He did put 'socialist' in quotes. Especially on this forum, the word is very loaded. It could cover anything from a Trotskyite to a Social democrat.
It must be something in the water - I have always voted Labour in the UK. Might have voted Liberal democrat if they weren't such a back stabbing joke and found with their pants down all the time. How Shell ever employed Vince Cable as their Chief economist beggars belief.
But I am certainly on the centre/right side of the labour party, but not quite as right of centre as Tony Blair, on reflection.
Never voted conservative - I grew up and was educated with them, so have a suitable contempt. I knew 3 future MP's at my college, all conservative, plus the future conservative party chairman. Only one of them was not a cunt (he was actually a nice bloke and has stood for a good safe mid England seat for decades, doing sterling work on the back benches).
Can;t say any of the current opposition front bench inspires confidence, but that still wouldn't make me vote conservative.
But the bigger difference are, I think, not party related. Before the 90's, we were led by men and women who had often had a good war, as they say, and this bred a great deal of comradely cross party bonhomie. I'm think of Ted Heath, Callaghan, that guy with the eyebrows. I guess there were similarities in the US - if you had fought together, party differences are less important. They were grown men and women. Whereas they are all nowadays professional politician prats not out of nappies. Or the crazies like newt and paul.
My summary of Obama is that having an African American president is a great and wonderful stride forward for the US people, I was 100% for it and it is a symbolic change in the landscape (or should be - maybe the ladscape hasn't noticed). As for the person himself, or his party, he can be an inspiring speaker, but I have far too little knowledge to judge his executive or leadership qualities. But he wasn;t handed an easy deck of cards.
- essence
- 03-14-2012, 08:27 PM
- IIFFOFRDB
- 03-14-2012, 09:23 PM
Wise people have spoken here. Can I get an AMEN. OK maybe not but we are trying.
- essence
- 03-14-2012, 11:28 PM
eyebrows = dennis healy
You do not have to agree with them, but at least they were men of substance.
Ted heath led UK into Europe - you have to remember that the European Union was a political concept, the founders were adamant that never again would there be war in Europe, and that would be made impossible because of the economic ties. Those who criticise the european movement would be wise to remember this, and those who abuse the union would also be wise to remember it.
I have always admired ted heath, not only because he was an excellent musician, but he was not easy.
He was an Oxford almost contemporary of Roy jenkins and denis healey.
As an undergraduate, Heath travelled widely in Europe. His opposition to appeasement was nourished by his witnessing first-hand a Nuremberg Rally in 1937, where he met top Nazis Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler at an SS cocktail party. He later described Himmler as "the most evil man I have ever met".[
Heath spent the winter of 1939–40 on a debating tour of the United States before being called up, and early in 1941 was commissioned in the Royal Artillery. During the war he initially served with heavy anti-aircraft guns around Liverpool (which suffered heavy German bombing in May 1941) and by early 1942 was regimental adjutant, with the rank of Captain. Later, by then a Major commanding a battery of his own, he provided artillery support in the North-West Europe Campaign of 1944-45.
He later remarked that, although he did not personally kill anybody, as the British forces advanced he saw the devastation caused by his unit's artillery bombardments. In September 1945 he commanded a firing squad that executed a Polish soldier convicted of rape and murder. After demobilisation as a Lieutenant-colonel in August 1946 Heath joined the Honourable Artillery Company, in which he remained active throughout the 1950s, rising to Commanding Officer of the Second Battalion; a portrait of him in full dress uniform still hangs in the HAC's Long Room. In April 1971, as Prime Minister, he wore his lieutenant-colonel's insignia to inspect troops.
Also at Oxford, Healey met future Conservative Prime Minister Teddy Heath (as he was then known), whom he succeeded as president of Balliol College Junior Common Room and who was to be a life-long friend and political rival.
note healey was in labour party, heath was a tory.
After his degree, healy served in the Second World War with the Royal Engineers, in the North African Campaign, the Allied invasion of Sicily and the Italian Campaign, and was the military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio. Leaving the service with the rank of Major after the war – he declined an offer to remain as a Lieutenant-Colonel – Healey joined the Labour Party.
Jenkins was educated at Abersychan County School, University College, Cardiff, and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was twice defeated for the Presidency of the Oxford Union but took First Class Honours in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE). His university colleagues included Tony Crosland, Denis Healey, and Edward Heath, and he became friends with all three, although he was never particularly close to Healey. During the Second World War he served with the Royal Artillery and then at Bletchley Park, reaching the rank of captain.
You do not have to agree with them, but at least they were men of substance.
Ted heath led UK into Europe - you have to remember that the European Union was a political concept, the founders were adamant that never again would there be war in Europe, and that would be made impossible because of the economic ties. Those who criticise the european movement would be wise to remember this, and those who abuse the union would also be wise to remember it.
I have always admired ted heath, not only because he was an excellent musician, but he was not easy.
He was an Oxford almost contemporary of Roy jenkins and denis healey.
As an undergraduate, Heath travelled widely in Europe. His opposition to appeasement was nourished by his witnessing first-hand a Nuremberg Rally in 1937, where he met top Nazis Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler at an SS cocktail party. He later described Himmler as "the most evil man I have ever met".[
Heath spent the winter of 1939–40 on a debating tour of the United States before being called up, and early in 1941 was commissioned in the Royal Artillery. During the war he initially served with heavy anti-aircraft guns around Liverpool (which suffered heavy German bombing in May 1941) and by early 1942 was regimental adjutant, with the rank of Captain. Later, by then a Major commanding a battery of his own, he provided artillery support in the North-West Europe Campaign of 1944-45.
He later remarked that, although he did not personally kill anybody, as the British forces advanced he saw the devastation caused by his unit's artillery bombardments. In September 1945 he commanded a firing squad that executed a Polish soldier convicted of rape and murder. After demobilisation as a Lieutenant-colonel in August 1946 Heath joined the Honourable Artillery Company, in which he remained active throughout the 1950s, rising to Commanding Officer of the Second Battalion; a portrait of him in full dress uniform still hangs in the HAC's Long Room. In April 1971, as Prime Minister, he wore his lieutenant-colonel's insignia to inspect troops.
Also at Oxford, Healey met future Conservative Prime Minister Teddy Heath (as he was then known), whom he succeeded as president of Balliol College Junior Common Room and who was to be a life-long friend and political rival.
note healey was in labour party, heath was a tory.
After his degree, healy served in the Second World War with the Royal Engineers, in the North African Campaign, the Allied invasion of Sicily and the Italian Campaign, and was the military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio. Leaving the service with the rank of Major after the war – he declined an offer to remain as a Lieutenant-Colonel – Healey joined the Labour Party.
Jenkins was educated at Abersychan County School, University College, Cardiff, and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was twice defeated for the Presidency of the Oxford Union but took First Class Honours in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE). His university colleagues included Tony Crosland, Denis Healey, and Edward Heath, and he became friends with all three, although he was never particularly close to Healey. During the Second World War he served with the Royal Artillery and then at Bletchley Park, reaching the rank of captain.
- IIFFOFRDB
- 03-14-2012, 11:33 PM
eyebrows = dennis healyOK you had to ruin it. Labour or tory this is America...WTF
You do not have to agree with them, but at least they were men of substance.
Ted heath led UK into Europe - you have to remember that the European Union was a political concept, the founders were adamant that never again would there be war in Europe, and that would be made impossible because of the economic ties. Those who criticise the european movement would be wise to remember this, and those who abuse the union would also be wise to remember it.
I have always admired ted heath, not only because he was an excellent musician, but he was not easy.
He was an Oxford almost contemporary of Roy jenkins and denis healey.
As an undergraduate, Heath travelled widely in Europe. His opposition to appeasement was nourished by his witnessing first-hand a Nuremberg Rally in 1937, where he met top Nazis Hermann Göring, Joseph Goebbels and Heinrich Himmler at an SS cocktail party. He later described Himmler as "the most evil man I have ever met".[
Heath spent the winter of 1939–40 on a debating tour of the United States before being called up, and early in 1941 was commissioned in the Royal Artillery. During the war he initially served with heavy anti-aircraft guns around Liverpool (which suffered heavy German bombing in May 1941) and by early 1942 was regimental adjutant, with the rank of Captain. Later, by then a Major commanding a battery of his own, he provided artillery support in the North-West Europe Campaign of 1944-45.
He later remarked that, although he did not personally kill anybody, as the British forces advanced he saw the devastation caused by his unit's artillery bombardments. In September 1945 he commanded a firing squad that executed a Polish soldier convicted of rape and murder. After demobilisation as a Lieutenant-colonel in August 1946 Heath joined the Honourable Artillery Company, in which he remained active throughout the 1950s, rising to Commanding Officer of the Second Battalion; a portrait of him in full dress uniform still hangs in the HAC's Long Room. In April 1971, as Prime Minister, he wore his lieutenant-colonel's insignia to inspect troops.
Also at Oxford, Healey met future Conservative Prime Minister Teddy Heath (as he was then known), whom he succeeded as president of Balliol College Junior Common Room and who was to be a life-long friend and political rival.
note healey was in labour party, heath was a tory.
After his degree, healy served in the Second World War with the Royal Engineers, in the North African Campaign, the Allied invasion of Sicily and the Italian Campaign, and was the military landing officer for the British assault brigade at Anzio. Leaving the service with the rank of Major after the war – he declined an offer to remain as a Lieutenant-Colonel – Healey joined the Labour Party.
Jenkins was educated at Abersychan County School, University College, Cardiff, and at Balliol College, Oxford, where he was twice defeated for the Presidency of the Oxford Union but took First Class Honours in Politics, Philosophy and Economics (PPE). His university colleagues included Tony Crosland, Denis Healey, and Edward Heath, and he became friends with all three, although he was never particularly close to Healey. During the Second World War he served with the Royal Artillery and then at Bletchley Park, reaching the rank of captain. Originally Posted by essence
- essence
- 03-14-2012, 11:44 PM
No, this is some obscure hooker board, which nobody cares about.
My point is:
look at David Cameron current pm, clearly a very bright fellow, but he has done fuck all in his life compared with his predecessors.
Does this ring a bell with respect to US politicians?
There are no import embargos here. If you want to complain about european socialism but have no interest in the facts, that is your problem.
My point is:
look at David Cameron current pm, clearly a very bright fellow, but he has done fuck all in his life compared with his predecessors.
Does this ring a bell with respect to US politicians?
There are no import embargos here. If you want to complain about european socialism but have no interest in the facts, that is your problem.
- essence
- 03-14-2012, 11:46 PM
ps I think I am also helping to address the question from the OP, even though I have put her on my whacko list (like everybody else).
Why are sane europeans socialists?
Why are sane europeans socialists?
- CuteOldGuy
- 03-14-2012, 11:48 PM
That's a trick question. Everyone knows there are no sane Europeans.
- Iaintliein
- 03-15-2012, 10:04 AM
I've never taken a class in political science or philosophy, nor read any books on either subject, so here is my view, presented simply as my view.
Socialism; to my mind, boils down to living your life by someone else's rules, voluntarily. . . or not. Certainly, it can never be entirely escaped, but it must be kept in check.
It's about Utopia and the various visions thereof, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Labour, and National Socialists all have their vision of the "perfect world" and have at various times tried to force it onto others either with pens, swords, or guns. All of them have some common themes; primarily sacrifice of personal liberty, "for the greater good", including but not limited to, the liberty of how one uses one's own body or one's own wealth. Given the chance there are those in every group I've mentioned who would feel justified in using violence to force their world view onto others.
Another commonality in the "socialist" groups I've listed is that their survival hinges more than anything else upon "Faith", because each and every one of them falls flat when confronted with reality. "Socialism" has simply never, ever worked for any length of time.
Two of the major recipients of Marshall plan relief after WWII were England and Germany. Germany, having been demolished as a result of their experiment with socialism, re-built it's industrial base with the money. England kicked the conservative government that got them through the war to the curb and spent theirs on public housing and public healthcare. The results were absolutely predicatable except to those blinded by their "faith" in socialism; Germany as the most solvent economic power in Europe, England with dilapidated slums and a healthcare system that is the country's biggest employer, yet still has to import doctors and ration services.
Socialism is about assuring equal outcomes which can only be done by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. Libertarianism is about equal freedom to make choices and live with the consequences.
Neither system works perfectly, in the end, Libertarianism; even though it's central premise is that everyone should pursue their own view of Utopia, is, alas, Utopian. But, when my vision fails, I want to know that I have only myself to blame.
Socialism; to my mind, boils down to living your life by someone else's rules, voluntarily. . . or not. Certainly, it can never be entirely escaped, but it must be kept in check.
It's about Utopia and the various visions thereof, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Labour, and National Socialists all have their vision of the "perfect world" and have at various times tried to force it onto others either with pens, swords, or guns. All of them have some common themes; primarily sacrifice of personal liberty, "for the greater good", including but not limited to, the liberty of how one uses one's own body or one's own wealth. Given the chance there are those in every group I've mentioned who would feel justified in using violence to force their world view onto others.
Another commonality in the "socialist" groups I've listed is that their survival hinges more than anything else upon "Faith", because each and every one of them falls flat when confronted with reality. "Socialism" has simply never, ever worked for any length of time.
Two of the major recipients of Marshall plan relief after WWII were England and Germany. Germany, having been demolished as a result of their experiment with socialism, re-built it's industrial base with the money. England kicked the conservative government that got them through the war to the curb and spent theirs on public housing and public healthcare. The results were absolutely predicatable except to those blinded by their "faith" in socialism; Germany as the most solvent economic power in Europe, England with dilapidated slums and a healthcare system that is the country's biggest employer, yet still has to import doctors and ration services.
Socialism is about assuring equal outcomes which can only be done by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. Libertarianism is about equal freedom to make choices and live with the consequences.
Neither system works perfectly, in the end, Libertarianism; even though it's central premise is that everyone should pursue their own view of Utopia, is, alas, Utopian. But, when my vision fails, I want to know that I have only myself to blame.
- joe bloe
- 03-15-2012, 11:22 AM
I've never taken a class in political science or philosophy, nor read any books on either subject, so here is my view, presented simply as my view.I think the fundamental and dangerous flaw in socialism/Marxism is the belief man is perfectable, that he is not inherently flawed. Believing that man is basically good at the core level allows the socialists to propose the possibility of a socialist Utopia made up of people all dedicated to what is good for the State and not themselves.
Socialism; to my mind, boils down to living your life by someone else's rules, voluntarily. . . or not. Certainly, it can never be entirely escaped, but it must be kept in check.
It's about Utopia and the various visions thereof, Christians, Muslims, Communists, Labour, and National Socialists all have their vision of the "perfect world" and have at various times tried to force it onto others either with pens, swords, or guns. All of them have some common themes; primarily sacrifice of personal liberty, "for the greater good", including but not limited to, the liberty of how one uses one's own body or one's own wealth. Given the chance there are those in every group I've mentioned who would feel justified in using violence to force their world view onto others.
Another commonality in the "socialist" groups I've listed is that their survival hinges more than anything else upon "Faith", because each and every one of them falls flat when confronted with reality. "Socialism" has simply never, ever worked for any length of time.
Two of the major recipients of Marshall plan relief after WWII were England and Germany. Germany, having been demolished as a result of their experiment with socialism, re-built it's industrial base with the money. England kicked the conservative government that got them through the war to the curb and spent theirs on public housing and public healthcare. The results were absolutely predicatable except to those blinded by their "faith" in socialism; Germany as the most solvent economic power in Europe, England with dilapidated slums and a healthcare system that is the country's biggest employer, yet still has to import doctors and ration services.
Socialism is about assuring equal outcomes which can only be done by lowering everyone to the lowest common denominator. Libertarianism is about equal freedom to make choices and live with the consequences.
Neither system works perfectly, in the end, Libertarianism; even though it's central premise is that everyone should pursue their own view of Utopia, is, alas, Utopian. But, when my vision fails, I want to know that I have only myself to blame. Originally Posted by Iaintliein
People are not fundamentally good. The Judeo-Christian notion of our core nature is that "the heart is wicked" that we are fallen beings. People can never be consistantly motivated by a desire for the common good with no regard for self interest; that's why socialism doesn't work.
If you work eighty hours a week and the state takes all your income after the fortieth hour and redistributes it to social welfare programs, you will stop working beyond the fortieth hour.
It amazes me that the left continues to try to make socialism work even though it always fails. The left seems to learn nothing from history.
- JD Barleycorn
- 03-15-2012, 11:38 AM
The first thing we have to remember is that socialism is an economic issue and not political. Communism is political. You can be a socialist and still be a fascist (that one really messes with some peoples heads).
Pure socialism on a large scale through government is unworkable until people change and I don't see that happening. Plato talked about socialism in his "Republic" but, of course, he never called it socialism. Plato broke down society by class and skills. Certain people were called to be warriors and others were going to be boot makers. That would never change. If you are born as a farmer then a farmer you stayed the rest of your life. You were supposed to be content and did your work because it was your job. If you made boots then you made boots for everyone and the farmer produced food for you. The weaver would produce cloth for you and the potter would make your storage containers. Everyone is content with their lot in life especially the philosopher-kings.
What happens if someone is not content or is lacking the skill to be sucessful. If you get your pair boots but they were made by Asogis the thumbless. You boots are crap but you can't give them back. How would Asogis make a living if he didn't make boots. He is not allowed to do something else. What if we allowed him to do something else?
Asogis gets to be an armor maker and he is very good at it. He is happy and productive. Some farmers kid sees this and says he wants to be a builder and not a farmer. Can we let him? What happens if no one wants to be a farmer anymore? A daughter decides that marriage to a local clod is not for her when she can have many men. She wants to become a mistress to several men. Bless her heart, she asks for money and they give it to her. Other women see this and become jealous. Why can she afford servants to draw her bath and I have to pickle peppers until my hands are pruney.
Back to our village, two men who make swords. One is very good with great talent and a secret, the other is so-so. Every year they must produce two swords a month for the village. If you were the warrior who's sword do you want? Remember there is no money in this process. Everyone shares equally. You know warriors though. They come back from conquests with silver and gold in their purse. The smart ones go to the expert sword maker and ask him to keep one back for them while dropping a gold piece in his palm. The expert has to report that he didn't make enough swords because he kept a few back for sale. The crappy sword maker sees his fellow craftsman with a new horse, some extra chickens, and new clothes. He is mad because he has heard what is going on. He goes to the philosopher-king and complains. The PK levees a tax on the expert sword maker that eats up his profit for hoarding good swords for sale. Is everyone happy since the balance has been preserved? Nope! The expert sword maker leaves the village one night for a new home across the river where they let him make a profit for his labors.
This all may seem convoluted but the point is that people are all different. Some are good at what they do and some aren't. Shouldn't the good ones profit if they chose to? The only other choice is to make them slaves.
Take that modern times. Tim and Mike love baseball. They both play ball all day if they are allowed. Tim is a superstar and Mike...well, he tries but he will never be a Tim. Tim gets hired by a professional team and Mike gets tickets to see Tim play. Needless to say Tim gets fat contract and Mike decides to become a plumber like his father and brother. Should we take the money from Tim and give some of it to Mike until they are equal?
Socialism doesn't work, communism is socialism at the point of a gun.
Pure socialism on a large scale through government is unworkable until people change and I don't see that happening. Plato talked about socialism in his "Republic" but, of course, he never called it socialism. Plato broke down society by class and skills. Certain people were called to be warriors and others were going to be boot makers. That would never change. If you are born as a farmer then a farmer you stayed the rest of your life. You were supposed to be content and did your work because it was your job. If you made boots then you made boots for everyone and the farmer produced food for you. The weaver would produce cloth for you and the potter would make your storage containers. Everyone is content with their lot in life especially the philosopher-kings.
What happens if someone is not content or is lacking the skill to be sucessful. If you get your pair boots but they were made by Asogis the thumbless. You boots are crap but you can't give them back. How would Asogis make a living if he didn't make boots. He is not allowed to do something else. What if we allowed him to do something else?
Asogis gets to be an armor maker and he is very good at it. He is happy and productive. Some farmers kid sees this and says he wants to be a builder and not a farmer. Can we let him? What happens if no one wants to be a farmer anymore? A daughter decides that marriage to a local clod is not for her when she can have many men. She wants to become a mistress to several men. Bless her heart, she asks for money and they give it to her. Other women see this and become jealous. Why can she afford servants to draw her bath and I have to pickle peppers until my hands are pruney.
Back to our village, two men who make swords. One is very good with great talent and a secret, the other is so-so. Every year they must produce two swords a month for the village. If you were the warrior who's sword do you want? Remember there is no money in this process. Everyone shares equally. You know warriors though. They come back from conquests with silver and gold in their purse. The smart ones go to the expert sword maker and ask him to keep one back for them while dropping a gold piece in his palm. The expert has to report that he didn't make enough swords because he kept a few back for sale. The crappy sword maker sees his fellow craftsman with a new horse, some extra chickens, and new clothes. He is mad because he has heard what is going on. He goes to the philosopher-king and complains. The PK levees a tax on the expert sword maker that eats up his profit for hoarding good swords for sale. Is everyone happy since the balance has been preserved? Nope! The expert sword maker leaves the village one night for a new home across the river where they let him make a profit for his labors.
This all may seem convoluted but the point is that people are all different. Some are good at what they do and some aren't. Shouldn't the good ones profit if they chose to? The only other choice is to make them slaves.
Take that modern times. Tim and Mike love baseball. They both play ball all day if they are allowed. Tim is a superstar and Mike...well, he tries but he will never be a Tim. Tim gets hired by a professional team and Mike gets tickets to see Tim play. Needless to say Tim gets fat contract and Mike decides to become a plumber like his father and brother. Should we take the money from Tim and give some of it to Mike until they are equal?
Socialism doesn't work, communism is socialism at the point of a gun.
- joe bloe
- 03-15-2012, 12:18 PM
Adam Smith had it all figured out. The best system is the one that is organized by the "invisible hand". Capitalism has done more to advance civilization and reduce human suffering than any other system ever tryed. It isn't perfect and doesn't pretend to be. Socialism tells the lie that perfection is possible.
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called the Quest for Cosmic Justice. The premise is that the left is constantly seeking perfect justice (racial justice, economic justice, gender justice etc) that can not be acheived in this world. The level of justice the left is seeking can only be delivered by an omnipotent being (god). The quest for cosmic justice allows the left to constantly expand the power of the State with the excuse that if only the individual is willing to give up more personal liberty, eventually the State can create a utopia. I think it was Ben Franklin that said he that trades liberty for security with lose both and deserves neither.
The socialists take your freedom with the promise of paradise and create a hell on earth.
Thomas Sowell wrote a book called the Quest for Cosmic Justice. The premise is that the left is constantly seeking perfect justice (racial justice, economic justice, gender justice etc) that can not be acheived in this world. The level of justice the left is seeking can only be delivered by an omnipotent being (god). The quest for cosmic justice allows the left to constantly expand the power of the State with the excuse that if only the individual is willing to give up more personal liberty, eventually the State can create a utopia. I think it was Ben Franklin that said he that trades liberty for security with lose both and deserves neither.
The socialists take your freedom with the promise of paradise and create a hell on earth.
- Don't Be Daft!
- 03-15-2012, 12:20 PM
Kayla thanks for the respect. Even if you do disagree vehemently with my beliefs.
*I fully understand this shall be ripped to shreds by all if not most on these boards. Be that as it may this is merely my opinion(s) on the various topics that are being discussed.
Mind if I ring in chaps? Cheers. First, I'd like to say I am in no way "anti-military". I think some think that in some way goes hand in hand with being a socialist. I served in Her Majesty's Royal Marines and later the SBS. Which is like but not as elite as your Navy Seals. (From what I'm told.) I love my "countries" both the UK and U.S.A. I believe anyone who is of age and capable of defending their homeland should do so. Israel in fact makes it mandatory. But, I digress...
I'm a Democratic Socialist. I'm not for the cruel sort of socialism the U.S.S.R. forced upon its people. I think that is important in saying.
Healthcare: Why I love the NHS. Yes, we have wee problems such as "wait times" but only for non-emergency surgical procedures. I have always had a one on one dialogue with my physician about each and every facet of my medical treatment regimen. There has never been a time when the government took "decision" making power away from me. *I believe it is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of a country to have "good & decent" healthcare. Regardless of their socioeconomic status. That means whether you are Sir. Richard Branson or an immigrant living in Hackney-South London. *In my opinion the only way of doing that is through a massive government agency such as the NHS. The NHS does indeed have its issue but all in all I thinks its a far bloody cry better than the healthcare that goes on in America. Before I get bashed do try to remember I too am an American citizen. I too care about the healthcare crisis in this country. You Yanks have twice the financial resources that we do in the UK but your healthcare has come up wanting! I find that a massive disappointment. As I said, before these are only my opinions and I realize due to my political beliefs they shall surely be in direct opposition of many if not most on these boards. More's the pity...
*Note: I am in the health industry. Not a nurse, not a physician assistant, nor in hospital administration. All I'll say is I went to school a very long time to graduate and then specialize. Hint, hint... In saying that I must say how different the arguement is with my fellow colleagues in the UK. Here in America my colleagues are overwhelmingly for privatized medicine. Wait, well my colleagues here in the southern part of the U.S.A. Which is completely opposite from how it is back in Manchester.
Essence: He mentioned the Liberal Democrats to some degree above. I quite fancied that party years ago! But, they continue to flirt with the Tories too much to my liking. For the last five to ten years I've been Labour all the way. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Had hopes for Nick Clegg. His opinions on the whole Tottenham uprising sorted that for me.
CuteOldGuy: I'm not sure your meaning in the first or second post? Were you having a go? If so please explain?
* Its fine to disagree on here I reckon but must we be such cunts to each other? I simply won't get envolved in name calling or bashing. Its really quite daft and doesn't do anything for proving ones point. And, to be fair I think I may have been a wee to sarcastic in past posts. So, I do apologize. Its not as if I thought people here were all going to agree with my stances. I'm the new bloke with very different stances and beliefs from most on here. Right, where the bloody hell was I? Erm, never mind lol.
At University I was actually politically more to the centre of the political landscape. Funny how that works. Most are far more liberal at university and then move the other way once they start earning money, paying bills, having kids, and dealing with the mortgage. And, I must say I'm not liberal due to some sort of financial lapse. In fact I am in this countries top 10% of earners. Which would make me fairly well off. It seems most in this country who are well off are predominately right-wing. I could be wrong I suppose.
Labour ideology from wikipedia
Its better than my attempt at trying to define it.)
Throughout its history, the Labour Party has usually been thought of as being left wing or, more recently, centre-left in its politics.[4][5][6] Officially, it has maintained the stance of being a socialist party ever since its inception, currently describing itself as a "democratic socialist party".[3][2] The party has been described as a broad church,[10] containing a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist, to more moderately social democratic, and in recent years pro-market tendencies.[11] Throughout its history, it has been criticised by other leftist commentators and historians for not being truly socialist in its policies, instead supporting anti-socialist stances such as capitalism and neo-colonialism and has been described as a "capitalist workers' party".[12]
Historically the party was broadly in favour of socialism, as set out in Clause Four[13] of the original party constitution, and advocated socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers, the welfare state, publicly-funded healthcare and education. Beginning in the late-1980s continuing to the current day,[14] the party has adopted free market policies, leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic or Third Way, rather than democratic socialist.[15][16][17][18]
Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992, and in 1995 the original Clause Four was abolished. The new version states:
*I fully understand this shall be ripped to shreds by all if not most on these boards. Be that as it may this is merely my opinion(s) on the various topics that are being discussed.
Mind if I ring in chaps? Cheers. First, I'd like to say I am in no way "anti-military". I think some think that in some way goes hand in hand with being a socialist. I served in Her Majesty's Royal Marines and later the SBS. Which is like but not as elite as your Navy Seals. (From what I'm told.) I love my "countries" both the UK and U.S.A. I believe anyone who is of age and capable of defending their homeland should do so. Israel in fact makes it mandatory. But, I digress...
I'm a Democratic Socialist. I'm not for the cruel sort of socialism the U.S.S.R. forced upon its people. I think that is important in saying.
Healthcare: Why I love the NHS. Yes, we have wee problems such as "wait times" but only for non-emergency surgical procedures. I have always had a one on one dialogue with my physician about each and every facet of my medical treatment regimen. There has never been a time when the government took "decision" making power away from me. *I believe it is a fundamental right of each and every citizen of a country to have "good & decent" healthcare. Regardless of their socioeconomic status. That means whether you are Sir. Richard Branson or an immigrant living in Hackney-South London. *In my opinion the only way of doing that is through a massive government agency such as the NHS. The NHS does indeed have its issue but all in all I thinks its a far bloody cry better than the healthcare that goes on in America. Before I get bashed do try to remember I too am an American citizen. I too care about the healthcare crisis in this country. You Yanks have twice the financial resources that we do in the UK but your healthcare has come up wanting! I find that a massive disappointment. As I said, before these are only my opinions and I realize due to my political beliefs they shall surely be in direct opposition of many if not most on these boards. More's the pity...
*Note: I am in the health industry. Not a nurse, not a physician assistant, nor in hospital administration. All I'll say is I went to school a very long time to graduate and then specialize. Hint, hint... In saying that I must say how different the arguement is with my fellow colleagues in the UK. Here in America my colleagues are overwhelmingly for privatized medicine. Wait, well my colleagues here in the southern part of the U.S.A. Which is completely opposite from how it is back in Manchester.
Essence: He mentioned the Liberal Democrats to some degree above. I quite fancied that party years ago! But, they continue to flirt with the Tories too much to my liking. For the last five to ten years I've been Labour all the way. I don't see that changing anytime soon. Had hopes for Nick Clegg. His opinions on the whole Tottenham uprising sorted that for me.
CuteOldGuy: I'm not sure your meaning in the first or second post? Were you having a go? If so please explain?
* Its fine to disagree on here I reckon but must we be such cunts to each other? I simply won't get envolved in name calling or bashing. Its really quite daft and doesn't do anything for proving ones point. And, to be fair I think I may have been a wee to sarcastic in past posts. So, I do apologize. Its not as if I thought people here were all going to agree with my stances. I'm the new bloke with very different stances and beliefs from most on here. Right, where the bloody hell was I? Erm, never mind lol.
At University I was actually politically more to the centre of the political landscape. Funny how that works. Most are far more liberal at university and then move the other way once they start earning money, paying bills, having kids, and dealing with the mortgage. And, I must say I'm not liberal due to some sort of financial lapse. In fact I am in this countries top 10% of earners. Which would make me fairly well off. It seems most in this country who are well off are predominately right-wing. I could be wrong I suppose.
Labour ideology from wikipedia
Its better than my attempt at trying to define it.)Throughout its history, the Labour Party has usually been thought of as being left wing or, more recently, centre-left in its politics.[4][5][6] Officially, it has maintained the stance of being a socialist party ever since its inception, currently describing itself as a "democratic socialist party".[3][2] The party has been described as a broad church,[10] containing a diversity of ideological trends from strongly socialist, to more moderately social democratic, and in recent years pro-market tendencies.[11] Throughout its history, it has been criticised by other leftist commentators and historians for not being truly socialist in its policies, instead supporting anti-socialist stances such as capitalism and neo-colonialism and has been described as a "capitalist workers' party".[12]
Historically the party was broadly in favour of socialism, as set out in Clause Four[13] of the original party constitution, and advocated socialist policies such as public ownership of key industries, government intervention in the economy, redistribution of wealth, increased rights for workers, the welfare state, publicly-funded healthcare and education. Beginning in the late-1980s continuing to the current day,[14] the party has adopted free market policies, leading many observers to describe the Labour Party as social democratic or Third Way, rather than democratic socialist.[15][16][17][18]
Party electoral manifestos have not contained the term socialism since 1992, and in 1995 the original Clause Four was abolished. The new version states:
The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.
Cheers m8's!
- joe bloe
- 03-15-2012, 12:23 PM
The English are so much more polite than us Yanks. I sort of enjoy being impolite!
- Don't Be Daft!
- 03-15-2012, 12:31 PM
Joe Blow: I think the fundamental and dangerous flaw in socialism/Marxism is the belief man is perfectable, that he is not inherently flawed. Believing that man is basically good at the core level allows the socialists to propose the possibility of a socialist Utopia made up of people all dedicated to what is good for the State and not themselves.
*Essence said: No, this is some obscure hooker board, which nobody cares about.
***Spot on mate! That had me in stitches! So true. Its not as if any of this bloody matters. It brilliant entertainment though!
People are not fundamentally good. The Judeo-Christian notion of our core nature is that "the heart is wicked" that we are fallen beings. People can never be consistantly motivated by a desire for the common good with no regard for self interest; that's why socialism doesn't work.
Yes, mate man is flawed. Well flawed in fact! But, why can he/she not work to make things better? Sort out the shite that is wrong with society? No reason not to strive for a Utopia? What harm will that do?
Was it Locke or Hobbes who said man's natural state was rubbish? Hummm, been a bit since I studied that. Either way, which ever one said that is just daft in my opinion what an awful way to view the world. One is only a selfish rotten cunt if they want to be! IN MY OPINION.
*Essence said: No, this is some obscure hooker board, which nobody cares about.
***Spot on mate! That had me in stitches! So true. Its not as if any of this bloody matters. It brilliant entertainment though!
People are not fundamentally good. The Judeo-Christian notion of our core nature is that "the heart is wicked" that we are fallen beings. People can never be consistantly motivated by a desire for the common good with no regard for self interest; that's why socialism doesn't work.
Yes, mate man is flawed. Well flawed in fact! But, why can he/she not work to make things better? Sort out the shite that is wrong with society? No reason not to strive for a Utopia? What harm will that do?
Was it Locke or Hobbes who said man's natural state was rubbish? Hummm, been a bit since I studied that. Either way, which ever one said that is just daft in my opinion what an awful way to view the world. One is only a selfish rotten cunt if they want to be! IN MY OPINION.
- joe bloe
- 03-15-2012, 12:50 PM
Of course we should strive to make things better. The best way to alleviate human suffering is to have a productive system that makes abundant goods and services so that everyone can afford to have a decent life. Capitalism is the best system because it allows for maximum personal liberty and at the same time allows the individual to produce wealth.
The danger of "striving for Utopia" in this world is believing that's it's literally possible. The extreme left (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) believe that the end justifies the means. When the end you seek is heaven on earth, any means utilized becomes acceptable. That's how you get communism killing one hundred million of its own people in the pursuit Utopia.
The danger of "striving for Utopia" in this world is believing that's it's literally possible. The extreme left (Mao, Stalin, Pol Pot) believe that the end justifies the means. When the end you seek is heaven on earth, any means utilized becomes acceptable. That's how you get communism killing one hundred million of its own people in the pursuit Utopia.