UKC

Genuine question, not a troll!!

Having read the post about honours, there seems to be the general view here (and in many other places) that the Torie government is evil and will destroy the country.

Why??

To be honest I can't really see anything that they have done especially wrong (that is much worse than other governments in the past have done).

Can someone enlighten me please??

In reply to phja:

There is practically no evil in this world, only ignorance / apathy to others. There's your answer.

In reply to phja:

If you're after a sensible answer ukc would be the last place to look

In reply to phja:
My stab, as a non party political politics aficionado.

The underlying principle of conservative ideology is one of self determination and self responsibility, epitomised and enshrined by Mrs Thatcher. You stand or fall on your own resources.

Some would argue that this philosophy is easy to embrace if you are born with considerable resources behind you. I would define resources broadly, to include physical and mental wellbeing, access to education etc, not simply money.

By promoting self determination and individual resources you reduce the commitment to social or communal resource.

Some would argue this leaves the vulnerable exposed. Some would argue this is wrong, and causes harm. If evil can be defined as the causing of harm, then some would suggest that the less resources there are to help the vulnerable the more evil the ideology bringing this about is.

In reply to phja:

They've implemented a policy of drowning kittens in floods, and that's why there are no cats left in Britain.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

Nice description, but perhaps we should remember that the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher is a very different one to that of all the Party Leaders that preceded her.

The 'one nation' paternal Tory became something of a rarity.

In reply to phja:

Let me present the case for the prosecution: Mr Letwin to the stand please.

In reply to phja:
I'd guess the proposed (and now scrapped) working tax credit cuts are a prime example of why people dislike the Tories:
It was a cut that was promised wouldn't be made before the election. It would have hit the working poor hardest, the very people Cameron claimed to be representing. It was ill-thought out and rushed through and appears to have been part of an idealogical drive to shrink the state as opposed to a necessary measure.

Other examples are:
The fiscal responsibility act
Hunt's stand off with junior doctors (conveniently buried and forgotten)
The outright lies about Corbyn
Cameron's empty case for extending the war with ISIL into Syria
Extreme cuts to council budgets (which Cameron then complained about)
Sychophancy towards the Chinese and Saudi regimes
Continual claims about a growing economy/falling unemployment which often seem to be clever manipulation of stats
Trumped up and nonsensical claims of a constitutional crisis as a mandate to reform the Lords/create loads of new peers
Changes to the contract on student loans

Underlying all of that is the feeling among certain parts of the electorate that the Tories represent wealth, privilege, arrogance and the desire to help themselves and their peers presented as a push towards a more self-reliant society. I'm not one to jump on the Facebook Tory-hating bandwagon. However, looking at the current crop of leaders, their backgrounds, their austerity policy and their words and actions since the election, it's no wonder that image sticks. I simply can't trust anything from the mouth of Cameron, Osborne et al. any longer.

(None of which is to say that Labour are a party of altruism, or that Labour members themselves don't often come from a background of privilege)

Obligatory pig reference.

In reply to phja:

Thanks for the replies. True that they have done some pretty questionable things. The debacle over Tax credits was not the Conservatives finest hour (though I do agree with the premise of weaning people off state dependency if possible).

I can't believe in, what is supposed to be a 21st Century democracy, that the house of lord's even exists.

It seems most of the back scratching, honour scandles etc is not just the preserve of the Conservatives and so to paint them in an evil light worse than other parties is wrong in my opinion (not saying anyone on here is doing this but some in the media are).

I think my own personal beliefs are that people should, the majority of the time, have responsibility for themselves and their actions. Perhaps it is a failing of my own mind that I can't seem to seperate the policies of the Left from many people's complete lack of social, moral and financial responsibility (e.g. obsesity- it's not their fault they're obese but the states for not legislating a tax on sugar, therefore we need big government).

In reply to Clauso:


Yeah, but the OP was asking what they've done wrong, not the good things.

In reply to phja:

An institutional lack of empathy and , instead, a self-serving ethos far in advance of the other parties (except UKIP)

In reply to JJL:

They've retro-bolted every single Brown and Whillans route and outlawed Marmite. They caused Elton John to turn gay.

In reply to phja:


You just have to remember that that's easy if you're born with lots of resources, and hard if you're born without. The question is whether you want to try to level the playing field a bit (the aim of left wing policies, doesn't tend to work very well), or whether you're happy to see it become a steeper and steeper slope (the consequence of right-wing policies, the *aim* is dressed up as crap like 'giving people dignity in responsibility' but what it actually means is just not spending money on stuff like health, education and housing that gives people a fairer crack at life).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I believe in helping those in need. I guess my concern is that that can sometimes lead to a dependency culture like we see in many areas of Britain today (the idea that they are 'entitled' to benefits).

As an ex-teacher I have seen whole groups of 15 year olds tell me they don't need an education because their mum's on benefits and that what they want to do too...perhaps I'm a pessimist.

The way I see it, at least the Conservative's are trying to wean people off dependency on the state (whether they are going about it correctly is a different matter). All I can imagine from the Left is more benefits and more people unable to look after themselves. I guess I'm a believer in a strong economy rather than a strong state

In reply to phja:

Don't get me wrong, the vision of a high wage, low tax, low welfare society is compelling, and I'd applaud them if they could pull it off. However, welfare should be the last thing to be changed, not the first. The Tories seem to have no idea how to actually bring about that society. Likewise, I don't see any evidence that our economy is actually getting stronger.

What do you think about People's Quantitative Easing and Corbyn's Investment Bank? The suggestion that Labour is all about hand-outs and chucking money away was one of the major reasons for the Tories election victory.

In reply to phja:


The way I see it is that with the welfare state, if you're going to genuinely try to ensure that no child grows up in poverty then that has a cost: dolescum. If you're determined to eliminate dolescum, then you have to put up with children growing up in poverty, you can't have your cake and eat it.

The question is, which is worse (or which is the least bad) to have in society, some dolescum or some children growing up in poverty? Of course, we'd all prefer not to have either, but no one's cracked that one.

In reply to Trevers:


The trouble with this vision is that implies loosely that tax = welfare. I want a high wage, high tax, low welfare society in which we have great schools, great hospitals, great transport, great art, great personal freedom, great equality of opportunity. These things cost money and national co-ordination for public benefit so I simply don't believe that with low taxes you get any of this stuff. You just get crap that makes money. The market is good for some things and bad for others. Where the market churns out crap (e.g. in the arts) or distributes resources unfairly (health and education) then you need public money. Again, you can't have your cake and eat it.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Yeah agreed. It's another of those clever ways they use language to their advantage.

(Again, not saying for a moment the other parties don't do this too, but the Tories are far smarter at this sort of thing)

In reply to Jon Stewart:



But children of dole scum are growing up in a form of poverty, even if not in abject material poverty. And incentives are being created fro them and others to do the same. I agree, it's a difficult judgment, but coming down on one side of the judgement as opposed to the other does't make anybody "evil".

In reply to Postmanpat:


There are certainly crap consequences on each side. And I agree, you have to deal with the actual facts of the policies before you make a judgement on just how little some people in power care about people who have nothing to do with them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I agree. I'm just gonna point out that it's only the OP that used used the word 'evil', just so noone gets their comment misrepresented (which never happens on UKC, I know )

In reply to Jon Stewart:

I think you underestimate the often well meaning incompetence of those we choose to govern us and those who advise them.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Good point. When I was a civil servant for the Labour government, I agreed at a basic level with some of the policies, but the reality of what they were doing was total bollocks, influenced far more than anyone would intend by spin, people's careers, stuff happening under pressure, etc.

In reply to Trevers:

Surely the problem with peoples QE to stimulate the economy is that it could cause a weaker pound and so make imports more expensive? Aren't interest rates at historic lows?? Couldn't we just borrow more and have the same investment in infrastructure (which I agree is desperately needed)

In reply to phja:

It's a bit of stupid shorthand which saves people having to think. Truth of the matter is that most Conservatives, (I include myself,) are just ordinary folk with a political view which tends to self reliance, and a minimum of state intervention in private lives.

It's no better than saying the Labour party and it's followers want to nationalise all industry and have a social worker in every house, to absolve everyone of any responsibility.

In reply to Big Ger:

With that outlook the poor will I fear "always be with us".

In reply to Big Ger:

Not actually evident from their policies social and fiscal though is it. They talk up this libertarian eutopia which the politically naive lap up prior to election, spend as much if not more than the imbeciles on the left and gut the welfare system on their way out through the wonderful revolving door of Westminster to appease their banking overlords. Stick around for a bit and find out.

D

In reply to phja:


The key thing is that you can borrow money easily and cheaply for just so long as the people lending the money don't think you want or need to borrow money. That the trick that Cameron and Osborne have pulled off, so far, with lots of noise but not much substance of austerity. The issue with Labour isn't that they would necessarily need to borrow much more but that, with lots of noise about an end to austerity and people's QE, the markets would expect them to borrow more and demand much higher interest as a risk premium, so the cost of our mountainous debts would go through the roof and there would be even less cash available for those (I also agree) much needed investments.

In reply to Postmanpat:

What or who is "dole scum"?

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


They always have been, and probably always will. Labour have never solved that problem, in fact often they make it worse.

http://sambaars.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Unemployment_1960-2010-585x3...

In reply to abr1966:


Yes indeed!

If by "scum" you mean people ripping off others for their own selfish advantage you find them in all sectors of society.

The use of the phrase ruined a perfectly sound argument imo. That is, you can't punish parents who take unfair advantage of our welfare system without punishing their children at the same time - and storing up more problems for tomorrow's society.

Martin

In reply to Big Ger:
So instead of posting other peoples drivel what's your experience of being crushingly poor? Or alternatively working with or volunteering to help the less advantage in society?

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:

Not "other people's drivel" just factual evidence, you should try finding some to back up your points.

And that's the third time that someone has tried to turn a debate away from the topic and onto my personal life, in recent threads, what a strange thing to do?

For what it's worth, I grew up in a council house, my father was a tuberculosis sufferer who spend decades out of work, my mother, when she could, cleaned offices, working day and night. I didn't get a Xmas present until I was 7 years old. I've worked in social care since 1982. Now why should this truth make a difference to the topic?

In reply to Big Ger:


Thats the claim. However its notable how often this self reliance seems to rely on a tilting of the odds.

In reply to phja:
England voting Conservative is the principal means by which the UK is prevented from becoming a prosperous and developed libertarian democracy in the context of 21st century NW Europe.

Of the eleven countries that include the UK and all its neighbours and near neighbours across NW Europe from France to Finland, World Bank figures show the UK as being 11th out of 11 and a consistently poor GDP per capita achiever across a significant period.

In the field of liberty, we are also not performing well and the lack of a written constitution allows governments and judiciary to wander rudderless and without purpose through a sea of self-serving precedent.

We are worth more than this.

In reply to Jim Fraser:





Are those the World Bank 2014 figures from here? If so, I see that the 2015 figures from the IMF put the UK per capita GDP ahead of Finland, Germany, France, Belgium and Italy (so the highest for the big EU economies) and virtually the same as the Netherlands. Behind Luxembourg, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Sweden, Ireland and (by a couple of hundred dollars) the Netherlands. All those countries with a higher figure, added together, have a much smaller population than England alone.

Is this a case of you knowing 'the answer' and cherry picking the evidence to prove it?

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That is just complete total and utter BS. How many millionaire/billionaires are there that started out in poverty with no education? The reality of this is that the whingy whiny Socialists only want to look at the end result the money, its simply not convenient to look at the hard work, the sacrifice the risks etc that enabled them to get to that point.

Yes, there are people that are born into rich families for whom things maybe easier.... Sorry but life isn't fair.... get over it!

In reply to abr1966:


Why not ask jon? He introduced the phrase so I referenced it in my reply.

In reply to Clauso:

Same as my earlier reply - sounds like a service to mankind

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


Thing is in the UK NOBODY is crushingly poor... why do you think that hoards of people are drowning themselves in the Med trying to get to the UK/Europe? or are camped out in Calais trying to storm the tunnel? or hiding in lorries etc.

There was programme recently about people in Scotland using a food bank. Every single one of them had a flatscreen TV. Quite a few had a games console and these weren't people that had just fallen on hard times. "Christmas on Benefits" had a single parent with 8 kids whinging she didn't have a big enough house. So the Taxpayer wrote off thousands of £'s in rent arrears and gave her a larger house along with £27k a year in benefits.

So please don't talk about people being "crushingly poor"in the UK as its insulting.

In reply to Indy:


This echoes my thoughts. I grew up in "poverty" (1st world poverty not real poverty), were "lower class" and could be considered "dole-scum". At school I worked hard while I saw friends around me p*ss away their education. I am not massively hard working (not entrepreneurial, 16hrs a day kind) nor will I ever be a millionaire, but I would describe myself as now confortably "middle class" (I hate class labels!) and not financially hard up at all.

It boils my blood when I see people "happy" that they are on benefits, that feel entitled to them like the country owes them something. When I see kids whos only career goal is to be on the dole. When you see people (not everyone) who complain about poverty and being unable to feed themselves, yet that then pull out an Iphone costing £50 per month! People who feel they must put thousands of pounds on credit cards to pay for lavish Christmases for their kids and then complain they have no money and that the government (i.e. other tax payers) are not helping them enough.

...went a bit ranty there!

In reply to Indy:

I think most of the "hoards of people... drowning themselves in the Med" are, in the main, trying to escape a vicious civil war rather than poverty.

In reply to phja:
To clarrify...I have no issue with benefits. When times are hard (my family has relied on them) they are SO important to have that safety net. My issue is with people who show no attempt at all to lift themselves from that poverty and to provide a better life for themselves. You end up with a situation where reliance on benefits becomes "generational" (grand-parents, parents, children all relying on benefits)...it becomes a way of life.

I think it is a cultural issue...few people take responsibility for their own actions anymore. It's not their fault they p*ssed away their eduction, it's the governments! Hell, even fall over in the street and you can sue someone because it couldn't possibily be your own fault for not looking where you are going now could it!!

how you solve this I'm not sure!

In reply to EarlyBird:


Initially, but they don't stop and live in southern Europe or stay in Greece for reason. Life on average is much better for everyone in Northern Europe. And don't say benefits, as refugees/ asylum seekers get pretty much the same 'pocket money' in any European country once you factor in exchange rates.

In reply to phja:



you make unemployment benefit part of a contributory insurance, it pays out based on what you pay in and tapers off progressively after months and years out of work. If you are doing well and putting in a large amount, then why should your employment benefit be at the base rate that somebody who hasn't worked for years?

The incentive is to get back to work, not adapt your lifestyle to live within the benefits system.

Long term, you have to create some pride in society where it's classed as normal to work, any work is better than no work etc... A stigma if you like for those who decide not to work for many years, despite having jobs offered to them that they could have done or taken.

In reply to NathanP:



Sorry, 'from here' was meant to be a link which I failed to include. Here it is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29_per_ca...

By the way, I just noticed that the world bank 2014 figures put UK GDP per capita ahead of France, so not 11th out of 11 even then. There must be another set of figures that show the 'correct' result.

My own view is that almost everything about life in the UK could and should be better but that we would be more likely to achieve that if we start from the view that this is a rich, free, open and relatively equal society (by world standards) with good health care, so what can we do to improve on that success rather than the view that everything is rubbish, let's throw it all away and start again because the result can't be any worse.

In reply to Indy:


Cherry picking like this is the worst kind of argument you come up with. If you want to demonstrate that there is ample opportunity for people who grow up with very limited resources, then you need to try to show that that's the case *in general*, not that it is possible to find special cases at the extremes.


Now that is a straightforward argument! I think you've encapsulated well what right-wing politics is really about*.


*Note that centre-left politics doesn't set out to make life 'fair' like communism. It seeks to makes more effort than the alternative right-wing view to even up the odds in certain important areas. It seeks to use resources wisely to avoid social problems.

In reply to abr1966:


It's short-hand for people who abuse the benefits system, getting as much as they can out with no intention of working. It's intended to sound abrasive and harsh to emphasise the idea that benefits abuse is something that people in general really hate, even though they wouldn't themselves go as far as using this expression; and refers a bit to its use in the TV series The League Of Gentlemen.

HTH

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Understood, but in this case it's a pretty poor term to use I think. Juxtaposing "dole" and "scum" plays right into a fairly nasty right wing narrative that's sadly becoming increasingly prevalent.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


don't expect any change in the UK though, many of the more left countries you deem successful, don't have endless benefits, don't have entirely free healthcare and pay more tax than the UK, something has to fund those dreams. How will any party get elected in the UK, labour voters would desert in droves at the mere whiff of these measures and the libdems are gone. Which means the tories will remain in power for the foreseeable future. The Uk population still thinks it can largely have it's cake and eat it, it is too busy blaming politicians, bankers, the rich elite etc.. to face up to the fact that to move forward the majority of the population will need to change their perspective. Everything is still somebody elses problem. Like the flooding, where it appears to be caused by the EA boss going on holiday at Xmas, how selfish of him.

In reply to NathanP:


No cherry picking. Just went to the least corrupt-looking of the leading websites (WB) and did a sort command. Both GDP methods had the same result. I think it was for 2013. 2011 & 2009 pretty similar.

Finland now expected to slip back into 11th and take our usual slot since they now have a conservative government too.

Iceland and Ireland still well ahead in spite of being portrayed as total basket cases in the British press.

Need to get a grip here people! If you rely on British press and politicians for your view of the world then it will continue to all go wrong. We are getting screwed over. Let's at least recognise the reality of what is happening. The numbers, the numbers!

In reply to summo:


Absolutely agree. We need to think seriously about how to use resources wisely. Cutting taxes, failing to generate tax revenues by allowing the big contributors off the hook, and snipping away at the quick-to-slash services that Tory voters don't use (benefits) is not a good programme.


Yes, quite true. We're not going to become a country where we reorganise the way we fund the services we want. We're too entrenched in the left "tax the rich and you can have everything you want" narrative set against the equally fallacious "slash the state and the market will shit golden eggs all over society" story from the right.

In reply to Martin Hore:


The joke is that the Tories used the term "scroungers" - it's a kind of 'exaggerate and expose' thing, but I accept that this is a bit too far between the lines for use on here...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's what it looks like, but at the same time there is constant criticism that "they are all the same" and that politics has been reduced to "managerialism" so that it just becomes a technical issue of how services and benefits are tweaked.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Serious issue.

Forget the fundamentals of what a government is for and provide no leadership or innovation just headlines.

In reply to Postmanpat:


I think Jeremy Corbyn has at least done something to change this - by being an idiot, mainly!

In reply to phja:

In the words of Charlie Brooker...

"The Conservative party is an eternally irritating force for wrong that appeals exclusively to bigots, toffs, money-minded machine men, faded entertainers and selfish, grasping simpletons who were born with some essential part of their soul missing. "

In reply to broken spectre:



As opposed to self satisfied virtue signalling shallow minded hypocrites like Brooker. Nice wife though....

In reply to Postmanpat:


Sounds like he touched a nerve.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:


Some might of course argue that somebody had touched Brooker's nerve or crewey's nerve. It's interesting how lefties feel some God given right to start spraying around the abuse in order to massage their own self image but get so touchy when they get a bit back. Whatever happened to the new gentler politics?

Happy New Year

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Follow Swedish tax model, whatever an individual pays in income tax, their employer must also match it. So it wouldn't matter where starbucks, amazon etc.. laid their hat, if their employees worked in the UK, they would be paying tax there.

In reply to broken spectre:

Or New Labour...

In reply to summo:

For the record I voted Lib Dem at the last election (talk about throwing away a vote!). I'm sat firmly on the fence here - both parties Labour and Conservative are ripe for parody.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Not sure that was Brooker's agenda!!!

Happy New Year.

In reply to broken spectre:


I did in the last two, in an area where the tories win hands down every time, but I thought the tories needed their policies weakening a little, or watering down by the Libdems. Lost cause, but at least they kept their deposit. I'd rather lose one of my senses than vote labour, I think after corbyn's arrival, I'd up that to two or three senses.

In reply to summo:


Like the sound of that. I agree on your other points about facing up to paying for health and welfare differently. Show me a model (not you personally!) that looks like it'll work and is based on progressive principles then it'll get my vote.

In reply to Postmanpat:


Don't fall into the Simon4 trap, it's beneath you. People on the left and on the right get pretty vicious about the opposition (particularly when they're trying to make people laugh), and no one started it first.

Happy New Year!

In reply to summo:


Pretty much where I stand, though I have voted libdem where they have been a force - such as our last area. I thought the alliance was about right, taking the edge off the strongest of the Tory right wing policies. Ideally I would have settled for the same again. My current area is Plaid Cymru ( left wing) so I voted for Tory candidate as he is a nice bloke, comes up the pub and has no chance.

I don't believe there is anything "evil" about the Tories at all, anymore than I think Corbyn would be "evil", a disaster certainly, but not evil. I guess most Labour voters think Cameron a disaster (I don't), I find the word evil far too strong.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


That's where traps are supposed to be.

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Haha. Bernard from Yes Minister!

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Did I accidentally quote somebody?

In reply to 1poundSOCKS:

Not directly, that's just precisely what he'd say at that juncture. Hope you're well. I need to get back to my tradition of Withnail and wine (that's not a sequel), just having a short snack and UKC break...

[Up in t'top field - you can't miss him, his leg's bound in polythene]

In reply to Big Ger:




Very similar backgrounds then. I just don't hate the poor.

In reply to summo:


As opposed to the UK model where an employer pays an employe, and then said employe pays their income tax with money from their Magic Money Factory? Oh, wait a moment...

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Ah!!!


Ditto.

I'm great Jon, after 2 years of being a climbing bum (highly recommended) I walked into a well paid job that I actually enjoy (although not as much as being a climbing bum). Now thinking of getting a van (again...last one was stolen) and dreaming about future trips (I won't enjoy working forever).

In reply to phja:




So what would you have happen with people who drink enough to damage their health/kill their livers, with alcohol related liver disease being the fifth big killer in the UK? Would you have them denied treatment, or have them pay some kind of extra 'fine' towards the NHS?

Did you know obesity is income related, with poorer people being more likely to be obese? There's evidence to suggest that growing up in poverty leaves one more prone to heart conditions, diabetes and obesity, with it being thought that the effects on pregnant mothers could be having an influence?

In reply to wintertree:


The tax take is double what it would be under the current UK model, and with the current tax base rate at around 30-33% depending where you live, that's a lot of tax to spend.

In reply to Timmd:



You sure about that?
http://www.poverty.org.uk/63/index.shtml

"There no obvious relationship between obesity and income. The groups with the lowest levels of obesity are poor men and rich women"

In reply to MG:

Interesting, I definitely read that it was somewhere.

In reply to MG:

Here's a review on childhood obesity in England:

http://adc.bmj.com/content/90/10/999.short

I think there are lot of different questions you could ask in this area, and each question will have its own answer.

In reply to Jim Fraser:





Fair enough, obviously no bias there then: if we were last in 2009-2013 obviously we must still be, at least until the silly Finns follow our downhill path to inevitable economic oblivion by voting in a centre-right government. Except:

2009-2013 the GBP was very weak, particularly against the Euro so the UK GDP at market exchange rates was depressed. In 2014, the exchange rate started to recover and the World Bank site shows UK per capita GDP above France and only marginally behind Belgium, Germany and Finland. Since then Sterling has strengthened substantially against the Euro.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD/countries?order=wbapi_da...

Taking the IMF projections for 2015:

Luxembourg $103k - with a population of half a million, maybe not counted in your 11?
Norway $76k - pop 5m
Denmark $51k - pop 6m
Iceland $51m - pop 300k, about the same as Coventry.
Sweden $49k - pop 9.5m
Ireland $49k - pop 4.5m
Netherlands $44k- pop 17m
UK $44k - pop 65m
Finland $42k - pop 5.5m
Germany $41k - pop 81m
Belgium $40k - pop 11m
France - $38k - pop 66m

The non NW-Europe countries with a higher per capita GDP than the UK are:
Switzerland $82k - pop 8m.
Qatar $79k - pop 2m - maybe a model for the UK? OK - perhaps not.
USA $56k - pop 318m
Singapore $53k - pop 5m
Australia $52k - pop 23m
San Marino $49k - pop 31k

So using these latest figures, the UK is joint 6th with the Netherlands, out of 11 in NW Europe (7th out of 12 if we count Luxembourg) and the combined populations of the countries with higher per-capita GDP is 25m, whilst those with lower per capita GDP have a combined population of 143m. The only large country with a significantly higher per capita GDP is the USA.

This doesn't really seem to support the argument that the UK is always in last place, held back by England voting for middle of the road conservative governments whilst countries with socialist governments do better economically.

One thing we can agree on though: "Let's at least recognise the reality of what is happening. The numbers, the numbers!"

In reply to Timmd:

Does that mater? I was bought up in a poor area, doesn't mean I'm a fat, binge drinking smoker...people need to take more responsibility for their health!

In reply to summo:




Great idea.

You could take this further. Make unemployment benefit similar to a bank account. You can "withdraw" up to say £5000 at £50 a week (or whatever it is)...once you reach £5000 that's it no more benefit. Once you start work you have to pay it back similar to student loan (say 5% of income above £5000 till paid back).

For those in work, by contributing tax you go "in credit in the account" (say by £50 per week while you are working). If you lose your job and claim unemployment you can draw from your "account" (£50pwk). As long as you don't drop into the negative, you don't pay anything back once you start working again.

In reply to phja:


But what does that mean? You've got the market churning out shite food that gives people horrific diseases that cost the NHS billions to manage. You can say "people need to take responsibility" as much as you like, but it doesn't have any effect on anything. The only way public health and the effects of public health on society can be influenced is through policy.

So are you saying that more should be spent educating people about the effects of buying and eating all the crap that makes them ill? Or that a decision should be made in the NHS about whether a person's illness is their fault, and then present them with a bill (with or without regard to their ability to pay)? Or would resources be better spent regulating what and how people are sold food that sets them on the path to hospital?

It's all very well taking a moral stance about personal responsibility, but how can that be translated into policy that improves outcomes? Otherwise, it's just a statement of opinion that you live your life in a good way while others live theirs in bad ways. And that isn't useful.

If you want a change in society - even if it's just an opinion rather than a genuine call to action - then unless you think about the consequences and how what your suggesting might actually work, it's not likely to even make any sense.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

For policy of course you are correct...it just annoys me how few people take responsibility.

For me it has to be education...though you'd say that those most likely to abuse sugar, booze or cigs (ie. the poor) are also those who, generally, are less open to education.

Tax could work, but surely only when grotesquely large as in cigarettes. You also have the problem of scientific evidence. With cigarettes the evidence is clear and uncontested. With sugar or fat, the science isn't as clear cut (how does sugar, fat, carbs all interplay??). Do you tax sugar or fat...what about carbs?? They can be fattening in large quantities. It would be an absolute minefield (though possible given time and lots of studies).

Refusing treatment isn't really an option I don't think...otherwise what would us climbers do when injured doing our risky hobbies?

In reply to phja:


I know what you mean, there's nothing more irritating that hearing some fat bastard complain about the treatment they've had on the NHS. It grates.


I just don't know how effective would it be. The 'be good' message on the poster or the TV is competing with the deep, evolved urge to shove as much fat and sugar as you can get your hands on into your massive fat gob, framed by its clammy, greasy wobbling jowls. I like the idea of getting the businesses who make money out of ruining people's health pay for the damage - but in effect that's just a tax passed to the consumer which will be regressive. I guess it might change behaviour, so it's worth doing the research and examining the case.


I'm a bit squeamish about it, but some kind of assessment of responsibility combined with ability to pay I think can be justified. Refusing treatment however sounds pretty brutal though, I agree!

Incredibly difficult area, but we're going to have to grasp nettle at some point. You can't allow the market the churn out poisonous junk for enormous profit and then ask the taxpayer to mop up the consequences when everyone needs their poisoned and incapacitated bodies wheeled around, infused with drugs and chopped, lasered and stapled to keep them in the game. It's not sustainable, and it's not realistic to expect everyone just to eat brown rice and lentils and spend their money in the gym. It'll be interesting to watch over the next few decades.

In reply to phja:

Good for you, and probably they do, but I think it would matter if what pregnant mothers experience during living in poverty has negative effects on their babies, as it would mean the odds would be stacked against them when it comes to health problems.

Using oneself as an example isn't always the most accurate way to make judgements on society, though, as despite having been on benefits for a long time, I'm very determined to come off them, and I always have been while working through different mental health issues, and now I'm recovered I'm going to get into paid work this year if it's the last thing I do, after aiding my recovery through volunteering, which means I could ( as easily as you have about health ) say that it isn't going on benefits which keeps people on them, but other things which effect their mindset, but how true that is needs to be looked at in depth though, from carrying out studies before coming to any conclusions.

So we have to look at the facts and in depth, rather than just basing things on personal experience, which everybody does all the time (including me but I try not to).

In reply to Jon Stewart:

None get more vicious, pretentious, delusional, ignorant and sanctimonious than you, preachy, self-righteous Guardianista moron.

You seem to be under the entirely baseless illusion that you are some sort of moral and intellectual arbiter, able to pronounce about those lesser mortals that surround you, as though you were some sort of higher being, set to pronounce judgement on us more humble folk.

Actually you are about as moral and intellectual as the average slug or student union political activist, whichever is the lesser.

In reply to Simon4:
Right wing people think they're morally right, too, you know, everybody does.

Edit: Ha, this has been disliked, does the disliker really not think they're morally right when the think about things to do with morals? Michael Portillo thinks it's immoral for more left wing governments to take more tax than ones towards the right do, having said as much on This Week, which proves my point.

In reply to NathanP:
GDP per cap is a poor measurement though of standard of living.

It does not reflect what it can buy in country, it does not reflect average wages against average cost of living, it does not show wage distribution...

All the GDP could be generated by one person, but the average could make it look like everyone was living the dream.

In reply to Simon4:

Really boring. There's nothing to do with 'arbitration' or taking a superior position about explaining your own view. It wouldn't be my view if I didn't believe in it.

How can you have debate if you can't express your sincerely held views and argue against what you disagree with? I don't understand what you *would* accept as a view opposing your own, expressed reasonably. Would I have to start every sentence with "of course I agree totally with everything you've said, but I've also got these dreadful ideas that no one in their right mind would actually believe...". Would that satisfy you as not being sanctimonious or superior?

All you're actually saying is that you don't like hearing my view because it's different to yours; but you're expressing that in a way that sounds like you've got sand in your vagina.

In reply to Simon4:

And that's gratitude for you!!! I wish somebody would name a trap after me.

In reply to NathanP:

My 11 counted only those bordering the UK plus Sweden and Finland to complete a NW group with broadly similar peoples, climates and economies.

You appear to have also drawn data from the WB site but these are projections and it is not their own GDP per capita table that I used directly.

So taking the broadest account of both our posts the UK is between 6th and 11th of that regional group with broadly similar peoples, climates and economies. Yet this is the country from that group that has the greatest economic advantages of all of them. We have an educated population, the longest history of industrialisation, the broadest based economy, the greatest natural resources and a substantial history of liberal democracy and economic freedom.

Is the second division our best effort?

In reply to summo:

True enough, but drawing a better comparison is really hard because you soon get into making judgements on what different individuals value - for example, I bet a lot of us would give up some cash income to live next to our favourite climbing destination - would that make us better or worse off?

I was just answering the original assertion that the UK's per cap GDP is 11th out of 11 in NW Europe and that this dismal position was because England keeps voting for right wing governments.

In reply to Martin Hore:


Agreed. It also seems quite hypocritical, considering all the tax avoidance carried out by the super-rich.

I also do not believe that most people on the dole actually want to be claiming benefits. There may be a minority who "fiddle the system" or actively aspire to a life on benefits, but it is unfair to tar everyone else with the same brush. The right wing gutter press have a lot to answer for, particularly when they misrepresent the situation nationwide by pillorying someone who apparently glories in their "rock and roll" gains.

In reply to Simon4:


I've been on this site a long time and that's one of the nastiest w@nky personal attacks I've read. You should meet up with Jon and see if you have the balls to say that in person. Keyboard warrior is a phrase that comes to mind.

In reply to phja:

That's very sad. So it isn't the benefits in themselves which are the problem, you could say, but something lacking in people's aspirations?


I'm not sure if you can have a strong state if there isn't a strong economy, in the state being able to do things in crisis to look after people, if the economy isn't strong it has less money to play with.

In reply to DerwentDiluted:

I always knew that UKC was a hang-out for self-righteous, middle-aged, right wingers but I wouldn't have imagined that there'd be 50 of them available to click like to a post like yours on new years eve. I thought they'd be all too busy working to keep the dole scroungers in beer and fag money.

In reply to phja:

If we follow the Tory narrative of benefit scroungers and dependency culture then you cannot have a small state and a thriving economy unless you kill all the 'not like us' poor people. The authoritarian mechanisms for punishing people for being poor are horribly expensive and cause all manner of secondary problems with expensive outcomes. There are so many of these people that giving each of them a couple of pounds more each week is a significant economic stimulus. Employing thousands of people to check whether they deserve what little they have is monstrously stupid and another expense.

If you truly want a small state then the first essential is to avoid authoritarianism. That in turn means avoiding Conservatism. The Conservatives just cannot help themselves. Whatever project they apply themselves to, they simply cannot stop themselves pursuing an authoritarian approach.

In reply to NathanP:
It's not the tories though. The previous 3 labour governments were just a right wing at times, but they knew they had to feed to benefits system to and buy their voters.

Right, left, centre is irrelevant, it is the policies and the mindset of the people that adopt them which dictate a country.

In sweden, never seen a far right or even right of centre government, but you pay for medical care, things that hurt you are taxed, unemployment benefits are tampered etc.. in the UK people would consider these right wing.

Having lived in few places, the biggest standard of living impact in the UK is housing costs. It takes a comparatively larger proportion of a persons wage than anywhere else I know in Europe (like for like and ignoring Monaco).

I could sell our 2 bed mid terrace house in the dales and buy two 4 bed detached rural houses , each sitting in an acre of land in Sweden. headline figures give little indication of a country wealth.

In reply to Jim Fraser:

FFS, You sound like some sort of Victorian believer in the divine right of the British race to conquer all. I think you'll find the French,amongst others, might question your claim that the UK should naturally be number one.
Places like Luxembourg and Iceland are so small and such special situations as to be irrelevant comparisons. So, frankly, are the Scandanavian countries, especially Norway, which is one of the world's biggest oil exporters and has a tiny population. That leaves the Netherlands, France and Germany as relevant comparisons, and depending on which set of figures you take we are just above or just below them. So really your oft repeated assertion doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

I'd also like to see your evidence to support your claim that it is in the post Thatcher period that the UK has particularly underperformed.

In reply to moffatross:


Can you sum up for us what you think his post said which provoked this comment?

Absolutely spot on! It goes with the territory. A senior tory once admitted that the purpose of the Tory party is to serve the needs of the rich establishment and defend their privileges. He said the only way they win elections is to promise just enough to just enough other people.

The creation of mass unemployment in the 80s, followed by low wages and job insecurity more recently has made people fear for their jobs and helped the Tories in their disgraceful mission to crush the unions. I just hope that as a nation, we can fight the revolting proposed Trade Union Bill that they are proposing.

In reply to Postmanpat:

The underlying principle of conservative ideology is one of the exploitation of human and natural resources and of asset accrual, irrespective of the cost to other people or the environment, as epitomised and enshrined by Mrs Thatcher. Those who live it visualise themselves as leaders to be respected, and uphold the authoritarianism the ideology requires to protect their position within it.

Some would argue that this philosophy is easy to embrace because survival of the fittest is the natural state of animals. I would suggest that as the human species matures we can be increasingly influenced by nurture rather than nature, and though we are all free to make our own life choices, a tendency to conservatism is influenced first and
foremost by a bent moral compass.

Of course, by upholding a societal construct based on authority and ownership, and the exploitation of communal resources, you conserve influence largely amongst those who uphold similar values. Some would argue that everybody actually has the duty to be part of the system, because conservatism is good and that it ultimately benefits all of the people. And finally, some would even attempt to argue that if good can be defined in gestures such as the giving of charity to the poor and vulnerable, focussing resources in the hands of conservatives promotes some kind of godliness.

In reply to Mark Bannan:

Created mass unemployment of the 80s? Joke of the day?

Yes, it was their fault that Korea and other places were building ships, or steel many times cheaper than the UK? And don't get me started on the mines.

It was the fault of those in the 60 and 70s for not modernising and moving with the times, that left UK industry so far behind by the 80s. Be it, steel, car manufacturers etc.. all in the dark ages comparatively. The truth just caught up with industry in the early 80s.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Nordic countries do lose out any economy of scale. You still have to have road, rail, power to your outer edges, but they serve a very small population.

In reply to Mark Bannan:


Who said this? Source?

In reply to moffatross:


That's not a summary. It's an elongated restatement with your own additions.

The original post outlined a definiton of Conservative ideology, and why it might (or might not) be regarded as evil. I am bemused as to why you think the people liking it are middle aged right wingers as opposed to just thinking it was quite a good description of why the ideology might be regarded as evil.

In reply to Trevers:


I have lent the book "Chavs" by Owen Jones to a mate, so I am currently deprived of finding the exact source, but the incident at which an anonymous senior Tory voiced this description is described in one of the earlier chapters.

In reply to summo:

Hardly a joke when unemployment rose from 1,300,000 in 1979 to over 3,000,000 a few years later. Tory fiscal policy contributed greatly to this at a time when North Sea oil tax revenue had started to flood in.

Why not? That was the highest profile example (of many) of the Tories destroying traditional UK industry. While the Germans subsidised the price of coal to keep the mines open, the UK used its own revenues (considerable - see above) to stockpile cheap (often poor quality) coal

Much of the modernising process took place in the 1970s. Unemployment had risen then, an unfortunate consequence of this. However, with different fiscal policies at the helm (including not wasting billions on Trident), this could hopefully have been ameliorated.

>Be it, steel, car manufacturers etc.. all in the dark ages comparatively. The truth just caught up with industry in the early 80s.
Not the oil industry - that was so backward (suspect safety procedures and no unions at all) that it only started to modernise after Piper Alpha. At least the coal, steel and car manufacture sectors were not responsible for such a Dickensian and primitive industrial tragedy that killed 167.

In reply to Mark Bannan:
Piper alpha may have killed 167 instantly, wonder how many mine and steel workers died very early due to illnesses directly attributed to their employment?

Modernised in the 70s, like those fine vehicles BL produced. You really are a comic. Or the power industry, black outs, voltage drops?,

In reply to Mark Bannan:

Inflation is hardly a joke either,and it was rampant in the 70's as various governments tried to keep it low whilst also maintaining full employment( price inflation in March 1975 was something like 33%).By the end of the 70's this policy had failed completely, and both the Conservatives and Labour had started to focus to get inflation under control as the key driver for the future. Most people have forgotten that the Labour Party under Callaghan were advocating the same measures as the Tories- spending cuts, cash limits and money supply targets.So to say the Tories where solely responsible is not correct. Unemployment was a result of the policies of the 70's.

In reply to neilh:

>Most people have forgotten that the Labour Party under Callaghan were advocating the same measures as the Tories- spending cuts, cash limits and money supply targets.So to say the Tories where solely responsible is not correct. Unemployment was a result of the policies of the 70's.

The Labour government, prompted by the IMF, carried out bigger spending cuts then any post war government, before or since.

In reply to summo:


Steady. A huge proportion of the vehicles that delivered your Christmas shopping in 2015 were the upgraded versions of the trucks designed by British Leyland 30 years before. That's an amazing legacy of fine engineering design that has dominated the market for decades. It proves that what failures we saw then were not the fault of the workers. It was the fault of the owners and senior management: of government and of class-based structures within education and industry that had been holding the country back for generations. The Tories will take you back there if you let them.

In reply to Jim Fraser:
of government and of class-based structures within education and industry that had been holding the country back for generations. The Tories will take you back there if you let them.
>
Any news on evidence to support your claim that it is in the post Thatcher period that the UK economy has particularly underperformed its European peers?

In reply to summo:

I was thinking more of Rover and the Metro than BL (I am aware of the square steering wheels of the Austin Allegro - that's far funnier than anything I could come up with!)

>Or the power industry, black outs, voltage drops?,

That was Ted Heath's Tories in the early 1970s - far more disruptive than the 1979 "Winter of Discontent".

In reply to Mark Bannan:





I think the trigger for the 73/74 power cuts was the 1973 Yom Kippur war and the subsequent disruption to oil supplies.
Ted Heath may have been responsible for many things but blaming him for that is a bit harsh.

In reply to Jon Stewart
; but you're expressing that in a way that sounds like you've got sand in your vagina.
))) hahhahahh))) brilliant!! Well done)))

In reply to Mark Bannan:

Both Ted Heath's Tories and the "Winter of Discontent" were symptoms of both political parties thinking at the time to maintain full employment and trying to control inflation by various social pay contracts. Unfortunately the unions did not help matters, this was partly due to the demise of collective responsibility amongst other factors. Not a good time for the UK in general.

In reply to phja:

Osborne and Cameron's haircuts and smug faces are truly evil.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


yeah, built in modern clean efficient plants, with quality control systems and made with precision engineered parts made overseas. Ask anyone who moved from a UK producer to Nissan in 80s, they felt like they'd step forward half a century.

It was not the owners fault, many were powerless against union rule which killed modernisation off in many industries in the 60 and 70s. The unions resisted change of all types and it cost the british worker dearly in the long run.

In reply to Mark Bannan:


there were power cuts and voltage drops right through the seventies, I remember my granddad (ex mining engineer), showing me with a volt meter and doing his best to explain single and 3 phase power to me, as we looked at yellow tinged TV screen.

In reply to neilh:


the sick man of Europe as it was known.

In reply to summo:
The thick useless managerial types that were around were more interested in maintaining four or more canteens for different classes of worker than they were in high quality engineering manufacture. In my mid-twenties, I was having to stick my neck out and bring large parts of the biggest machine shop in Europe to a halt. The director-level pension-watchers didn't have the balls for it.





The story of my life in seven minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg&list=RDBKorP55Aqvg

In reply to phja:

Apparently Cameron is a devil worshipping clan member, who knew ?

In reply to rogerwebb:



Not really - it had nothing to do with the oil crisis of 1973-4 (indeed Heath was out of office by 1974) and everything to do with the bungling way the Tories handled the 1972 miner's strike (they had real reason to need more pay at the time).

In reply to Big Ger:



That graphic is excellent for showing that the Tory governments have presided over far bigger increases in unemployment than Labour. Well done! Saves me from finding it!

In reply to Mark Bannan:


I do disagree with that. There are many things to blame the Heath government for but it was also like the following Wilson government badly disrupted by massive global economic changes, particularly the rise of OPEC.

In December 1973 the price of oil was more than double what it was in October 1973 and four times the price of December 1972. I do not think that you can properly contend that this crisis, had no effect on the UK economy or on the decision by the NUM to strike.

The 1972 power cuts were certainly a consequence of the Heath government/NUM stand off but as I said I think to hold him to blame for 73/74 as well is a bit unfair, whatever government was in power would have struggled to cope with that.. I do not remember things getting much better under the Wilson government either and that wasn't for the lack of trying.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

There are huge numbers of people that have had a bad start in life yet have had grown up to lead successful lives. That could mean being a self-made millionaire or even just an average member of society with a job, mortgage and 2.4 children. One thing that marks out these people as I've already said is hard work, sacrifice and the will to want to make things better.

So, can you point me to any law that that states that if you had a bad start in life you're required to spend the rest of your life in poverty and on benefits?

Its far easier to whinge and whine and blame others than to 'get on your bike' and sort things out.

In reply to rogerwebb:


It certainly had an effect on the UK economy but under Labour in 1974.


I never did blame Heath for the oil crisis.

In reply to Mark Bannan:



I have a feeling we agree about all this!
(The peril of the Internet)

In reply to Indy:
Totally agree, I think a huge percentage of this is down to parenting and role models, watching your parents or even grand parents head out to work, graft, save etc.. generally producing like minded kids who strive to do better.

If a child observes their jobless parents cope in life, still afford a drink, a car, holiday then it sends a similar message to them.

Hence, generations of like families. The workers continue to develop their wealth, pass on any inheritance ... With each subsequent generation enjoying a slightly higher standard of living.

The jobless multi generation family will blame the current government for their woes and their standard of living is entirely related to the level of benefits and does not change from one generation to the next. So proportionally they are relatively poorer,than the working generations.

In reply to Indy:




Describes me perfectly.

Kids, mortgage, two cars, pension, holidays and not having to count every penny. I have had to scrap hard, pay to put myself through Uni and MBA whilst looking after kids and full time job.

Would have been nice to have had an upbringing where uni straight from school was expected and money available to fund it but alas, these weren't my circumstances.

I guess I could have sat on my arse and blamed everyone else but that would have achieved nothing, least of all my situation.

In reply to rogerwebb:


Yes Roger! Always much easier to speak face to face!

Hope you are having a better winter than I am. My only route (not a repeat) was a solo of a slushy Crumbing Cranny a few days ago!

M

In reply to rogerwebb:



Well Blair and Brown get blamed for the worldwide banking crisis

In reply to Indy:




I don't know what you mean by 'law'. You get laws in physics which things like atoms and planets tend to follow pretty well, but in social sciences you don't have this kind of thing.

I can point you to plenty of research though:


https://www.jrf.org.uk/report/does-money-affect-children%E2%80%99s-outcomes

This looks interesting, not read it though!

http://www.bris.ac.uk/Depts/CMPO/workingpapers/wp193.pdf

Interesting article about poverty and brain development:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/par...


What's really easy is to live your life saying "everyone can just get on their bike" and not thinking about how the world actually works. Which you will obviously do until you die. No amount of anyone trying to show you evidence about how the world works is going to change that, so I hereby give up. Best of luck, but please never ever find yourself in any position where you could potentially influence social policy in any way whatsoever. Goodbye.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Quite happy for Teflon Blair to be blamed for anything. Sadly he'd still grin his way out of it.

In reply to Mark Bannan:

I haven't done anything since before Christmas, loads of free time and nothing to climb (could start a conditions debate......!)

In reply to TheDrunkenBakers:

'There are huge numbers of people that have had a bad start in life yet have had grown up to lead successful lives. '

Do you know this for a fact? How big are those huge numbers? Personally - anecdotally - I know very few people who've had a tough start - a really tough start, with no encouragement to go to school, no help with schoolwork, absent or single parents, substance abuse, routine domestic violence - who now lead 'successful' lives. Actually, I can only think of one, and that life was pretty compromised by most standards.

More interestingly ... what proportion of people who've had a bad start in life have been successful? 50%? Hardly. 25%? Doubt it. 5%? Maybe that's closer.

The poor have always been with us. The difference is, they used to die and no-one noticed. Now they die, but we do notice. That's an improvement, but we have some way to go.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:





I didnt make the initial statement I merely responded to it with my own experience which in a public forum I'd rather not share. Needless to say that by many standards my upbringing was tough. Of course there are tougher but I can say confidently that if a scale - say an upbringing scale - could be applied I would be in the bottom 10% on that scale.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>"That's not a summary. It's an elongated restatement with your own additions. The original post outlined a definiton of Conservative ideology, and why it might (or might not) be regarded as evil. I am bemused as to why you think the people liking it are middle aged right wingers as opposed to just thinking it was quite a good description of why the ideology might be regarded as evil."<

It seems that you (and another 50+ others) failed to recognise that the original read like a short sales pitch for conservatism, not a balanced analysis of it. So nope, mine wasn't a restatement at all but was a somewhat negative rather than a somewhat positive spin using a similar prose structure to the original. The words were different, see

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


They get their share of the blame and rightly so.

In reply to moffatross:

So, in fact yours wasn't a summary at all, it was just your view-which was not what I saked for at all. You have still not explained why you think the original was a "short sales pitch for conservatism"

How is this a "sales pitch for conservatism"?" Some would argue this leaves the vulnerable exposed. Some would argue this is wrong, and causes harm. If evil can be defined as the causing of harm, then some would suggest that the less resources there are to help the vulnerable the more evil the ideology bringing this about is."

In reply to phja: Unnecessarily divisive in the 80s.

Different party now but the it doesn't help when you've got 2 people from very privileged backgrounds pushing through spending cuts.

In reply to Postmanpat:

>"So, in fact yours wasn't a summary at all, it was just your view-which was not what I saked for at all."<

The original was just a view point too, which was rather my point of providing an alternative one.

>"How is this a "sales pitch for conservatism"?" Some would argue this leaves the vulnerable exposed. Some would argue this is wrong, and causes harm. If evil can be defined as the causing of harm, then some would suggest that the less resources there are to help the vulnerable the more evil the ideology bringing this about is."<

Because many right-wingers argue that the outcome of unfettered capitalism is more resources, and the outcome of reined-in capitalism is less resources. Do you know what the OP's intended meaning was ? It wasn't clear to me, and in their entirety, the 2 or 3 paragraphs read like an endorsement.

In reply to moffatross:


But I was asking why you thought his point of view was "right wing" or supported by "right wingers". I wasn't asking for your point of view.




The first para outlines the principles of conservatism as he sees them ("self determination" etc).The next three paras give three reasons why these principles may not be very good and might therefore be regarded as evil.

You appear to be adopting the bizarre stance that because right wingers might interpret the principles in the opposite way to that outlined by the poster, he was therefore being right wing. Just weird.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Your (seemingly deliberate?) failure to acknowledge another perspective made me think of this Shawshank scene

youtube.com/watch?v=dakxwoVV7yM&

In reply to Mike Stretford:



I think if you look at the last party leaders and PMs, over say 30 years. Both parties balance out. Would the cuts be ok if they were implemented by someone who didn't attend private school, or come from a privileged background, like Maggie or major?

In reply to moffatross:

Which other perspective? The one where you didn't and don't understand the simple meaning of his post, answered my question with something completely different to what was asked for, and still haven't explained why you think the final three paras are "right wing" as opposed to the opposite??

If you can explain how the final three paras are "right wing" I'm all ears.

What I actually suspect is that you are so obsessed of your own views on Conservative philosophy that you don't realise that they are not the subject we are discussing.

In reply to Indy:

We all know that society /environment have a big influence on individuals,for example most babies born in a Muslim country will become Muslims.The question is what sort of society we would like to aspire to and then which ideas and policies we think would lead us in that direction.I think that it is desirable for as many people as possible to live as fulfilling lives as possible. I think that a basic idea of equality for all people in the world is a fundamental requirement in working towards this aim.I don't think using emotive words like 'evil' are useful in any discussion,even if some peoples opinions may be largely influenced by self interest rather than the general good.If Conservatives could persuade me that their policies would lead to more equality,then I would support them.So far they have not.Of course I realize that many people do not fundamentally support the idea of equality.

In reply to Removed UserDeleted bagger:


Neither do I, what an odd thing to say! Can you show me where I have in anyway intimated I "hate the poor"?

If not would you care to withdraw that statement?

In reply to DerwentDiluted

Some would argue gripping others property and money under threat of violence is wrong and causes harm. Some would suggest that taxation is exactly the same, therefore it is evil. Some would conclude that the higher taxes means the more evil ideology behind it is.

In reply to Postmanpat:

Perhaps your obtuseness isn't deliberate. Perhaps you've also been 'institutionalised' by UKC You're blind to the notion that the language and slant of the OP's précis on conservatism didn't read as a balanced one. You're blind to the notion that what is an otherwise unexceptional post has attracted an extraordinary number of 'likes' because of that. You're blind to the notion that a forum membership mostly comprising middle-classed, middle-aged, English males united by sporting activities that require "self determination and self responsibility" might quite like the sound of that in the context of conservatism too. It's really no particular surprise that the political compass of the average UKC forumer is further to the right than the UK average.

In reply to moffatross:
>

Blah blah . Rather than ignoring what is said to you, can you please go through paras 2,3, and 4 and explain how they are supportive, rather than offering a critical view, of Conservatism?

In reply to summo:

As I said different parties (Tories then/now), so the 'balancing out' comment is irrelevant.


We're talking image, so yes, I think they would have had an easier time, with the current policies. The 3 most recognisable Tories aren't just average public school attendees, they are very posh, all in the same dining club at university. I'm not passing judgement but in terms of image it has an effect.

At the same time I think less posh leadersmight have got more of the UKIP vote, and pushed through more divisive policies (more like the 80s, bigger mandate).

In reply to moffatross:


I'm not sure you're right there, I think (and it's only my opinion) that the average UKCer is middle class but I'm not sure they are more to the right, if anything I think they are a little to the left.

Obviously there are some who are to the right, quite a long way out there, but on average I'd say left of centre.

I have no facts to back any of these statements up

May we should have a survey, they always go down well.

In reply to Mike Stretford:

Not really much different to labour though. Osbourne and Harman went to the same school.

In reply to twington:


You're going to have to define what you mean by equality..... as I've previously said people want equal amounts of money but are a little bit less interested when it comes to equal amounts of hard work that it takes to earn it.

In reply to summo:


Not much, but enough for the 'toffs' label to stick when it didn't for Labour..... bullingdon club pics ect. That's an observation I'm not judging them.

Personally I wouldn't vote Tory for policy reason, and fundamentally I favour a meritocracy with equal opportunity for all at birth (within reason). But that isn't what the OP asked.

In reply to Indy:

Exactly. It comes down to people having two different views of what equality is. One is based on an equal share the other based on a proportional share (equal relative to contribution).


Many accept the notion of a proportional distribution of wealth but reject it as they see some people as having an unfair advantage. And although on paper I see it's an issue, the reality is, all the things that can give a person an advantage in life are way outside of state control, mainly the advantage of being raised by intelligent, middle class parents. How could the state even try and level that imbalance, short of replacing children's parents or sterilizing idiots?

The fact is, even if there was a magical reset button that could put everyone on a par with each other in every way, within one generation some would do well, some would do badly and that's going to affect how their children are raised and the imbalance is back. To me it seems a simple reality that as long as stupid people are allowed to breed there will always be disadvantaged kids, its just something we need to accept.

In reply to pavelk:


It isn't at all exactly the same because parties which introduce high(er) taxes can be voted out again, which isn't what can be done in response to violence.

A (liberal voting) relative is pretty chilled about the amount of tax they pay from earning around 60k, they see society as a collective thing in which the distribution of wealth to be able to help the more needy and less fortunate is a good thing. They sponsor overseas schools and children and things, they're very generous in nature.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

Nah, there's a lot society can do. In some I'd say it's a defeatist attitude but in your case it's a convenient and BS excuse.

At the moment we ghettoize the poorest in society, both in accommodation and education. If they were integrated with the rest of society they would get on a lot better.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


No it doesn't. I don't think either of these ideas make much sense.


That's the laziest thing I've ever heard. Even the most right-wing governments implement some degree of redistribution by providing state-run services and progressive taxation. The issue is far more subtle: to what degree you do take redistributive policies? The centre-left think a bit more than the status quo, the centre-right think a bit less than the status quo. The extremes (basically communism and anarchism) are completely mental and can be ignored in any sensible discussion.


The way I see it, the market pulls society in a direction of increasing inequality, and the state makes decisions on how much it tempers those forces (theoretically of course, in a democracy, society makes a collective decision on that, but if you believe that you'll believe anything). It's both undesirable and unrealistic to aim for equal distribution of resources, but a sensible policy programme for the state is one that seeks to avoid the social problems that *excessive* inequality brings, and maximises good social outcomes like health, life satisfaction, etc (wellbeing).

In reply to Lord_ash2000:


Would you be OK with that if the bar was set just above where you weigh in at?

In reply to Timmd:



It is the same because I have no choice but to pay otherwise I face violence by state. Nobody asks me if I want to pay or not. Is violence legitimized if hundred decide to rob one?

In reply to phja:

Maybe the fact that they have frozen the Shotgun license at 2001 levels despite the fact that the police are saying it costs around £130 to process the license. Yet we all have to pay market costs for our passports. The market rules apparently. BS. Care to justify this one Postman.

The recent massive increase in subsidy for grouse moors. Of course they haven't contributed to the recent flooding. BS. Care to justify this one Postman.

Don't worry, you can wait until you are briefed from CCHQ tomorrow in case you don't know what spin you need to put on these things.

And don't even mention how much cash Osborne's father in law is making from fracking.

All in it together. Absolute bullshit.

Ps Postman, care to email me so I know who you are rather than hiding behind a pseudonym?

In reply to pavelk:


My heart bleeds for those violently forced to endure the taxation and democratic horrors that produce the most stable and prosperous societies.

The alternative is that your property rights are determined by your local self appointed oligarchs, kleptocrat, dictator, mafia or warlord.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:


Er, why are you brining me into your discuss with phja (if you are?) Bizarre.

In reply to Graeme Alderson:

Are you claiming phja is postmanpat? Or are you having a bit of a "moment"?

In reply to elsewhere:



I was living under comunist dictatorship here in Czech and they used the same argument. Our first comunist leader (responsible for thousands judicial murders) was elected. Hugo Chaves who destroyed Venezuelien economy was elected. Adolf Hitler was elected.
There is very fine line between legitimate goverment and something evil. Though your British democracy is much stronger than others few bad man with sufficient power could destroy it.
The only defence is small state without extensive powers because you never know who is good and who is not (look at the discussion here)

In reply to pavelk:

So where did the money come from to make sure things went smoothly while you were being born, and to pay for your education?

In reply to Timmd:


The money were taken by force from others. Some part was used for my education and other maybe helpful things and the rest was wasted,misappropriated, stolen and spent for uselessness as it happens in every country every time

In reply to pavelk:


No you aren't. The absolute worst that can happen is your will be jailed.

Nobody asks me if I want to pay or not.

Yes they do, it's called an election

In reply to aln:

Simon4 has plenty of previous. He pmd me to threaten me some time ago : ). Clearly, he wasn't hungover enough to give up the usual bile spewing..

In reply to pavelk:



Some people, here, and in countries across the world, think that not doing the things that the people have decided should be done from common resources somehow solves that sort of problem. It doesn't. The work still needs done.

It seems to be forgotten that the effective way to deal with it is to stop whining and get off your lazy backside and get involved in politics or public service in a way that will improve delivery. If you're not bright enough to make that sort of contribution then you may be left struggling to decide between joining UKIP or joining the Conservative Party. Good luck.

In reply to MG:



To deprive someone of liberty is violence.
There is no freedom to decide if my ansver is not listended.

In reply to Jim Fraser:


Who decides which work needs to be done? It is very easy to decide something has to be done if someone else is going to pay it.
The rest is ad hominem, a little

In reply to pavelk:

No. You are just wrong there.


Your answer is listended (sic). But, as most two year olds learn, you can't always have everything you want.

In reply to MG:
You can if you're a dictator, or enlightened, with the second you realise that contentment comes from within, since desire (want) is the root of all suffering. So now you know

In reply to pavelk:

This isn't hard. The history of what a country struggle for will normally show you the answer with little difficulty.

For instance, in the UK, we can be sure that public NHS is a definite, that nationalised road transport has been rejected and that nationalised rail remains in question.

In reply to phja:

It's in their name. If you take the e v i out of Torie then add an l it says evil.

In reply to lummox:

Total lies.

You are inventing things, or imagining them. I have never emailed you in my life, you are a liar or delusional.

Why would you think you are worth threatening or even emailing, when you spout such drivel and have such a closed mind?

In reply to aln:

It's in their name. If you take the e v i out of Torie then add an l it says evil.

Think you might have made a bit of a boo boo there...

In reply to FactorXXX:


Think you might have missed the joke there...

In reply to Simon4:
>you spout such drivel and have such a closed mind?

Is the cuckolding turning sour? Or has matron not disciplined you for a while?

In reply to Simon4:
I still have the email you lunatic

In reply to lummox:
Blimey.

On the beeb, I don't think they are doing such a bad job when Corbynistas and Telegraph commenter both say they are biased. I can't imagine the Daily Politics show gets that many viewers and not many had heard of Doughty.... the story would be chip paper if Milne had let it go. The beeb didn't make this story as some are saying.

In reply to Jon Stewart:

Of course we have degrees of redistribution, those who can't earn or earn very little are given a top up and there are all sorts of other bits of help people can get as well, and I don't disagree with that idea.

What I'm saying is, being raised poor is not a huge disadvantage, being raised poorly is. It just happens that most people who make useless parents tend to be pretty useless all around and so are also poor financially.

The government can easily help with free money and services for those who can't afford it and it's a matter of debate how much should be spent. The vast majority of us went to the same state schools,colleges and uni's, use the same state NHS and have access to all the same state services, it's not those that give the advantage.

What the government can't give a child is things like the right attitude, good convocation at home, the right social circles, help with homework and everything else what comes with being raised well by intelligent and able parents. And it's that which makes most of the difference, I know plenty of people who I grew up with who's parents who were smart but poor and all their offspring have been relativity successful., we need to get out of this"oh I'm poor so it's OK to fail" mindset, it doesn't help anyone.

In reply to MG:

You would never say such nonsense if I lock you in my cellar and hod you there till you give me your money.
To deprive someone of freedom or property against his will is violence

In reply to Lord_ash2000:

That's more like it!


Absolutely. It's by no means just money that makes a difference, it's expectations and attitude towards education and work.


But, you've got to face up to reality: some people are brought up in chaotic circumstances with neither money nor expectation, without value for education, and they are in general pretty f^cked. You can't say that someone with this kind of background who fails to get any qualifications at school, and doesn't have any useful skills is wholly responsible for that at age 16. Whatever way you cut it, some kids *are* victims of their circumstances, and the state has a duty to reduce the numbers in that category by providing services, and that costs money.

In reply to Lord_ash2000:
There was a study done which found that children from poorer backgrounds in the UK can lack a certain resilience, compared to children from similar circumstances in other countries. Last I heard they were still wondering why.

http://www.resilienceresearch.org/research/projects/international-resilienc...

For those with the time this could be interesting reading.

In reply to Jon Stewart:


Well put.

In reply to Timmd:


Why?

Yet again it's everyone else's fault but the fact is there's nothing to stop a person getting a job even if that job is minimum wage the Got. will top it up they'll also help with accommodation costs. Yes, the job market is currently tough but there's help for those that need training or education.

The problem here isn't the Govt. or society it's the apologist like yourself and John Stewart that allow and condone people being lazy. Why work for £15k when I can claim £27k in benefits? You seem to think that the Govt. has responsibilities and duties yet the recipients have nothing but rights and screw responsibilities.

I saw a C5 programme yesterday where a woman with 6 children who was renting a lovely family house paid for by housing benefit. She was being evicted because of instead of paying rent she pocketed it.... over £10k. The family were living in absolute squalor, the filth and damage she and family had done was jaw dropping. It turned out that it cost £8k to put right. What happened..... the family was moved out to another property again paid for with Benefits yet the landlady was left £18k out of pocket.

Why contribute when you can be a lazy parasite?

In reply to Indy:

So you saw a sensationalist reality TV program about a woman comitting fraud, and that is irrefutable proof that everyone on benefits is a lazy parasite hellbent on exploiting the system?

I saw a dog on a skateboard on youtube the other day...

In reply to phja:

Thought I'd share something I've just read....

Adele who's been in the news recently with another record breaking album and who describes herself as 'labour through and through' has some interesting thoughts on Taxation.

As she was brought up by a single mother she no doubt had a lot of help from the benefits system. Move forward to her success and in light of her being worth millions she now seems to be rather "off message" with labour's tax views because "When I got my tax bill in, I was ready to go and buy a gun and randomly open fire, I'm mortified to have to pay 50%!" There in one quote you sum up Labour perfectly.... its all fine and dandy when your taking others peoples money but outrageous if your the one thats having to earn it.

In reply to Indy:

I think you should go and live in a country with no welfare state, with no effective taxation and public services, and report back on how much you like it. I hear Somalia is nice this time of year.

In reply to Mr Lopez:

Was she prosecuted? did she need to pay back any of the money she stole? no and no she knows that she can get away with it so she does it. Yet again the Tax payer and the poor landlady that was left £18k out of pocket are the only ones left screwed.

I've seen and read other similar things happening. The high court bailiff said it was pretty common. Housing Benefit refused to help as they said she'd made herself intentionally homeless..... EXCELLENT! unfortunately because of the children Social Services got involved and they got rehoused but not before the woman started belly aching about being moved too far way.

In reply to Indy:

Yet my dog still doesn't seem to be able to ride my skateboard. I must have got a deffective dog!

In reply to Jon Stewart:
I have no problem with benefits and I don't think that 99% of people in the UK even the very right wing ones do either. The problem I have is the increasing number of people that see Benefits as an easy way of life coupled with the apologists that become enablers for this sort of lifestyle.

The woman I mentioned above who had 7 kids and was raking in £27k in benefits ..... why should she work? How many working Tax payers are needed to support her? How many people are having medication denied or left in pain on a waiting list because money is being diverted from them to pay her benefits?

I'm happy for those that need help to get it but its a two way street. If you want the rights then you have to accept the responsibilities. I'm sorry you don't get to piss in the pool.

In reply to Indy:
''But, you've got to face up to reality: some people are brought up in chaotic circumstances with neither money nor expectation, without value for education, and they are in general pretty f^cked. You can't say that someone with this kind of background who fails to get any qualifications at school, and doesn't have any useful skills is wholly responsible for that at age 16. Whatever way you cut it, some kids *are* victims of their circumstances, and the state has a duty to reduce the numbers in that category by providing services, and that costs money.''

When I wrote 'Well put', I had in mind that services ment things like further education, as well as benefits.

I've no idea how you interpreted my 'Well put' to be something which condones a mother of six living on benefits and not working, and condoning people living without any sense of responsibility for themselves, or interpreted as me being an apologist for such people. Your example is one of somebody who is blatantly taking the p*ss.

I wrote 'Well put' because Jon wrote that some kids are victims of their circumstances, and due to the fact that I used to know a boy (now a young man) who was abused by his mum's partner (with her knowledge) when he was about 9, and taken into care where he was seen by a (social worker) friend, and fostered and then adopted by her, and seemed okay until he got into his teens and introduced to cannabis and similar by his peers, after which things went pear shaped and he started to burgle houses to pay for his habit, and has since moved back with his birth family (older half/siblings who are into drugs in different ways), and been to prison a couple of times now too. If he isn't a kid who was a victim of his circumstances, then I'm not sure who is, when it comes to finding work and making his way as an adult he has his disrupted education to count against him, his history of being abused and the fact that he's been inside . As a boy he was the sweetest person you could wish to meet.

You've done the classic UKC thing of extrapolating lots of things onto what somebody has posted when they don't apply, some kids 'are' a victim of circumstances, where it has nothing to do with being feckless and lazy like the example you saw on TV (who is a parent anyway, and not a kid).

In reply to Indy:


It's your perception that people who don't vote Tory and whine on and on about benefits cheats are 'apologists' or think that it's people's right to live on the dole. You're wrong. And why do you think that it's 'an increasing number of people' when unemployment is falling? You've got a picture in your head of what's going on in the world that's based on Channel 5 documentaries, not facts.


That doesn't really mean anything. If you can relate what you're saying to a specific policy, like cutting Tax Credits, then I could say whether I agree or not. When you cut benefits, the problem is that some people who are in really difficult situations that aren't their fault (they're not just lazy dolescum) will lose the money they need to feed their children and heat their home. It might have the advantage that life on benefits becomes less attractive, but with unemployment falling, is it really the case that people are choosing life on the dole rather than work?

This all sounds like Tory rhetoric from around 2010 when they were justifying cutting the welfare state by dividing society into workers and scroungers, or some shit. It really made an impression on you, didn't it?

In reply to Indy:



I think that says more about human nature, don't you think, or more precisely Adele? A Liberal voting relative is quite happy to pay 50% tax because he sees it as helping those worse off.

How does that fit into your world view?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
The other side of your people without heat when you cut benefits etc, is people unnecessarily dependent on, or at least expectant of, government support. For example, my former neighbour who told me not to mow the communal lawn because then the council wouldn't do it. A balance is needed between catching people who might fall through the cracks and ensuring that those who don't need help really, don't become unable to stand on their own two feet. Tories tend to prefer less support than Labour. That doesn't make either side evil or even wrong. There is a discussion to be had.

In reply to MG:


I absolutely agree.

In reply to MG:
Perhaps it depends on which one sees as the lesser of two evils, some people suffering due to less support being available, or some people not fulfilling their potential?

In reply to Jon Stewart:
Switzerland is another. Maximum tax provided by the constitution and only minimalistic welfare state. (everyone there has a gun, by the way)

In reply to pavelk:


Bollocks.

http://www.bsv.admin.ch/themen/ueberblick/00003/index.html?lang=en

In reply to MG:

OK but still smaller compare to Britain. Singapore or even Ireland are more similar to Somalia I guess

In reply to Indy:



No doubt?