FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Why is Socialism such a dirty word these days?
Why is Socialism such a dirty word these days?
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. " Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. " Its usually associated with communism as well. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Its usually associated with communism as well." The two are very separate things. That's where the confusion lies. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. " True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. " Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is the problem, nobody really knows what its about. Socialism was responsible for the NHS, Nationalised industries, better work and conditions. It really did strive to make living conditions better for all. Tories and the general Capitalist ideal wants to destroy all that. Well... it already has done in the case of Nationalised industries. It wont rest until its destroyed the NHS and created a massive class divide. In a nutshell. " It was also responsible for millions of deaths in Russia | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. " National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is the problem, nobody really knows what its about. Socialism was responsible for the NHS, Nationalised industries, better work and conditions. It really did strive to make living conditions better for all. Tories and the general Capitalist ideal wants to destroy all that. Well... it already has done in the case of Nationalised industries. It wont rest until its destroyed the NHS and created a massive class divide. In a nutshell. It was also responsible for millions of deaths in Russia " No.. that was socialist extremism. A different thing entirely. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. " Yep... the Tories did that alright. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. " The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies" The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. " We created national debt to pay for the navy | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is a dirty word nowafays because the last labor goverment bought in there own agenda as oppose to doing the things that they said they would in manafesto george orwells Animal farm springs to mind regarding labor this come from a ex labor voter "Yeh... that was nearly 40 years ago. And that was because, like any 'ism' - too much one way upsets the balance. It was swinging tooooo far to the left. As I said earlier, what we actually need is a balance of the two. But as we've discovered in politics...where's the fun in that? Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. " Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. We created national debt to pay for the navy " Can you elaborate on that? Are we talking recent or wayyy back in the past when the navy was first created? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen?" Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? " Go ahead then | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then" I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. We created national debt to pay for the navy Can you elaborate on that? Are we talking recent or wayyy back in the past when the navy was first created?" England's crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England's rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8% p.a.) that the government wanted. To induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.[15] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy. As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, including establishing ironworks to make more nails and advances[clarification needed] in agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[16] | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead. "I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. We created national debt to pay for the navy Can you elaborate on that? Are we talking recent or wayyy back in the past when the navy was first created? England's crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England's rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8% p.a.) that the government wanted. To induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.[15] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy. As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, including establishing ironworks to make more nails and advances[clarification needed] in agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[16]" Yeh.. as I said. The same debt we've been paying off since then. Now im not certain, but I believe it was a tory government then too. I think you only had the choice of them or the Whigs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. " Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.
I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant?"And here's why im going to correct you on that. Blairs 'New Labour' (tory light) inherited the national debt from the Tories. We've had that debt around since the 17th century. Its physically impossible to pay it off...its never going to happen. Now.. would you like to explain to me how George Osborne managed to increase the national debt by over 550 million in less than 5 years? The 'there's no money' thing was a joke peddled by the very tory biased media. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn." Can you substantiate that? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.
I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant?"It meant that we'd just suffered a recession after the banking crisis. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"With socialism there is no desire to become better or achieve more. It encourages entitlement. I agree some good has come out of more leftist agendas, but at the extreme its basically communism. " But there would be if there was a more balanced political spectrum. The problem is, we always sway too much one way or the other. I with what you say about at the extreme it would be communism. What im saying is we need the best of both capitalism and socialism. Hard to achieve in this current climate of ceilingless capitalism and playground politics. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? " No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.
I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant?
It meant that we'd just suffered a recession after the banking crisis."The banking crisis came about as a result of the banks getting too greedy and trying to get everyone in debt. And as I said earlier, that was under Blairs red tory party. I never recognised it as the Labour party it should have been. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble." What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, fundamentally working class, socialism sounds like a way of giving my hard earned taxes to people who have done nothing to deserve it. The benefit classes, and the economic welfare migrants. " But isn't that what's happening now under the Tory government? I honestly believe that the welfare system does need a big restructuring, and I think it stands a better chance if labour gets in. A fairer system. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"For me, fundamentally working class, socialism sounds like a way of giving my hard earned taxes to people who have done nothing to deserve it. The benefit classes, and the economic welfare migrants. But isn't that what's happening now under the Tory government? I honestly believe that the welfare system does need a big restructuring, and I think it stands a better chance if labour gets in. A fairer system. " I don't. I think people will expect bigger hand outs and I'll have to pay for it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. " I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well as I said earlier, I dont see the tories doing anything with it. Socialism is actually about trying to create more jobs so less people are having to claim benefits. And as for economic migrants, they're not as plentiful as the media would have you believe. Without word of a lie, every person ive met who has migrated here are wage earners, therefore tax and NI contributors. The actual majority of benefits are paid out to low paid working families living on the breadline. " The benefit class doesn't want to work. It wants money for nothing. And more for breeding! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ?" Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. " I would beg to differ. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation." Nice one. I meant to bring this up earlier. Spot on  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. I would beg to differ." Ok... substantiate that. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. " Them and common sense... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well as I said earlier, I dont see the tories doing anything with it. Socialism is actually about trying to create more jobs so less people are having to claim benefits. And as for economic migrants, they're not as plentiful as the media would have you believe. Without word of a lie, every person ive met who has migrated here are wage earners, therefore tax and NI contributors. The actual majority of benefits are paid out to low paid working families living on the breadline. The benefit class doesn't want to work. It wants money for nothing. And more for breeding! " You read the Daily Mail yeh? Lol. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Well as I said earlier, I dont see the tories doing anything with it. Socialism is actually about trying to create more jobs so less people are having to claim benefits. And as for economic migrants, they're not as plentiful as the media would have you believe. Without word of a lie, every person ive met who has migrated here are wage earners, therefore tax and NI contributors. The actual majority of benefits are paid out to low paid working families living on the breadline. The benefit class doesn't want to work. It wants money for nothing. And more for breeding! You read the Daily Mail yeh? Lol. " I live on a council estate. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. I would beg to differ. Ok... substantiate that. "I think the electorate will do that for you. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. Them and common sense..." Wow you are a hopeless capitalist _omantic aren't you. I still love you though  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. I would beg to differ. Ok... substantiate that.
I think the electorate will do that for you. "No... I want your input as to why you think he's unelectable. Pwetty pwease | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. Them and common sense... Wow you are a hopeless capitalist _omantic aren't you. I still love you though "Preferable to being a hopeless _omantic socialist in my opinion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete and utter nonsense. The socialist lifted the country out of poverty over 13 years to 2013. Unfortunately the country relied on the oil reserves for funding everything instead of diversification into other income streams and we're then hit by the recession. The usa has played a major part in finding opposition groups within the country and escalating the violence there. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. I would beg to differ. Ok... substantiate that.
I think the electorate will do that for you.
No... I want your input as to why you think he's unelectable.
Pwetty pwease "His stance on nuclear deterrent is enough. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete and utter nonsense. The socialist lifted the country out of poverty over 13 years to 2013. Unfortunately the country relied on the oil reserves for funding everything instead of diversification into other income streams and we're then hit by the recession. The usa has played a major part in finding opposition groups within the country and escalating the violence there. "You can't give that post a . You were just slagging that middle right wing government off! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. I would agree with quite a lot if what you say but if the Labour Party under Corbyn is going to be unelectable then just what is the point in having him "lead" a party in permanent opposition ? Ah... but he is electable. Its pure media bias that's telling you he isn't. Them and common sense... Wow you are a hopeless capitalist _omantic aren't you. I still love you though
Preferable to being a hopeless _omantic socialist in my opinion. "Ah y'see you and I need to redress that balance. Anyway, whats this common sense thing about? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete and utter nonsense. The socialist lifted the country out of poverty over 13 years to 2013. Unfortunately the country relied on the oil reserves for funding everything instead of diversification into other income streams and we're then hit by the recession. The usa has played a major part in finding opposition groups within the country and escalating the violence there.
You can't give that post a . You were just slagging that middle right wing government off!"Yes im no fan of middle right wing. But its right what was said there. Credit where credits due. Its not being hypocritical, its just acknowledging that not everything was bad. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Probably because the media make it so. " Absolutely! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Complete and utter nonsense. The socialist lifted the country out of poverty over 13 years to 2013. Unfortunately the country relied on the oil reserves for funding everything instead of diversification into other income streams and we're then hit by the recession. The usa has played a major part in finding opposition groups within the country and escalating the violence there.
You can't give that post a . You were just slagging that middle right wing government off!
Yes im no fan of middle right wing. But its right what was said there. Credit where credits due. Its not being hypocritical, its just acknowledging that not everything was bad. "If blairism was socialism, then you can keep it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... its been fun and all that. But im off to the co-op for beer. Bfn... love you all. "I think you've had enough  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation." Ed Milliband suggested an energy price "freeze", which isn't the same as an energy price "cap". Both do involve Goverment intervention though. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example " What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is the problem, nobody really knows what its about. Socialism was responsible for the NHS, Nationalised industries, better work and conditions. It really did strive to make living conditions better for all. Tories and the general Capitalist ideal wants to destroy all that. Well... it already has done in the case of Nationalised industries. It wont rest until its destroyed the NHS and created a massive class divide. In a nutshell. It was also responsible for millions of deaths in Russia No.. that was socialist extremism. A different thing entirely. " A pedant writes: It was state capitalism, actually. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. " I blame the media and businesses. Socialism has worked in the past growing economies and resources but it takes away from the businesses and the rich. Chile nationalized the copper, in reaction the CIA and Pinochet overthrew the government and sold it. We had a socialist government a few times in the past. What is fully nationalised in Britain now? It's hard to overturn it. Need new politics that is more progressive and give everyone a chance. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"This is the problem, nobody really knows what its about. Socialism was responsible for the NHS, Nationalised industries, better work and conditions. It really did strive to make living conditions better for all. Tories and the general Capitalist ideal wants to destroy all that. Well... it already has done in the case of Nationalised industries. It wont rest until its destroyed the NHS and created a massive class divide. In a nutshell. " Too right, remember the Royal Mail sell off! The shares sold off cheap and David Camerons mates cashing in on the shares at below their value. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. " It's not a massive conspiracy, if it were, how do you explain the hatred for him in the PLP? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation." I was relaying the common criticism what others think. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. It's not a massive conspiracy, if it were, how do you explain the hatred for him in the PLP? " Those in the plp are still further right wing from the blair days? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It is out of date out of its time and mankind is to self obsessed to care because they have to be to succeed. People just do not like to admit it" Normally though, people who say that subscribe to the ideology of market capitalism, which is older than Socialism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? Capitalism is running out of control. We need a Socialist balance to counter it. We created national debt to pay for the navy Can you elaborate on that? Are we talking recent or wayyy back in the past when the navy was first created? England's crushing defeat by France, the dominant naval power, in naval engagements culminating in the 1690 Battle of Beachy Head, became the catalyst for England's rebuilding itself as a global power. England had no choice but to build a powerful navy. No public funds were available, and the credit of William III's government was so low in London that it was impossible for it to borrow the £1,200,000 (at 8% p.a.) that the government wanted. To induce subscription to the loan, the subscribers were to be incorporated by the name of the Governor and Company of the Bank of England. The Bank was given exclusive possession of the government's balances, and was the only limited-liability corporation allowed to issue bank notes.[15] The lenders would give the government cash (bullion) and issue notes against the government bonds, which can be lent again. The £1.2m was raised in 12 days; half of this was used to rebuild the navy. As a side effect, the huge industrial effort needed, including establishing ironworks to make more nails and advances[clarification needed] in agriculture feeding the quadrupled strength of the navy, started to transform the economy. This helped the new Kingdom of Great Britain – England and Scotland were formally united in 1707 – to become powerful. The power of the navy made Britain the dominant world power in the late 18th and early 19th centuries.[16] Yeh.. as I said. The same debt we've been paying off since then. Now im not certain, but I believe it was a tory government then too. I think you only had the choice of them or the Whigs? " Bloody hell it goes right back to the Conservative party of 1707, I'm guessing labour have never held power in over 300 years and have no part to play in this debt | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think people actually realise how many things that they take for granted come from the socialist struggle, or indeed from Marx. Never has the "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" worried me as much as it does today (I recently re-read it), because thats the way I fel that society is heading. " Howse my list coming along have you got an update for me | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s." And with all of that oil, they can't feed there own people | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I don't think people actually realise how many things that they take for granted come from the socialist struggle, or indeed from Marx. Never has the "Ragged Trousered Philanthropists" worried me as much as it does today (I recently re-read it), because thats the way I fel that society is heading. Howse my list coming along have you got an update for me" The list was in the post you are referring to.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.
I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant?
It meant that we'd just suffered a recession after the banking crisis.
The banking crisis came about as a result of the banks getting too greedy and trying to get everyone in debt. And as I said earlier, that was under Blairs red tory party. I never recognised it as the Labour party it should have been. "It was nothing to do with the Labour party, that's the point. It was an international issue caused by uncontrolled capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Socialism isn't a dirty word. It's two dirty words; Jeremy and Corbyn. Can you substantiate that? No, I can't but I think you'll find the electorate will in the General Election. He has made the once proud and to be respected Labour Party and what it used to stand, for into an unelectable rabble. What Jeremy Corbyn is trying to do is undo the damage caused by Tony Blair. Blair took labour away from its original Socialist roots and turned it into a middle right wing party...Tory Light. Corbyns political stance is sound. But the media bias against him is so strong, that people actually believe he's no good for the party or the country. The reason is quite simple, a socialist labour really would represent the ordinary working man in a way not seen for the past 40 years. The Tories don't want that. The right wing press doesn't want it. Massive conspiracy. It's not a massive conspiracy, if it were, how do you explain the hatred for him in the PLP? Those in the plp are still further right wing from the blair days? " So the last two Labour PMs aren't labour enough for you and neither are all the Labour MPs? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"I quite like being a capitalist. However any Current Socialist success stories going on right this minute? I can't be bothered to Google. " . You dont really need to Google do you? Honestly are you that detached from what you buy on a day to day basis and where it originates from? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example " . I hate to tell you this but.. Labour in between 1997-2010 ACTUALLY paid off more debt than the Tories did between 1979-1996! And it had very very little to do with policy from either of them.. Two major recessions under the Tories and one under labour and again nothing really to do with policy under either of them. Debt went up under both terms under both governments. NHS budget went up under both parties, crime went up under both parties, the Tories signed the Maestricht treaty which allowed unlimited immigration, labour continued that policy in 2002, Tories went to war, labour went to war, Tories spent big on nuclear weapons, labour spent big on nuclear weapons, the Tories deregulated the banking industry in the 80s , labour deregulated it even more in the late 90s , the Tories claimed illegal massive expenses and labour claimed illegal massive expenses....I could go on and on and on all fucking night, there is NO political division, only a political illusion to make you sleep well in your bed and let you go to work and moan about paying taxes | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation." Ed Milliband proposed FREEZING energy prices. Soon after which oil, and other energy prices actually FELL. if frozen they wouldn't have done so for UK consumers. A CAP is a limit on any possible increases. You've heard of capped mortgages and fixed mortgages? .... totally different products! I still think it's a gimmick by May....but to say it's the same as Milliband proposed is just incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example . I hate to tell you this but.. Labour in between 1997-2010 ACTUALLY paid off more debt than the Tories did between 1979-1996! And it had very very little to do with policy from either of them.. Two major recessions under the Tories and one under labour and again nothing really to do with policy under either of them. Debt went up under both terms under both governments. NHS budget went up under both parties, crime went up under both parties, the Tories signed the Maestricht treaty which allowed unlimited immigration, labour continued that policy in 2002, Tories went to war, labour went to war, Tories spent big on nuclear weapons, labour spent big on nuclear weapons, the Tories deregulated the banking industry in the 80s , labour deregulated it even more in the late 90s , the Tories claimed illegal massive expenses and labour claimed illegal massive expenses....I could go on and on and on all fucking night, there is NO political division, only a political illusion to make you sleep well in your bed and let you go to work and moan about paying taxes" I think you're spot on. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"right wingers are incapable of understanding the difference between any of the political isms .... that's where the problem lies The nation as a whole doesn't really get politics, and thats how the tories like it. Ignorance will keep the buggers in. Ignorants will vote for Labour. Do you want to explain the national debt and why it has risen? Under a tory government yes. Perhaps you would like to enlighten me? Go ahead then I haven't a clue. But I assume you're going to tell me? Im all for expanding my knowledge. Go ahead.
I aint got time to explain it all, google is your friend. But basically it is because of the mess that Labour left behind as usual. What do you think the 'there is no money left' note meant?
It meant that we'd just suffered a recession after the banking crisis.
The banking crisis came about as a result of the banks getting too greedy and trying to get everyone in debt. And as I said earlier, that was under Blairs red tory party. I never recognised it as the Labour party it should have been.
It was nothing to do with the Labour party, that's the point. It was an international issue caused by uncontrolled capitalism. "Correct! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Anyway... its been fun and all that. But im off to the co-op for beer. Bfn... love you all.
I think you've had enough "Nope I just wanted food and beer.  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? " The UK's national "debt" will always continue to increase until we get rid of the "budget deficit" That's what the Conservative government and the Conservative/Lib dem coalition before have been reducing through the austerity cuts, not the national debt. One has to come before the other. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example . I hate to tell you this but.. Labour in between 1997-2010 ACTUALLY paid off more debt than the Tories did between 1979-1996! And it had very very little to do with policy from either of them.. Two major recessions under the Tories and one under labour and again nothing really to do with policy under either of them. Debt went up under both terms under both governments. NHS budget went up under both parties, crime went up under both parties, the Tories signed the Maestricht treaty which allowed unlimited immigration, labour continued that policy in 2002, Tories went to war, labour went to war, Tories spent big on nuclear weapons, labour spent big on nuclear weapons, the Tories deregulated the banking industry in the 80s , labour deregulated it even more in the late 90s , the Tories claimed illegal massive expenses and labour claimed illegal massive expenses....I could go on and on and on all fucking night, there is NO political division, only a political illusion to make you sleep well in your bed and let you go to work and moan about paying taxes" Heee heee very well put | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. Yep... the Tories did that alright. The truth is... we've been paying the national debt since the 1700s as a nation, we're never going to get rid of it. And of course, why..after so many years of Tory austerity cuts..are we no better off national debtwise? The UK's national "debt" will always continue to increase until we get rid of the "budget deficit" That's what the Conservative government and the Conservative/Lib dem coalition before have been reducing through the austerity cuts, not the national debt. One has to come before the other." . You obviously have no idea about how the national debt works | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? Because I understood, after looking it up, that that was exactly how the national debt worked. We have a debt. We borrow each year to pay for everything the government does. At the moment the amount we need to borrow is larger than we can repay so that is a deficit. 7 years ago the deficit was huge so the debt was never being repaid until the deficit had gone. The deficit is smaller now but still present. Thus the debt keeps rising because even with our good credit rating, we still have to pay interest on the borrowed money. They could get rid of the deficit easily in one year. We simply need not pay anyone working in the public sector. Oh wait, that won't work. Ok we won't give the NHS anything. Oh wait, that won't work. Thing is, there is so much that must be paid for that we need to borrow money. Austerity has lowered how much we borrow. In government terms, the deficit isn't overly huge now but still present. Ergo, the national debt keeps rising. It's odd but despite having millions of keyboard politics experts, not one person has told the government of a viable solution to the debt problem. Far easier to call them names from behind a phone or computer screen. I have no answer which is why I'm content for austerity to carry on. The deficit must go. Then we can start work on the debt. " . You obviously have no idea about how the national debt works either | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? Because I understood, after looking it up, that that was exactly how the national debt worked. We have a debt. We borrow each year to pay for everything the government does. At the moment the amount we need to borrow is larger than we can repay so that is a deficit. 7 years ago the deficit was huge so the debt was never being repaid until the deficit had gone. The deficit is smaller now but still present. Thus the debt keeps rising because even with our good credit rating, we still have to pay interest on the borrowed money. They could get rid of the deficit easily in one year. We simply need not pay anyone working in the public sector. Oh wait, that won't work. Ok we won't give the NHS anything. Oh wait, that won't work. Thing is, there is so much that must be paid for that we need to borrow money. Austerity has lowered how much we borrow. In government terms, the deficit isn't overly huge now but still present. Ergo, the national debt keeps rising. It's odd but despite having millions of keyboard politics experts, not one person has told the government of a viable solution to the debt problem. Far easier to call them names from behind a phone or computer screen. I have no answer which is why I'm content for austerity to carry on. The deficit must go. Then we can start work on the debt. . You obviously have no idea about how the national debt works either" Do tell. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Really? Because I understood, after looking it up, that that was exactly how the national debt worked. We have a debt. We borrow each year to pay for everything the government does. At the moment the amount we need to borrow is larger than we can repay so that is a deficit. 7 years ago the deficit was huge so the debt was never being repaid until the deficit had gone. The deficit is smaller now but still present. Thus the debt keeps rising because even with our good credit rating, we still have to pay interest on the borrowed money. They could get rid of the deficit easily in one year. We simply need not pay anyone working in the public sector. Oh wait, that won't work. Ok we won't give the NHS anything. Oh wait, that won't work. Thing is, there is so much that must be paid for that we need to borrow money. Austerity has lowered how much we borrow. In government terms, the deficit isn't overly huge now but still present. Ergo, the national debt keeps rising. It's odd but despite having millions of keyboard politics experts, not one person has told the government of a viable solution to the debt problem. Far easier to call them names from behind a phone or computer screen. I have no answer which is why I'm content for austerity to carry on. The deficit must go. Then we can start work on the debt. . You obviously have no idea about how the national debt works either Do tell." . The biggest problem you seem to have is like most people and I suppose its easy to do but.. You equate your personal finance to government finance as if there the same and there not. Well not unless you have a printing press for money in your house and you set your interest repayments on your own debt. National debt can be both good and bad, its not an either or thing, deficit spending is sometimes essential, sometimes problematic, ideally you want to spend your debt on good shit that pays you back long term, like really good infrastructure or high end education, research, tech support.. So I'll give you the biggest example in the last 100 yes. 1930s great depression, FDR ran massive and I mean Massive deficits which pushed up the USA national debt, however he used the money to start back to work schemes for 30 million Americas built huge infrastructure projects like the Hoover dam,golden gate bridge,chickamuga dam, national roads panel which implemented the inter states highways.. Now if we look forward twenty years to the 50s and 60s this huge debt that he built up was dwarfed by the massive economic expansion and gains that came from them!.. Or we could look to Japan's huge huge debts which dwarf our own, they owe practically all that money to who? That's right the Japanese people! The Japs like to save, they're frugal fuckers but that ain't good for stimulation of your economy as no fuckers buying out, so the Japanese government take Japanese public's savings and spend them on shit which boosts the economy and Japanese savers get the interest of those gains in the savings they get back!! Now the UK government sells gilts (bonds to everyone else) 1,5,10,20 years and lots of other derivatives, they sell these to raise money for deficit spending, a 10 year gilt is paid back to the lender in ten years time with interest (yield) , pension companies are the biggest buyer of them, so our borrowings go someway to pay peoples pensions (not such a bad thing) at the moment our gilts have low yields because they sell well (that might not always be the case so you have to keep a good balance) national debt due to be being made up of these 1,2,5,10 year bonds sometimes goes DOWN even when deficits are high because there time dependant. At the moment we have the largest debt ever however its cost is the cheapest for 350 years. Now the crucial bit about deficit spending, your putting extra money IN to the economy by doing it, so when times are bad its a boost now the other important bit is if you want to run a surplus as Georgey porgey talked about your talking money OUT of the economy. So its a balancing act, no right or wrong or good or bad, just a fiscal tool no different than interest rates. I'm not the best explainer of things but if you read more about it on the tinterweb you'll improve your understanding of it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's near on impossible to get rid of the national dept because people are not willing to keep on going with cutting back on borrowing. If Labour ever get in again they will drop us right back to the start by upping the borrowing " Well according to sick-boy borrowing / spending more than our tax receipts has no baring on our debt. I know theres a couple of ways to measure deficits / investments / debt but saying theres no relation between the 2 I think is incorrect. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's near on impossible to get rid of the national dept because people are not willing to keep on going with cutting back on borrowing. If Labour ever get in again they will drop us right back to the start by upping the borrowing " . Not quite, its near enough impossible to get rid of deficit spending while maintaing a huge negative trade account imbalance. If you send 10 billon pounds a month more out of the country every month than you get in as we do, how long would it take to have zero money left in the UK?.. Now how good do you think the economy would be with zero money available? Now shorten the time span and use the same thought process, sending more money out than getting back, money supply contraction, now imagine you personally getting less and less money each year would you economically? thrive or get worse off?. All countrys that run negative trade accounts run deficits, there putting the money back that there losing through trade.. Countrys that have positive trade accounts can run deficit surpluses as they have extra money from the extra difference.. China has the ability to do both which is why there hammering the competition!. The deficit is what 70 billon a year, remember thats 70 billon spent on stuff back into the economy, imagine cutting 70 billon out, it would cause a large recession, all money spent causes demand even money as politicans like to call "waste" still causes demand, the trouble with politicans is they dont talk about policies to stimulate demand and growth from the actions of cutting deficit spending, nobody ever says what the long term plan is to fix the problems. That is something that was discussed in the politics of poverty thread... Anybody can cut a deficit, its fucking really really simple to enact, the tricky bit is putting policies in place to fix the problems you'll cause from deficit spending reductions | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for the explanation but it leads me to ask, if having a national debt/deficit isn't such a bad thing, why austerity at all? And why do Labour use the figure as a way to mock the government? As it stands it seems that all the borrowing is merely paying for the day to day demands made by the public and the needs. If we had no deficit and less borrowing then surely we'd have less interest to pay. Would that not leave more free money for new projects such as bridges and other infrastructure? " . Yes and no, so the UK spends about 35 billon on interest and runs a deficit of 70 billon meaning even if you had no debt you'd still be 35 billon short on spending. Also like I say, its important to remember alot of that 35 billon spent on interest goes straight to pension savers, they draw a pension from it and spend it causing demand in the market. Is it sustainable, hell no but its not actually the end of the world stuff that most people think | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"It's near on impossible to get rid of the national dept because people are not willing to keep on going with cutting back on borrowing. If Labour ever get in again they will drop us right back to the start by upping the borrowing Well according to sick-boy borrowing / spending more than our tax receipts has no baring on our debt. I know theres a couple of ways to measure deficits / investments / debt but saying theres no relation between the 2 I think is incorrect." . No no no I didn't say that, YOU said it's impossible for the national debt to go down while running a deficit and I was pointing out that statement is utter bollocks. Its not rocket science just think about it | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Thank you for the explanation but it leads me to ask, if having a national debt/deficit isn't such a bad thing, why austerity at all? And why do Labour use the figure as a way to mock the government? As it stands it seems that all the borrowing is merely paying for the day to day demands made by the public and the needs. If we had no deficit and less borrowing then surely we'd have less interest to pay. Would that not leave more free money for new projects such as bridges and other infrastructure? " . Theres something else as well, why have austerity at all is a very good question!. Its really not for fiscal reasons so much and certainly not for monetary reasons, however theres a very good phycological reason for it, the very word austerity conjures up a need for saving, now as we all know there's never been a sovereign debt problem even Greece wasn't really a sovereign debt problem, the debt problem was private debt, it utterly dwarfs sovereign debt in nearly every country, getting people to cut back on debt and start saving instead requires a phycological trick of the mind, also it gives credence to ideological arguments about government spending on welfare and as we all know every government labour or Tory, UK or USA or France or Germany want to cut back on welfare of their citizens, in reality they never were but were forced into it by societal change. Old people, disabled people, the unemployed and even the work shy bums are all up for culling, your redundant to the needs of capitalist globalisation, its the nature of humans and therefore business to drive productivity and streamline and alot of people just aren't needed anymore | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"socialism is a dirty word because has never and never will actually work and deliver on its promises... Simples" Socialism created the NHS. The Tories are trying to destroy it. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"socialism is a dirty word because has never and never will actually work and deliver on its promises... Simples Socialism created the NHS. The Tories are trying to destroy it. " The 2 World wars created the NHS, by end of the 2nd the working classes expected something more from the nation that it saved | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Social capitalism is my preferred choice. Social capitalism is an economic philosophy that blends the free market sensibility of capitalism with the welfare outreach of socialism. " isn't that what have already in the U.K. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s." Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too !  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too ! "Cubans do much better than the citizens of all their neighboring Caribbean and Central American states by all kinds of measures. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too !
Cubans do much better than the citizens of all their neighboring Caribbean and Central American states by all kinds of measures. "Not true ! They only better of in health and education ! Everything else is..... shit ! That includes food as well ! It got a little better when Raul allowed a bit of capitalist small business ventures , and international tourism... But before that , it was a typical revolutionary utopian socialist shit hole ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too !
Cubans do much better than the citizens of all their neighboring Caribbean and Central American states by all kinds of measures.
Not true !
They only better of in health and education !
Everything else is..... shit !
That includes food as well !
It got a little better when Raul allowed a bit of capitalist small business ventures , and international tourism...
But before that , it was a typical revolutionary utopian socialist shit hole ! "Tony Education and healthcare are key to any successful society.They are fundamental areas the public care about and all political parties campaign on.You've to give credit to a piss poor Caribbean island delivering on, what none of its capitalist neighbours could. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too !
Cubans do much better than the citizens of all their neighboring Caribbean and Central American states by all kinds of measures.
Not true !
They only better of in health and education !
Everything else is..... shit !
That includes food as well !
It got a little better when Raul allowed a bit of capitalist small business ventures , and international tourism...
But before that , it was a typical revolutionary utopian socialist shit hole ! Tony Education and healthcare are key to any successful society.They are fundamental areas the public care about and all political parties campaign on.You've to give credit to a piss poor Caribbean island delivering on, what none of its capitalist neighbours could.
"Yes, true! But most political parties campaign on those , because the rest is a given ! No rationing , queues for food , fuel ! Living conditions are decent ! That was/is not the case in Cuba ! You cant eat education , and its no consolation having free quality medical care when your illness was caused by lack of a proper diet ! And lets not forget Freedom ! None existant ! Its a one party system , with no freedom of speech or travel ! You speak out....get arrested ! There is a reason to this day that Cubans are still escaping Cuba and seeking the evil capitalist USA !  | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. True, but the reality is actually the opposite. Also it is strange that the Mail castigated Ed Miliband fro suggesting that energy prices should be capped as a typically mad and dangerous loony leftist policy two years ago but now praises it as far sighted right thinking when the Tories adopt it. Proving that it is not the policies that are wrong but the way the press portray them, and that is governed by political loyalties rather than the interests of the nation." Was it not the case where Miliband proposed a fuel price FREEZE as opposed to it being capped. . Two different things . | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
socialism from the millionare corben ! and the Abbot who thinks its ok to send her kids to a grammar but yours are not worthy pms
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. Safety nets for those who fall on hard times , access to decent healthcare for all and the capacity to improve personal circumstances through enterprise and hard work.. All the problems in the world can probably be traced back to the unrestrained greed of pure capitalism. Amass, horde and monopolise resources and the capacity for individuals to improve their lives or circumstances." exactly this government has gone so far right their policies are a combination of ukip and the bnp. we need a radical socialist approach to balance it off from the natsy party. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. " In 1997 when Labour came to power national debt was £350 Billion and borrowing £8 Billion. In 2010 debt had risen to £1 Billion and borrowing to £145 Billion. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Social capitalism is my preferred choice. Social capitalism is an economic philosophy that blends the free market sensibility of capitalism with the welfare outreach of socialism. " Have you renamed Social Democracy? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. " It isn't actually; or rather it shouldn't be. Totalitarian communist regimes emerged as a result of vanguardism in countries taht were not industrialised - the theory was that if the state controlled the economy and the means of production in its entirety, it could "manage" an industrial revolution. Marx had always said that fully industrialised nations were the only places that communism could succeed; (I think he'd mised the technological revolution, but that's a whole different thread), and democratic socialism would erode the need for capital at all, and transition the way for communal production, which was still intended to be regulated by people's councils (these were known as "Soviets" in the former USSR). | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. Are you serious ? Its turning into a dictatorship ! But since its a left wing one its fine ! And of course it had to be Americas fault.... as usual....when socialism experiments fail ! Get real ! Under Chavez and now Maduro , the Bolivarian socialist revolution took a country where there were haves and have nots and turned it into a country where the economy doesnt work and ALL are going hungry ! Its sad to see people queuing up for hours just for a meal ! Medical supplies are lacking as well ! So is it only the "loonies on the right" protesting ? Cause I thought hunger has no political colour ! And now he is going to give his party members weapons and military training too ! But ...since its a socialist....I suppose you approve that too ! Hooray for socialism.....and lets not forget the friends from Cuba too !
Cubans do much better than the citizens of all their neighboring Caribbean and Central American states by all kinds of measures.
Not true !
They only better of in health and education !
Everything else is..... shit !
That includes food as well !
It got a little better when Raul allowed a bit of capitalist small business ventures , and international tourism...
But before that , it was a typical revolutionary utopian socialist shit hole ! "Bloody hell at 1 time you also needed to take your own loo roll if you went there on holiday | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Social democratic eh? Socialism....or else! " Nah, SD parties are those standing within an electoral system within whatever country they happen to exist - they believe in power through the popular vote, as opposed to revolutionaries, who do not. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. It isn't actually; or rather it shouldn't be. Totalitarian communist regimes emerged as a result of vanguardism in countries taht were not industrialised - the theory was that if the state controlled the economy and the means of production in its entirety, it could "manage" an industrial revolution. Marx had always said that fully industrialised nations were the only places that communism could succeed; (I think he'd mised the technological revolution, but that's a whole different thread), and democratic socialism would erode the need for capital at all, and transition the way for communal production, which was still intended to be regulated by people's councils (these were known as "Soviets" in the former USSR). " Is that the same USSR, that needed food aid from the USA and U.K. To be able to feed its own citizens Of course the elitist comrades at the top wanted for nothing, not even a decent holiday home | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. Safety nets for those who fall on hard times , access to decent healthcare for all and the capacity to improve personal circumstances through enterprise and hard work.. All the problems in the world can probably be traced back to the unrestrained greed of pure capitalism. Amass, horde and monopolise resources and the capacity for individuals to improve their lives or circumstances. exactly this government has gone so far right their policies are a combination of ukip and the bnp. we need a radical socialist approach to balance it off from the natsy party. " I can tell why you have no profile pic, is because you might get recognis d as some one who spouts utter shite and total drivel | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. It isn't actually; or rather it shouldn't be. Totalitarian communist regimes emerged as a result of vanguardism in countries taht were not industrialised - the theory was that if the state controlled the economy and the means of production in its entirety, it could "manage" an industrial revolution. Marx had always said that fully industrialised nations were the only places that communism could succeed; (I think he'd mised the technological revolution, but that's a whole different thread), and democratic socialism would erode the need for capital at all, and transition the way for communal production, which was still intended to be regulated by people's councils (these were known as "Soviets" in the former USSR). Is that the same USSR, that needed food aid from the USA and U.K. To be able to feed its own citizens Of course the elitist comrades at the top wanted for nothing, not even a decent holiday home" Eh? Nowhere in my post did I say; or even imply that the USSR was a good idea, quite the opposite if you are actually capable of reading. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Class divide ? We appear to have a political class who don't give a feck as long as the gravy train runs.
socialism from the millionare corben ! and the Abbot who thinks its ok to send her kids to a grammar but yours are not worthy pms
" | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Class divide ? We appear to have a political class who don't give a feck as long as the gravy train runs.
socialism from the millionare corben ! and the Abbot who thinks its ok to send her kids to a grammar but yours are not worthy pms
"I don't understand why you seem to like this post - You vote Tory, a party made up of, and unapologetically for the (multi)millionaires. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A socialist is someone who, apparently, knows better than you do how to spend your wages" Lol.... Well put ! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. Safety nets for those who fall on hard times , access to decent healthcare for all and the capacity to improve personal circumstances through enterprise and hard work.. All the problems in the world can probably be traced back to the unrestrained greed of pure capitalism. Amass, horde and monopolise resources and the capacity for individuals to improve their lives or circumstances. exactly this government has gone so far right their policies are a combination of ukip and the bnp. we need a radical socialist approach to balance it off from the natsy party. I can tell why you have no profile pic, is because you might get recognis d as some one who spouts utter shite and total drivel" not really, the bnp 2005 manifesto is strikingly similar to the tories, everyone knows ukip are tory lites, you just cant see it. http://evolvepolitics.com/ambassador-theresa-may-manifesto-bnp/ | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue." Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A socialist is someone who, apparently, knows better than you do how to spend your wages" And they usually earn twice what you do, or manage to claim just as much from welfare. Why do the left wing predominantly organise protest marches? Because everyone else is at work! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A socialist is someone who, apparently, knows better than you do how to spend your wages Lol.... Well put ! "Show me one government that doesn't collect taxes. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A socialist is someone who, apparently, knows better than you do how to spend your wages And they usually earn twice what you do, or manage to claim just as much from welfare. Why do the left wing predominantly organise protest marches? Because everyone else is at work! "reason welfare is so high is because wages are so shit | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. " Social capitalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. " OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A socialist is someone who, apparently, knows better than you do how to spend your wages And they usually earn twice what you do, or manage to claim just as much from welfare. Why do the left wing predominantly organise protest marches? Because everyone else is at work! reason welfare is so high is because wages are so shit"And a lot of folks just don't fancy Working for a living, god bless 'em... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all." And herein lies the intrinsic problem with capitalism - Capitalists can buy governments. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all." Come on, leave Tony Blair alone. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
 | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all. And herein lies the intrinsic problem with capitalism - Capitalists can buy governments. " Yay! Conspiracy theories! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all. And herein lies the intrinsic problem with capitalism - Capitalists can buy governments. Yay! Conspiracy theories! "I'm not talking conspiracy theories, Clem. I'm talking plain old lobbying etc. Go and look at the list of the top donors to the Tory party. Ask yourself why companies like Starbucks and Google have been allowed to get away with avoiding corporation tax..... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all. And herein lies the intrinsic problem with capitalism - Capitalists can buy governments. Yay! Conspiracy theories!
I'm not talking conspiracy theories, Clem. I'm talking plain old lobbying etc.
Go and look at the list of the top donors to the Tory party. Ask yourself why companies like Starbucks and Google have been allowed to get away with avoiding corporation tax....."And nandos! the bastards! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Although it must be obvious that capitalism, which ought to enable a better standard of living for the individual through skill and effort, has been hi-jacked by unprincipled pirates - the system itself has gone rogue. Capitalism is neither moral or amoral, it is simply a means of exchange. It is up to humanity to enforce morals upon it by the rule of law. OK, those who have the means to do so, have perverted the system. Happy now? Ideally, participants will exercise self-restraint and social conscience, so that legislation is not necessary. However, when limits are not delineated by governments, supposedly acting in our interests, and instead giving carte blanche to the worst elements, financial exploitation and criminality will flourish. What is monstrous is the abrogation of governments to legislate when the system fails to deliver for all. And herein lies the intrinsic problem with capitalism - Capitalists can buy governments. Yay! Conspiracy theories!
I'm not talking conspiracy theories, Clem. I'm talking plain old lobbying etc.
Go and look at the list of the top donors to the Tory party. Ask yourself why companies like Starbucks and Google have been allowed to get away with avoiding corporation tax....."like tory donors who give the tories money, they get rid of the nurses, nurses are then employed from a temp agency who happens to be a tory donor costing the nhs millions and the donor has a million business kerching | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. It isn't actually; or rather it shouldn't be. Totalitarian communist regimes emerged as a result of vanguardism in countries taht were not industrialised - the theory was that if the state controlled the economy and the means of production in its entirety, it could "manage" an industrial revolution. Marx had always said that fully industrialised nations were the only places that communism could succeed; (I think he'd mised the technological revolution, but that's a whole different thread), and democratic socialism would erode the need for capital at all, and transition the way for communal production, which was still intended to be regulated by people's councils (these were known as "Soviets" in the former USSR). " Socialism doesn't work, everywhere its be tried it's only resulted stagnant bureaucracy and ineffectual accountable elites. Social democracy in tandem with regulated capitalistic meritocracy.. that might stand a chance against the ravenous globalist capitalism currently devastating the world. The utopian theory of socialism or any other type totalistic model of society is always an unmitigated dystopian disaster. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Undiluted Socialism is totalistic.. Democratic socialism on the other hand tempered with regulated capitalism is the best of both worlds. It isn't actually; or rather it shouldn't be. Totalitarian communist regimes emerged as a result of vanguardism in countries taht were not industrialised - the theory was that if the state controlled the economy and the means of production in its entirety, it could "manage" an industrial revolution. Marx had always said that fully industrialised nations were the only places that communism could succeed; (I think he'd mised the technological revolution, but that's a whole different thread), and democratic socialism would erode the need for capital at all, and transition the way for communal production, which was still intended to be regulated by people's councils (these were known as "Soviets" in the former USSR). Socialism doesn't work, everywhere its be tried it's only resulted stagnant bureaucracy and ineffectual accountable elites. Social democracy in tandem with regulated capitalistic meritocracy.. that might stand a chance against the ravenous globalist capitalism currently devastating the world. The utopian theory of socialism or any other type totalistic model of society is always an unmitigated dystopian disaster." ineffectual unaccountable elites, correction. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. In 1997 when Labour came to power national debt was £350 Billion and borrowing £8 Billion. In 2010 debt had risen to £1 Billion and borrowing to £145 Billion." Did you read what I wrote?. I'm taking you didn't as you've just wrote the complete load of bollocks ive just proved as bollocks but you are absolute in your ideology. Look just show me a first world sovereign debt problem and I'll concede defeat, the problem as I've already shown is not sovereign debt but private debt! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. In 1997 when Labour came to power national debt was £350 Billion and borrowing £8 Billion. In 2010 debt had risen to £1 Billion and borrowing to £145 Billion. Did you read what I wrote?. I'm taking you didn't as you've just wrote the complete load of bollocks ive just proved as bollocks but you are absolute in your ideology. Look just show me a first world sovereign debt problem and I'll concede defeat, the problem as I've already shown is not sovereign debt but private debt!" Sorry, that was £1 Trillion in 2010, not billion. And what do you think is my ideology... You have no idea, so making stupid assumptions only serves to make you look stupid. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. In 1997 when Labour came to power national debt was £350 Billion and borrowing £8 Billion. In 2010 debt had risen to £1 Billion and borrowing to £145 Billion. Did you read what I wrote?. I'm taking you didn't as you've just wrote the complete load of bollocks ive just proved as bollocks but you are absolute in your ideology. Look just show me a first world sovereign debt problem and I'll concede defeat, the problem as I've already shown is not sovereign debt but private debt! Sorry, that was £1 Trillion in 2010, not billion. And what do you think is my ideology... You have no idea, so making stupid assumptions only serves to make you look stupid." . If your not ideologically held to a belief then why be obsessed with sovereign debt when I've just shown the problem is public debt!. Most folks who bang on about government debt are just secretly obsessed with bashing welfare, I haven't got a problem with that, its your prerogative and I can debate that separately | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Social capitalism is my preferred choice. Social capitalism is an economic philosophy that blends the free market sensibility of capitalism with the welfare outreach of socialism. " I'll go with this. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
" Social capitalism is my preferred choice. Social capitalism is an economic philosophy that blends the free market sensibility of capitalism with the welfare outreach of socialism. I'll go with this. "In many ways its a third way.We seem to be stuck with either socialism or capitalism as an option.Capitalism can be social responsible. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. National debt was £1.01 trillion in 2010. It's now £1.73 trillion. In 1997 when Labour came to power national debt was £350 Billion and borrowing £8 Billion. In 2010 debt had risen to £1 Billion and borrowing to £145 Billion. Did you read what I wrote?. I'm taking you didn't as you've just wrote the complete load of bollocks ive just proved as bollocks but you are absolute in your ideology. Look just show me a first world sovereign debt problem and I'll concede defeat, the problem as I've already shown is not sovereign debt but private debt! Sorry, that was £1 Trillion in 2010, not billion. And what do you think is my ideology... You have no idea, so making stupid assumptions only serves to make you look stupid.. If your not ideologically held to a belief then why be obsessed with sovereign debt when I've just shown the problem is public debt!. " That's funny, a few posts ago you were saying the problem was private debt, now it's public debt! Who said I was obsessed with sovereign debt? Oh, yeah, you assumed I am..... Like I said.... | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. And with all of that oil, they can't feed there own people" The smell of oil. I smell freedom. The price of oil dropped causing the issues. I wouldn't be surprised if America is involved to overthrow them and take their oil. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. And with all of that oil, they can't feed there own people The smell of oil. I smell freedom. The price of oil dropped causing the issues. I wouldn't be surprised if America is involved to overthrow them and take their oil. " Like they did in other South American countries in the 70s. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. And with all of that oil, they can't feed there own people The smell of oil. I smell freedom. The price of oil dropped causing the issues. I wouldn't be surprised if America is involved to overthrow them and take their oil. " Its always Americas fault with you ! How would they take their oil ? You cant admit that Chavez socialist "bolivarian" revolution Failed ! Now the people are on the streets hungry and Maduro , is trying to change the constitution to remain in power ! Is That Americas fault too ?
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Perceived as fiscally irresponsible i think.. Not perceived, known to be fiscally irresponsible, and generally crap at governmening Look at Venezuela, it's a prime example What's going on in Venezuela? The looney righties are protesting? It's just a reverse of here. Except the US has been interfering for over a decade. Similar playbook to what they did in other South American countries in the 70s. And with all of that oil, they can't feed there own people The smell of oil. I smell freedom. The price of oil dropped causing the issues. I wouldn't be surprised if America is involved to overthrow them and take their oil. Its always Americas fault with you ! How would they take their oil ? You cant admit that Chavez socialist "bolivarian" revolution Failed ! Now the people are on the streets hungry and Maduro , is trying to change the constitution to remain in power ! Is That Americas fault too ?
"And you thought I was pro Obama. Haha. But is the oil worth anything? | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism is the end game. Technology gets quicker and more sophisticated every five years. The chase for profits means automation exists in the background. Humans held their own in the 20th century and adapted. New jobs developed and people went from the farm to the factory to service industry and niche trades. AI, 3D Printing and robotics can only improve. There's a reason why governments throughout the world are looking at universal income." UBI will be necessary or we get the population down to a sustainable level.Im betting on a technological solution mid century otherwise we're fucked.. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Socialism aka as The Labour Party died years ago. People were tired of the strikes, rubbish on our streets not collected, unions holding us to ransom. The conservatives are not perfect, but history proves that everytime they are in power, they only ever spend 2 years in Government. Their first two years are spend clearing up the mess The Labour party left behind. The problems this country have today can be directly proven as problems The Labour Party caused. I do not believe we will see any other party in overall control other than the Blues for many years." . If your theory is true Could you explain the two recessions between 1979-1996 and also why was the country left in a worse state after 17 years of the "blues"! | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main thing I'm taking from this thread is how many people have no idea what socialsim actually means. Which is sad, in a way, because many of the things that people hold dear in this country are a result of the struggles of the left. " . What the anti socialist brigade don't get is that without socialism and movements like the Fabian society none of them would have education as a right!. The very thing that let them earn money and free themselves of religion and the ghetto was socialism!, without it thered still be sat with begging bowls in slums with the rich theocratic masters giving them whatever they think they deserve!. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"The main thing I'm taking from this thread is how many people have no idea what socialsim actually means. Which is sad, in a way, because many of the things that people hold dear in this country are a result of the struggles of the left. " i pointed that out on post 13 .... there's folk on here that are unable to comprehend the differences betwixt the political isms ... which is a problem, mostly for them ... then there's the odd few revisionists who deliberately regurgitate the stupid shit they've heard their alt-reich internet gurus say about right wing ideology being left wing and so forth ... but they just come accross as idiots instead | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
| |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"A pedant writes: It was state capitalism, actually. " | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. " Because people conflate it with liberalism. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
"Discuss. Because people conflate it with liberalism." Funny most parties associated with liberalism are right wing parties. | |||
Reply privately (closed, thread got too big) | |||
