General politics discussion thread

[Bashar]

Alan, this is all very interesting and coherent - I'm not really sure what you're saying, though.

 

I guess I'm trying to clarify what liberalism is, and what it isn't. But being interesting and coherent is enough; I don't have to present an alternative grand narrative.

[Halitosis Romantic]

Alan, this is all very interesting and coherent - I'm not really sure what you're saying, though.

 

I guess I'm trying to clarify what liberalism is, and what it isn't. But being interesting and coherent is enough; I don't have to present an alternative grand narrative.

 

Thanks for clearing that up.

[Bashar]

Classical liberals did not give too shits about the poor. A better deal for the working classes came about for a few reasons - not least the realisation that most of them would not be fit to fight, if needed, in a war. Another was the Labour movement. The modern welfare state was created out of the unique opportunities presented by the aftermath of World War II.

 

The Germans had been building welfare programs in the 1840s (i.e. even before unification), partly out of paternalist ideology and partly to prevent immigration to America - but also partly to produce a nation capable of going to war.

 

America had the 'New Deal' in the 1930s, in response to the Great Depression (i.e. market failure). Neoliberals have been determined to prevent this happening again, with great success, so my inkling is that it will more or less take another world war to generate enough political will to rebuild social democracy - and I'm not even sure that it would be enough.

 

Despite the 'liberal reforms' being primarily motivated more by political expediency than genuine concern for the poor, there was, within the Liberal Party, nonetheless a general shift from classical liberal ideology towards a more pragmatic approach that recognised the need for active government. This shift culminated in 'The Yellow Book' of 1928 and their 1929 general election manifesto largely written John Maynard Keynes and pretty much stayed in place for the rest of the century.

 

The Orange Book, written by hedge fund chairman Paul Marshall, David Laws, Nick Clegg &c, is, by their own admittance, a reclamation of 'classical liberalism'. When asked about 'The Yellow Book', Paul Marshall

admitted he hadn't read the "very dull" Yellow Book until this summer and called it a "book of very narrow scope ... an intellectual retreat from economic liberalism."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/se...beraldemocrats8

 

The current Libs want to party like it's 1879.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Bashar

[Loki]

Are you now replying to yourself!?

 

A-anyway, moving on from the strangeness above.. what do people think of the debate today on universal benefits vs targeted ones? The coalition was planning on removing the child benefit from those in the higher rate tax band, however they've (only now!) noticed that this will create 'unfair' anomalies around the cut-off, and are backing away from it.

 

I find it fascinating that it could actually be cheaper to pay a universal benefit than try to target it.

[Bashar]

Are you now replying to yourself!?

 

Best way of guaranteeing intelligent political debate. But I did answer your question also, as you requested - so if you were even a vaguely honest about a willingness to debate you would at least have acknowledged that.

 

Oh.

 

A-anyway, moving on from the strangeness above.. what do people think of the debate today on universal benefits vs targeted ones? The coalition was planning on removing the child benefit from those in the higher rate tax band, however they've (only now!) noticed that this will create 'unfair' anomalies around the cut-off, and are backing away from it.

 

I find it fascinating that it could actually be cheaper to pay a universal benefit than try to target it.

 

They never genuinely planned to implement it. More neoliberal dishonesty a la 'we're all in it together'

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/wintour...ne-davidcameron

 

Their lack of grip on reality caught up with them.

[Loki]

You didn't answer my question at all. You waffled on about the history of the liberal movement in the 19th and early 20th century, which is all very interesting as Rosegarden pointed out, but not particularly relevant. And you presented, as you acknowledge, no alternative description. At least you didn't use any LOLS or emoticons though.

 

Indeed, it's already clear that your "thing" is to write long passages on vaguely related topics without actually engaging fully in a debate. You mocked Gladstone over his point about fresh water, for example, but when I pointed out some actual facts and figures, you moved on to a woolly ideological debate. Your strangeness is legendary around these parts, and forewarned is forearmed as they say.

 

 

So rather than just leave this thread as a succession of you replying to your own posts, I thought I'd try and move on.

[Bashar]

You didn't answer my question at all.

 

Horseshit.

 

I assume you disagree that our society is either 1) a democracy, 2) essentially liberal or 3) a capitalist economy. Perhaps you could explain which one, in your opinion, is wrong.

 

I answered you, but if you somehow missed that - I stated that 1) was deeply questionable, 2) false except as propaganda and 3) increasingly true in the Marxist sense, but false in the sense of free markets actually existing.

 

You waffled on about the history of the liberal movement in the 19th and early 20th century, which is all very interesting as Rosegarden pointed out, but not particularly relevant. And you presented, as you acknowledge, no alternative description.

 

Description of what? I didn't map out an entire alternative political system? Oh yeah, silly me - easy five minute job that.

 

You've completely missed the point of what I've been saying. Not everyone did.

 

without actually engaging fully in a debate.

 

And you're not interested in, or more accurately probably incapable of understanding, any kind of debate that doesn't accept your terms of reference. Terms of reference that completely privilege your liberal position. As soon as they start getting questioned incisively it's 'Soviet Russia' this and 'David Icke' that - with a side portion of spell-check pedantry. Adult stuff. Yea.

 

but when I pointed out some actual facts and figures,

 

I critiqued the ideological underpinnings of your assessment. That's political discussion. It's completely reasonable to say that this had nothing to do with capitalism. If you don't like that, then critique my position. Referring to my words as woolly isn't doing that.

 

Basically you're completely outmatched here and so you're going to keep resorting to name calling no matter how well I address your points - and I have addressed everything you have said. I couldn't give a shit if everyone around here thinks I'm strange.

 

So rather than just leave this thread as a succession of you replying to your own posts, I thought I'd try and move on.

 

But rather than critique what I said in response, you decided to revert to this. Yeah, okay.

Edited March 5, 2012 by Bashar

[patiirc]

Bashar, is it nearly the end of term or something? You were busy trolling this thread at almost exactly the same time last year, doing exactly the same things and then willy waving your political degree around here like it meant something, without giving an answer

 

Cheers

 

Edit: Deja Vu over Minimum Wage if anyone can be bothered

Edited March 6, 2012 by patdfb

[Bashar]

Last time it was all about fucking with Happ's shit. But it's nothing personal, I don't hassle him when he posts on DVDVR.

 

In terms of you not getting an answer, yeah I did stop responding to you because I was engaging with other people and I thought your points were a bit pedantic. If I had unlimited time, I would have certainly debated with you further but my priority was Happ. Sorry about that.

Edited March 6, 2012 by Bashar

[WildSybianRider]

For me, liberalism is essentially the advancement of free, unencumbered human rights/religious freedom/ democracy. Our society is a combination of a democracy founded on liberalism, and a capitalist economy. The two may pull against each other, and they don't constitute an attack on the concept of the state, as far as I can see.

 

Just to confirm, you really don't know what economic liberalism is? Alanhill's posts make sense as I believe he's assuming you do, but this ^ ^ ^ really suggests otherwise.

Edited March 6, 2012 by WildSybianRider

[The King Of Swing]

The Afghanistan Government are making "progress" on women's rights I see.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/mar/0...n?newsfeed=true

 

Afghanistan's president endorsed a "code of conduct" issued by an influential council of clerics which activists say represents a giant step backward for women's rights in the country.

 

President Hamid Karzai's remarks backing the Ulema Council's document, which allows husbands to beat wives under certain circumstances and encourages segregation of the sexes, is seen as reaching out to insurgents like the Taliban.

 

The US and Karzai hope that the Taliban can be brought into negotiations to end the country's decade-long war. But activists say they are worried that gains made by women since 2001 may be lost in the process. When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan before the 2001 US invasion, girls were banned from going to school and women had to wear burqas that covered them from head to toe. Women were not allowed to leave home without a male relative as an escort.

 

The "code of conduct" issued on Friday by the Ulema Council as part of a longer statement on national political issues is cast as a set of guidelines that religious women should obey voluntarily, but activists are concerned it will herald a reversal of the trend in Afghanistan since 2001 to pass laws aimed at expanding women's rights.

 

The rules say women should not travel without a male guardian and should not mingle with strange men in places such as schools, markets and offices. Beating one's wife is prohibited only if there is no "sharia-compliant reason," it says.

 

Asked about the code at a press conference in Kabul, Karzai said it was in line with Islamic law and had been written in consultation with Afghan women's groups. He did not name the groups.

 

"The clerics' council of Afghanistan did not put any limitations on women," Karzai said, adding: "It is the sharia law of all Muslims and all Afghans."

 

Karzai's public backing of the council's guidelines may be intended to make his government more palatable to the Taliban, or he may simply be trying to keep on the good side of the Ulema Council, which could be a valuable intermediary in speaking to the insurgents.

 

But women's activists say endorsement means existing or planned laws to protect women's rights may be sacrificed for peace negotiations. "It sends a really frightening message that women can expect to get sold out in this process," said Heather Barr, an Afghanistan researcher for the New York-based Human Rights Watch.

 

Shukria Barikzai, a parliamentarian from the capital who has been active in women's issues, said she was worried that Karzai and the clerics' council appeared to be ignoring their country's own laws.

 

"When it comes to civil rights in Afghanistan, Karzai should respect the constitution," Barikzai said. The Afghan constitution provides equal rights for men and women.

 

The exception for certain types of beatings also appears to contradict Afghan law that prohibits spousal abuse. And the guidelines also promote rules on divorce that give women few rights, a turnaround from pledges by Karzai to reform Afghan family law to make divorces more equitable, Barr said. "This represents a significant change in his message on women's rights," she said.

 

Afghan women's rights activist Fatana Ishaq Gailani, founder of the Afghanistan Women's Council, said she felt women's rights were being used as part of a political game.

 

"We want the correct Islam, not the Islam of politics," Gailani said. She said she supported negotiations with the Taliban, but Afghanistan's women should not be sacrificed for that end.

 

Hadi Marifat, of the Afghanistan Human Rights and Democracy Organisation, which surveyed 5,000 Afghan women for a recent report on the state of women's rights in Afghanistan, argued that the statements show Karzai is shifting more toward the strictest interpretations of sharia law.

 

"In the post-Taliban Afghanistan, the guiding principle of President Karzai regarding women's rights has been attracting funding from the international community on one hand, balanced against the need to get the support of the Ulema Council and other traditionalists on the other," Marifat said.

 

"The concerning thing is that now this balance is shifting toward the conservative element, and that was obvious in his statement."

 

Same old shit but the West got it's puppet Government so all is well

[Kenny McBride]

Are you now replying to yourself!?

 

A-anyway, moving on from the strangeness above.. what do people think of the debate today on universal benefits vs targeted ones? The coalition was planning on removing the child benefit from those in the higher rate tax band, however they've (only now!) noticed that this will create 'unfair' anomalies around the cut-off, and are backing away from it.

 

I find it fascinating that it could actually be cheaper to pay a universal benefit than try to target it.

 

It's always been well known that child benefit is the most efficient and effective benefit we have in this country. It goes directly to women (well, almost exclusively) and there's no means-testing of any kind so there is no situation in which it can be cut off. The fact that the cost of limiting access to it may well end up being more than is saved by not paying it to some people should tell you the real purpose of the government's actions: give the (entirely false) impression of us "all being in it together" by cutting off a tiny stream of money to the better off while subtly getting the message across that there is no such thing as a universal entitlement and that everything can be means-tested. Don't be surprised (if the Tory government lasts long enough) that you start to hear whispers about the rich having to start paying for their own NHS treatment because, well, they can afford it and the NHS is costing us all a lot of money. It will be the first step towards true privatisation. You heard it here first.

[Glen Quagmire]

Are you now replying to yourself!?

 

A-anyway, moving on from the strangeness above.. what do people think of the debate today on universal benefits vs targeted ones? The coalition was planning on removing the child benefit from those in the higher rate tax band, however they've (only now!) noticed that this will create 'unfair' anomalies around the cut-off, and are backing away from it.

 

I find it fascinating that it could actually be cheaper to pay a universal benefit than try to target it.

 

It's always been well known that child benefit is the most efficient and effective benefit we have in this country. It goes directly to women (well, almost exclusively) and there's no means-testing of any kind so there is no situation in which it can be cut off. The fact that the cost of limiting access to it may well end up being more than is saved by not paying it to some people should tell you the real purpose of the government's actions: give the (entirely false) impression of us "all being in it together" by cutting off a tiny stream of money to the better off while subtly getting the message across that there is no such thing as a universal entitlement and that everything can be means-tested. Don't be surprised (if the Tory government lasts long enough) that you start to hear whispers about the rich having to start paying for their own NHS treatment because, well, they can afford it and the NHS is costing us all a lot of money. It will be the first step towards true privatisation. You heard it here first.

This coalition government are acting as a bunch of crooks IMHO, making much of the rest of the national silver to be flogged off to their best mates who'll give them high positions in their companies as a reward when they retire from politics. Labour themselves are too involved in being the dirty diggers themselves to be effective in counteracting it. And it's the middle & working classes who'll end up coughing up for it for businesses reliant on the public purse for their existence without any transparency or accountability held to them as opposed to being run in-house. Trickle down? Screw that, everything points to trickle up right now, and those at the top are laughing that they're getting away with it.

[Kenny McBride]

Trickle down has never worked. In these days of tax evasion/avoidance and easier international movements of money, it's even less likely to work. The simple fact is that poor people have a substantially higher marginal propensity to spend whereas rich people have a much higher marginal propensity to save/invest offshore. The most effective way to fix the economy right now would be to raise the tax threshold to about

[Loki]

Privatisation of everything now seems almost inevitable to me, seeing as both Labour and the Tories actively pursue it whilst in government. The Saturday Guardian ran a full front page story about the plans to massively increase private companies' role in policing, and I was pretty shocked to realise that there's already a police station run by a private company.

 

OCP has arrived, it would seem. Robocop must be only a year or two away.

 

Even the Americans aren't privatising the cops over there, as far as I know. Madness. Our resident Babylon Teedekay might have some more knowledge of this.

 

Kenny - if there was a way of effectively means-testing currently universal benefits, would you consider it then?