there is no way for any of us to actually know, it's just discussion and opinion (tbf my style and approach isn't the best). Buce believes that their rhetoric shows it was all ideological, and I don't deny the possibility, but again the rhetoric fitted with public opinion at the time that it could easily be political pandering. They were rudderless before deficit reduction came along and what better way to sell it than exploiting societal beliefs about work (hard workers) v welfare (scroungers). I genuinely don't believe that either Osborne or Cameron care too much about 'skivers and strivers' beyond its political value to them. And I do believe had it actually be ideological it would have been done 'better' because there'd have been a clear fiscal strategy. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

14 minutes ago, Kopfkino said:

 

Managed the time for 4 sources to manoeuvre your point on spending. It wasn't a willy-wagging contest or anything of the sort, I just thought a singular weak example might be a sign of your struggle, and certainly not thinking about winning or that I provided a killer argument. I'll keep my elbows tucked henceforth though. 

 

Yeah you can find anything on google (or just the guardian search bar on here) if you type in the right words. That's why I'm more interested in the multiple biographies written about both and the words of those that have close experience with them rather than googled articles. At the end of the day only a few people know to what extent it was ideological so there is no way for any of us to actually know, it's just discussion and opinion (tbf my style and approach isn't the best). Buce believes that their rhetoric shows it was all ideological, and I don't deny the possibility, but again the rhetoric fitted with public opinion at the time that it could easily be political pandering. They were rudderless before deficit reduction came along and what better way to sell it than exploiting societal beliefs about work (hard workers) v welfare (scroungers). I genuinely don't believe that either Osborne or Cameron care too much about 'skivers and strivers' beyond its political value to them. And I do believe had it actually be ideological it would have been done 'better' because there'd have been a clear fiscal strategy. 

 

 

No problem. I quite like the occasional friendly exchange of sharp elbows and don't have an issue with your style and approach. 

 

You're imagining me more cunning than I really am with my examples, though. I just felt 1 example was sufficient re. ideology, then offered 1 quote to make the point about protected v. unprotected areas & 3 to show how 3 different public spending areas were hard hit (education, police & local govt)...then ran off to get cooking! 

 

I'm not sure that I could be bothered reading a biography about either man - maybe partly because I'm convinced that they are both part-pragmatist, part-ideological, but wholly unexceptional, even though they might accidentally have a big impact on British history (via Brexit & the austerity that contributed to it), despite being mediocre figures. I cannot see their fierce, if opportunistic pursuit of cuts in unprotected areas as anything but ideological......cutting public spending being ideology in the Tory DNA, even if they applied it through the "responsible deficit reduction" vote-winning PR guff.

 

Anyway, all opinion, as you say.

[Grebfromgrebland]

 

 

[Wymsey]

Sympathies go out to weller54..

[Grebfromgrebland]

If this doesn't make your blood run cold I dont know what will. We are in this midst of a fascist take over that's years in the making and may still take years to conclude but it's happening and it's accelerating.

 

There will be no winners in this.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited 1 July 2019 by Grebfromgrebland

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

18 minutes ago, Grebfromgrebland said:

If this doesn't make your blood run cold I dont know what will. We are in this midst of a fascist take over that's years in the making and may still take years to conclude but it's happening and it's accelerating.

 

There will be no winners in this.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I thought there was going to be footage on that video of Fox News saying comparable stuff.  Why does he not mention the brown-shirt like behaviour of Antifa at the weekend?

 

They are getting worse and worse it seems.  Not the only attack of theirs this week, they gave a journalist a brain hemorrhage aswell

 

 

[leicsmac]

21 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

 

I thought there was going to be footage on that video of Fox News saying comparable stuff.  Why does he not mention the brown-shirt like behaviour of Antifa at the weekend?

 

They are getting worse and worse it seems.  Not the only attack of theirs this week, they gave a journalist a brain hemorrhage aswell

 

 

That looks utterly shocking...and also we have absolutely zilch idea of what happened leading up to the event, just a clip of some poor bastard getting nailed - as much as someone should answer for that.

 

On topic, a bigger question; where were "organisations" like Antifa five years ago?

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

5 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

That looks utterly shocking...and also we have absolutely zilch idea of what happened leading up to the event, just a clip of some poor bastard getting nailed - as much as someone should answer for that.

 

On topic, a bigger question; where were "organisations" like Antifa five years ago?

There is footage of the journalist Andy Ngo going around that looks just as bad too. He was only covering the event. But yes, with the video above no idea about how it started though. These people do go around in masks and whatnot so they're intentions are not non-violent i think

 

About 5 years ago, are you saying they are possibly a response to the Trump administration? Im not saying they are or they arent btw, just not entirely sure what you're getting at there exactly? Is that what you mean?

Edited 1 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

There is footage of the journalist Andy Ngo going around that looks just as bad too. He was only covering the event. But yes, with the video above no idea about how it started though. These people do go around in masks and whatnot so they're intentions are not non-violent i think

 

About 5 years ago, are you saying they are possibly a response to the Trump administration? Im not saying they are or they arent btw, just not entirely sure what you're getting at there exactly? Is that what you mean?

Yeah, I saw the Ngo footage myself, similar kind of situation, pretty horrible.

 

As for your second paragraph...yes, I am saying exactly that - or, more pertinently (as I don't actually believe that many members of the administration are in fact that extreme) as a response to some people thinking Trumps election gives them licence to intimidate, harass and remind women and minorities that they're the ones in charge, and to be afraid because the good old days are coming back.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

Just now, leicsmac said:

Yeah, I saw the Ngo footage myself, similar kind of situation, pretty horrible.

 

As for your second paragraph...yes, I am saying exactly that - or, more pertinently (as I don't actually believe that many members of the administration are in fact that extreme) as a response to some people thinking Trumps election gives them licence to intimidate, harass and remind women and minorities that they're the ones in charge, and to be afraid because the good old days are coming back.

Aye, that assessment makes sense to me

[leicsmac]

Just now, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Aye, that assessment makes sense to me

It's worrying that everything seems to be pushing the needle to 11.

 

I've said this before, but IMO we've got more than enough of an enemy in nature if/when it gets nasty to not need to be going around looking for enemies among ourselves.

 

But people just want to people, I guess.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

It's worrying that everything seems to be pushing the needle to 11.

 

I've said this before, but IMO we've got more than enough of an enemy in nature if/when it gets nasty to not need to be going around looking for enemies among ourselves.

 

But people just want to people, I guess.

I guess you could add its the liberal culture, in the American sense, the extreme liberal culture rather, feeding the idea they are right about everything and they're ideology is so correct it gives them license to do whatever they deem necessary

 

Antifa really seem to believe they are righteous no matter what they do, which is worrying as that's a dangerous trajectory to be on

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

I guess you could add its the liberal culture, in the American sense, the extreme liberal culture rather, feeding the idea they are right about everything and they're ideology is so correct it gives them license to do whatever they deem necessary

 

Antifa really seem to believe they are righteous no matter what they do, which is worrying as that's a dangerous trajectory to be on

Liberal in extremis is not the only group who lives by that creed. The fundie Bible-thumpers, for instance, definitely got there first and quite frankly still have more power.

 

I would say that it is dangerous too, but then I can't really say too much about it because I have personal experience of knowing that one is right and no-one really wanting to see what's going on and act decisively (climate change) and so I know how frustrating that is...and how much it makes one want to resort to more extreme measures to save things.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Liberal in extremis is not the only group who lives by that creed. The fundie Bible-thumpers, for instance, definitely got there first and quite frankly still have more power.

 

I would say that it is dangerous too, but then I can't really say too much about it because I have personal experience of knowing that one is right and no-one really wanting to see what's going on and act decisively (climate change) and so I know how frustrating that is...and how much it makes one want to resort to more extreme measures to save things.

Of course they're not on their own in that regard, but as far as street violence goes only to silence speakers who dont chime in with their ideology, it seems to be Antifa.  And the MSM does not like to report this; didnt see much sympathy for this American journalist from the Guardian for example, and he was really hurt. Why not condemn Antifa?

 

Hmmm, but my impression is you would never resort to tactics like violence and bullying as they do.  I dont think worrying about the environment is comparable to Antifa's motivations or their behaviour, or similar behaviour from groups on any side.

 

The rallies by environmentalists are generally peaceful as far as i've seen, cant recall anything to the contrary anyway. Antifa is a different beast

Edited 1 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[leicsmac]

3 minutes ago, AlloverthefloorYesNdidi said:

Of course they're not on their own in that regard, but as far as street violence goes only to silence speakers who dont chime in with their ideology, it seems to be Antifa.  And the MSM does not like to report this; didnt see much sympathy for this American journalist from the Guardian for example, and he was really hurt. Why not condemn Antifa?

 

Hmmm, but my impression is you would never resort to tactics like violence and bullying as they do.  I dont think worrying about the environment is comparable to Antifa's motivations or their behaviour, or similar behaviour from group's on any side.

 

The rallies by environmentalists are generally peaceful as far as i've seen, cant recall anything to the contrary anyway. Antifa is a different beast

Some people think so, sadly.

 

I'd like to hope that if I had the power I'd never abuse it in that way in order to get something done, but at the same time I'm not sure I'd trust myself with that power if someone critical was standing in the way of crucial environmental progress and couldn't be talked round despite as many arguments being put to them as possible due to their own self-interest, which is why I truly don't seek it.

 

AFAIC the freedom to condemn the future of other people in your own self-interest is where one's freedom abruptly ends.

[Footballwipe]

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi is just a right-wing Trump sympathiser isn't he? Deflects everything with "liberal" or "left-wing." Maybe one day he might think for himself.

 

Refuses to condemn the actions and denunciation of the right before attacking the extreme left, who rightly deserve scorn. Very telling.

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

16 minutes ago, Footballwipe said:

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi is just a right-wing Trump sympathiser isn't he? Deflects everything with "liberal" or "left-wing." Maybe one day he might think for himself.

 

Refuses to condemn the actions and denunciation of the right before attacking the extreme left, who rightly deserve scorn. Very telling.

No actions were even mentioned. I watched that clip expecting to see that 40s video juxtaposed with fox news. It wasnt, so what was the point? I have seen Fox news a bit and whilst i can see why people dont like it i didnt see the comparison. Why did the guy not post specific examples? And everyone acts like its some gotcha moment. 

 

Im actually not right wing exactly. When i first started posting on here i was left wing as fook. On here i heard more political perspectives than i had done before, and i found the right wing guys do make more sense than i expected. 

 

I have since listened to and read a more broad range of political commentators online and i came here and would make suggestions more centrist/right to see how they floated

 

I have come to find the left wanting and on a track that makes less and less sense to me. This was initially a bit of a disappointment to me

 

I just wish they would not sink to the level that i always thought belonged to the right.

 

As i read many people on the left are becoming similarly disillusioned

 

I actually think my defending of Trump and the right side is me probing, desperate to find some substance on the left, i consistently fail to find it and the left resorts to lower and lower tactics

 

Just see the catastrophic decline of The Guardian in recent years

Edited 1 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[AlloverthefloorYesNdidi]

2 hours ago, Footballwipe said:

@AlloverthefloorYesNdidi is just a right-wing Trump sympathiser isn't he? Deflects everything with "liberal" or "left-wing." Maybe one day he might think for himself.

 

Refuses to condemn the actions and denunciation of the right before attacking the extreme left, who rightly deserve scorn. Very telling.

I wasnt trying to deflect, i was trying to ask why people are more inclined to make general attacks on one side about them being fascists, which i see as unsubstantiated, when we have actual groups acting like fascists on the streets against people they dont agree with

 

The police were there and did nothing. Why not? They hit people with weapons. They are masked thugs.  The media talks about it dishonestly or reluctantly

 

Why is that? I really want to know, not trying to provoke or deflect. It just doesnt make sense to me. 

 

Sorry if this makes me sound partisan. I must be living in a right wing echo chamber because i dont understand how it makes me biased

Edited 1 July 2019 by AlloverthefloorYesNdidi

[yorkie1999]

Imagine grabbing a few rays and a Kenyan stowaway splats a metre away from your sunbed, that’d put the willies up you.

 

 

Stowaway fell from Heathrow plane and 'landed next to sunbather'
http://news.sky.com/story/stowaway-found-dead-in-garden-after-falling-from-plane-near-heathrow-11752788

[Grebfromgrebland]

Johnson's actions, Trump's actions, Steve Bannons influence and fascism and where we're headed. Linked to that video I posted earlier today.

 

Anyone who can still want brexit, support trump or put it all down to paranoia or lefty liberal extremism needs to get their heads out of their arses.

 

Stop defending the bastsrds unless you're one your self, there's literally no other conclusion left. 

 

You know who you are you racist knobs.

 

 

 

 

 

[Wymsey]

An interesting article about the statistics of wealth in the UK.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48759591

 

 

Am quite surprised that Scotland is up there in terms of the below, especially after recently reading about many Scots rely on some form of benefits.

[Grebfromgrebland]

Remember these guys?

 

 

 

[David Guiza]

Almost had to pull over to vomit this morning as Iain Duncan Smith climbed further and further into Boris' rectum on 5Live, even more so when Nicky Campbell said 'our listeners love hearing from you'. 

 

He may well support both Hunt and Boris though, he's got history in that department being a supported of both Villa and Spurs.

 

Speaking of football supporting politicians, has anybody else listened to Alastair Campbell's TIFO podcast? I know he's not everyone's cup of tea, but I do find it refreshing when a politician actually likes the thing he claims to like and doesn't get confused between Villa and West Ham, or washing machine repairmen and...