The United Kingdom Elections 2010

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Traditionally the working-class tends more towards "racism" against outsiders, while the Upper Class tend to looking down fondly on everyone equally. After all, the colour of your Gentleman's Gentleman is much less important that whether he understand how to polish your shoes and press your shirt-collar.

---

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

Can I have some sauce with your amazing statements on the correlation between social class and racism please, it's a bit hard to swallow.

Have you any idea about history?

Edit:

Must I invoke godwins' law and explain a bit about Oswald Mosely, to name but a single example from the last century?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

What?

Racism is the preserve of the working class, and the upper class are not racist?

---

Not what I said, I suggest you re-read. I deliberately placed "racism" for the working class in quote marks. My point was that prejudice works differently in different classes. The lower class are directly threatened by outsiders, and this manifests as ethnic prejudice when confronted by immigrants. By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

So, this is why the King caused consternation during WWI because he tended to praise all commonwealth troops equally, regardless of origen; but he did this because they were all his "subjects".

I find it interesting you raise Mosley, who is probably one of the most ambiguous figures of the 20th Century, a Facist certainly, anti-Jewish and Anti-Catholic. However, also a Labour MP, pro European and against the violence of the Blacks-and-Tans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

By contrast, the Upper Class is not direclty threatened, and they tend to view everyone below them who isn't a priest or a lawyer as part of the "Great Unwashed"; black or white makes little difference under all that grime, you see.

---

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

---

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

You paint a particular picture with some appeal, but I'm not convinced by its universality.

What leaps to my mind is the scene in Lawrence of Arabia where 'Ole-golden-hair-and-mascara rocks up at the officer's mess in cairo with one of his "servants" after crossing the desert from Aqaba and is told to get "that wog out of here" or somesuch. Now, recognising that that was a film and that the other officers could well have been more chagrined by the presence of a lower class individual (Beduoin) in their sanctum -you have to recognise that "wog" is not a term coined to denigrate the lower class.

---

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

---

I see you have returned and once again donned Green. :bow: That's certainly a pleasure to see.

Anyway, I defer to your greater experince in this area and in life in general. I was merely offering what I percieve to be the case. It should be noted have have no direct access to the Upper Class, being the stereotypical "Poor Clerk".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

---

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

Edit:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Oh, absolutely. On the other hand, the point remains that the Upper Class have historically tended towards forms of prejudice not compatable with the likes of the BNP, which was my original point.

---

Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about the BNP's economic policy -although i agree that they purport to have the interests of the comon British worker at heart, something not easy to reconcile with an ultra free market approach such as fascism tends to espouse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

To be honest, this supports my view that racism is irrelevant of social class. That the upper class made the odd liberal decisions as part of their rule is no proof that they are any less rascist than the classes beneath them. If rascism is caused by ignorance and misunderstanding of an other culture, why on earth should one think the upper class (traditionalist and conservative as they were most of time) would, as a rule, be any less ignorant of different ways of life or perspectives?

---

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Insofar as the upper class have tended to support the far-right, fascism and ultra free market systems, and the prejudices assosciated with these movements, yes.

---

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

---

True, I guess the upper class lost their grip on the steering wheel of power in the late 18th and 19th centuries. Their party of choice was Monarchical. I'm getting confused with more recent history where the controls have been held by the middle class, against whom the upper class defended themselves and lost in the strife of the late 18th, 19th and early 20th centuries (depending on where you live).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Anyway, back to the election.

What really confuses me is what rationale the leaders of unions like UNITE use to justify strikes so close to an election where their actions are likely to damage the Labour government. Because clearly a Tory government is going to be so much more sympathetic? Really, what's that about?

---

I couldn't agree more - its baffling given the apparently privileged lot BA crews have compared to other airlines, but maybe that's nonsense too. The pendulum of public opinion is most definitley not behind them when BA can make the strikers look like the cause of holiday travel nightmares.

As with the recent public sector worker strikes, i find it consistently amazing how self-centred people appear to be when made to feel the pain of those in the wider private sector. Then again, i'm sure I'd find it hard to be stoic about a pay cut or the threat of redundancy if I had a mortgage and family to support.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

I personally couldn't give a rats arse where the Prime minister or his cabinet comes from.

---

What if the problem with Dave Snooty and his Eton Pals is that they are a self-serving clique, as the investigative journalism of this quality paper suggests?

Quote:

---

David Cameron's closest Tory chums will make £7.1MILLION from his plans to slash inheritance tax for the super-rich.


A Mirror investigation has found that 18 millionaire members of the shadow cabinet will save up to £520,000 each under the Conservatives' flagship policy.


Among those benefiting from the controversial plans to raise the tax threshold to £2million are shadow chancellor George Osborne, foreign secretary William Hague and Mr Cameron.
Angry trade union leaders last night said it was a blatant example of the Tories looking after their own. Unite general secretary Derek Simpson said: "They want to feather their nests but make hard-working families work longer and for less."

---

A few more proposals like this, and Britain will move from a meritocracy to an old-fashioned rigid class society - like the US. :sneaky:

Increasingly, the current Tories are taking their cue not from traditional British class divisions, nor from Thatcher's conservatism, but from the excesses of the US right.

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Even trying to support such broad brush stereotyping, it's rather difficult to appeal to a movie. The upper classes have produced some very notably liberal thinkers and legislators, just as the other classes have. For a long time however, one needed to be of some degree of nobility to access the power to make social changes, so it might be argued that most elements of Britain's socially progressive constitutional change was instigated by the upper class.

Magna Carta didn't come from any of your peasantry, you know. :wink:

---

Were your family still in France at the time of the Great Charter? Or had they gone English by then?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

The "system" is parliamentary democracy, unless you think there is a better system you should vote.

...

That Idaho, is why you cannot complain.

---

I do think there is a better system, so I don't vote.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

You are right that the upper classes, especially nowadays, are just as racist as any other group bar the uneducated underclass. In times previous however, the higher level of education, worldly experience and the lack of any significant contact (save in India or an imperial posting) mean that they often had a better understanding - and the very real sense of noblesse oblige (to which Phillipvs is alluding in his position) tended to make for a wider perspective and a less blunt prejudice.

It should also be taken into account that British racism amongst the upper class is of an intriguing and complex kind. Whilst supporters of the BNP tend to be seeing direct competition for their resources and way of life, the upper and middle class are barely affected in such a immediate way. For example, I have a coffee shop at one of the houses where the manager is an Afghan. There are several regulars (buffers very much of the old school) who come in to read their Daily Mails and Telegraphs, and bang on about the immigrants taking the country to the dogs whilst admiring their host and nodding gravely when he smilingly pontificates with them about the "bloody foreigners". It's wonderfully amusing and very odd. Not the kind of people who set up burning crosses on the lawn.



This is far from the truth. The aristocracy has a real dislike of the free market as defined in modern times. As von Ribbentrop found out, persons of real breeding have a disdain for jumped up types in shiny boots and won't associate with them. The landed upper class are conservative in nature, and fascism is a radical, working class phenomenon. Common fellows, who don't know how to dress to hunt or use the correct spoon for kedgeree.

---

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

As usual, you manage to put the point far more eloqunetly than I ever could. It might also be worth pointing out that the aristocracy often tended to define themselves as different because of their titular Norman ancestry. This raises the interesting, albeit delicate, question of wether all aristocratic prejudice is informed by ethnic discourse and is therefore "racist".

Certainly, anti-monarchistic discourse has tended to have a racist, anti-German, element over the last 100 years or so.

---

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

Wait! You eat kedgeree with a spoon! I truly am a peasant. :laugh4:

---

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pannonian

Were your family still in France at the time of the Great Charter? Or had they gone English by then?

---

I think one might say the issue was still under some degree of negotiation. :beam:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

---

There was this bloke on another forum, who did some work for some lord or other. He noted that he was the scruffiest looking bugger he had ever seen, totally unconcerned with appearance, as if he had more important things on his mind. The counterargument is that the aristocracy have inbred to the point where their brains don't function properly any more, and that's the real reason for their otherworldliness. Adam's apple, swallowing a ballcock, etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

This is an excellent point, and one that would bear its own discussion. Norman "otherness" was a significant factor in the much wider gulf between the classes in the United Kingdom that exists even today, and one reason why class continues to divide the country. However, the anti-German prejudices are more recent, derived from the little matter of some world wars (the factor concerning the working class) and the fact that the Windsors are so resolutely and insufferably so middle class (the aristocracy's gripe).

Which brings me to:

---

Well, once again this is two seperate kinds of prejudice, which is the point. Though, anti-Monarchistic sentiment among the Lower Class has always had an ethnic slant; ever since William the Bastard.

Quote:

---

Not at all, old friend. My somewhat obtuse point was that the higher the rank of breeding, the less concerned one is with convention. The middle classes (and oiks like Cameron, to make a tenuous grasp at the thread) obsess about cutlery. A duke however, will eat his kedgeree with anything he likes, and be damned. Ribbentrop came a cropper because he tried so hard to be aristocratic in company.

---

I seem to recall something about Sheffielf cutlers playing a trick on Victorian Middle Classers.

Just popping my head in...The quality of debate on this forum was never bad, but just glancing through this thread it seems it has got even better over the years.

It's a bit silly to give a 'thumbs-up', what would that count for? At the same time, good stuff.

And yes, I've always tought it rather daft that the middle classes (of which I am certainly a member) are so obsessed with the form and order of an event rather than the actual substance. It comes from a reasonable place, however. The duke can do what the hell he likes because he doesn't need anyone for anything. We may, so we follow the rules.

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class. Both New Labour and the current Conservative party are completely devoid of principles or political philosophy, so they are each grasping at ephemera from the past. This is particularly true of Cameron's Conservatives. They don't want to be the "nasty" party anymore, but have no real idea what they do want to be.

Cameron came to lead them because no-one else was quite as vacuous whilst reminding the old school that they had once been conservatives - ie reactionary, cautious and aristocratic, with an expectation of power to rule underpinned by an advanced sense of divine paternalism. Thatcher's revolution had destroyed the old Tory in favour of monetarist individualism with no obligations save to themselves. In the nineties, the brutality that world view inflicts was rejected for Blair's fantasy Third Way which continued the theme of individualism but added a fiction that the country didn't need the "nasty" fiscal responsibilities and could party forever. The Conservatives (now more than ever a loose coalition of philosophies in direct conflict with each other) failed and failed to overcome the public's enthusiastic embrace of jam forever. Just as Blair provided Thatcher-lite-but-cuddly, Cameron provided a suitably vapid Blair-clone and provided a thin appeal to the wings of the party that still cling to the old paternalism because of his alleged breeding.

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy.

(Had the Tories elected a similarly charmless but hard-principled working class man like David Davies, one suspects this election would have already been over. Had they elected a real aristocrat, I suspect they would be announcing 15% public sector pay cuts like Ireland in their manifesto and challenging the public to face reality. Neither type wants to be loved, like little David does).

Cameron made himself look a right wally when he was interviewed by channel 4 about gays. He made The Great Leader look nimble and sure footed. Indeed the mask is beginning to slip, as I said a week or so ago. I wonder why Cameron joined to Tories as he seems more like a social democrat than a conservative. Davies would have made a better fist of the election campaign for sure. A working class lad made good, who talks more sense in one minute that the three party leaders do in a month.

I still say the Tories missed a trick with El Portillo.

BG - i certainly agree that cameron has done nothing to recommend himself to me, his only claim to my vote is that the tories would be less destructive than labour, but i am not sure that is enough as i am pretty firm on the idea of electing someone who represents my aims and expectations.

IA - agreed about portillo, i always liked him. almost as much as i like john redwood, now there is an old school tory of first-principles.....

an interesting article that takes the tory's to task for not spelling out their vision, and examines why they are afraid to reveal that vision:

The Conservatives have the vision but not the nerve
David Cameron's Conservatives have a compelling plan for government, but they are too fearful to spell out what it is

By Janet Daley
Published: 9:00PM GMT 27 Mar 2010

Believe it or not, the Conservatives actually have quite a compelling vision for government, in which spending cuts could be made to play a constructive role, public services would be more responsive to the real needs of the people who use them, and the state would be an enabling force rather than an oppressive one. Honestly. The reason that you are almost entirely unaware of this philosophy is because the party thinks that you will either be frightened by it or that it will be too difficult for you to understand.

Very occasionally, they allow you a glimpse of an aspect of their programme: Michael Gove's plan for "free schools", or the "co-operative" model in which public agencies would be run by their own staff. But then some television interviewer starts to ask wider questions, or a Labour frontbencher tosses out some predictable, brain-dead jibe, and the shutters come down.

Related Articles

*
David Cameron can be a great PM - or a footnote
*
Britain may need IMF bail-out, warns David Cameron
*
David Cameron could scrap final salary public sector pensions
*
Tory party conference: Labour's poll rebound sets David Cameron a challenge
*
If you add it all up, MPs are paid handsomely
*
Dominic Grieve loses plum

The Tory spokesman who had, ever so cautiously, begun to hint at what could be a genuinely progressive new relationship between the state and the people, scurries away into the darkness again, like a small animal terrified of being caught in the open. The result? The Tories look vacuous: like a party with half-hearted convictions, half-baked policies and with no overarching theme to distinguish it in any fundamental way from Labour. And so, ironically, a leadership that is so afraid of damaging questions leaves itself wide open to the most dangerous ones of all: what real difference is there between you and your opponents, and why should anyone be inspired to vote for you?

You may be asking yourself at this point whether the patronising assumption that you are either too timid or too dumb to grasp the potential of this message is actually justified. Who are the real cowards here? Is the Conservative leadership like some cartoon character who runs away from his own reflection in the mirror because he mistakes it for a bogeyman? Is the story that the Tories could be telling – their "narrative", in fashionable terms – really so terrifying or awesomely incomprehensible? Let's try putting the argument in simple terms and see how many of you run for cover.

First, governments run things very badly. They presume to know more about delivering services than the expert professionals they employ, they waste money on bureaucratic oversight and they play party-political games with vital areas such as education and health. So by cutting back the power of central government and making the agencies that deliver services accountable to the people who use them rather than to politicians, we would get better, cheaper and more productive results. Everybody still here? Good.

Second, the more power and authority that the state seizes, the less people feel the need to take responsibility for themselves and for each other. Many of the problems that now corrode the quality of life in Britain – anti-social behaviour, irresponsible parenting and the feckless refusal to accept any idea of civic duty – have their roots in the emergence of government as the only source of moral authority and the only provider of social protection.

Communities, families and individuals, whose ethical judgments are likely to be more sound and more effective, have been dwarfed by the gargantuan intrusiveness of this expensive, impersonal monster which, as often as not, interferes without understanding and meddles without sensitivity. So by pulling central government's tentacles off the most personal and local areas of people's lives – by giving them the power to run their neighbourhoods, schools, health services and benefits agencies according to their own priorities – we can restore self-determination and pride while improving public services.

Do you find this concept so difficult to grasp? Does it not, in fact, seem consistent with your own experience of real life? You know that you are likely to get much better and more attentive service from a small local business which is eager to please you as an individual than from a huge corporate outfit which sees you as nothing more than one tiny digit in its annual turnover. When it comes to public services, the independent local outlet could offer a relationship of trust, familiarity and understanding to the consumer, and greater efficiency and productivity to the taxpayer.

What's not to like? Why is the party so timorous about pitching this solution proudly and robustly? Because it is afraid of Labour (and its media friends) shrieking "postcode lottery", "pushy parents", "middle-class privilege" – of any suggestion that its programme would endanger what Labour calls "fairness". If services become accountable to communities then by definition they may vary, and so the informed, the conscientious, the "privileged" may get a better deal. Only central government, the Left argues, can enforce uniformity and prevent disadvantage.

This is normally the point in the argument when the Tory spokesman loses his nerve. Unable to assent to anything that would repudiate "fairness", the party retreats on to Labour's ground instead of standing its own. What it could be saying is, "Let's look at how successful Labour's approach has been. Has central government, with all its determination to deliver social equality, actually reduced deprivation and increased opportunity for the poor?" No, it hasn't – and the figures exist to prove it. Inequalities of educational achievement, health outcomes and earnings have not diminished under Labour. So maybe the overweening, overspending, over-intrusive state isn't the answer. Perhaps, contrary to paternalistic, Left-wing myth, it is poorer communities that would benefit most from local self-determination. Perhaps deprivation is as much linked to passivity, defeatism and despair as it is to material poverty, and giving people more responsibility and power over their own lives would enable them to see a future for themselves that was not hopeless.

But telling this story takes nerve, and unblinking fidelity to core beliefs. That means having the confidence to reject Labour's language and its shibboleths: the word "fairness" must be reclaimed to mean that people who work hard to improve their own lives and those of their families should not be treated as if their efforts were a form of social theft; "equality of opportunity", which means that everyone gets a fair chance, must not be confounded with "equality of outcome", in which everyone gets the same whatever his merits. This is a truly liberating solution to the country's problems that could make Gordon Brown's class war look as reactionary and vindictive as it is. The Tories have a week or so in which to decide whether they are proud of it.

i would happily support both this and DC's six EU pledges, but as long as they remain so nebulous i lack the trust that he really intends to implement them, this is serious change that needs to be on an election manifesto.

twelve months down the line when the unions start to object to this plan and cause national strikes, cameron needs to be able to turn around and say i have the backing of the people for this, because otherwise he won't be able to crush union resistance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

As long as he held big poll leads, he stayed out of trouble - though had Brown been less of a coward, Cameron would have been less than a footnote in 2007. In the face of a substantial crisis, he and his shadow chancellor are being exposed as shallow, devoid of ideas and principles. Brown is probably the most stubborn, vicious, bloody-minded political fighter of his generation, and despite their general loathing of the man, it seems many Brits are beginning to consider that maybe that's the chap to have in charge when the going is so unbearably tough. A working class tough seems preferable in a fight to a fey, air-brushed public schoolboy. .

---

Gah, the poll I read is eluding me now, but I do seem to recall Brown being seen as better in a crisis than Cameron about a month ago.

new polls:
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/ind...nd-yougovbpix/
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/ind...lead-with-icm/

The 'Special-Relationship' is now over.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8590767.stm

Apparently, people were misusing the word, trying to suggest both America and Britain were equal and Britain benefited from this said relationship. :laugh: :laugh4: :laugh4:

a labour dominated committee decided that.

not that they don't have a point, but i reject the implicit assumption, a-la the IPPR, that it should be replaced with a new euro-relationship.

we will always have more in common with our anglosphere family.

lol, the report is based on testimony given by Nick Witney who works for the European Council on Foreign Relations and currently working to set up the European External Action Service aka the European Army:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...4-i/c11402.htm

That was a great link, thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

lol, the report is based on testimony given by Nick Witney who works for the European Council on Foreign Relations and currently working to set up the European External Action Service aka the European Army:
http://www.publications.parliament.u...4-i/c11402.htm

---

Oh, what cognitive dissonance. A single expert is heard by the committee about the European aspects of transatlantic relations, and you dismiss the entire report?

'Smoking bad for you? lol, I know this chain smoker who lived to be 92 !'


It's a three party committee, it travelled to New York and Washington to hear experts, dozens of British experts were consulted, ranging from economic experts, to UK ambassadors in Washington and the UN, to experts in military and international relations. Based on all of this, the committee tried to establish a picture of the workings and the worth of the special relationship for Britain.


And no, an absolutely pig-headed refusal to accept that the 'special relationship' (if it exists at all) should not be the sole focus of British foreign policy was not the conclusion of the report.

The report: http://www.publications.parliament.u...4/11404.htm#a1

Sir Campbell is always one that knows his stuff. He even predicted the credit crunch.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Oh, what cognitive dissonance. A single expert is heard by the committee about the European aspects of transatlantic relations, and you dismiss the entire report?

'Smoking bad for you? lol, I know this chain smoker who lived to be 92 !'


It's a three party committee, it travelled to New York and Washington to hear experts, dozens of British experts were consulted, ranging from economic experts, to UK ambassadors in Washington and the UN, to experts in military and international relations. Based on all of this, the committee tried to establish a picture of the workings and the worth of the special relationship for Britain.


And no, an absolutely pig-headed refusal to accept that the 'special relationship' (if it exists at all) should not be the sole focus of British foreign policy was not the conclusion of the report.

The report: http://www.publications.parliament.u...4/11404.htm#a1

---

my thoughts on the headlines reported were:

Quote:

---

a labour dominated committee decided that.

not that they don't have a point, but i reject the implicit assumption, a-la the IPPR, that it should be replaced with a new euro-relationship.

we will always have more in common with our anglosphere family.

---

it is true that america sees us as a tool with which to anglicise the EU, as well as one to add a little spine to the rickety contraption, an objective i reject in its implied outcome; that we become a part of a federal europe.

it is also true that america is less interested in europe, and thus less interested in its unsinkable aircraft carrier parked just off europe, but that is because europe is becoming a strategic backwater in the 21st century.

so yes, we should not be slavish to the US, that is agreed, but i also reject the implication that we need to jump into bed with europe just because we've been 'jilted' by the US, because they will remain close in attitude and expectations.

Here is the reports conclusion:

Quote:

---

We conclude that the UK must continue to position itself closely alongside the US in the future, recognising the many mutual benefits which flow from close co-operation in particular areas. We further conclude that the UK needs to be less deferential and more willing to say no to the US on those issues where the two countries' interests and values diverge.

---

no argument there from me.

Just a heads-up in case anyone is interested, Channel 4 are showing a debate between the Chancellor and his 2 shadow opponents tonight at 8pm. Not sure how interesting it'll be but may be worth a watch.

You can also watch the debate online at http://www.channel4.com/microsites/A...lors/live.html, which also features a very handy tool to keep track of all the tweets about it.

As for me, I shall watch it online whilst writing an essay, should be be fun :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It probably seems to many overseas members that we have strayed from the topic of the thread, but as Louis' posts touched on, the United Kingdom is still riven by class.

---

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

Texas doesn't have a class because it knows that it is above everyone else regardless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JAG

A hung Parliament is going to happen, it is just who is going to be the biggest party, I still feel that is going to be Labour. A Lab/Lib coalition will hopefully tackle the voting system, but I wouldn't hold your breath. I believe we should make voting compulsery but have a 'none of the above' box. With the system we have it will cause the parties to broaden their appeal to everyone, not just the large chunk of middle class voters who do actually use their right to vote - those the option to vote for no one will be there, when in the polling booth, many people will actually vote for a party and it will mean everyone getting represented in parliament - which can only be a good thing.

---

ah well, courage of your convictions and all that, so here is my prediction for what it is worth.

i believe the cons will continue to do very poorly in the polls, i.e. they lose under the current electoral boundaries, and i think this is electoral pressure to force the cons to show what substance they have got.

i believe they cons will continue to keep their powder dry even tho they know the electorate despise the tactic, because they are more afraid of labour stealing their clothes.

in the end, the conservatives will let free with the 'substance' of their ideas and the electorate won't be impressed, but it will be enough for a conservative victory, but not a landslide.

if i'm wrong feel free to call me on it, but it is my gut feeling, and i'm not even going to vote conservative unless i like the substance to their proposals, if they're going to run scared of being branded the nasty party then they don't have the balls to make the changes i want made, and they won't deserve my vote anyway.

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

Quote:

---

David Cameron promises to create 'neighbourhood army'
David Cameron
David Cameron says he wants every adult to join a community group

David Cameron has said that a Conservative government would train a 5,000-strong "neighbourhood army" to set up community groups.

The Tory leader said in a speech this offered a "positive alternative to Labour's big government" approach.

"Our aim is for every adult citizen to be an active member of an active neighbourhood group," he said.

Meanwhile, Labour is promising communities more powers to take over the running of local services.

The parties are attempting to take control of the "localist" agenda ahead of the general election, which is likely to be held on 6 May.

'Galvanising'

The Conservatives are promising to fund the training of 5,000 full-time, professional community organisers "over the course of the next Parliament".

They say this is based on a movement in the United States which has "trained generations of community organisers, including President Obama".


The era of top-down government is over
Tessa Jowell, Labour

In a speech in central London, Mr Cameron said: "I don't think the state should be funding directly the community organisations, but the state can fund the training, can do some of the galvanising."

Repeating his description of Britain as a "broken society", he said: "We are determined to create a bigger society, to give people more control over their lives. We believe we need to get Britain running."

Mr Cameron also announced plans to create a "Big Society Bank", funded from unclaimed bank assets, which will "provide hundreds of millions of pounds of new finance for neighbourhood groups, charities, social enterprises and other non-governmental bodies".

The party says it will transform the civil service into a "civic service", by "making regular community service a key element in civil servant staff appraisals".

Mr Cameron said: "In Labour's world, for every problem there's a government solution, for every issue an initiative.

"This is not what Beveridge dreamed of when he created the welfare state."

'Important step'

He added: "We want every adult to be a member of an active neighbourhood group.

"I know some people argue that there isn't the appetite for this sort of widespread community participation. I don't agree."

The BBC's Home Affairs Editor Mark Easton said the grass-roots initiative was ambitious and there was a danger it would be easier to put forward in opposition than implement in government.

For Labour, Cabinet Office Minister Tessa Jowell said a pilot scheme would look at giving parents a greater role in deciding how Sure Start children's centres are run.


The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense
Julia Goldsworthy, Lib Dem communities spokeswoman

There would also be a "movement to allowing staff in the NHS who want to run their own services to keep their existing pension".

Ms Jowell said: "The era of top-down government is over. Often, the best people to decide how local services should work are the local people using and running those services.

"These measures are an important step in achieving a big increase in the number of 'mutual' services that will give real power over the services that matter most."

The Liberal Democrats said the Conservative proposals were a "gimmick" and they were "out of touch" with existing examples of community activism.

"The 'Big Society' is just patronising nonsense, particularly for the thousands of dedicated people who are working to make their communities better every day," said the party's communities spokeswoman Julia Goldsworthy.

"David Cameron will say anything to get a headline. The Liberal Democrats will give people real power over things that matter like their local police and health services."

---

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Camerons Big Society:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8596256.stm

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

---

Is that not Blairism????????

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Is that not Blairism????????

---

It does smack rather strikingly of Blair's "third way"... :deal:

perhaps in its appearance, but it won't have to be forced through the teeth of a labour party still clinging to stupid ideas about class-war, the disadvantaged, and how the two should be forced to meet by policies that try to force equality of outcome.

we could genuinely end up with a government that does less, (a good thing), and empowers people to make up that deficit themselves (also a good thing).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

perhaps in its appearance, but it won't have to be forced through the teeth of a labour party still clinging to stupid ideas about class-war, the disadvantaged, and how the two should be forced to meet by policies that try to force equality of outcome.

we could genuinely end up with a government that does less, (a good thing), and empowers people to make up that deficit themselves (also a good thing).

---

Why not?...if there was any evidence to trust Cameron to deliver anything. Either way, this is still a vague concept.

And I'm not saying that "big governement" or Brown is the answer here either...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Why not?...if there was any evidence to trust Cameron to deliver anything. Either way, this is still a vague concept.

---

true enough, and i am a sceptic of the cameroon brand of cuddley conservatism, but every challenger starts in this position.

THE FIGHTBACK BEGINS
http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/...gn-pos-003.jpg
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...brown-hard-man

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

In an audacious new election strategy, Labour is set to embrace Gordon Brown's reputation for anger and physical aggression, presenting the prime minister as a hard man, unafraid of confrontation, who is willing to take on David Cameron in "a bare-knuckle fistfight for the future of Britain", the Guardian has learned.Following months of allegations about Brown's explosive outbursts and bullying, Downing Street will seize the initiative this week with a national billboard campaign portraying him as "a sort of Dirty Harry figure", in the words of a senior aide. One poster shows a glowering Brown alongside the caption "Step outside, posh boy," while another asks "Do you want some of this?"
Brown aides had worried that his reputation for volatility might torpedo Labour's hopes of re-election, but recent internal polls suggest that, on the contrary, stories of Brown's testosterone-fuelled eruptions have been almost entirely responsible for a recent recovery in the party's popularity. As a result, the aide said, Labour was "going all in", staking the election on the hope that voters will be drawn to an alpha-male personality who "is prepared to pummel, punch or even headbutt the British economy into a new era of jobs and prosperity".
Strategists are even understood to be considering engineering a high-profile incident of violence on the campaign trail, and are in urgent consultations on the matter with John Prescott, whose public image improved in 2001 after he punched an egg-throwing protester.
Possible confrontations under discussion include pushing Andrew Marr out of the way while passing him on a staircase, or thumping the back of Jeremy Paxman's chair so hard that he flinches in shock.
One tactic being discussed involves provoking a physical confrontation at one of the three ground-breaking TV debates between the candidates. In this scenario, Brown, instead of responding to a point made by Cameron, would walk over from his microphone with an exaggerated silent display of self-control, bring his face to within an inch of the Tory leader's, and in a subdued voice, ask "what did you just say?", before delivering a single well-aimed blow to his opponent's face, followed by a headlock if required.
The bloodied and bruised Cameron could then be whisked to a nearby hospital, where a previously briefed team of doctors and nurses would demonstrate the efficiency and compassion of the NHS under a Labour government.
Saatchi & Saatchi, the agency behind the poster campaign, are also considering reworked posters from classic movies, casting Brown as The Gordfather, the Terminator, and "Mr Brown" from Reservoir Dogs, or perhaps linking him to Omar Little, the merciless killer in the TV series The Wire, in order to burnish the prime minister's "gangsta" credentials. Another set of designs appropriates the current Conservative anti-Brown poster campaign, employing adapted slogans such as: "I took billions from pensions. Wanna make something of it?"
The Brown team has been buoyed by focus group results suggesting that an outbreak of physical fighting during the campaign, preferably involving bloodshed and broken limbs, could re-engage an electorate increasingly apathetic about politics. They also hope they can exploit the so-called "Putin effect", and are said to be exploring opportunities for Brown to be photographed killing a wild animal, though advisers have recommended that weather, and other considerations, mean Brown should not remove his shirt.
Labour further hopes to "harness the power of internet folksourcing", the aide explained, encouraging supporters to design their own posters, which could then be showcased online. The "design your own poster" initiative has caught the imagination of Downing Street strategists, the aide said, because it is cheap, fosters engagement among voters and, above all, nothing could possibly go wrong with it.
For their part, Conservative strategists are said to be troubled by internal research suggesting that several members of the shadow cabinet – including Cameron and George Osborne – would in fact not "come here and say that" if challenged by Brown, instead turning pale and running away, or arranging for an older brother to wait outside the Houses of Parliament to attack him when he is least expecting it.

A physical confrontation with Cameron later in April could be a real vote winner :yes:

So the Gruniad has decided to play up the fact that it's a national joke, yes?

lol, funny article, i like it. :D
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

apparently it is all crystal clear on Cameron's platform for election resides:

Election 2010: Eureka! At last, I can see what David Cameron is on about
We demand vision from our leaders - and the Tories' plan for society is truly radical, says Benedict Brogan

Published: 8:18PM BST 31 Mar 2010

It happened to Alan Turing, as he lay on his back in Grantchester Meadows, wondering how to crack the German Enigma codes. Newton was lounging in a Lincolnshire orchard. Archimedes was in his bath, but was so excited that he jumped out and ran naked through the streets of Syracuse. The weather persuaded me to opt for a taxi after my own Eureka moment yesterday, but otherwise my delight was of the same magnitude – for I now understand what David Cameron is on about.

It is often the case that something that should be apparent isn't, because you can't see what's in front of your nose. With a crossword or a puzzle – or one of those annoying pixellated images you have to look at sideways and with a squint to make out the laughing dog – there is usually a moment when all is revealed and the answer becomes plain. For some, this happens quickly. Others take a while, so that those who have cracked it already burst with frustration: "But can't you see? Just look! Surely it's obvious!"

This is the difficulty that has faced the Conservatives for some time now. Mr Cameron has a plan for revolutionising the relationship between the individual and the state. It is ambitious. It is detailed. It is in many ways a gamble, because its success is by no means assured. It demands some quite profound changes in the way we have got used to behaving. It will require different thinking on our part. Once exposed to the toxic daily demands of government, it may prove to be wildly over-optimistic. No matter: he has told us what he wants to do in quite exhaustive detail.

What he had not managed, until yesterday morning in a community centre in south London, was to make us see the big picture. Imagine his frustration: despite all those press releases and launches and announcements and Green and White Papers, people on all sides were asking him: "But what would the Tories do, exactly?", accusing him of lacking a single compelling vision. And he has had to reply – ever so politely – "But can't you see?", before going back to the office to shout in frustration at Oliver Letwin.

Mr Letwin, you see, is one of the brains behind what was presented to us yesterday as "The Big Society". A succession of shadow cabinet ministers gathered together to present, like the pieces of a jigsaw, the overall image of a Conservative plan to free us from the suffocating embrace of big government. The Tory policy chief has been banging on about this for two years at least, with little thanks. Gordon Brown, however, can spot the danger, and did his best to scupper the Tories' launch by giving a speech on immigration, an issue he had been silent on until political necessity intervened. His economic boom was built in part on an unlimited torrent of foreign migrants; now that it has turned to bust, he has roused himself to address the terrible consequences, but too late.

Mr Brown's purpose yesterday was twofold: to deprive Mr Cameron of useful headlines, and to invite the Tories to step over another of his dividing lines, when he will then thwack them with accusations of extremism. Set against this depressingly brutal approach to politics, the Big Society event was remarkable for its American-inspired optimism. Sensitive, perhaps, to the charge that their plain speaking on austerity and their talk of a "broken society" is a difficult message to sell on the doorstep, Mr Cameron and his colleagues had their smiley faces on.

"I am unashamedly optimistic and unapologetically ambitious," he told us, with a flash of the "let sunshine win the day" vision that was darkened by the economic crisis. He is optimistic about what the nation's human capital can do to restore health to a society that has lost its way; ambitious for what a Tory government can do to make it come about.

So what does he intend? The Big Society project must first be set alongside the supply-side reforms the Tories intend for the public services. If mobilising society's "little platoons" is the aim, then Michael Gove's scheme to encourage parents, volunteer groups and businesses to set up new schools is a crucial component, as is the innovative pledge to allow communities to take over and run local assets such as recreation centres or even shops.

For those looking to reduce the welfare bill, the plan to offer cash bounties to companies that find jobs for people on the dole is radical, as is the scheme for a voluntary form of national service for 16-year-olds. Philip Hammond, George Osborne's deputy, gave a lucid presentation on how reforming society is a vital part of returning us to fiscal stability: reduce the demand for welfare and you reduce – permanently – the deficit. Savings channelled back into projects that reduce dependency and increase freedom from the state in turn generate more savings. A virtuous circle is created.

Giving people both the tools and the powers they need to become active in their communities without waiting for the state to take the lead will be legislated for in the first term. A Freedom of Data Act will give us the right to access the information held by Government. Things like crime maps and public-sector job vacancies will not just be published online – alongside details of every item of public spending above £25,000 – but made available for re-use by others. Grant Shapps gave a useful analogy: when Apple introduced the iPhone, it had no idea that opening its system up to anyone who wanted to develop an application would result in a tool that allowed the public to take a snap of a pothole and report it straight to the council. A Tory government will set a similar framework of openness, then let us get on with it.

Then there is the Big Society package itself, which includes the creation of a "Big Society Bank", using unclaimed deposits to channel private money into grassroots projects; the training of 5,000 community organisers, who will fan out across the country to encourage local involvement; requiring civil servants to take on community service; and a Big Society Day to mark the resulting achievements.

You can find material here to criticise. Hearing Conservatives spouting the jargon of granularity, holistic multi-agency silos and burning platforms will set teeth on edge, though we might see it as a useful ruse: to win over that state-dependent volunteer sector, you must first speak its language. Then there is the American-ness of the thing: the idea of neighbourhoods is a transatlantic import, as is the faith in our ability to conjure up an army of community organisers like the young Barack Obama, embraced a bit too implausibly yesterday by Mr Cameron. Nor is it clear whether the necessary army of volunteers will materialise, given that no incentive is on offer beyond the warm glow of moral satisfaction.

So Mr Cameron is certainly right in one regard: his agenda is exceedingly ambitious. We have lost faith in politics, yet here is a politician who has faith in our ability as individuals to wrestle responsibility for society away from the state. We demand vision from our would-be leaders, and here is one who offers a big one, of a society rebuilt from the ground up. Gordon Brown can certainly spot this threat to his top-down ways. David Cameron knows what he doesn't – that at some point, you have to say to the people: "Over to you."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i like it.

Cameron’s proposal is that government should become an enabler rather than a provider: that it encourage, facilitate, train and help to finance local activism and organisation to counter social problems and run services. He is certainly right to say that, in the long-run this is the best way to get the deficit down because it is less wasteful and inefficient than central government-run provision.

---

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...tion-2010.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

interesting toy for the brits to play with:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/elec...tion-2010.html

---

"Your best match is with the Liberal Democrats. "

Green 2nd, Conservatives 3rd, Labour 4th.

i was 77% UKIP, and 66% Con

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I'd agree with you. Unfortunately, the society he hopes to accept this responsibility is hopelessly broken after the imposition of Thatcher's selfish individualism, magnified by the Blair/Brown years of rampant excess based on wanton government spending. There are precious few who would take on the necessary leadership - and those who would, will do so out of a political agenda rather than a community one. I suggest that Mr Cameron's party would not be very happy with the politics of the people who are energised enough to counter social problems and run services. (Frankly, New Labour has done its best to stamp them out as well - we are not talking about the Women's Institute's Militant Wing (Sink Estates) here, which is what David fondly imagines).

---

You're not coming around to the "oik" are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

i was 77% UKIP, and 66% Con

---

Apparently I scored high with UKIP too, even though I disagree with their core principles in many places. I don't want a Parliament for England, I think it should be Regional. While I could agree on a referrendum on Europe, it wouldn't be because we should leave Europe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Apparently I scored high with UKIP too, even though I disagree with their core principles in many places. I don't want a Parliament for England, I think it should be Regional. While I could agree on a referrendum on Europe, it wouldn't be because we should leave Europe.

---

Editorial bias...

I scored 71% UKIP, 61% Con, 52% Lib Dem.

Not that surprising, really.

73% Cons, 60% UKIP for me (followed by 51% Lab and 44% Lib Dems). Not too surprising I guess, not sure how accurate the UKIP count really is though, as they don't have particularly well developed policies in many areas they ask about.

I think UKIP scores well with most people because they are political whores. Rather than presenting a coherent political position they pick various incompatable policies to appeal to the largest number of voters. They probably edged out the Cons on my test because I want (at least) an English Parliament and a referendum on Europe. The last not so much because I definately want to leave, but because I want to see someone actually ask me and put foward resons why we shouldn't.

Labour Party: 62%

Liberal Democrats: 55%

Green Party: 49%

Is that surprising?

http://www.slapometer.com/

Be careful or you might hit one of the other two! :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

And a fascinating debate it has been!

A few pages back I expressed dissapointment at the lack of British slang in this thread. Louis, not really up to speed with slang, threw in 'class', as if he somehow expected that the mere mentioning of the subject was bound to stir passion and give us overseas readers a taste of British peculiarities.

Endlessly fascinating, the extent to which class is still present in British thought. All the more so for me, since as ya'll know, Texas itself does not have any class at all.

---

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

Like when someone gets a whole blow in his gut, the cheeky Brit says "don't fret gubna just a little nick we'll have you ready for tea time"

That Brit has done his job and he deserves all the fish and chips he can handle.

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues... :laugh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

And no one has deilivered. The UK needs to realzie its sole purpose in life is provide us with the cheeky and adorable slang, and to provide us with the power of the understatement.

---

Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top, shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife?

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7084502.ece

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

Pretty much got me down to a tee!

Liberal Democrats: 66%
Labour Party: 60%
Green Party: 55%
UK Independence Party: 46%
Conservative Party: 39%

How amusing that I might vote UKIP before Tory, even my bone marrow must hate the Blues... :laugh:



Steady on now old bean, no need to blow your top,?

---

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

Quote:

---

shouldn't you be eradicating native peoples and wildlife

---

From time to time a man must put his hobbies aside

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

the wealth generators of the UK take a stand against the worst offender of the wealth eaters:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle7084502.ece

---

Indeed, watching the BBC news online headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too! :laugh4:

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Boohugh

Indeed, watching the BBC news online headlines evolve over the day has been quite interesting, with them jumping at the chance to say the Conservatives were deceiving people but then backing off when the main business organisations such as the CBI came out in support of the Conservative policy too! :laugh4:

This sort of support shouldn't be dismissed lightly and adds alot of credibility to the Conservative economic arguement at a time when it has been sorely lacking.

---

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

Ugh, Americans use 2 of those 3 phrases and we all know old bean means

---

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

I'd love to help cocker but today I'm mainly laikin about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

I'm afraid that, as a shandy-drinking shirt-lifting southern toss-pot, my knowledge of the vernacular forms of English (or old norse) is pretty weak. Maybe one of the chaps here from oop north could down their chip cobbs and battered Mars bars and bowl you a googlie?

---

Mercians....

I don't plan on voting Lib Dem but I have to admit, of all the pre-election campaigns launched so far, this has to be the cleverest, If not the funniest.

http://www.labservative.com/

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

It's not entirely surprising that businessmen are objecting to increased taxes. Especially since several are also Tory donors. However, they do have a point.

The issue with using national insurance to raise taxes is that it penalises employment, which is not a good thing. The problem with the Tories arguing to rescind it comes with their answer to how they are then going to reduce the deficit. Both Labour and the Conservatives peddle this £11-odd billion of "efficiency savings" and Osborne seems to think that will, on its own, solve his debt problem. Of course, during 18 years of Conservative rule, and 13 years of Labour, no-one has ever achieved anything like those savings, and if Mrs Thatcher couldn't do it, why should anyone think David "Nice But Dim" Cameron will?

Find someone to promise that every public sector worker in the country, from Prime Minister to garbage collector will take an immediate 15% pay cut like in Ireland, and then you might see some real savings. Gorgeous George doesn't have the wit or the stomach for that kind of truth, any more than McBroon. If you're not going to raise tax, you have to cut expenditure. Why the main parties can't face the electorate with this simple truth is beyond me.

---

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

---

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

---

Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

---

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste? :dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by alh_p

11% waste? Why not 11.256%. Where on earth does that figure come from?
Well, as it sounds like you already know that there is 11% waste in the public sector, you must know where it lies and to what it is attributed, right? Otherwise you'd just pulling figures out of thin air.

Hang on, wasn't 11% of public spending waste? Not the whole of 40% it? Are you now saying that all public spending is waste? :dizzy2:

---

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

---

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Banquo's Ghost

I don't disagree with you that there is that money and more to be saved from the public sector. My contention is that the Conservatives this time around won't be tough enough to make the necessary decisions if even Mrs Thatcher shied away. They wave a policy about that they have not the capability to impose.

As you show, Labour certainly aren't up to it. If the Tories were, they would be announcing radical cuts without fear or shame. There can never be a more appropriate time than now to challenge the voters to accept the harsh realities and engage the spirit of the British to face up to hardship together. Why haven't there been strikes and riots across Ireland, the people of which are facing vicious austerity measures? Because they know the country is a busted flush, and everyone - public and private sector - is facing the same cuts and loss of salary. Most Irish are only a generation away from real Third World poverty. Have the British grown so fat and lazy that they wouldn't re-visit a Dunkirk spirit to regenerate the country?

Such a call, and the hard decisions and confrontations that would inevitably follow would require a leader of utter conviction and a high degree of charisma and communication skill. That is not Cameron nor Osborne. In fact, I couldn't point to anyone on the shadow front bench who might make a go of it.

---

absolutely agreed.

if you know that your party, if elected, will have to makes some deeply unpolular changes then the only to implement this is to go into an election seeking a mandate from the people to make those changes.

its is why i have so much sympathy with the mission of the excellent critical reaction blog when they say the following:
http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2502/...tical-reaction

Quote:

---

At Critical Reaction we not only want David Cameron to campaign as a Conservative and be elected as a Conservative. We even hope he will govern as a Conservative.

---

I am not a floating voter, i don't need the tory brand to be 'decontaminated', therefore I am not a huge fan of this new image of cuddly-conservatism.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off)

---

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

That is not actually entirely true. Especially since a lot of the public sector actually makes the private sector work. Also, if some one like myself was elected, you would see big returns on investment, which would greatly assist in making public sector far more self-sufficient, and thus, taxes can be lowered that way.

Also, an efficient public sector actually saves people a lot of money since the private equavalant would cost more more per user, plus since the private have to satisfy share-holders, golf-caddies, etc, it would mean more money is not being spent on these things, which means lower price for the user, which means that user now has more wealth.

---

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

I'll tell you a funny story that happened twenty years or more ago to illustrate a point. One morning the 'phone rang in the office and when I answered it was the rates officer. He informed me that we hadn't paid our rates and that if we didn't pay in full he would have no choice but to send the bailiffs in. Now bear in mind that both the rates officer and I worked for the same authority.

Anyway I send, "Go ahead matey boy, send the bailiffs in, you don't frighten me with your threats, you jumped up little Hirohito", and slamed the 'phone down, laughing my head off. Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right hand was doing! :laugh4:

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

You've obviously never worked in the public sector. I did 10 years as an LGO and I can tell you the waste is phenomenal. When I had a business, if I done what I did as an LGO, I'd have gone bust in six months. The public sector does not generate any wealth, quite the opposite. The private sector generates all the wealth and pays all the taxes. You can't count any public sector tax returns as wealth creating as it's just money sloshing back and forth in the system.

---

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.

Quote:

---

Oh and BTW when the term 'investment' is used you mean chucking money down the public sector throat. In real life when the term 'investment' is used you expect to make a profit on the return for your money. Just so you know the difference.

---

No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

BG, i would agree with you if public spending had not sky-rocketed from £250b/year to $625b/year in the last fifteen years:
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/do...color=c&title=

There is 11% waste in the public sector, at least, and any party in government that cannot find and make those saving should be hoisted upon the petard of its own election claims and vilified.

More to the point, i want that waste identified, and its architects publicly ridiculed to provide a lasting impression in the public consciousness of disgust at tax-n-spend politics.

Wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is quite franky immoral.

---

Tory spin.


1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

@Apache: probably all true; and all irrelevant to Beskar's point (which is that the public sector provides services that the private sector relies upon in order to function; so without the public sector providing those unprofitable services [such as education] certain parts of the private sector would not exist to make a profit at all).

---

Thanks for reminding me. That is the sort of thing I meant with "That is not actually entirely true."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Not really, you can have income coming from public sector without you needing to put money into it. Hence a self-sufficient public sector which I was going on about as in, a nationalised business which due to economics of scale would be producing a profit at a low lower cost, which means the user would have to pay less for the product, and money would be re-invested within the business would would produce a better, advanced and more efficient service.

As many of these plans would revolve around infrastructure, such as telecommunications, energy and water, the private sector would be very reliant on these services and the continuous improvements would greatly benefit them, greatly far more wealth than what would be potentially required otherwise. You only have to look across the border to see vastly superior services in places like South Korea, Scandinavia, Japan and France to see this working in practise, so it isn't pie in the sky.



No, I didn't. I am not an utter moron, I do know what "investment" means.

---

This works only with services, i.e. Rail, Water, etc. (as you pointed out). However, the massive number of as-yet unidentified leaky pipes, and the only recently replaced (last five years or so) rail carriages show that the public sector in Britiain not only failed to provide value for money, it failed to upgrade with time and technology. When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I('m afraid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Tory spin.

1)
Your numbers are not corrected for inflation, nor do they take into account the massive increase in the UK's GDP under Labour - the party responsible for creating British wealth.

Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88

Despite the Tory's massive defense spending cuts after 1989, they still managed to grow public expenditure by 10%. Labour, before the current financial crisis public bailout, kept public spending at roughly the same level.

This Labour achieved by massively increasing wealth (a larger pie), and drastically raising efficiency across the board. Labour even managed to keep expediture at the same level plus wage not one, but two expensive, high intensity wars.


2) alh_p is quite correct.
One can scarcely claim that there is 11% waste, and demand that this waste is identified.


3) Imagine a school. The teachers are publicly funded, the cleaners are a contracted private company. Does the latter create wealth and the forrmer not?
It makes no economical sense whatsoever to state the private sector creates wealth, and the public sector consumes wealth.

Finland has a large public sector. It has healthy, educated, safe citizens who can devote their energy to inventing telephones.
The Congo does not have any public sector worthy of the name. The only wealth generated are outside corporations plundering its natural resources, and subsistence level agriculture by women.

---

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:

:laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::lau gh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4::laugh4:

roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

i am reminded of the quote attributed to gordon brown in 97 on being informed by a civil servant that he was inheriting an economy in tip-top condition, he reportedly responded with; "do you want me to send them a f*£^%$& thank you letter?"

so, i am literally rolling on the floor, splitting my sides with laughter when you attribute the proseperity of the nineties and noughties to labour! :laugh4:

i doubt gourgeous george osborne will be given any such reassuring news to rude about!

thanks Louis, you brightened my day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

When you and I were children traines were expensive, old, unsafe, and did not run on time. Now they are more expensive, but they're modern, safe, and run on time.

The difference between public and private, right there, I'm afraid.

---

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link, I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.