General politics discussion thread

[Vamp]

Ringleader of protest violence revealed to be council worker (and son of Labour head of Corporate Development).

 

What a f**king idiot. What a surprise that he's a public sector worker too. It's blatantly obvious that all the protests last weekend were purely about self-interest, they couldn't give a flying f**k about the public, they just know they're up shit creek if they lose their jobs in the cuts.

 

Have there been any protests where the core of the protestors haven't gone out of self interest?

[Carbomb]

Ringleader of protest violence revealed to be council worker (and son of Labour head of Corporate Development).

 

What a f**king idiot. What a surprise that he's a public sector worker too. It's blatantly obvious that all the protests last weekend were purely about self-interest, they couldn't give a flying f**k about the public, they just know they're up shit creek if they lose their jobs in the cuts.

 

Have there been any protests where the core of the protestors haven't gone out of self interest?

 

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

[Yoghurt]

Nah, plenty of marchers doing what they believe in.

 

This however puts to bed the idea of the "Agent Provocateur" infiltrating these protests and starting the violence, it's a clear organised group of people a every protest, the Trotskyists, the same people it has always been.

I know Trotskyists who were at the march that didn't riot. To apply a label like that is ridiculous.

 

It's not only apt it's clinically accurate. Between ruining legitimate protests in the 70's and 80's leading to union power cuts they're now at it again trying to pull down the country. These violent maniacs have nothing to do with the working people of this [or any] nation and do not represent them, they're a spineless, mask hiding bunch of arsonistic cowards who deserve summary exile.

[Happ Hazzard]

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

 

It's amazing how high council tax bills got under Labour, in real terms far, far higher than the poll tax bills that people rioted over in the late 80s were. It seems that Labour can get away with a lot of the same things that people leap at the chance to blame the Tories for.

[David]

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

You realise that there were private sector workers on the march as well, don't you?

[Happ Hazzard]

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

You realise that there were private sector workers on the march as well, don't you?

I'm sure there were. How many though? Was the march representitive of the UK population as a whole, or were people dependent on the state for a living just ever so slightly overrepresented in the numbers there?

[Loki]

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

 

I'll answer that, futile effort though it may be to actually bother countering you.

 

They got a radically improved health service, almost beyond recognition from when I was young. They got better local services, cleaner streets, recycling, reduced crime rates, etc. etc. etc. The cost may have been unjustifiable, the systems put in place may have been hugely inefficient, but Britain in 2010 was a whole lot better than 1997, in ways that absolutely everybody benefited from.

 

If Labour have one legacy they can be proud of, it's an NHS that for the first time in many, many years delivered really good healthcare to everybody who walked through the doors. I remember people waiting 2, 3 years for vital operations, run-down and delapidated hospitals, understaffed and dirty. The NHS was on its knees, and the Major government was seriously talking about putting it out of its misery, and calling it a hopeless task to fix it.

 

I've never voted for Labour, and probably never will, but I appreciated that.

[WildSybianRider]

Were you not old enough to vote in 97?

[David]

I'm sure there were.

Just making sure.

[Van Dammer]

Funny how people who deride protests can't seem to fathom the concept of collective good (and usually, predictably and pathetically, attempt to denigrate the concept by referring to fascist/totalitarian regimes). Of course it's out of self-interest - if you have the largeness of mind to be able to see the big picture, and realise that, for the most part, what's good for the group is mostly good for the individual. Sure, a few of those protesters were probably there to cause trouble, but for the most part, I reckon they were there because they want a decently-balanced society which doesn't penalise those who can't afford to be penalised.

What about people working for low wages in the private sector, that have to pay increasingly large council tax bills in order to fund the inordinately high wages and benefits of those in the public sector? How are they benefitting from Labour's increases in public sector spending?

 

I'll answer that, futile effort though it may be to actually bother countering you.

 

They got a radically improved health service, almost beyond recognition from when I was young. They got better local services, cleaner streets, recycling, reduced crime rates, etc. etc. etc. The cost may have been unjustifiable, the systems put in place may have been hugely inefficient, but Britain in 2010 was a whole lot better than 1997, in ways that absolutely everybody benefited from.

 

If Labour have one legacy they can be proud of, it's an NHS that for the first time in many, many years delivered really good healthcare to everybody who walked through the doors. I remember people waiting 2, 3 years for vital operations, run-down and delapidated hospitals, understaffed and dirty. The NHS was on its knees, and the Major government was seriously talking about putting it out of its misery, and calling it a hopeless task to fix it.

 

I've never voted for Labour, and probably never will, but I appreciated that.

 

Not saying you're wrong or anything but in the spirit of picking on tiny snippets of somebodies post, in which this thread thrives, this just isnt correct.

[Happ Hazzard]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

[Carbomb]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

[Happ Hazzard]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

Has it occured to you that the Tories weren't under-investing, just running the country in a way that could be afforded?

 

Some people seem to think that for some reason we have a god-given right in this country to exect absolute top notch services, with tons of public sector jobs propping up deprived areas, and that we can just let someone else worrying about paying for it all.

[Carbomb]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

Has it occured to you that the Tories weren't under-investing, just running the country in a way that could be afforded?

 

Some people seem to think that for some reason we have a god-given right in this country to exect absolute top notch services, with tons of public sector jobs propping up deprived areas, and that we can just let someone else worrying about paying for it all.

 

People like you have tried this argument before, so don't try and make out it's something I haven't heard of. It's bullshit. Extreme fucking bullshit. Education is a right, and it's the responsibility of government to make sure our children are educated properly. Health is generally recognised as a human right, so it's logical that the government is responsible for making sure the health services are capable of looking after those who need help.

 

I second Gladstone Small's and David's thoughts.

[Happ Hazzard]

It's not a question of whether Labour made the NHS better, it's a question of how much they spent doing it. Anyone can throw money at problems, that requires no skill whatsoever. It always worried me that Labour would cite increased spending on various things as being a good things. Why didn't they say how much they'd improved things and then say how much it all cost? That would be the normal way of doing things. After all, it's us that are paying for it all in the end.

 

What I want to know, Happ, is why, if you're determined to castigate Labour for reckless over-investment, you don't reserve equal vitriol for the Conservatives for reckless under-investment. After all, Labour wouldn't have had to throw money at the problem if it had been there in the first place, same with the transport and education systems. 18 years of under-investment means repairs and improvements are going to cost much more than just what wasn't invested.

Has it occured to you that the Tories weren't under-investing, just running the country in a way that could be afforded?

 

Some people seem to think that for some reason we have a god-given right in this country to exect absolute top notch services, with tons of public sector jobs propping up deprived areas, and that we can just let someone else worrying about paying for it all.

 

People like you have tried this argument before, so don't try and make out it's something I haven't heard of. It's bullshit. Extreme fucking bullshit. Education is a right, and it's the responsibility of government to make sure our children are educated properly. Health is generally recognised as a human right, so it's logical that the government is responsible for making sure the health services are capable of looking after those who need help.

 

But what does that mean? Education is a right? Exactly what education? Do you mean it should all be free at point of use? To what level? For how long?

 

Health is a "human right", but to what extent. Is there a limit of how much should be spent on it, or should no expense be spared? Does the fact that it is a "human right" mean we should put up with it being run ridiculously inefficiently?