Printable View
I agree, as did most of my nation's founders.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Modern politics has morphed from public service to a full-on career. Paying your dues etc. to the party apparatus means you'll be a decade or more before reaching office. I do not think that particular djinn will waft back into the bottle though -- we want our government to be doing things constantly and immediately, so like the 24-hour news cycle there is hardly a pause....but lots of repetition.
Governments are now trained to respond to the Greyblades and Fragonys of this world. They are the majority. They process everything in the context of the limited amount they know, and within the reference frame they already understand. No offence to those two...
So like Boris Johnson (Historian, Journalist) or Liam Fox (GP)?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Corbyn, on the other hand, has only ever been a politician and union organiser - unions with no connection to his actual profession or skill set.
It should also be noted that PPE is DESIGNED to give someone the education necessary for political office, whereas a degree in nursing isn't. Which is not to say a nurse cannot be a politician, but being a nurse, policeman or a social worker is not really good preparation for high office.
In the first leadership contest, the other candidates were attacked for having previously held office or shadow office, unlike the entirely pure (because no-one's been stupid enough to trust him) Jeremy Corbyn. Yvette Cooper was one of the architects of Sure Start (a scheme to help mothers and children in their formative first few years). What has Corbyn done in his 40+ years of politics that is remotely comparable to Cooper?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
During that infamous PMQs debacle previously mentioned, Cooper had one question to ask May, and she had the PM visibly flustered with that one question. Corbyn had six questions, and...well, May had the leisure to remind the highly paid with tax payers money Leader of HM Opposition that he was supposed to ask her questions, not ramble on without any noticeable point. 130k with accompanying pensions and benefits.
Boris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts. Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.Quote:
It should also be noted that PPE is DESIGNED to give someone the education necessary for political office, whereas a degree in nursing isn't. Which is not to say a nurse cannot be a politician, but being a nurse, policeman or a social worker is not really good preparation for high office.
Which is why I oppose an elected upper house. The upper house should consist of people with a long career outside politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by BeskarBoris was probably a bad example as he is similar to what I described. Liam Fox on the otherhand seems to not fit that mold.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts. Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.
When has this statement NOT been true?Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Wouldn't it be better staffed with Birthday Listers then, as opposed to the 97th Earl of Sniveling-Whinger & Paederium?Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
The inherited peers have been mostly phased out, with only a fraction of them able to take part, and only those who have been elected by their peers (and by definition the more motivated ones). They're mostly a vestige of tradition rather than anything significant. The Lords mostly consists of appointees who, unfortunately, are rejects and retirees from the Commons as well as the more useful kind. However, the Parliament Act ensures they can't do too much damage, so if we start appointing the last kind, we can afford to wait for the useless bunch to naturally die off.
Johnson received scholarships to Eton and Balliol - he read Classics not PPE and whilst his family were well to do he had a significant career as a Journalist before actually entering politics. Indeed, I first encountered him as editor of the Spectator when I was in college. Whilst he might not have been as well known had he not entered Parliament he would still be a significant public figure as a Journalist, Satirist and Classicist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
So, no, he's not really similar to what you described - he fits the bill of "experience outside politics".
I'm sorry, what?Quote:
In terms of value base, the person with a degree in Nursing probably more likely to have empathy and cares about other people than those with more sociopathic tendencies which PPE course attracts.
First off, empathy is not desirable as a dominant trait in a Politician, especially a government minister or Prime Minister. Politicians have to make hard choices, such as the choice to go to war, or the choice to allocate funds so that the least number of people lose their jobs - when that least is still measured in thousands.
Second off, only 1% of people are actually psychopaths and I don't believe that people who study PPE are significantly skewed towards psychopathy. Even if they were Psychopaths do not make successful politicians precisely because they have no empathy.
I think you're just prejudiced against the upper echelons of the political establishment. This is exactly like you saying my family enjoy seeing foxes suffer because we support hunting, because obviously we must enjoy seeing foxes suffer, there could be no other reason to support hunting.
Politicians make the hard decisions, as I said. You've played Total War - you presumably asked yourself questions like "should I attack this faction? Should I loot this city?". Those are extreme examples in a modern, Western, World with no real wars but questions such as this confronted British Politicians on a regular basis until about three-quarters of a century ago.Quote:
Which does make them more appealing in my opinion, since it is the civil servants who actually doing the running of government.
Has anyone else noted the circle of connections these people have, without any qualifications other than personal connections? The shadow chancellor (Labour's no.2) employs Corbyn's son as his chief of staff. Corbyn's biggest union ally promises to use his union's funds to pay for Corbyn's personal support group, Momentum. Corbyn employs said union ally's chief of staff as the head of his general election campaign. How much public money are they hiving off? Are Corbyn's supporters ok with all this?
I didn't call people psychopaths (and diagnosis of psychopathy no longer exists). There was a difference between sociopath and psychopathy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!
Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.
As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.
Yes - but I think it's just Nepotism, not graft.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian
The diagnosis of Sociopath never existed, if you want to split hairs. Generally speaking, however, Sociopaths are usually conceived of as Psychopaths with a conscience.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Really - your typical politician?Quote:
If you read what I said currently, I said "sociopathic traits" which means similar aspects.
For clarification, some of these traits are: Egocentricity, Lying for Personal Gain, Manipulative Behaviour, Lacking in Remorse. - ie: Your typical politician!
No, I don't think so - most "big-name" Politicians have shown remorse. Cameron showed remorse when he lost the referendum. IDS has repeatedly showed remorse for the harm his cuts to benefits have caused, despite maintaining they were necessary. Blair is the only modern politician I can think of completely immune to remorse, or who has at least never shown it.
As far "Lying for Personal Gain", most politicians lie to avoid a media circus (see Tim Farron admitting to being a Christian and being hounded for two years about his views on Homosexuality) or to advance their political agenda. They do not consider this "personal gain". So that just leaves manipulation, which is again usually the result of the media circus, post politicians do actually keep their word - as they trade on it. You just have to listen to what they actually say. Egocentricity - maybe.
Having said that, you need egocentricity to believe YOU can run the country - it's one of the character flaws Corbyn definitely possesses.
Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?Quote:
Before you don your red-coat and call the hounds, these are the same characteristics reproduced in TV drama and comedy, from Yes Minister, The New Statesman (Alan B'Stard), House of Cards, Black Adder, and so on. So it is not particularly unique, incredulous or 'mean spirited'.
You realise most of those CEO's fail at being CEO's, and unlike politicians all they have to do is backstab to clime the greasy pole, they don't have to build consensus among peers orwin elections. CEO's and Politicians are not the same kinds of people.Quote:
As you liked to point out "it is less than 1% of population" , I am sure you are aware that for CEO's, the figure is approximately 20% for psychopathy ? It is because people with these traits thrive in hostile high-pressure environments, typically able to successfully stab you in the back (metaphorically) with a smile on your face.
The post war consensus in the UK was built on politicians accepting and not challenging some basic tenets:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
- a commitment to employment
- a national health service
- not stoking the fires of racism
- providing social care for pensioners and those in need.
Over the last few decades these commitments have got in the way of a clique of bankers and money market speculators making heaps of cash. These same people have aggressively taken control of the Tories, and indeed labour. They have defined themselves as the mainstream. 95%of money generated in "The City" (British shorthand for our "wall street" remains there. Yet much of our political decisions are based on keeping these people happy. When they crashed the global financial system and bankrupted the economy we bailed them out and repeated the mantra that it was all Gordon Brown's fault.
Now that the city hasn't proved to be our saviour and wealth inequality is getting more extreme, jobs are worse and social support more precarious, people are becoming more radical.
So what is the answer to this from these bankers? Pick up the race flag and get waving. Ukip was started by bankers claiming to be dispossessed normal folk fighting the establishment. The Tories are claiming to the party of the working class and promising worker representation on boards (straight from mussolini!).
There's nothing for him to show remorse about. He genuinely believes in the neocon argument of spreading liberal democracy. In the same vein as your arguments for intervention in Syria (and Libya). If you think that intervening to topple dictatorships in Libya and Syria is the right thing to do, then the same applies to Iraq. Only if you think intervention is bad in and of itself, as I've always done, can you argue that you think Blair is in the wrong over Iraq. If you think that interventionism is a good thing, then Blair did as good a job as you could expect.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
In any case, Blair has expressed some regrets over his time in power. You probably wouldn't agree with him on those, but he has expressed regrets.
IDS remorse? Is this the same IDS who suppressed the report that documented the deaths directly related to his policies?
It is actually that psychopaths are unable to, via genes or birth defect (underdeveloped brain regions). With Sociopaths, it is a consequence of trauma/abuse causing stunted development. For example, the TV series Dexter, he is a sociopath and it started from a very traumatic memory of being trapped in a container with his dead mother, covered in her blood. tl;dr - Nature versus Nuture.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Never the less, it comes under the bracket of antisocial personality disorder.
I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.Quote:
Are you actually, really, suggesting that I would hunt you down with dogs and have them tear you apart for holding what I consider an objectionable opinion?0
(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)
Yes, that one, after he left office.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Minister vs private person.
Is this the "warrior gene" thing again?Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
There was a researcher who looked into this, in the course of his research he discovered he had the gene, but he also had a very happy childhood and loving family. So he doesn't register as a Psychopath, although he's not as empathetic
Lawrence Fishburne's character in CSI is partially based on him.
Ah, well, you see - I have no empathy.Quote:
I do have a sense of humour. It was in response to your mentioning of fox hunting.
*Shrug*Quote:
(Which they do for fun, hence enjoy their suffering. If they didn't, they wouldn't do it. Like how I don't enjoy coffee, so I don't drink it, or repeatedly punch myself in the face.)
I see you also lack empathy.
Most people who go hunting are simply not concerned with the suffering of the fox, it is not considered germane to the exercise. Enjoying hunting does not mean you enjoy the killing.
If we were discussing pigsticking then I might agree with you that the thrill is in the kill, but with field sports the thrill is in the chase.
How many huntsmen do you know, Beskar?
I've probably known at least a dozen and they all said more or less the same thing, viz. they enjoyed the chase and if the fox got away jolly good for him.
Unfortunately it is the opposite in this case. It is why I care for the fox so much. But the fact the 'chase' is actively causing suffering, and the fox isn't a scoundrel for escaping.. it is a creature scared out of its wits fleeing for its very life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.
I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)
You're projecting, not empathising. I get soppy over sheep, but I still eat lamb. I've also seen them killed, quickly and humanely, outside of an abattoir (which is neither) and it was still a tremendously sad thing to watch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Aside from that, the point is that chasing the fox is not about causing him suffering. You might suggest huntsmen are callous for this, but it does not make them cruel. You need to try to empathise with the hunt supporters, because they are human beings.
I did not say they don't care - I said that if the fox escapes it does not reduce the enjoyment of the chase.Quote:
If the hunters as you said don't care if it lives or dies, than you just thwarted your own argument of being a rural necessarily to keep numbers in check.
At least you admit your ignorance of the culture. Given that you are ignorant, however, you cannot reasonably claim to know how huntsmen feel about hunting, can you? So you are not qualified to say that they hate foxes, or enjoy their suffering.Quote:
I don't particular want to know any huntsmen and they won't want to know me either as I would frankly tell them what I think about their 'thrill of the chase'. (I.e.: empathetic understanding they won't like it.)
If the thrill and the culture is the main point of the hunt, I'm not sure it has that much going for it. There are other things that used to be acceptable culture in the past, but are decidedly unfashionable nowadays. Such as war, which hunting was a surrogate for in the past. If the main point of hunting is thrill-seeking, then surely there are other ways of getting that thrill, without having to subject non-consenting partners to the risk of death. Other pastimes of this kind have been replaced by sport, which further abstracts the contest of war, and like the ideal war, only involves willing participants.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
I covered that in the past - if you have to kill something you might as well make a day of it and do it at a remove, with dogs, as shoot it in cold blood from the undergrowth.
That's my view, having had to participate in the killing of farm animals - bloody horrible, literally.
Does killing foxes, particularly via the hunt, effectively protect livestock? I'm unfamiliar with the workings of the English countryside, but in other parts of the world, wild animals tend to keep away from humans, except for some that don't. Does the hunt actually kill the foxes that cause the trouble, or does it kill some foxes? At least shooting a fox from the undergrowth necessitates camping out in the location where the trouble is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Interesting comments from an industry insider about the government proposals to make people sell their homes to pay for care. Amazingly it will be the city that benefits :
Quote:
'People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City. The insurance industry was approached by the Government several months ago with the aim of creating a new market for a new product.
This arrangement is a culmination of those discussions. You wont have to sell your house PROVIDED that you purchase an insurance product to cover your social care. The "premiums" would be recovered from the equity after the house has been sold and the Insurance company will have a lien on the house and can force a sale if it wants to. So your offspring cant keep it on the market for long in order to get the best price.
The real kicker in this is that in order to encourage the industry to market these products the government guaranteed that there would be no cap on the premiums.
This was in some ways "attonement" for Osborne's destruction of the highly lucrative annuties market. This means that the premiums could be up to (and including) the entire remaining equity in the property after the government has taken its cut. Compamies will be falling over themselves to get their snouts in this trough.
In short your offspring and relatives could get absolutely nothing from your estate.
If you buy one of these products you need to read the small print very very carefully indeed because there will be some real dogs on the market.
Source?
No source on that one. A friend of an insider. Could be bs, but is very consistent with the city and insurance industry I have seen so far in my personal and professional life.
With personal disposable incomes dropping, the city has no good line of income from liquid assets. Consequently they must have a stab at fixed assets - in this case houses.
Googling turns up this on eastdevonwatch.Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Is this another of these posts in the social media bubble that even Corbyn himself thinks is problematic? Except in this case you seem to have dressed it up as personal insider knowledge.Quote:
I have just seen this post online:
‘People need to read the small print associated with this because its a lot nastier than it looks.
I work in the City....
Why are you trying to steer the discussion away from foxes and hounds? I wasn't this entertained about British policies regarding small wild animals since that episode of Yes, Minister with the beavers.
I didn't dress it up as personal knowledge. I presented it as plausible sounding hearsay.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pannonian